Personal opinion only. No guarantees; no comebacks. Free
advice and worth twice the price, at least:

I really like the EC. Remember that it has exactly the same lens as any
other Minox, just waterhouse-stopped down to f/5.6 so you can shoot EI 100
film in broad daylight without needing more than 1/500 shutter speed. OK,
it doesn't focus. That means you can't use it for scenics (unless you get
it modified as I am doing) unless you like softness at infinity at any
enlargement > 3x5". But you can use it for people pictures. And with EI
100 film it's more-or-less ok in bright interiors.

Its great bonus is that it is so small, quiet, unobtrusive and concealable
that you can take it and *use* it where even the LX might attract attention.
As I once wrote, my wife took one to the Royal Box at the Ascot races where
cameras are absolutely prohibited and got recognizable pictures of royalty.
Why was she there? Long story; had to do with a friend's job. We certainly
don't know any royalty.

With care you can probably pick up an EC at a swap meet for <$100, perhaps
even with the flash adapter. So you could have your LX and EC-it too.
Using the car analogy, the EC is a Mazda Miata; the LX a Range Rover (NOT a
Land Rover; it's the plush model)(maybe the B is the Land Rover designed for
rough country. But we're pushing hard on this one.). One is for sport and
fun; the other does all the wonderful things a Minox can do. But if you
have a C and a IIIS, I would go for the EC before the LX. The C fits all of
the old- available-used accessories like the copystand and binox, while the
LX does not; you have to buy the new (vy expensive) gadgetry. If you get
the EC, do think about getting the matching electronic flash.

have FUN!

pz

=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 11:22:27 -0500
Reply-To: The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
<SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sender: The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
<SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
From: Brian Levy <dlevy@W...>
Subject: Re: Minox EC vs. LX
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Having owned and used both of these at the same time for a period of more
than 8 years, the closest comparison I can make related to these is a Leica
pns (albeit an excellent one) to a Leica M (sorry but best comparison I can
think of). Both are excellent, but actually designed with I think differenct
uses in mind.

Though it is stated that the EC lens is the same as the LX, my EC never
produced the same quality as my LX. Possibly, variances in tolerances could
be the explanation, or rejected LX lenses are used in the EC. I don't know.
I carried the EC on a neckstrap under my shirt whereever I went on a regular
basis and it came in handy more than one time to capture an image which
otherwise would have been lost. However, whenever I went someplace that I
thought may have photographic interest, I carried the LX because of the
better result. I could have taken (and many times did take my Minox ML,
also). Because of the size of the LX, I think if I was given the chance to
only have one, I'd opt for it. It is small enough to be carried in a
shirt/coat/pants pocket w/o difficulty. I carried mine using a belt case
from a Minox C. It is a little tight at first, but after a short while fits
well. One the belt, it is unnoticed and mor ethan onece I forgot I had it as
I entered court where cameras are not allowed. I had to pull it out and give
it to security.

Hold out for the LX and after go for the EC if you still think it is needed.
Oh, contrary to some opinion I've read here, I liked the LX better than the
C which I traded for it.

Brian Levy, J.D.
Agincourt Ont.
dlevy@w...
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 22:33:27 +0100
Reply-To: The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
<SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sender: The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
<SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
From: Don Krehbiel <dkrehbie@S...>
Subject: Re: MINOX EC vs Other MINOX cameras
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

An interesting observation about the EC vs, in this case, a C. I
borrowed an EC, loaded it and my C with Tech Pan and went to the pier.
There are boats in the harbor, people, old buildings, and pelicans.
There was a continually changing mix of near, middle, and far subjects.
I just made photographs with the EC. With the C, I had to check
constantly to make sure I was focused AND more than once I forgot to
change the focus, and you know what that means. For 4 x 5 prints, the
EC prints are all within the depth of field. A couple of the C prints
are fuzzy at ANY enlargement. I am long past my physical and/or mental
prime, but I do have a significant number of fuzzy negatives dating back
to the '50s. My vote goes to the EC as a really fun camera, which will
probably provide the greatest percentage of useable images. You just
need to know the depth of field limits for the enlargement you
anticipate and stay within that limit. Please just don't compare it
with a III, or C, or LX, or Leica, or Hasselblad, or Deardorf. You
don't compare your children.

P.S. With the flash, it was a blast in the livingroom at Christmas with
the grandchildren. Camera AND flash disappear into a shirt pocket.

P.P.S. My wife's automatic everything camera, which produces excellent
35mm images, is not immune to focussing on the wrong thing, and/or
setting the exposure with the wrong area.

Don
=========================================================================