Good - older - smaller - slr with great lens

[tim k]

Actually, I'm not opposed to the RF idea.

 

[Grainy]

Olympus OM series. Very handy size and nice lenses available.

Here is a couple of pictures to show how incredible small they are:
http://static.foto.no/linkeddata/articles/images/29059_1024x768.jpg
http://static.foto.no/linkeddata/articles/images/29060_1024x768.jpg

 

[Viggi]

Konica TC, with a nice Hexanon 50mm lens. It isn't that small actually but I like it. And just got FM2n in the mail from Grays of W. This weekend, taking it out with a 50mm 1.4 and comparing against what I get from the TC/Hexanon combo. I really like the feel and size of the FM2. Deeelishus.

 

[anon12345]

Actually, I'm not opposed to the RF idea.

I like Grainy's presentation comparing the two cameras. Here's my simple po'boy version, comparing the bulk of a Canon EOS 630 to that of a Canon III (rangefinder; circa 1951). Just based on the size alone it's no wonder I leave the EOS at home. Actually I leave five EOS cameras at home. (but who's counting?)

Of course this example of rangefinder camera has no metering or flash capability. Note that both cameras here are configured for screw mount lenses. The Canon III has the M39 mount with a 2.8/50mm lens, whilst the EOS is fitted with a M42 mount adapter and a 1.4/50mm lens. I have seen advertised an M39 to M42 adapter which should allow the M42 lens to work on the Canon III with zone focusing only. There supposedly is also a mount for the EOS to use some M39 lenses.

Naturally, I would never try to sell you on this particular model rangefinder, or a rangefinder camera that is this old. Especially when there are so many newer models which are smallish and are very functional. But maybe I can sell you on the concept of a small rangefinder camera. The problem is . . . there are so many choices. Here's a link to some good reading . . .

http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm

 

[darinwc]

Tim, first think about how much of a "SYSTEM" you want to buy into.

Do you just want a camera with a single lens to carry around for snapshots?
-then also consider some of the better compact AF cameras like the Olympus Stylus and Yashica T4
-Also consider the fixed-lens rangefinders like the Canon QL-17 (the yashica gs/gsn is NOT compact)

Do you want a small variety of focal lengths?
-Any of the suggestions made are good.

Do you want a full system with a large variety of focal lengths?
-Your better off with a canon FD, nikon, or canon EOS. Simply because there is a greater supply.

My recommendations:
ultra-compact: Olympus Stylus or Olympus RC
reason: the old metal SLR's are heavy and there is a limit to how small they can be due to the mirror box and pentaprism.
Fun: Canon EOS Rebel Ti
reason: these are really lightweight, wont need a CLA, can share lenses with your main rig.
Classic: Pentax MX with 50mm f1.7.
reason: a very enjoyable camera to use.

 

[djacobox372]

Another vote for the Nikon FE, it's one of the lightest all metal cameras you can buy. Pair it with a 50mm f1.4 lens and you have a great combo.

 

[GeoffHill]

Olympus OM2n with 50mm f1.4 lens, given your specifications it's the nearest to a Leica M in a SLR, I have no axe to grind I've never owned one but I used to sell them for a living, and they are exquisite like fine jewellery.

I swapped a 3 or 4 lenses I no longer use for an OM2n a little while back. It has quickly become my go to camera, with the 35mm f/2.0 lens. Auto when needed, but retaining the feel of a 'designed for manual' camera.

 

[Q.G.]

No brainer: Olympus OM.
OM2n probably would be best choice.
Small. Lightweight. Stunning lenses.

 

[markbarendt]

Nikon FM2.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

I use both digital and film and I must agree that the OM system is probably first choice. However, I recently acquired a few Canon SLR's and I'm enjoying using all of them. My particular favourite is the F1-N which sits in my hand perfectly. There's a great range of FD lenses out there - even "L" versions and, if you strike lucky, the price is quite reasonable.

I also have an A1 - polycarbonate body but feels very substantial. True multi-mode camera and really cheap right now.

The other one I have (and can recommend) is an EF (an electronic version of the original F1) which is so simple to use, accepts FL and FD lenses and is a joy to use.

If you want truly small, though, the OM series is only marginally bigger than a rangefinder, even with a comparable lens attached.

 

[Les Sarile]

The three smallest full manual only SLRs I have with meter . . .

The Pentax MX also happens to have the largest full info (shutter speed, aperture and meter) VF. The FM is the same size as the FM2n but the latter actually weighs less. Of course the OM1 uses the unavailable mercury battery while the other two uses modern ones. There are workarounds for that if you want in camera metering.

 

[totalmotard]

I just picked up a little Olympus 35 SP rangefinder. It fits all your requirements, especially the lightweight part. This particular model has two metering modes which is handy, average and spot. The light meter is ev based, so it's not connected to the settings of the camera except for iso. I read the ev value in the meter which is calculated on the iso and the set the shutter speed and aperture based on the ev reading. It is a lot more of a pain than the coupled metering of my slrs. Just something to keep in mind when considering rangefinders. You may have to adjust the way you shoot depending on the model.

 

[BetterSense]

I would still be in love with Pentaxs if they didn't focus 'backward'. I don't think I can ever really get used to a camera that focus the wrong way. A shame too, because the lenses are really good.

 

[2F/2F]

I would still be in love with Pentaxs if they didn't focus 'backward'. I don't think I can ever really get used to a camera that focus the wrong way. A shame too, because the lenses are really good.

I thought the same when going from Canon and Leica to a Nikon. I got used to it, and quick. I don't think that either of them focus the right way or the wrong way; they just focus the way they focus.

 

[BetterSense]

If there were no other cameras in the world, and you were designing one for the first time, you would be forgiven for choosing to use either direction for the focus. But, the oldest 35mm cameras I can think of, all focus the Leica way...that is, turning the lens clockwise, screws it into the camera further, which corresponds to focus more toward infinity. From using view cameras, it makes sense to me that to focus farther away you move the lens toward yourself. That's how my rangefinder is, and my olympus, and my homemade camera that uses a threaded lens mount.

Anyone designing a camera decades later, and choosing to make their lens focus the opposite direction to the established norm, offends me. I have some Pentax cameras, but I rarely use them because every time I do, I turn the lens to 'infinity' and look through it and realize it's focused at 1ft. My ME Super is my telephoto-lens body, because my Tokina 200mm lens focuses properly.

 

[2F/2F]

From using view cameras, it makes sense to me that to focus farther away you move the lens toward yourself.

I have some Pentax cameras, but I rarely use them because every time I do, I turn the lens to 'infinity' and look through it and realize it's focused at 1ft.

You always move the glass farther from the film to focus on something closer, with any taking lens. Some lenses turn one way to do this, and others turn the other way to do it...but the glass moving farther from the film always means that your plane of focus is moving closer. Nikon and Pentax lenses don't defy the characteristics of optics just because their focusing collars turn the opposite way of Canon and Nikon.

I understand that "BLAGH!!!" feeling. I felt it the first time I picked up a Nikon. However, as I said, I got used to it but quick. (Hint: It helps to look through the viewfinder when you are focusing by eye, or at the distance scale when focusing by scale.)

 

[angrykitty]

A Miranda sensorex ii came into my thrift store the other day... It was in mint condition and I was really impressed with the quality...

Granted I'm kinda new at this but sometimes you can just FEEL the quality. It was a beautiful smooth manual camera, solid and heavy, and I thought is was really cool that you could pop off the pentaprism and change the viewfinder. The additional one that came with it was a waist level viewfinder, but I guess theres a bunch of different ones.

My first thought was how beautiful it was...

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Miranda_Sensorex (sensorex ii is on the bottom)

Like I said, I don't really know jack about these other then it felt really good in my hand...

 

[Ralph Javins]

A Miranda sensorex ii came into my thrift store the other day... It was in mint condition and I was really impressed with the quality...

Granted I'm kinda new at this but sometimes you can just FEEL the quality. It was a beautiful smooth manual camera, solid and heavy, and I thought is was really cool that you could pop off the pentaprism and change the viewfinder. The additional one that came with it was a waist level viewfinder, but I guess theres a bunch of different ones.

My first thought was how beautiful it was...

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Miranda_Sensorex (sensorex ii is on the bottom)

Like I said, I don't really know jack about these other then it felt really good in my hand...

Good morning, AngryKitty;

I could not see anything I could trim from your message in making this reply. You have stated just about all there is in describing your newly received fully mechanical Single Lens Reflex 35mm film camera. Yes, you have discovered one of the real main emotional and visceral factors in why we still use these film cameras from a time when the engineering and the mechanical fabrication and assembly for a camera were a thing of pride to the people who built them, in addition to the people who use them.

I am sorry to report that you seem to be afflicted with this terrible disease. Welcome to APUG, the largest forum and clinic for people who have what seems to be an incurable malady.

 

[fotch]

Good morning, AngryKitty; ....................................
I am sorry to report that you seem to be afflicted with this terrible disease. Welcome to APUG, the largest forum and clinic for people who have what seems to be an incurable malady.

AngryKitty, you have my condolences, get well soon.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Since no one else has suggested it, I'll put a vote in for a Leica R4 or R5.

While it may be slightly more expensive than some of the other options suggested (though nowhere near where legend puts it), the lenses are also arguably better, as are the focussing screens and the mirror damping. (Have used and can compare to Nikons, Olympuses and many others).

The R4 is essentially a Minolta XD11 (which several have praised here), with an improved mirrorbox (brightness and dampning) and shutter, selectable spot metering and (in many/most cases) better lenses.

 

[tim k]

Thanks again guys, I've enjoyed watching the responses.

I think I'm leaning still to the slr. Its been years since I've held any of the little slrs, but the side by side shots tell the story. I think they are plenty small enough for my needs. Also, don't think I'm going to be much lens shopping. Something normal to slightly wide in the 40 to 50 range is about all I would want. Which is perhaps another argument in favor of the rangefinder ??

Got to leave town for a few days, might get a little shopping in. There is also a FE in the local craigslist that I might check out.

 

[j-dogg]

If you want something bulletproof, Nikkormat FTN all the way and the better Nikon Series E and later Nikkor glass works on it. Also, Nikon made some really REALLY nice glass despite what the naysayers say, the 55mm f2?, 105mm 2.5 and the 50mm f1.8. Not only does it have TTL metering but it has a light meter outside of the camera too. Analog needle, very easy to meter and adjust exposure. They can be had cheap but they are NOT light at all. My FTN with my Vivitar 55-135 weighs more than my Canon DSLR and my Nikon FG combined, both with telephoto lenses mounted. It's a tank. It also has a depth of field preview button.

The only downside to the FTN is if the lens doesn't have that little notch in the top of the aperture ring (like many of the newer Nikkor lenses) that slides into the aperture post on the camera it does not meter light properly and your images will suck donkey nads and come out cloudier than a scene from Cheech and Chong's "Up in Smoke."

Nikon FG, it's smaller and weighs half as much as the FTN, but some of the older Nikkor lenses do not work unless AI modded. Plus the metering system in the FG is pretty neat. The only thing is that handle can break if you aren't careful, the handle on the FTN I swear to God was manufactured for prying tires off or something. It's solid.

 

[Les Sarile]

The FE is a fine camera http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonfeseries/index.htm

 

[angrykitty]

Good morning, AngryKitty;

I could not see anything I could trim from your message in making this reply. You have stated just about all there is in describing your newly received fully mechanical Single Lens Reflex 35mm film camera. Yes, you have discovered one of the real main emotional and visceral factors in why we still use these film cameras from a time when the engineering and the mechanical fabrication and assembly for a camera were a thing of pride to the people who built them, in addition to the people who use them.

I am sorry to report that you seem to be afflicted with this terrible disease. Welcome to APUG, the largest forum and clinic for people who have what seems to be an incurable malady.

Ha! Other symptoms include sensitivity to light (hours spent in the darkroom), tunnel vision (always looking for good angles), excessive spending and hoarding (gear & supplies), obsessive compulsive tendencies towards perfectionism (printing), and wrinkly hands...

 

[angrykitty]

Thanks for your concern, fotch. It's always comforting to know you're not alone...