Compact 35mm SLR's...

[beegee675]

Anyone have a real or mental list of compact 35mm SLRs similar to operation and quality as the Olympus OM's? I'm looking to obtain and compare...
-BG

 

[MattKrull]

Anyone have a real or mental list of compact 35mm SLRs similar to operation and quality as the Olympus OM's? I'm looking to obtain and compare...-BG

I had a Nikon FA that was slightly larger than my OM-2SP. I'm going to assume that the FE and FM lines were similar in size. And my Canon AE-1 and AT-1 are definitely larger, but not enough to make me reconsider taking either of them instead of one of my OMs; especially since the FD lenses aren't much bigger and are far easier to find these.
Pentax had some similar sized bodies, but I have no first hand experience with them.
I suppose the question is, how much are you willing to go up in size?

 

[LarryP]

om-1 136x83x50 in mm weight 510g pentax mx 136x82.5x49.5 weight 495g pentax lx 144.5x85x50 570g one slightly under one slightly bigger not sure of other brands

 

[narsuitus]

Anyone have a real or mental list of compact 35mm SLRs similar to operation and quality as the Olympus OM's?

The Pentax ME is smaller than most 35mm SLR cameras.

Pentax ME & Nikon F4 by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[beegee675]

Here's a list so far, not sure of how big is too big, but using the OM as a standard... looking for quality.


Olympus OM’s


Nikon FA,FM, FG


Fujica ST-801 ?, ST-901 ?


Pentax LX, MX, ME, MV, ME Super


Minolta Dynax 3 ?, XD-11, X-700, X-570


Leica R4 - R7


Ricoh XR-7, KR Super II ?


Yashica FX-3


Rollei 35s


Konica FS-1, FT-1, TCX


Contax 139


Chinon CE-3 ?, CE-II ?

 

[flavio81]

Anyone have a real or mental list of compact 35mm SLRs similar to operation and quality as the Olympus OM's? I'm looking to obtain and compare...
-BG

You will find that weight is more of an issue than compactness.
I've often repeated that the OM cameras are overrated; i feel the lenses, in general, were made too compact at the expense of some optical performance parameter (i.e. distortion or vignetting), and i never liked the OM-1/2 ergonomics.

My Nikon FG would be the first choice. Not really high build quality but very compact and light, good viewfinder, and it uses the F mount.
Another Nikon choice? The Nikon FE.

For Canon i would choose the Canon A-1, or AE-1, AE-1P, or the AT-1. They are very light. The A-1 is sometimes overrated, but i liked mine a lot and i sold some pictures made with it. The AE-1 and AE-1P are really good cameras, there is a reason they're so popular -- they have a smooth shutter and mirror, good viewfinder, really reliable metering system, nice shutter release button, useful automation, they're not too big, they're light, they are reliable, and they have lots of lenses available. Only downside is battery dependency, but my AE-1 was very frugal with batteries.

Minolta? The X-### cameras are light and compact, and have very good viewfinders. They are very reliable too.

Now, if you are not going to change lenses, a compact 35mm rangefinder is going to be way lighter and smaller.

 

[Les Sarile]

Here's a list so far, not sure of how big is too big, but using the OM as a standard... looking for quality.

I have few on your list so here is a side-by-side view of some of them.

The MX is the smallest fully manual SLR with the largest magnification full info viewfinder. With the Pentax 40mm f2.8 pancake lens, it is jacket pocketable.

Size is a relative measure and as you can see, the interchangeable viewfinder Pentax LX is practically the size of the "smaller" offerings. When you put the LX next to it's peers, it becomes more apparent how compact it is.

It offers the widest selection of viewfinders and most of those have built-in diopter correction.

Although the MX and LX are the most compact sized SLRs of their class, they are both well designed and built.

 

[elcabezagrande]

Here's a list so far, not sure of how big is too big, but using the OM as a standard... looking for quality.


Olympus OM’s


Nikon FA,FM, FG


Fujica ST-801 ?, ST-901 ?


Pentax LX, MX, ME, MV, ME Super


Minolta Dynax 3 ?, XD-11, X-700, X-570


Leica R4 - R7


Ricoh XR-7, KR Super II ?


Yashica FX-3


Rollei 35s


Konica FS-1, FT-1, TCX


Contax 139


Chinon CE-3 ?, CE-II ?

Here is another for your list, and very close in size to the OM:


Mamiya NC 1000 by Mike Novak, on Flickr

 

[gone]

I would also agree that weight is the real priority rather than size, at least to me. I'd be happy w/ a Nikon F4 if it weighed as much as a Holga (not an SLR, but simply using it as an example of a very light camera). If a Holga weighed as much as an F4, it wouldn't be a popular camera, that's for sure!

Unless you're after stealth, then someone isn't shooting an SLR, they're using maybe a Minox, assuming you found one that actually worked. My experience on that has been like most people's....best to move on to something else

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I've often repeated that the OM cameras are overrated; i feel the lenses, in general, were made too compact at the expense of some optical performance parameter (i.e. distortion or vignetting), and i never liked the OM-1/2 ergonomics.

Zuiko lenses aren't too compact and don't suffer from distortions any more than equivalent Nikons or Canons.
I've been shooting with OM-1 and -2 for a year now, and coming from Nikon, and with lenses like the 28mm /2.8, 35mm /2.8, 50mm /1.8, 100mm /2.8, 135mm /3.5 and several zooms as 28-48mm /4, 35-70mm /4, 65-200mm /4 and the earlier 75-150mm /3.5.
Only the 75-150mm zoom suffers from a bit more distortion than you'll want in architecture.
The ergonomics are to be liked or not. I appreciate that with just 2 fingers on the left hand I can adjust everything very quickly.

The OMs were good enough for Jane Bown and David Bailey. So, they are good enough for me.

[video=youtube;i_Yo3FRPeQw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_Yo3FRPeQw[/video]

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Terrific posting Les!

 

[blockend]

The OMs were good enough for Jane Bown and David Bailey. So, they are good enough for me.

Helmut Newton also used OMs.

 

[flavio81]

Zuiko lenses aren't too compact and don't suffer from distortions any more than equivalent Nikons or Canons.

Ricardo,

My experience is that, all else being equal (same technology, same era), size does matter, in the sense that not letting the lens grow to its natural dimensions, but constraining them, will require to compromise on some optical aspects, and I definitely think most optical designers would strongly agree with me here.

One day i'll make a collection of actual comparisons that show my point. There ARE out there on the web comparison of Zuikos against Canons and Nikons, and in some cases (for example, wideangles), they do suffer. Of course, one can argue that they are all good enough.

As for Helmut Newton, one of my favorite photographers, i do own one book with quality reproduction of his prints and it appears that he used medium format for most of his body of work.

 

[Les Sarile]

You will find that weight is more of an issue than compactness.
I've often repeated that the OM cameras are overrated; i feel the lenses, in general, were made too compact at the expense of some optical performance parameter (i.e. distortion or vignetting), and i never liked the OM-1/2 ergonomics.

My Nikon FG would be the first choice. Not really high build quality but very compact and light, good viewfinder, and it uses the F mount.
Another Nikon choice? The Nikon FE.

For Canon i would choose the Canon A-1, or AE-1, AE-1P, or the AT-1. They are very light. The A-1 is sometimes overrated, but i liked mine a lot and i sold some pictures made with it. The AE-1 and AE-1P are really good cameras, there is a reason they're so popular -- they have a smooth shutter and mirror, good viewfinder, really reliable metering system, nice shutter release button, useful automation, they're not too big, they're light, they are reliable, and they have lots of lenses available. Only downside is battery dependency, but my AE-1 was very frugal with batteries.

No doubt personal preferences will greatly influence the consideration of any product. But to compare the OM single number series to the models you listed is simply bonkers . . .

Ricardo,

My experience is that, all else being equal (same technology, same era), size does matter, in the sense that not letting the lens grow to its natural dimensions, but constraining them, will require to compromise on some optical aspects, and I definitely think most optical designers would strongly agree with me here.

One day i'll make a collection of actual comparisons that show my point. There ARE out there on the web comparison of Zuikos against Canons and Nikons, and in some cases (for example, wideangles), they do suffer. Of course, one can argue that they are all good enough.

Please share these lens comparisons.

The only obvious disadvantage Zuikos - as well as all the other orphaned lens mounts, is that they can no longer be bought new and in the used market, you can never be too sure if the lens is performing up to factory standards.

 

[blockend]

Ricardo,

My experience is that, all else being equal (same technology, same era), size does matter, in the sense that not letting the lens grow to its natural dimensions, but constraining them, will require to compromise on some optical aspects, and I definitely think most optical designers would strongly agree with me here.

One day i'll make a collection of actual comparisons that show my point. There ARE out there on the web comparison of Zuikos against Canons and Nikons, and in some cases (for example, wideangles), they do suffer. Of course, one can argue that they are all good enough.

As for Helmut Newton, one of my favorite photographers, i do own one book with quality reproduction of his prints and it appears that he used medium format for most of his body of work.

There are films of Newton using an OM1, he may have even done adverts for Olympus IIRC. Some pancake lenses are among the sharpest ever tested.

 

[Les Sarile]

I would also agree that weight is the real priority rather than size, at least to me. I'd be happy w/ a Nikon F4 if it weighed as much as a Holga (not an SLR, but simply using it as an example of a very light camera). If a Holga weighed as much as an F4, it wouldn't be a popular camera, that's for sure!

Casual observation on my part but there is no possible way a 1400g Nikon F4 can achieve the weight of the 200g Holga 120CFN.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Ricardo,

My experience is that, all else being equal (same technology, same era), size does matter, in the sense that not letting the lens grow to its natural dimensions, but constraining them, will require to compromise on some optical aspects, and I definitely think most optical designers would strongly agree with me here.

One day i'll make a collection of actual comparisons that show my point. There ARE out there on the web comparison of Zuikos against Canons and Nikons, and in some cases (for example, wideangles), they do suffer. Of course, one can argue that they are all good enough.

As for Helmut Newton, one of my favorite photographers, i do own one book with quality reproduction of his prints and it appears that he used medium format for most of his body of work.

Hi Flavio,

The thing is technology wasn't the same. The technicians for Olympus weren't the same as the ones for Nikon or Canon or even Pentax.
Olympus was a pioneer in miniaturisation.
Remember the Pen F?
Their lenses were even smaller, but excellent.
Olympus used their expertise to design lenses that were smaller then the competition.
Granted some designs were compromises.

 

[beegee675]

Some good suggestions here as well as nice pictorial comparisons... We all know that these machines may well be over forty years old– and their lens availability, so we're looking at what's available in the market today. I think size over weight is good because when you are handling a smaller camera, I would think the weight helps balance and deaden the movements. Longer lenses balance better, also. There are no perfect comparisons when doing a "list" like this, but in choosing single-digit OM's, one has to have a median point. Aside from several levels of offerings from each manufacturer, there are technological advances, like built-in motor drives that sweeten the pot, yet still stay similar to the Oly's sizes. Here's a "tiered" amended list ?...

Compact 35mm’s; Quality and size (not weight) similarities (inc. lens family)
First tier
Olympus OM: OM4ti, OM3ti, OM2n, OM1n, OM2sp
Pentax: LX, MX, ME, MV, ME Super
Nikon: FA, FM, FE, FG
Leica: R4 - R7
Contax: RTS, 139Q, 137MD, 159MM, ST? RX?


Second tier:
Canon A’s: A-1, AE-1, AE-1 Program, AE super
Minolta Dynax 3, XD-11, X-700, X-570
Fujica ST-801
Mamiya NC1000s
Ricoh XR-7, XR-5, XR-2
Yashica FX-D, FX-3 Super 2000
Rollei SL35 ME ?
Konica FS-1, FT-1
Olympus OM 40, OM 30 ?


Third tier:
Yashica FX-1, FX-2, FX-3
Konica TC-X, FC-1, Autoreflex TC
Chinon CE-3 ?, CE-II ?

 

[blockend]

The idea of a compact 35mm camera and the SLR are incompatible. The design necessitates a mirror box and prism which is a lot of real estate to provide a viewing system which adds nothing to the photographic system. Olympus and Pentax minimised the manual focus SLR dimensions and a camera like the Canon Rebel did the same for the AF era. In the 70s and 80s some photographers advocated carrying an SLR body in one pocket and a lens in the other, but it's hardly a point and shoot concept.

The smallest 35mm cameras are viewfinder only compacts like the Rollei 35 and Olympus clamshell designs. Next are folders such as the Kodak Retina, then rangefinder cameras, followed by SLRs with pancake lenses. An SLR with a conventional lens can only miniaturise a few mechanical and optical components, and save size on lens recessing, but the optical circle and the viewing system limit what can be done to shave volume.

 

[flavio81]

No doubt personal preferences will greatly influence the consideration of any product. But to compare the OM single number series to the models you listed is simply bonkers . . .

Why?

I have owned most of the models listed. Including an OM-2. For actual picture taking, there is nothing magical or really special on the OM-1 or OM-2 above most of the cameras mentioned, save for the "magical" off the film plane metering, which isn't the end of the world.

Want me to elaborate? For starters, the OM-1 and OM-2 viewfinders are big but other SLRs have brighter viewfinders and without geometrical distortion or artifacts. And it's easier to see the whole picture, for composition. Which one you choose? Gimmick versus usable viewfinder? Don't you think Canon, Nikon, Pentax, could make a 0.92X or even 1.2X viewfinder if they wanted to? No innovative science required!! But for those magnifications, you lose brightness and risk distortion and chromatic aberration artifacts. Plus you require the eyepoint to be closer.

Case in point: Many people prefer the Nikon F3HP over the plain F3. The F3HP has a smaller viewfinder magnification! But the eyepoint is longer so it's more comfortable to use.

The OM-2 has the off the film plane metering with a modern SPD sensor, but the meter needle indication , which you will use if you are in manual mode (which in my case means 90% of the time), uses two old, ancient, CdS cells with slower response, and whose color response is different than the SPD sensor.

So for manual use you're stuck with a CdS meter. And a very unremarkable one.
Also, in auto mode, the reading of the meter will not always be the same as the reading chosen by the OTF sensor. So you don't know exactly what the chosen exposure will be. The Canons and Nikons that i cited above have a fast SPD meter, both in auto and manual mode, and there is no discrepancy.

Don't get me wrong, the OTF metering of the OM-2 is a thing of genius, but it does not turn that machine superior to others i've listed.

In any case, if compactness is desired so much, the Pentax LX is a superior machine in all respects.
And i cited the Nikon FG because it gets the job done, it is small, light, reliable, has a good viewfinder, and mounts the Nikon lenses, which opens up a very very wide array of possibilities.

 

[flavio81]

Hi Flavio,

The thing is technology wasn't the same. The technicians for Olympus weren't the same as the ones for Nikon or Canon or even Pentax.
Olympus was a pioneer in miniaturisation.
Remember the Pen F?
Their lenses were even smaller, but excellent.
Olympus used their expertise to design lenses that were smaller then the competition.
Granted some designs were compromises.

Ricardo,

The Pen F is a half format 35mm SLR.
Thus, the lenses don't need to cover 24x36mm but a much smaller format, which is 18x24mm.
Thus, the lenses can be made smaller without compromising anything.
Nothing special in the design of the lenses of the Pen F line. (And nothing wrong either).

By the way, i own an Olympus Pen S3.5 camera and i absolutely love it. The lens (28/3.5) is an excellent lens, but on the other hand there is no special olympus-brand-only magic about the lens: it is simply a 4-element tessar design. Nothing special nor innovative. But a f3.5 tessar design, for such a small format, will always give excellent design.

 

[Les Sarile]

Why?

I have owned most of the models listed. Including an OM-2. For actual picture taking, there is nothing magical or really special on the OM-1 or OM-2 above most of the cameras mentioned, save for the "magical" off the film plane metering, which isn't the end of the world.

Want me to elaborate? For starters, the OM-1 and OM-2 viewfinders are big but other SLRs have brighter viewfinders and without geometrical distortion or artifacts. And it's easier to see the whole picture, for composition. Which one you choose? Gimmick versus usable viewfinder? Don't you think Canon, Nikon, Pentax, could make a 0.92X or even 1.2X viewfinder if they wanted to? No innovative science required!! But for those magnifications, you lose brightness and risk distortion and chromatic aberration artifacts. Plus you require the eyepoint to be closer.

Case in point: Many people prefer the Nikon F3HP over the plain F3. The F3HP has a smaller viewfinder magnification! But the eyepoint is longer so it's more comfortable to use.

The OM-2 has the off the film plane metering with a modern SPD sensor, but the meter needle indication , which you will use if you are in manual mode (which in my case means 90% of the time), uses two old, ancient, CdS cells with slower response, and whose color response is different than the SPD sensor.

So for manual use you're stuck with a CdS meter. And a very unremarkable one.
Also, in auto mode, the reading of the meter will not always be the same as the reading chosen by the OTF sensor. So you don't know exactly what the chosen exposure will be. The Canons and Nikons that i cited above have a fast SPD meter, both in auto and manual mode, and there is no discrepancy.

Don't get me wrong, the OTF metering of the OM-2 is a thing of genius, but it does not turn that machine superior to others i've listed.

In any case, if compactness is desired so much, the Pentax LX is a superior machine in all respects.
And i cited the Nikon FG because it gets the job done, it is small, light, reliable, has a good viewfinder, and mounts the Nikon lenses, which opens up a very very wide array of possibilities.

Of course you are correct as features are only as valuable as the user may need them. Other than size, I really don't know what the OP prefers in features.

The release of TTL OTF flash is significant because everyone ended up using it. Implemented on the OM2 in 1975, it took Nikon till 1980 F3, Pentax with the LX in 1980 and I am not even sure when Canon finally added it - in an EOS? If you need this, it cannot be added after the fact.

The significance of the magnification in the OM1&2 viewfinder depends on whether or not you personally prefer huge magnification or more eye relief as you get only one or the other in fixed prism cameras. I personally prefer the former as I still have perfect vision and can utilize the magnification for achieving critical focus more precisely and quickly.

Since you bring up the F3's viewfinder - not in the OP's list, I do like the 100% coverage of the viewfinders in the F, F2 and F3 and can use appropriate magnifiers to achieve critical focus if I want.

Regarding the issues you describe associated with huge viewfinders - dark and distortion, I have not encountered any of these top tier cameras to suffer from them. What is interesting is the LX has a semitransparent mirror that allows 15% of the light to pass through to the OTF metering cel and it has the largest magnifications of all SLRs but yet it seems brighter. In casual testing I did using a Soligor C/D 500mm f8 mirror lens across all my bodies, it allowed me to achieve better critical focus. I haven't quite worked out a test to evaluate this observation.

I also haven't accounted for variables in the condition as well as the appropriate use of other viewfinders and screens which can significantly affect the results.

You are comparing a full system capable 1975 OM2 to later model cameras - Canon A-1 (1978), or AE-1 (1976), AE-1P (1981), or the AT-1 (1976) and Nikon FG (1982). BTW, the Canon AT-1 you cited uses a CDS cel even though it was released after the OM2. It is also larger and weighs more than the OM2. Of the models you are comparing, only the plasticized Nikon FG weighs less but is still larger than the OM2.

You didn't mention that the OM2 has the capability for significantly longer aperture priority exposure time then any Canon which are fixed to expire at 30 seconds. The FG varies and can be longer than the Canons but less than the OM2. Probably because this is another feature that has no significance to you either.

If you prefer eye-relief, than the OM3&4 might be a better alternative. Additionally, I believe these are the only two manual focus SLRs with a true spot meter too. The OM3 only uses the batteries for metering and is otherwise a fully manual camera. Again, many features that may not be important to you but may be for others.

 

[darinwc]

if you are after a light-weight camera, I would highly recommend a Nikon N80 or N75. They are made mostly of plastic so they are super featherweight, compact, and are much younger than the others mentioned.

 

[macfred]

My wife likes to travel light - she uses an old and tiny Nikon EM with Nikkor 20mm f/4 and a 50mm f/1.8 Series E - if she needs a 2nd body she has a F-301(N2000).
That's a neat package !

 

[flavio81]

You are comparing a full system capable 1975 OM2 to later model cameras - Canon A-1 (1978), or AE-1 (1976), AE-1P (1981), or the AT-1 (1976) and Nikon FG (1982). BTW, the Canon AT-1 you cited uses a CDS cel even though it was released after the OM2. It is also larger and weighs more than the OM2. Of the models you are comparing, only the plasticized Nikon FG weighs less but is still larger than the OM2.

You didn't mention that the OM2 has the capability for significantly longer aperture priority exposure time then any Canon which are fixed to expire at 30 seconds. The FG varies and can be longer than the Canons but less than the OM2. Probably because this is another feature that has no significance to you either.

Good summary Les. Yes, the AT-1 has a CdS meter and only a connosieur such as you would have spotted that "infiltrate" in my list.

I am comparing the OMs with later cameras because today (2015) one can buy all of them at inexpensive prices, their respective release dates notwithstanding.

I do understand that TTL flash is of importance for a certain group of users. Also, metering for extra long exposure time may be useful to a certain group of users. However, i wouldn't say that extra long exposure time metering is of wide interest, more of a niche capability. I can also do the same with a simple Minox 35GT or a Yashica 35 GSN or many other aperture-priority cameras that use the (very simple) capacitor-and-solenoid timing circuit. They do the job (i've done a few long exposures with the Minux with great success).

Other photographers would just set the camera on "B" or "T" mode and time the exposure manually; meter using an external meter or using exposure tables (they do work for night landscapes). It's not rocket science. Bottom line is, you don't really need the electronics to help you in that case.

If you prefer eye-relief, than the OM3&4 might be a better alternative. Additionally, I believe these are the only two manual focus SLRs with a true spot meter too.

I don't understand this statement. The Canon T90 can spot meter. Some 70s Mamiya 35mm cameras can spot meter too. My Canon F-1N can do very good spot metering as well, by fitting the suitable screen.

My Mamiya RB67 can also do excellent spot metering by fitting the suitable metering viewfinder. All of them are manual focus SLRs. The Nikon F4 can do spot metering as well, and you can say it is also a manual focus camera, since it allows easy manual focusing.