A cool 35mm compact

[EKDobbs]

Canon Canonet QL 17 GIII

Big name, tiny full-manual rangefinder with a workhorse 40mm 1.7 lens. I don't know why it never makes it onto the list of compacts, but it's about as small as a camera can get while retaining manual features.

Also, be prepared to pay between $10-$20 to have it refoamed, or do it yourself. The original foam in these is notoriously bad, but easily replaced.

 

[Heinz]

For my Rollei 35S I printed a "human rangefinder" according to
http://tomchuk.com/misc/rf/
and pasted it to the lower edge of the back.
It works very well and may be an argument for the otherwise gorgeous Rollei, if the missing rangefinder is a problem.

 

[Les Sarile]

A Pentax ME Super with the Takumar 17mm F4 Fisheye using a M42 to K Mount adapter is not only the most compact aperture priority capable SLR combination but it is definitely cool . . .

 

[Steve Toner]

Kodak Signet 40.

Stylish.
Rangefinder.
No batteries.
Radioactive.

 

[cramej]

I second the Nikon L35af. Quality is miles ahead of the Canon AF35m (although it's still a good camera..). The Minolta HiMatic AF is another good one. Manual wind and rewind but autofocus and exposure. All 3 of those cameras have great sharp lenses and with the exception of the Nikon, are really cheap. I paid $40 or so for a really nice L35 and $15 for another that's a good user. All of the 5 HiMatics I have were $10 or less and the Canon was $10.

 

[EASmithV]

I've had problems with the meter needle sticking in my XA, but smacking it hard on my palm usually dislodges it. Keep the Rollei in a case, or the battery will drain.

 

[powasky]

Canon MC10. I purchased mine for $10 and it came with all of the original accessories. Its film advance is loudish, but it produces good images. I'll go scan one in for you.

 

[Alan Gales]

I always liked the Contax 139 with 50mm f/1.7 lens.

It's small for an SLR but it's not a "pocket" camera.

 

[PentaxBronica]

I always liked the Contax 139 with 50mm f/1.7 lens.

It's small for an SLR but it's not a "pocket" camera.

If we're going that route then a Pentax MX and 40mm "pancake" lens would be ideal. It will fit in a coat pocket, which is handy if the weather isn't behaving.

 

[elekm]

Just about of the mid-1970s smaller rangefinders would do. There are models from Canon, Olympus, Minolta, Konica, Vivitar and Ricoh -- to name just a few.

All of them, bar none, will need to have new foam. Just don't let any of it get into the shutter mechanism.

 

[Alan Gales]

If we're going that route then a Pentax MX and 40mm "pancake" lens would be ideal. It will fit in a coat pocket, which is handy if the weather isn't behaving.

Zeiss made a 45mm f/2.8 pancake lens for the Contax also. I guess it all depends on how small the OP wants to go.

 

[blockend]

It's not just about size, but image. An SLR says serious, maybe intrusive. A compact is just a snapper. In some circumstances it's an important difference.

 

[PentaxBronica]

TBH I think it depends on the SLR and the lens.

The Pentax M series bodies in black with a small lens just look quietly competent. People equate "serious" with a big chunky camera with battery grip and a lens the size of a drainpipe. While I can fit a winder and big lenses to my black MX I can also clip a small prime on and take unobtrusive shots in a city centre.

Check how loud the winder is if you're buying a compact with auto wind. I have an old Olympus Trip AF Super here which belonged to my grandfather and is painfully noisy.

 

[Alan Gales]

It's not just about size, but image. An SLR says serious, maybe intrusive. A compact is just a snapper. In some circumstances it's an important difference.

Back in 1983 I was 20 years old and in Pensacola, Florida. I was on the beach near the Naval base with my first 35mm camera, an amateur, aperture priority only Canon AV1 with a cheap Vivitar zoom lens. There were signs posted on the beach that no professional photographers were allowed. I wasn't worried since there were tourists there with much nicer SLR's than mine and with larger zooms and after all, I was still trying to learn how to use mine. I was approached anyway and asked if I had not read the signs. I replied that I was merely an amateur. The guard smiled and told me that I sure looked like I knew my way around a camera and would I please just put it away.

Boy, I sure had him fooled!

 

[pen s]

Olympus 35RC, with full manual control plus shutter preferred auto, rangefinder focusing and a really good lens.

The 35RC used a mercury battery but I have no problem using a #675 hearing aid battery in mine, I don't even use a 'O' ring spacer.

 

[Les Sarile]

I always liked the Contax 139 with 50mm f/1.7 lens.

It's small for an SLR but it's not a "pocket" camera.

Although I don't have one, I am certain a Contax 139 would be past the right side of this lineup. The Olympus Epic truly is a pocket size camera - not only in size but weight too. The Nikon 35Ti is pocketable but it is in the heavy side. The half frame Olympus Pen FT is small - no mirror hump, and the lenses are small too. It is an SLR and definitely it's robust construction makes it almost the weight of the MX/OM1. So just how cool and/or compact really . . .

 

[AgX]

Olympus Stylus Epic is another designation of Olympus µ-II mentioned in other posts above.

 

[Alan Gales]

Although I don't have one, I am certain a Contax 139 would be past the right side of this lineup. The Olympus Epic truly is a pocket size camera - not only in size but weight too. The Nikon 35Ti is pocketable but it is in the heavy side. The half frame Olympus Pen FT is small - no mirror hump, and the lenses are small too. It is an SLR and definitely it's robust construction makes it almost the weight of the MX/OM1. So just how cool and/or compact really . . .

My daughter owns an Olympus OM1 and the Contax 139 was about the same size. A little thicker maybe but not quite as long and much more ergonomic. Of course I am going by memory here.

 

[removed-user-1]

Can I also suggest the Nikon AF6000 (Lite Touch)? It's got a 28/3.5 lens and can be had on ebay quite cheaply. The only issue with it is that it doesn't read 800 & 1600 film. So as long as you shoot only 100, 200 and 400 films you're fine.

I had this camera, the original Lite-Touch with the 28mm lens. It's one of the few cameras I truly regret selling. It was fully-automatic but that did not prevent it from making very nice photos. I need to pick another one up, but we have three different Olympus Stylus cameras to fill the same general role...

 

[Les Sarile]

My daughter owns an Olympus OM1 and the Contax 139 was about the same size. A little thicker maybe but not quite as long and much more ergonomic. Of course I am going by memory here.

You're memory is good as I just checked the specs on the 139 compared to the OM1 and MX and they are very similar to within a couple of millimeters. Thanks for the heads up as I was not aware it was that close.

 

[mr rusty]

+1 for the little rollei 35. I used a 35B for many years as my only camera - lowest spec lens in the range. Nothing wrong with the images it took - certainly up there with any other compact camera. used on middling stops the DOF is huge (e.g. DOF markers show 6ft to inf at F16) and the fact its a view camera and not a rangefinder is hardly a problem in normal use.

Not the fastest camera to use because you always have to extend the lens, and don't forget to use it upside down if using the bottom mounted flash if you don't want people to have dark halo's!

 

[dbuckle]

Many of the cameras mentioned do take great photos but some are getting expensive. I keep an eye open for them but they just don't find their way into the Thrift Stores I shop in. I manage to find this Konica A4 on the bay for $17. After running a film through it I can recommend it. It is sleek and small enough to put in your shirt pocket.

Konica A4 P&S by dbuckle2695, on Flickr


Open by dbuckle2695, on Flickr

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

The only thing I'd be uneasy about with the Rollei is the fact that it's a viewfinder rather than rangefinder camera. I have used a 1930s Zeiss folding camera which lacked any means of measuring the distance to subject and found it frustrating. When I put it on a tripod and used an SLR to find the right focus (read off one camera's focus scale, transferred to the other) the resulting images were very sharp indeed, but if you shoot it hand-held without any guidance for focusing you quickly find why old photos tend to be soft!

Try this http://tomchuk.com/misc/rf/ It's astounding precise. You can stick it to the back of the camera. Besides: The lens is only 40mm. If you don't try to make macros you will get away with hyperfocal focussing most of the time.

ED: Just seen that Heinz had posted the same link a while back. But as an add on:
one of the pros of the little Rollei is, that you can make all the necessary dial ins without taking the camera to the eye. Then you raise the cam to the eye and take your picture within the blink of an eye. It's priceless for snapshots.

 

[horacekenneth]

+1 for the XA

 

[sehrgut]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Minox 35GT: legendary for an autoexposure system that gets reciprocity failure right.