Leica Minilux vs. Leica CM

Hi all,

anybody knows what are the differences between these 2 cameras? I know
of the faster shutter speed, the different lense coating of the CM and
the improved viewfinder but what else can justify all that difference
in price? The Minilux goes for 300$ less, the CM being 995$.

Thanks,
Lorenzo

 

see this http://tinyurl.com/dmfw2

What are you shooting? I'd suggest you take a look at the Minox cameras
too. I had 3 and I adore them. In fact, I still have two, the Minox
CD-150 and the Minox GT-S.

 

Hi,

thanks for the reply. I still have to find my way into photography so I
relly don't know but macro is not one of my interests.

I'm back from a bit of research and (unsuccessfull) bidding now and
this is what I've learned:
- the lens of the two are practically identical and I don't think any
human eye would be able to tell two pictures taken with one or another
althought Leica states they have improved coating in the CM lens over
the Minilux version
- the CM has a shutter speed down to 1/1000, the Minilux instead
reaches "only" 1/400
- the CM has improved usability, by that meaning that they found a way
to store favorite settings (flash and so on)
- CM is just a little lighter.

About the shutter speed: the CM is more than twice as fast. Do you
think I would be able to compensate that with a half film speed on a
Minilux? Would that be an _almost accurate_ meter? To explain me better
would I obtain the same results (as far as the human eye can discern
using 1/400s and 50 asa film in the Minilux and 1/1000s and 100 asa
film on the CM).

What about the difference between a Vario-Elmar (zoom version of both)
and the Summicron. I beleive that the almost 1/3 less of the price of
the zoom versions is justified by the lens, which are not less good but
which can't open up to 2.4 like the Summicron does. But my question is
(being the 3.5 aperture the maximum you can get on a Vario-Elmar)
shooting at the same aperture would you believe you would see any
difference standing the same (good enough for both) light conditions?

Kind of hairy questions but I would appreciate if you could give me any
insight.

Thanks,
Lorenzo

 

Hi,

thanks for the reply. I still have to find my way into photography so I
relly don't know but macro is not one of my interests.

I'm back from a bit of research and (unsuccessfull) bidding now and
this is what I've learned:
- the lens of the two are practically identical and I don't think any
human eye would be able to tell two pictures taken with one or another
althought Leica states they have improved coating in the CM lens over
the Minilux version
- the CM has a shutter speed down to 1/1000, the Minilux instead
reaches "only" 1/400
- the CM has improved usability, by that meaning that they found a way
to store favorite settings (flash and so on)
- CM is just a little lighter.

About the shutter speed: the CM is more than twice as fast. Do you
think I would be able to compensate that with a half film speed on a
Minilux? Would that be an _almost accurate_ meter? To explain me better
would I obtain the same results (as far as the human eye can discern
using 1/400s and 50 asa film in the Minilux and 1/1000s and 100 asa
film on the CM).

What about the difference between a Vario-Elmar (zoom version of both)
and the Summicron. I beleive that the almost 1/3 less of the price of
the zoom versions is justified by the lens, which are not less good but
which can't open up to 2.4 like the Summicron does. But my question is
(being the 3.5 aperture the maximum you can get on a Vario-Elmar)
shooting at the same aperture would you believe you would see any
difference standing the same (good enough for both) light conditions?

Kind of hairy questions but I would appreciate if you could give me any
insight.

Thanks,
Lorenzo

 

Sorry, didn't mean Summicron but the Summarit.

Lorenzo

 

Bah! I wrote a long reply but google groups gave me a server error when
I tried to post and couldn't retrieve the text, so sorry; I'll have to
be brief in reply now as I have to run.

In a nutshell - both cameras are more than good enough and you won't
have any complaints when you buy a leica, besides the price. Don't
assume though that if you buy a more expensive camera that your
photography will improve. In fact, I would perhaps suggest that you get
a modest camera and stay with it until you've mastered the basics and
met your photographic goals, say a couple of years, and then reward
yourself with something fancy, and that'll be more fun then.