Compact 35 with large lens?

[analog what is that?]

I have had a Rollei B35, I have a Minox 35 ML and recently got ahold of a Balda CE 35 and also has a Olympus XA around here.....
Of these I note that none has a lens bigger than f:2.8

So I was wondering what was the most compact 35mm with a lens (preferable collapsible) larger than f:2.8?

Of the cameras mentioned above, I never did like the Rollei, found it a clutz to use, and would never go for the "advanced" Rollei 35......
I like the Olympus but the RF is cramped to use, and the user interface also takes a little to get used to.
I like the Minox for its flat compactness, but prefer the Balda, has its first film in it now, and look forward to compare sharpness with the Minox/Olympus....

 

[elcabezagrande]

I think you mean large aperture and not large lens?

Konica Auto S3, Vivitar ES 35, Minolta Hi-Matic 7SII rangefinders all have f:1.7 lenses and are quite compact. Not as compact as the cameras that you have mentioned, but still jacket-pocketable.

 

[analog what is that?]

Your'e right large aperture, my bad.
But you know of none in that size with a collapsible lens?

 

[zsas]

If money is no object, a Leica M3 with a collapsible 50mm f2 summicron, $2k'ish

 

[Jianyi]

I think a Kodak Retina folder camera may be suitable for you; The Retina IIA has a Schneider Xenon 50mm f2.0 lens, but is fully mechanical (no meter) and is still 1.5 times the size of an XA.

 

[analog what is that?]

I was looking for something more modern than a Retina, have one of those in f:2,8, excellent camera, from the time when afficinados actually wanted something from Kodak!

 

[Brian Legge]

More modern in what way? The lens on the Retina line is hard to beat. Seriously. Incredibly sharp, beautiful look.

 

[sandermarijn]

Is AF ok? Konica Hexar and Leica Minilux/CM come to mind. But both aren't really small.

 

[analog what is that?]

More modern handling characteristics, I use a LOT of old cameras, but have to reset my head for each of them, coupled film advance or not etc etc.

I was thinking more along the lines of the cameras mentioned in the OP.

 

[dnjl]

Have a look here: http://www.cameraquest.com/com35s.htm

And if you want a "large lens", then there's the Yashica Lynx 14 with a huge f1.4 light sucker.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

My Nikon EM with the 50mm 1.2 looks quite ridiculous... lol

Actually with the original 50mm 1.8 E series (which I have as well) it's quite compact. I have it right next to my Olympus RC which is just tiny. Smaller even than the Retina IIIc, which was previously mentioned.

I find that the smaller you go, the harder it is to handle quickly and accurately. I fumble some times on the RC, the aperture ring is tiny, and the focus throw is short and not to smooth. Shooting wide open with a very fast lens on a small range finder is just asking for trouble unless you have something that has a good effective base length like a M3 or one of the bessa R3's. Then at that point you are getting into very expensive territory.

A small compact SLR like the EM or maybe an olympus om1 or 2 with a nice 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 will get you shooting in low light for cheap.

 

[analog what is that?]

Have a look here: http://www.cameraquest.com/com35s.htm

And if you want a "large lens", then there's the Yashica Lynx 14 with a huge f1.4 light sucker.

Thank you that was a great review!

 

[analog what is that?]

I wasn't thinking SLR but I have an EM.....
Dunno about that 1.8 lens is that the Nikon pancake?

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I wasn't thinking SLR but I have an EM.....
Dunno about that 1.8 lens is that the Nikon pancake?

It is not really a pancake, but it is very compact. Probably the smallest 50mm that Nikon has made. the 50mm E Series is a nice lens, i like it, though the build is not Nikkor quality.

Also 2.8 on a rangefinder isnt that bad, with a wider 2.8 and some good hand holding you can get shots off and have acceptable results in low light if you pick your shots.

with either slr or rangefinder, going wider will make it easier to hand hold at slower speeds in low light. Honestly maybe just stick to your em and lens, and get faster film or learn to push process. Speed is quite costly, and only an investment if you know you will shoot a lot with it in low light.

 

[analog what is that?]

I dunno, for a really small SLR I have an Olympus Pen Ft, with the small 38mm f:1.8 lens -it will give me twice as many pictures per roll also and really good grain on TriX without any push processing!

I was interested in getting the smallest possible 35mm rangefinder/viewfinder camera with a f:2 or larger lens............

 

[Ralph Javins]

Good morning, Analog;

I like your chosen label. And, while I do have experience with the Donner Scientific Company Model 30 Desktop Analog Computer, and the Systron-Donner Model 3600 "Desk" Analog Computer (never did get to work with any of the competitive EAS equipment in the same time period), the one that I am most proud about is being the last person to run a simulation on the GEDA, the General Electronic Development Analog computer which was used to develop fire-control (or firing-control) systems for US Naval guns during World War II. It took two days to go through the 8 racks of equipment making some minor repairs and all of the adjustments to get the system ready to have the program board dropped into position and then operate the long lever to bring the program board up into position to make contact with the large connecting socket assembly.

Large lenses? Probably the most impressive "large lens" that I can suggest that you examine is the Canon Model 7 Rangefinder Camera with the Canon f/0.95 50mm lens that projected down abut 1/4 of an inch below the bottom plate of the Canon 7 body.

Yeah, Canon and Nikon (Nippon Kogaku K. K. back then) were in a horsepower race back in the late 1950s with their Model 7 and Model SP rangefinder cameras, and the Canon f/0.95 lens I think was the winner. That was one impressive piece of glass. Even Burt Keppler commented about it. The resolution was not as good as the f/1.4 lens and similar products, but the physical size really was impressive.

It can still be found occasionally, and it is still much less expensive than the current equivalent lenses from Ernst Leitz Wetzlar, or Leica.

 

[JohnMeadows]

Canon RF with 50/0.95

 

[Brian Legge]

I don't think a Canon with a 50/0.95 or Lynx 14/e counts as a compact camera. Both are the same size or larger than some SLRs.

 

[JohnMeadows]

I don't think a Canon with a 50/0.95 or Lynx 14/e counts as a compact camera. Both are the same size or larger than some SLRs.

True but I couldn't resist

 

[zsas]

I don't think a Canon with a 50/0.95 or Lynx 14/e counts as a compact camera. Both are the same size or larger than some SLRs.

The XA and the 14E are about the same "width" if you are creative with how you orient them...he

 

[mcgrattan]

The Konica Hexar has already been mentioned above. It's not really compact at all: it's the size of a small SLR with pancake lens, or a Leica M-series. They are fantastic cameras, though. Good lens, clever electronics.

It's not a lot faster than f2.8, but the Fuji Klasse (or Rollei AFM35) is pretty good. It's a 38mm f2.6. I have the Rollei version, and have been very happy with it.

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Rollei_AFM35

It's considerably smaller than the Hexar, but not as compact as an Olympus Mju-II [Stylus Epic].

There's also the Fuji Natura-S, but I've never seen one and the lens might be a bit wide.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

My Konica S3 is very good.

Jeff

 

[analog what is that?]

Fuji Klasse seems promising...... and probably cheaper than its Rollei sibling.....
I already have a Fuji RF, small compact and very convincing, in my book Fuji cameras was some of the great secrets of japanese film cameras, I have a M42 SLR as well which is a dandy....

([ The handle : I did choose it as a sort of wry comment on the name of this group analog photography what the heck is that? In my book we have photograpy and then this modern digital stuff, I feel there is no need to explain real photograpy at all, and certainly no need to excuse it! ])

 

[mcgrattan]

Actually, I got my Rollei AFM35 for less than I've seen the Fuji go for. That may just be chance, or a reflection of the relative scarcity of the Fuji branded models in the UK. I took mine on a trip to Paris a few years back and that was the only camera I took with me:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcg_photo/sets/72157612348971745/

 

[holmburgers]

What about the Canon AF35ML Super Sure Shot?

Not a very sexy camera, but I suspect it's just as reliable and useful a P&S as the Olympus XA's, Nikon L35AF, etc.

It's got a 40mm, f/1.9. I think that might be your best bet for fast point & shoot, no?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/sure-shot/af35ml.htm