Advice: Yashica T4 Super vs. Leica Mini 3
alva taylor
I hope I am not duplicating an old thread but I am traveling
internationally and want to take a good P&S camera. I am down to
deciding between the Yashica T4 Super and the Leica Mini 3. Both
comparable prices and both with solid reputations and reviews. The T4
seems to be a bit more popular but is that marketing and availabililty
or true indications of value. I will be taking mostly scenic shots,
buildings, full body people shots .. the typical type of vacation
photography.
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
AT
Marcus Hanke
In article <35974B01...@nwu.edu> alva taylor <a-ta...@nwu.edu> writes:
>From: alva taylor <a-ta...@nwu.edu>
>Subject: Advice: Yashica T4 Super vs. Leica Mini 3
>Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 03:06:25 -0500
>AT
Recently I had the same choice when I wanted to buy a P&S for my wife. I first
looked at the Leica and was very disappointed. I could not imagine that Leitz
could allow such a cheaply produced piece of plastic to wear its famous logo.
Everything on this camera is crying CHEAP!!
Additionally there are some more substantial differences: The Leica has a
smaller range of exposure times (I think that 1/300 or so is the shortest
time, I cannot remember exactly), which will pose a serious problem if you
want to use a 400 ASA film in bright sunshine. On the other hand, the Leica
offers a B setting for longtime exposure.
More important are the few focussing steps of the Leica's autofocus. Even if
the used lens itself is magnificent, chnaces are good that nobody will realize
that since the camera's AF will not focus exactly.
Therefore I considered the Yashica the better buy.
Marcus
Ricky
In article <Marcus.Hanke...@sbg.ac.at>, Marcus...@sbg.ac.at
(Marcus Hanke) wrote:
> Recently I had the same choice when I wanted to buy a P&S for my wife. I
first
> looked at the Leica and was very disappointed. I could not imagine that Leitz
> could allow such a cheaply produced piece of plastic to wear its famous logo.
> Everything on this camera is crying CHEAP!!
I am in the market for a good P&S zoom and heard so many fabulous things
about the Leica Z2X's picture quality. The other camera I shortlisted was
the Fuji DL Super Mini Zoom. I had more or less set my mind on the Leica
UNTIL I bumped into a friend who had one and I had a chance to play around
with it. The build quality is, frankly, atrocious for a camera bearing the
Leica name! From the cheap-feeling silver front panel to the horrible
flimsy black rear panel, it feels just so insubstantial.
In contrast, the Fuji is really a work of art, not just in its looks but
also the feel of the buttons, the control layout and the fantastic quality
of the materials used. And it's smaller and lighter than the Leica too.
Image quality IS of top importance to me, but I really don't think I could
live with the Z2X's dismal feel.
Anyway, since I still haven't bought my camera, can anyone tell me why I
SHOULDN'T go for the Fuji? Besides its slightly slower lens at the wide
end (f/4.5 compared to f/4 for the Z2X, although the Fuji is f/5.7 at the
long end compared to f/7.6 for the Z2X), it seems a much more enticing buy
and I've heard nice things about its lens, too.
Thanks in advance for any help.
Godfrey DiGiorgi
>Recently I had the same choice when I wanted to buy a P&S for my wife. I first
>looked at the Leica and was very disappointed. I could not imagine that Leitz
>could allow such a cheaply produced piece of plastic to wear its famous logo.
>Everything on this camera is crying CHEAP!!
The only thing on the Leica that is traditional Leica in quality is the
lens. It does happen to be the most important piece... ;)
>Additionally there are some more substantial differences: The Leica has a
>smaller range of exposure times (I think that 1/300 or so is the shortest
>time, I cannot remember exactly), which will pose a serious problem if you
>want to use a 400 ASA film in bright sunshine. On the other hand, the Leica
>offers a B setting for longtime exposure.
Leica recommends using ASA 200 speed film with the Minizoom and DX2. You
should never need to use an ASA 400 film in bright sunlight, and the slow
lens speed makes it impractical to think of it as an available light
shooter anyway. The B shutter time is useful: I took several nice
pictures with mine using a windowsill and holding the shutter open, but
it's certainly not the primary target for the camera.
>More important are the few focussing steps of the Leica's autofocus. Even if
>the used lens itself is magnificent, chnaces are good that nobody will realize
>that since the camera's AF will not focus exactly.
In the 50 or so rolls of film I put through my Minizoom before selling it
to a friend of mine who had fallen in love with it, it never once
misfocused or mis-exposed a frame. Fixating on the number of steps in the
focusing implementation and confusing that with sharp focus is a common
error. The most difficult auto-focuser I've owned was my Nikon 35Ti,
which has some huge number of steps in the focusing module's ability to
distinguish but seemed to lack the ability to target accurately enough
with the focusing aid in the viewfinder to allow a consistently sharp
picture at close range distances.
When I shot with the T4, the thing that bugged me was the relatively
simplistic exposure system that basically held the lens wide open until
the shutter speed was over 1/150 second or so. This meant that it was rare
you could actually realize that wonderful Tessar lens' full performance at
f/8-f/16, where its sharpness really sings and the depth of field is
substantial. Somehow, this was more noticeable on the one I used compared
to the Leica Minizoom lens.
Godfrey
too...@agate.net
>In article <35974B01...@nwu.edu> alva taylor <a-ta...@nwu.edu> writes:
>>From: alva taylor <a-ta...@nwu.edu>
>>Subject: Advice: Yashica T4 Super vs. Leica Mini 3
>>Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 03:06:25 -0500
>
I have no experience with the Leica but have been very pleased with
the results from my T-4. Have had photos enlarged to 11 x 14 with
excellent results , enough to impress friends with more photographic
experience then myself. I don't think you'd be disappointed.
Lenny
Stormin
In article <goddersE...@netcom.com>, god...@netcom.com (Godfrey DiGiorgi) wrote:
>>Recently I had the same choice when I wanted to buy a P&S for my wife. I first
>
>>looked at the Leica and was very disappointed. I could not imagine that Leitz
>>could allow such a cheaply produced piece of plastic to wear its famous logo.
>>Everything on this camera is crying CHEAP!!
>
>The only thing on the Leica that is traditional Leica in quality is the
>lens. It does happen to be the most important piece... ;)
If the alignment between the lens and focusing plane is bad it doesn't matter
how good the lens is. Is the lens in the Leica actually furnished by Leica
or is it simply selected or designed by Leitz? The first Leica p/s camera was
nothing more than a Minolta camera with supposedly selected optics by the
Leica people. I suspect that the selection process involved nothing more than
a lot number.
>
>Leica recommends using ASA 200 speed film with the Minizoom and DX2. You
>should never need to use an ASA 400 film in bright sunlight, and the slow
>lens speed makes it impractical to think of it as an available light
>shooter anyway. The B shutter time is useful: I took several nice
>pictures with mine using a windowsill and holding the shutter open, but
>it's certainly not the primary target for the camera.
Thats not too good when you have 12 exposure left from your kids birthday
party and you plan on going to the beach the next day..do you waste the twelve
exposures? I give you that you don't need 400 at the beach but......
>
>>More important are the few focussing steps of the Leica's autofocus. Even if
>>the used lens itself is magnificent, chnaces are good that nobody will realize
>
>>that since the camera's AF will not focus exactly.
>
>In the 50 or so rolls of film I put through my Minizoom before selling it
>to a friend of mine who had fallen in love with it, it never once
>misfocused or mis-exposed a frame. Fixating on the number of steps in the
>focusing implementation and confusing that with sharp focus is a common
>error. The most difficult auto-focuser I've owned was my Nikon 35Ti,
>which has some huge number of steps in the focusing module's ability to
>distinguish but seemed to lack the ability to target accurately enough
>with the focusing aid in the viewfinder to allow a consistently sharp
>picture at close range distances.
>
Exactly why you need the more focusing steps. The camera triangulates the
distance relays the info to the cpu and then drives the lens to the
appropriate step. That's the way it's supposed to be anyway. If the focusing
point falls between the known points it assigns it to the next point and the
lens mech may stop a point short or far. The closer the actual focus point the
more critical . The more sophisticated cameras have many more steps toward
the short focus end because of the depth of field coverage and fewer steps the
farther out you focus.
>When I shot with the T4, the thing that bugged me was the relatively
>simplistic exposure system that basically held the lens wide open until
>the shutter speed was over 1/150 second or so. This meant that it was rare
>you could actually realize that wonderful Tessar lens' full performance at
>f/8-f/16, where its sharpness really sings and the depth of field is
>substantial. Somehow, this was more noticeable on the one I used compared
>to the Leica Minizoom lens.
>
>Godfrey
This does sound pretty bad, most auto camers tend to shift the programmed
exposure to keep the speed up above the focal length mark until max
apperture has been reached. If the T4 does as you say then that ain't
good......but I lean to the T4 as a better choice overall.
Ed Eagleton
ede...@worldnet.att.net
Michael J. Tolan
I have seen a friend's prints (a comparison of these two cameras). Both are
excellent units, but the Leica does not live up to its name (my opinion).
However, you might want to consider yet another excellent camera = Rollei
Micron. Note that there is a licensed copy of this camera on the market as
the Ricoh R-1. For the money, I prefer the Rollei/Ricoh to the Yaschica.
The quality is impressive. I have done everything from panoramics of ruins
in Guatemala to up-close 800 speed no/flash shots in intimate jazz clubs.
This is a fine camera - comparable to the Yaschica, and both of which are
better than the Leica. If anyone knows of any drawback or problems with the
Rollei/Ricoh, I would be interested in hearing about it - and please email
me directly. Thanks.
Mike.