|
the "Complan" vs the "Minox" Lens
If there is a difference in performance, it is ...
- .... more a "feeling" than overwhelming visual
experience.
- .... probably not evident in enlargements less than
8x10 inches.
- .... perhaps only visible in prints made on RC paper
(sharper images than fiber paper).
- .... not demonstrable with film of lesser fineness,
(T-Max 100, etc., even AgfaPan 25)
- .... dependent on a steady camera support in the form
of a tripod, sandbag, or youth.
- .... directly related to critical focus.
The list contains items, such as tripods and very slow
films, which largely defeat the purpose for which we love
the little gem, and thus are rather irrelevant. So, why do
you carry an 8x11mm Minox? If your reason is similar to that
of the inventor, the difference between the two lenses is of
little interest.
The photographer
is responsible for a MUCH
greater loss of quality than the camera!
|
The Complan lens of the early models featured a
compromise between lens correction and film
curvature to achieve edge to edge sharpness. This
is only possible if a film gate presses the film
into the exact position needed.
The "Minox" lens abandoned this design in favor
of a fully corrected lens and flat film gate.
|
So, finally, after years of wondering, I loaded a B,
"Complan" C, "Minox" C, LX, and just for fun an ECX with
Fuji Super HR film, loaded up the Tiltall tripod, and went
to the harbor, the hills, and the RxR station. Results from
the three locations seem to be well summarized by the sign
in this harbor scene.
|
|
|
With the enlarger set to make an 11x14 inch
print from a 8x11 mm Minox negative, a portion of
the full frame image at the left was printed. The
print, which is approximately a 32x enlargement was
then scanned using a 600 sample per inch setting.
A small sign (outlined in red) was then isolated
and shown below without resizeing. If your monitor
displays 72 pixels per inch, as mine does, the
images displayed represent another 8.33 enlargement
for a total enlargement factor of 269.
|
I have tried to match the prints below, for density,
as much as possible. You may draw your own conclusions.
The results provided by the ECX at a distance well beyond
its intended range are, to me, remarkable, even more so in
view of the fact that the negative quality was degraded by
excessive density.
|
|
|
|
|
LX
"Minox" Lens
|
ECX
"Minox" Lens
Fixed focus at 2M (~6ft.)
|
B
"Complan" Lens
|
C
"Complan" Lens
|
C
"Minox" Lens
|
|