G
Guest
I think it is important to separate different aspects here. Jeff was asking for a comparison between the Minilux Zoom (MZ) and the TVS III.
The TVS II and TVS I have the exact same lens, which was designed in 1990. It is clearly inferior to the new designed lens of the TVS III. A comparison between the MZ and the TVS II is leading therefore on a different road. I could add some comments also on the TVS II and I viewfinder, but this is a subject for the Contax Forum, not the Leica Forum.
Coming back to the comparison TVS III vs. MZ, it is obvious that every user has different preferences. If you want to shoot in P-mode anyway and accept the viewfinder for this price then I do not see a problem with the MZ.
But if you expect more then this for this price range, then the choice is (for me at least) a "no-brainer". Lenses are both excellent, but you simply have more possibilities to do what you want to do with the TVS III. If you actually use all these possibilities at the end of the day is up to you - but at least you have the choice with the TVS III.
The argument, that with the MZ the software is programmed in a smart way is not really an argument. I am the photographer and the camera shall do what I want it to do - not what an engineer thinks is good for me.
A shutterspeed of 1/250 is for me unacceptable, since it has to much restrictions on my creativity as a photographer. Remember we are not talking about a cheap, simple P&S, we are talking about a Leica for around 900 Euro/USD.
The body of the MZ is almost the size of the old M6. I think there is enough space for a bigger viewfinder. Look at Minolta TC-1, TVS III, T3 etc. - you name it, there are tons of ex&les with better viewfinder in smaller bodies. And with REAL information additionally.
If you have a zoom with aperture up to 6.x at 70mm (fully open) the use of a 200 or 400 fim/slide might make sense in many situations. If you use Iso 100 or even 50, you have to use a tripod every second time, which makes the MZ not anymore a "pocket camera".
Please do not misunderstand me. The MZ delivers execellent pictures - so does the TVS III. It is for me just the question what do I get for my money and will it be suitable for the way I take my pictures.
My subjective conclusion was "no". But also the TVS III has drawbacks as stated earlier in my other comment. There is no perfect thing. Everybody has to decide for himself in which criteria he is willing to make a compromise.
Dirk
The TVS II and TVS I have the exact same lens, which was designed in 1990. It is clearly inferior to the new designed lens of the TVS III. A comparison between the MZ and the TVS II is leading therefore on a different road. I could add some comments also on the TVS II and I viewfinder, but this is a subject for the Contax Forum, not the Leica Forum.
Coming back to the comparison TVS III vs. MZ, it is obvious that every user has different preferences. If you want to shoot in P-mode anyway and accept the viewfinder for this price then I do not see a problem with the MZ.
But if you expect more then this for this price range, then the choice is (for me at least) a "no-brainer". Lenses are both excellent, but you simply have more possibilities to do what you want to do with the TVS III. If you actually use all these possibilities at the end of the day is up to you - but at least you have the choice with the TVS III.
The argument, that with the MZ the software is programmed in a smart way is not really an argument. I am the photographer and the camera shall do what I want it to do - not what an engineer thinks is good for me.
A shutterspeed of 1/250 is for me unacceptable, since it has to much restrictions on my creativity as a photographer. Remember we are not talking about a cheap, simple P&S, we are talking about a Leica for around 900 Euro/USD.
The body of the MZ is almost the size of the old M6. I think there is enough space for a bigger viewfinder. Look at Minolta TC-1, TVS III, T3 etc. - you name it, there are tons of ex&les with better viewfinder in smaller bodies. And with REAL information additionally.
If you have a zoom with aperture up to 6.x at 70mm (fully open) the use of a 200 or 400 fim/slide might make sense in many situations. If you use Iso 100 or even 50, you have to use a tripod every second time, which makes the MZ not anymore a "pocket camera".
Please do not misunderstand me. The MZ delivers execellent pictures - so does the TVS III. It is for me just the question what do I get for my money and will it be suitable for the way I take my pictures.
My subjective conclusion was "no". But also the TVS III has drawbacks as stated earlier in my other comment. There is no perfect thing. Everybody has to decide for himself in which criteria he is willing to make a compromise.
Dirk