Leica Minilux vs. Leica CM

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by lbolognini, Jun 24, 2005.

  1. lbolognini

    lbolognini Guest

    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
     
    lbolognini, Jun 24, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. lbolognini

    casioculture Guest

    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.
     
    casioculture, Jun 24, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. lbolognini

    lbolognini Guest

    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
     
    lbolognini, Jun 29, 2005
    #3
  4. lbolognini

    lbolognini Guest

    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
     
    lbolognini, Jun 29, 2005
    #4
  5. lbolognini

    lbolognini Guest

    Sorry, didn't mean Summicron but the Summarit.

    Lorenzo
     
    lbolognini, Jun 30, 2005
    #5
  6. lbolognini

    casioculture Guest

    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.
     
    casioculture, Jul 4, 2005
    #6
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.