Comments, Page 41

It is such a beautiful camera, as well as the article! I had 4 mju ii before and the previous 3 were just either broken or have some annoying issues. For instance, one of the copy has focus drifting problem which would drift the actual focus distance by a certain degree every shot I take… That basically made every close-up shots unwatchable :( However, apart from that issue I encountered, It’s a pleasing experience using this camera! It feels so nice to have a compact, large aperature camera that can easily fit in your pocket.

Another problem is — just like most other point&shoot cameras have — their automatic DX code wouldn’t read rare ISOs like 250 or 500, which makes it hard for me to shoot cine films.

Anyway, very nice article!

Thank you for reading and letting me know that you’ve enjoyed the article, 李一杰!

This is such a well-written article! I can feel every aspects that you feel when you’re using the camera, not just by listing specs but by truly exploring it. I enjoy the reading a lot, thanks very much! I can feel the passion of analogue soul from this article.

Thanks for reading and buying the book, Larry! I’m just across the Strait from you — perhaps our paths will cross someday 🌊

Oh yes! I’m hand-metering for my Rolleicord IV; new to me from a big eBay seller in Prague. Currently using Foma 100 (Rodinal; soon D96). Also, I’m planning to do quite a bit of work with Double-X (to be tested in D96; Df96 wasn’t my cuppa tea) and Potsdam 100 — working well in D96. C ya. Good luck. I’m in Victoria, BC.

Thanks. That was easy to follow and I found it useful. Currently, I’m using a Sekonic L398 (self powered; possibly with a silicon cell instead of selenium), and occasionally a Weston Master III (the same as the one shown in your third-from-topmost photo). I prefer to use the Weston with a grey card, therefore it’s not as convenient as the Sekonic in ambient-reading mode. Good luck eh! A friend recommended your “Moscow Dayze” — I bought it and really found it fascinating. Your photos there are an unexpected insight into the ebb & flow of Moscow. Thx again.

Nice! Big savings are to be had with half-frames. I’m now looking to try Konica Recorder cameras: full-auto half-frames with a nice lens 🤑

I discovered the magic of pocket cameras with half-frame mechanisms (Kodak Ektar H35, now trying Agfa camera). I can take 72 pictures per film.💶

I agree, umboland, these cameras have a somewhat unique tendency to shoot wide-open.

This may be the reason people like this camera as it’s prone to create bokeh where other p&s cameras won’t.

Those on here mentioned the edge aberrations, might be interested in knowing that if this camera uses the same programming as the Stylus, then they should know the Stylists programming was always kind of weird, I.e. it basically keeps the lens wide open until the shutter speed tops out, then it starts shutting down. I consider this to be a real flaw, it would have been better to shut down to 5.6 after the shutter hit 1/30th, and then continue. I loved the Stylus and owned three, but this and the gearing failing were the two big flaws!

Thank you, Mats. I’ve also found that these cameras get confused when there’s enough reflective surfaces in the shot, like a wet pavement.

Nice review of the LT-1 though. I’ve been wanting one for quite some time. The mju i is probably my all around favorite compact despite it‘s flaws, and the LT-1 just looks so good!

Yes, you might be right. The softness might be due to the subjects. I do a lot of environmental portraits at relatively close ranges and here the corners are less noticeable anyway. My impression is that the lens really shines at these ranges. I have some very sharp portraits in the 1m-0.35m range. Renders beautifully too. At low apertures I’ve noticed some corner softness, but not enough to bother me. Stopped down the lens seems sharp corner to corner. I scan with a Pakon that is not that affected by film curling so that might be another factor..

Another thing that seems to go wonky on these cameras is the auto focus. I have one copy that seems to want to focus on infinity about 80% of the time, and it seems others have similar problems..

Mats: I’ve seen about the same amount of softness in the corners of my Mju I scans. Perhaps this could do something with the film curling, subjects, and the apertures our cameras chose?

I think you’re right about the parallax error, I’ve been using the estimates I assume on my rangefinders, but I’ll edit that part as the lens and the finder window are indeed very close.

On the parallax correction marks. This is one of the things I really like about the Mju i and ii: There is very little parallax error due to the close proximity of the lens and the viewfinder window. If you read the manual, the marks in the viewfinder shows the parallax corrected frame at 0.35m. So you can assume that at 2m and probably 1m there is practically no parallax error to speak of. Most other compacts have far more parallax error.

Corners on this copy looks worse than all of my Mju 1 copies.

Thanks for dropping by, Jim. Indeed, they look real nice!

Very nice — thanks for the thorough review. I’ve always thought these cameras looked terrific.

Good point, Khurt. There are certainly some drawbacks to cost-savings. And thank you: your comment reminded me of half-frame cameras, using which is another iteration on shooting (literally) less.

Using a manual camera to reduce the average rate you go through rolls seems to be a variation of shooting less film. Instead of exposing, for example, one frame a day, you expose one frame every two days thereby using less film.

There’s an initial cost (you’ll need chemicals, a film tank, and a few more tools) and ongoing expenses (you’ll need chemicals). Plus, the cost of storing the additional equipment and disposing of those chemicals.

I scan my negatives at home but I admit a quality scanner is expensive and scanning takes a lot of time.

Pros and cons.