From: Jay Maynard
Subject: Re: [OM] Minox image quality
>
>I think you mentioned the reason> The Minox' tiny negative size, and
>therefore tiny coverage area, makes a lens designer's job easier. The hard
>part of lens design is to get it to perform well all over the coverage
area.
>
As I remember it, the subminiature Minoxes focussed onto a concave, or
curved anyway, film plane and to obtain sharp prints from it you had to use
a Minox enlarger which had a similar negative plane. An enlargement with a
standard flat carrier was said to be much less than satisfactory.
Does anyone remember the Swiss-made Tessina camera? It was small enough to
wear on your wrist with a strap and had a slide on reflex viewer. It used
35mm film which had to be loaded, using the loader provided, into its own
cassettes - one 36 exp darkroom refill filled three cassettes. The precision
and quality of the camera was sadly not matched by that of the cassettes,
which were of a bendy plastic, and that included the centre spindle. One
such camera sat in the window of the shop where I worked, attracting no
customer interest, and we decided to produce demo prints from it. After
loading up its three cassettes I set off with it, using an unlit cigarette
and pretending it was a lighter I was taking street candids within a couple
of feet of people without attracting attention.
Unfortunately when changing cassettes they tended to fall apart, depositing
the film, fogged, onto the ground. Just two frames survived, slightly
smaller all round than half frame, but the sharpness of the prints fell very
far short of what I was used to from any of the Pen range (Oly content!)
Regards,
Keith
keith_r.k.berry@xxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|