Minox 35 EL review – The Original Minox 35

By Bob Janes

Forty-one years ago, I borrowed this very Minox 35 EL from my father for a trip to Zaragossa. When I came back and had the film developed, I was quite blown away by the quality of shots produced by what seemed almost like a toy camera.

At Photokina in 1974, Minox, a company previously devoted to 8×11 sub-minature cameras, shoved Rollei aside and showed the Minox 35 EL which was even smaller than their Rollei 35.

The Minox 35 EL

The whole thing with the Minox name being on this camera is a bit odd. Minox was originally a Latvian company to whom 24×36 must have seemed huge, the idea for the Minox 35 came from a professor at an Austrian university and the camera was actually made by Balda, a German company.

Of course, the whole ‘smallest 35mm full frame camera’ thing is a conceit. It is all about marketing bragging rights, and Minox was a name associated with miniature cameras. That said the Minox 35 EL is a remarkably small camera when closed. The official dimensions of the closed camera are 100x61x31 (although my calipers say 101x64x33 mm – do we put this down to ‘spread’ in older years?). In comparison, the figures I have for the Rollei 35 S are 97x65x43. I’m told the Minox gets it on volume and it doesn’t seem to have been contested.

Opening the camera for use pushes the lens out to 47mm, while the door actually extends to 85mm.

The Minox 35 EL was the first of 20 manual focus Minox 35 models, and it was the only model from 1974 until the GL was released in 1979.

The camera is simply a way of bringing together a lens and a 135 cassette in as small a package as possible. It succeeds. The lens is excellent, and the camera is as small as it could be while allowing the lens to do its job. The box is ticked, but there are inevitable compromises.

A look around the camera

The Minox 35 EL. Note the slot-head screws (normally covered up with black wax). The Duralumin hinges are non-standard

It’s all about the lens. Quiet and unassuming, the little ‘Color-Minotar’ really delivers. In the picture above, you can see – from the top: the viewfinder, the battery cover, and the window for the CdS photocell , which shades it progressively for smaller f-stops. You can also just about make out the kite-shaped diaphragm (formed by just two blades, but on a 35mm lens of f/2.8 bokeh is unlikely to be an issue (plus back in 1974 bokeh was not such a big thing).

I’m not sure why the ‘?’ has been painted onto the inside of the door – I guess as a reminder of something? The grey battery check button is also a replacement – the original would have matched the rest of the body. Here, the hotshoe has a clear plastic cover to take a reminder of what film is loaded – note the notch in its leading edge to avoid the camera thinking a flashgun is present.

Focus is set on the front ring of the lens of the Minox 35 EL – this one is engraved in feet, others may be in meters. Hyperfocal distances are your friend, which is just as well, because you are into straight estimation of distance to the subject with no further help from the camera. The broader ring sets a marker against an f-stop. As the ring is moved more towards f/16, more of the CdS cell is covered, and the shutter is set for a longer time.

On the Minox 35 EL body itself, we have a rewind crank, a hotshoe that detects if a flashgun is on the camera and sets the shutter to 1/30, a battery check button (here a creamy-grey but normally body coloured), the shutter release (threaded for a cable release), and a frame counter.

Camera rear – note the two wax-covered screw-holes next to the viewfinder

Not a lot is going on at the back. Film transport is via a thumb wheel with the assistance of a tab. Winding on and setting the shutter takes two strokes of the tab.

Through the viewfinder: The meter is only active when the shutter is cocked. The needle deflects upwards to the ‘500’ mark when the battery check button is pressed
Underneath. As mentioned before, the Duralumin hinge is non-standard.

On the Minox 35 EL base, we find the rewind button, a tripod mount, a film speed setting dial (which goes up to 800 on this example, some early ones only did 400), the switch to unlock the back and a bulge to accommodate the centre spool of a 135 cassette.

Camera with back removed

When the switch to unlock the back is slid over, a red dot is visible, and the whole back and bottom of the camera can be slid away. Note the cross-head screws.

Rear of camera with lens extended and back removed. The lining in the film compartment was added to try to improve light sealing – similar linings on the take-up side were removed as they were making the film advance extremely stiff

Inside the Minox 35 EL film chamber, we can see more slot-head screws (but also a few cross-heads). To reduce size, the drive for the sprocket has only 5 teeth, and it drives one edge of the film. The film is wedged under the metal sleeve on the take-up spool, which wraps the film emulsion-side in.

The non-standard elements of this camera

I have mentioned some non-standard modifications that have been made to this particular camera. My father, who was an instrument maker, had a want to improve things, as well as fix them. he probably bought the camera with a fault which he then fixed. I remember at the time that he was impressed at how they took the trouble to cover up the screw heads with black wax.

At some point, the camera had its battery check button replaced. Additionally, the original Makrolon door hinges have been replaced with Duralumin versions. I don’t know if that was because the original hinge started to fail (Dad did have the camera for a number of years) or whether he just decided he could do it better. I also don’t know (or can’t remember) why he painted the question mark on the inside of the door – perhaps to remind himself to focus the lens? Too late to know for certain.

Film loading

Because the whole back and bottom of the film chamber come away, getting film into the camera is relatively easy. The difficult bit is loading the film so that the film transports correctly. You need to be very careful that the film slots into the take-up spool correctly and that it is aligned over the sprocket teeth correctly. Once I have put the back in place, I tend to remove any slack from the rewind crank and look for signs of it moving as I wind. I also listen out for any sounds that might indicate that sprocket holes might be suffering.

Other Issues

It was the first of its kind. It was cutting-edge, minute and intricate. These things do not always go together smoothly.

  • As well as the need to be careful loading film, there are issues with light-tightness. Not because of leaks along the seams of the back, around the holes for the rewind button or tripod mount, but through the material of the camera body itself: The 35 EL is constructed of glass-fibre reinforced Makrolon. The problem is that the glass reinforcement can pass light (like fibre-optics, but less organized), so you do need to make it properly and use it appropriately. By the time this camera was made (1978, 4th year of production from the serial number), problems should have been sorted, but concerns still led, in this case, to the addition of extra opaque material in an already too-cramped film chamber.
  • The only way of adjusting exposure for back-lighting is to alter the film speed setting on the base.
  • The wind-on tab is an instrument of torture. The five-pronged sprocket drive may be a contributor, but I allocate most blame to the tab which ‘assists’ use of the thumb wheel. I’ve almost convinced myself that it is more comfortable to operate the bit of the wheel visible at the edge of the camera with a fingertip than to use the tab on the back.
  • The rewind crank, when unfolded, sits at an angle that makes it very awkward to use – almost (but not quite) as awkward as if it didn’t have a fold-out crank and just relied on a knob. On the other EL I had, the crank sat slightly flatter, but then it scored the angled top-plate.
  • The EL works off an obscure battery (PX27) that is now banned; the kludge is to use other batteries. A pair of CR1/3N lithium cells (which some of the later cameras switched to in any case) seem to most available and closest to the original voltage, but people do go with a stack of SR44 silver cells – that the camera’s metering can cope with the over-voltage, suggests that there is some sort of bridge circuit inside.
  • These are highly complex instruments. There are many tiny components. There is a lot of movement in the unfolding of the door and the deployment of the lens. The camera invites being slipped into a packet, where it is subject to knocks, dust and who-knows what else. There is a lot to go wrong, and often, it does.

My original Minox 35 EL ended up not cocking the shutter unless the film was advanced with the door down and the lens in place. The MB that I picked up (and which dealt with 90% of my gripes with the Minox 35 EL), suddenly decided that it didn’t want to fire its shutter anymore. As it is, the first Minox 35 I came into contact with –  dad’s original Minox – is the only one left working. That may be down to his care for the camera, which included keeping it in a little leather case. I normally discard cases. Keeping this 35 EL in the case is a bit of a faff, but then using a Minox 35 is always going to be a bit of a performance – Bring down the drawbridge, estimate the distance, set the distance, set the aperture… If it keeps it around a while longer, I might just keep this one in the case.

Enough issues.

Pictures!

Garden gate at Eltham Palace
Awaiting repair at Didcot Railway centre
End of the line..
Prohibitive signs
Arsenal Building
Bollard
Nijmegen labyrinth
Out of water
Street art
Southern drawbridge, Eltham Palace

Conclusion

The Minox 35 EL lens is as good as I remembered. It is all about the lens.

Minox listened to customers and dealt with most of the gripes about the EL in subsequent models – the wind-on tab was vastly improved, as was the take-up spool. The rewind crank was able to clear the top-plate while keeping the handle upright, and the camera also featured a backlight button. Other improvements included the provision of a self-timer and a separate threaded port on the top plate for a cable release (people complained that it was too easy to fire the shutter by accident when attaching the cable release).

The 35mm f2.8 lens appears to have remained a constant, albeit under Minotar and Minoxar variants (not sure of the difference, both are Tessar-based and would seem equally desirable). The one exception was the 35 AL camera that featured a fixed focus f/4 lens and weather symbols. Minox even produced a model in Titanium, but otherwise seem to have stuck with the glass-reinforced plastic. Production of Minox 35 models seems to have continued up until 2004.

Someone should work out a way of converting those little Minotar lenses in broken Minox 35 cameras to work on digital. More people should be able to experience these little gems.

For a period of about 10 years from the mid 90s, Minox were owned by Leica. Independence from Leica seems to have coincided with the end of the Minox 35 line. Later, they started to partner up with other companies. At time of writing, Minox are part of Blaser Group, based in Isny (just north of Lichtenstein) – most of their products seem to be binoculars and spotting scopes.

Share this post:

About The Author

By Bob Janes
Retired IT guy. Volunteer stem-cell courier. Interested in education, photography and local history. Lives in Greenwich, SE London, UK.
Read More Articles From Bob Janes

Find more similar content on 35mmc

Use the tags below to search for more posts on related topics:

Donate to the upkeep, or contribute to 35mmc for an ad-free experience.

There are two ways to contribute to 35mmc and experience it without the adverts:

Paid Subscription – £2.99 per month and you’ll never see an advert again! (Free 3-day trial).
If you think £2.99 a month is too little, then please subscribe and I can manually edit the subscription value for you – thank you very much in advance if this is what you would like to do!

Subscribe here.

Content contributor – become a part of the world’s biggest film and alternative photography community blog. All our Contributors have an ad-free experience for life.

Sign up here.

Make a donation – If you would simply like to support Hamish Gill and 35mmc financially, you can also do so via ko-fi

Donate to 35mmc here.

Comments

Dan Mountin on Minox 35 EL review – The Original Minox 35

Comment posted: 10/10/2025

There has already a been company that has converted the Minox 35mm Minotar to M-Mount. 35mmc had an article in 2023: https://www.35mmc.com/08/05/2023/ppp-35m-color-minotar-35mm-f2-8-review-by-vincent-bihler/
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Bob Janes replied:

Comment posted: 10/10/2025

Thanks for the link!

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Ibraar Hussain on Minox 35 EL review – The Original Minox 35

Comment posted: 10/10/2025

Excellent review of what is a gem of a camera
I have the Balda CA35 sibling which is very very similar (the Balda is fully automated with no ability to select aperture) and has the same lens, also I believe it has a bigger brighter finder
I too was blown away by the beautifully exploded razor sharp contrasty images (and as your photos show)
I described this as a real camera dressed up as a toy. Easy to get put off by the plastic - but very well put together and a joy to use

Thanks again
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Bob Janes replied:

Comment posted: 10/10/2025

The Balda sounds good - I really doubt the value of differential focus on lenses that wide and of that sort of speed. The 'toy' description was even more apt for Balda's Minox 110 camera - wonderful but feels like a toy.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Gary Smith on Minox 35 EL review – The Original Minox 35

Comment posted: 10/10/2025

Instead of saying: "Someone should work out a way of converting ..." you should have just said: "Hamish should work out a way of converting..."

Bob, you could squeeze great shots out of a Diana!
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Bob Janes replied:

Comment posted: 10/10/2025

Actually, I found my non-working EL and have been trying to work out a way of converting to work on digital. Depending on how successful it goes. It might end up as another article :-)

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Keith Drysdale on Minox 35 EL review – The Original Minox 35

Comment posted: 10/10/2025

That's a good read. I owned a very similar looking Ricoh FF-1 and it also produced impressive shots from its Tessar-type lens. I'm sure Ricoh were "inspired" by Minox for this model.
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Bob Janes replied:

Comment posted: 10/10/2025

There were a number of tiny full-frame cameras that came out at that time - I've not used a FF-1, but Ricoh were highly capable even back then.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Ed Gillam on Minox 35 EL review – The Original Minox 35

Comment posted: 11/10/2025

Thanks for your article Bob. What a remarkable camera. I remember that as a young man I admired these through many camera shop windows. What a lovely piece of miniaturisation. The other camera that I was fascinated by was the Pentax Auto 110. I see that you have one in your viewfinder window shot. Both cameras seemed extremely desirable to me. I find that with older eyes, seeing small small print and fine detail is more and more difficult so it might be a bit of a challenge to operate these now! Still both beautiful examples of 70's tech.

Best wishes. Ed
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Bob Janes replied:

Comment posted: 11/10/2025

Thank you. The Pentax 110 is a remarkable little camera - by far the most practical 110 camera I've come across for modern use - mainly because it adapts quite well to use with reloaded 16mm cine film (which the Rollei A110 unfortunately doesn't). I did a review of that particular camera back in 2021 which can be found here : https://www.35mmc.com/19/10/2021/pentax-auto-110-review-by-bob-janes/

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Julian Tanase on Minox 35 EL review – The Original Minox 35

Comment posted: 11/10/2025

As a Minox subminiature long time user, I can only relate to the 8x11 bigger brother, the 35. Good cameras, and held in really high regard by various users out there. I have one such 35, the PL, bought at some point in the early 90s. Very good camera I thought at the time, and I am still of that opinion. Haven't used it in the last years, which is a shame, for I should. It travelled with me all along the French Mediterranean coast 1991-1992, and I'm telling you: that camera could take some really mean pictures. Coupled with my IIIs or BL 8x11 models, I was traveling with such a small photo bag, which is a bless. Thank you for saying something about the Minox 35 line, again, great great cameras !
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Bob Janes replied:

Comment posted: 11/10/2025

Thank you.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Walter Reumkens on Minox 35 EL review – The Original Minox 35

Comment posted: 11/10/2025

The difference in the lenses is probably the multi-coating. Here is a quote from Wikipedia: "The Color-Minotar, Minar or Minoxar lens (multi-coated and supplemented by a fixed UV filter) is a proprietary design by the manufacturer. The basic type corresponds to the four-lens triplet, just like the Tessar from Zeiss. The focal length of all models is 35 mm, the aperture ƒ/2.8. To adjust the distance, only the front lens is moved, not the entire lens."

A very interesting article and good photos. I own a working Minox GT, a later version with fewer problems in use. Some models were very error-prone, hence the many rapid model changes. Why did Leica get involved? Both companies were based in Wetzlar, a small town in Hesse near Frankfurt.

Best regards, Walter
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Bob Janes replied:

Comment posted: 11/10/2025

I'd imagine Leica bought it up when the opportunity arose for the IP alone. Balda (previously based a bit north in Bünde) had moved their manufacturing to China around the turn of the millennia, so Leica may have waited the existing contracts out before spinning off Minox without commitments for production of the 35 (all speculation). I'm not sure of the production span of the Balda badged cameras. As it was the Minox 35 had a remarkably long production run (over 30 years) and only stopped once most other analogue cameras had gone out of production..

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Jeffery Luhn on Minox 35 EL review – The Original Minox 35

Comment posted: 11/10/2025

Bob,
I enjoyed your article and was impressed by your photos. The two clever miniature 35mm cameras of the period were your Minox and the Olympus XA. A lot of pro photographers carried one of those in their pockets or purses. Cute, clever, and good performers. What else can you ask for?
Jeffery
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Marco Andrés on Minox 35 EL review – The Original Minox 35

Comment posted: 13/10/2025

Thank you for your article and your images, evocative as always. Now the Minox 35 EL is in play again. Imminently pocketable. Like a 120 folder but smaller, lighter and more elegant. An easy carry. And it’s cute. While it looks like a toy, it can make very good images (in the right hands, like yours).
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *