Lightweight SLR, only for long focal lengths

Erwin Plau · Nov 17, 2008

Being an old man, I am the "new kid on the block", my grandson taught me that new term, and I am using his computer.

During all my life I only used rangefinder cameras, mostly Voigtländer, Contax and Leica, and some large format cameras for a while. I still have my M3, three lenses, a handheld exposure meter, and that's it. That all sounds very german, indeed, but I was born at a time when german manufacturers supplied the world with cameras, and I just never changed. I still have my old enlarger and trays I purchased many years ago, and it will make a good burial object.

But sometimes I wish I had a longer focal length than my 90mm Elmarit. I think a light 200mm lens will be enough, and it should be small and light also. I do not need and want an autofocus nor any kind of automatic exposure, just a "Leica with a mirror".

What kind of 35mm reflex camera can you recommend that is light and has a good, bright finder?

2F/2F · Nov 17, 2008

The finder brightness will mostly depend on the max aperture of the lens. You are kind of stuck, because anything 200mm and light will have only an f/4.0 or larger min. f stop. A 2.8 version will be bigger and heavier, and not all that bright anyhow.

I would suggest a Pentax screwmount, Pentax K, or a Minolta with a 200mm f/4.0. They are very light, but plenty good (and inexpensive).

Lee L · Nov 17, 2008

How about a used Leica SL and 180 f:4 Elmar-R, 180 f:3.4 Apo, or 180 f:2.8? The SL is manual, mechanical, and has a big, bright finder. The SL is ridiculously cheap now in the used market here in the US, and the lenses are a bargain as well. Not sure how used Leica reflex prices are in Germany.

The 180 Elmar-R is 100mm long, takes 55mm filters, and weighs 0.57 kilos.

Lee

fmajor · Nov 17, 2008

Sir, i am not certain if you are asking about which 35mm Leica reflex camera is light and has a good, bright viewfinder or if you are asking about any brand of 35mm reflex camera that is light and has a bright viewfinder.

If you are asking about which Leica, i am not well informed enough to make an expert suggestion. That being said, i would think the Leica R6 or R6.2 with the appropriate lens would suffice.

If you are asking about any brand of 35mm reflex camera that is light and has a bright viewfinder i would confidently recommend a Minolta XD-7 or XD-5 with a Minolta MC Tele Rokkor-X 200mm f4 lens. Also, Minolta collaborated with Leica on the MD Zoom 70-210mm f4 zoom lens that is reasonably light and provides excellent image quality.

Chan Tran · Nov 17, 2008

Since I am most familar with the Nikon, I would recommend you a Nikon. I think the Nikon FM is cheap, small, and although not too light it's not heavier than your Leica I don't think. The lightest lens would be the 200mm f/4, next is the 180mm f/2.8. If you need faster than that Nikon does have the 200mm f/2 lens but it's heavy and expensive too.

budrichard · Nov 17, 2008

Agree with Chan!
There are a lot of Nikon Fm versions around and except that the shutters are not designed for as many cycles as the F series, they are great SLR's. The Nikkor 200mm F4.0 has been around for ages and is a good lens. you should be able to pickup a combo for a reasonable price. I have an FM and the newer Fm3a with AUTO capability. Great cameras. Good luck.-Dick

Andy K · Nov 17, 2008

I would suggest an Olympus OM-1 with OM Zuiko 200mm lens. The camera is as small as an RF camera and just as light.

Chazzy · Nov 17, 2008

My Minolta X-700 is quite light, and as someone has already pointed out, Minolta made a 200mm f4 which is very inexpensive on eBay. Minolta also made an f2.8 version, but it is more rare and more expensive.

Paul Jenkin · Nov 17, 2008

I must agree with Andy K on this one. An Olympus OM1n (or, indeed, an OM2n) with either a 200mm or even an 'independent' manufacturer's 70-210mm zoom would be a great option. In the early 1980's I used nothing other than Olympus gear. Despite being a dedicated Nikonian, I'm considering buying one at the moment as a small, fun camera to have with me when I commute / travel. However, as with any camera of that vintage, check the light seals and the mechanics before buying - and make sure you get a minimum 6 month warranty as part of the deal.

John Koehrer · Nov 17, 2008

My choices would be
1)Leica R6 or 6.2 as the quality and COLOR(transparencies) match should be excellent. Other lens families will have a slightly different color cast.
2)Leicaflex SL as above but a larger IMO clunkier camera.
3)Pentax OR Olympus with slight edge to the Pentax. I like spotmatic & lens quality is good. Layout of the controls is based on the Leica. Olympus with the shutter speed around the lens is going to be a little more difficult to adapt to.

Alexander Ghaffari · Nov 17, 2008

Since we share the same taste in cameras, I can fully recommend a Canon AT-1 with FD lenses. The AT-1 has a match needle light meter, but is otherwise fully manual. It uses a commonly found battery. The quality of the FD lenses compared to their cost is phenomenal. The faster the lens you purchase, the brighter the viewfinder will be. I think that you would be very happy with this SLR; however, remember that, generally, the faster the lens is, the heavier it will be compared to lenses of the same focal length.

mabman · Nov 17, 2008

A word of caution - my primary SLR is pretty small and light - a Pentax ME Super, and I usually use it with primes, but depending on the application I sometimes go for a 70-210 zoom. While useful on occasion, one of my issues with the zoom is that the longer (and can also be heavier) lens changes the balance of the camera, and makes it more challenging to hold steady comfortably, even while bracing the lens in the usual heel-of-hand-on-camera-baseplate posture (yes, using the shutter speed rule of 1/(focal length) does help, but sometimes not enough. A 200mm prime might be more compact than a zoom, but a similar principle applies.

So, if your intention is to use it with 200mm lenses or longer, I would consider going for "comfortable and solid" rather than just focussing on lightness in order to balance the lens appropriately, and ultimately to make it easier to take better pics. Something like a K1000 for k-mount lenses, or if interested in older screwmount lenses, a Spotmatic or Bessaflex might be a better choice.

darinwc · Nov 18, 2008

Everyone is going to have a different answer for you.. here is a roundup from cameras I own or have used.. im no expert though.

Nikon N75 or Canon EOS Rebel TI.. I know im gonna get killed in this forum for reccomending these but here me out.
Last batch of film cameras from the major manufacturers with more features that the base models.. now absolutely dirt cheap.
+Selective AE and AF, +modern matrix metering +Electronically controlled shutter +lenses interchangeable with digital SLR's +VERY VERY light weight. +nice deep rounded grip +bright viewscreens +new/allmost new -some small friggin buttons -very different feel from a metal camera, but be open. -may not be as rugged/reliable as a better model but then it prob wont need a CLA like a 10/20/30 year old manual camera.

If you are looking especially for a 200mm lensand a metal+bright+small camera, try the Canon AE-1program with a canon 200mm f2.8. The 200mm f2.8 is reletively inexpensive (~$100) and the AE-1p has a nice bright 'lasermatte' viewfinder. Make sure to pick up a rubber eyecup, you will be amazed how much the ambient light effects the viewfinder.

Other good buys are the Pentax and Olympus cameras which most models are very compact and have great lenses, though the pro lenses are harder to find than nikon/canon and fetch higher prices. I have a Pentax ME Super, Super Program (luv it), and ME (no shutter control). The Pentax MX is the same size but manual and better shutter dial. The Pentax LX is the top of the line. I cant comment much on olympus other than they are all compact.

Most other brands came out with "small, lightweight" cameras since they really couldnt compete against the pro cameras.

Speaking of 200mm lenses, I have a couple of 200mm f/4 lenses, one for a pentax and one for a minolta (on an XG1).
I find them perfectly adequate to focus indoors, and quite bright outdoors. Both handle very nice and not too heavy. I dont think that there is much need for anything brighter than f/4 considering the extra weight and expense it would bring.

I hope this helps.

Rol_Lei Nut · Nov 18, 2008

Lee L said:
How about a used Leica SL and 180 f:4 Elmar-R, 180 f:3.4 Apo, or 180 f:2.8? The SL is manual, mechanical, and has a big, bright finder. The SL is ridiculously cheap now in the used market here in the US, and the lenses are a bargain as well. Not sure how used Leica reflex prices are in Germany.

The 180 Elmar-R is 100mm long, takes 55mm filters, and weighs 0.57 kilos.

Lee

I'll strongly second the Leicaflex SL suggestion. While it is by no means small and light, it does have the best focussing I've ever seen in any camera, very well-dampened shutter and mirror and a very useful spot meter.

It is definitely my preferred camera for telephoto use (and I've used many).

I also agree with the choice of one of the 180mm lenses.
Each has a slightly different character, so it is up to you to choose between maximum compactness, best sharpness at longer distances or creamiest bokeh... ;-)

Chris

BTW: Used leicaflex SLs in Germany in good user condition generally go for about 200 in shops. Probably less in Fleabay.

Andy K · Nov 18, 2008

A side by side comparison of Cosina R3M with Nokton 40mm and Olympus OM-1n MD with Tamron 70-210mm zoom.

Andy K · Nov 18, 2008

... and OM-1N MD with Tamron 70-210mmzoom compared to Pentax SP1000 with Takumar 200mm tele.

aside from size the other big advantages of the OM-1 are it has mirror lock up, and all controls are around the lens. It is the most intuitive design I have ever used.

Robint · Nov 18, 2008

I would also recommend the Olympus OM 1n. This is what Modern Photography said,

As you may have gathered from all this technical chit-chat, MODERN's editors were mightily impressed by the handling, performance, quietness and above all, refinement that are so much a part of the Olympus OM-1. Like any optical and mechanical design it has its weak points. If you're the type that revels in f/stops and/or shutter speed in the finder, spot-and-average metering, full exposure automation and electronically-controlled shutters, and you couldn't care less if your 35mm SLR is a little on the large or noisy side, perhaps the OM-1 is not your glass of Pilsener. But if, like most of us, you've always longed for a 35mm single-lens reflex about the same size as a Leica M-3 and virtually as quiet and refined, take a good look at the Olympus OM-1, the smallest and surely one of the cleverest SLR's to come down the pike in quite a while. (Modern Photography, April 1973) (www.geocities.com/maitani_fan)
I am at that stage of life where I need reading glasses. With the OM 1n the meter needle is at 6ft, the meter scale at 11ft and the focusing screen, is at 16ft. So I can focus perfectly, only need the glasses to look at film counter etc. Finally an all mechanical camera, the battery only controls the meter. The battery a 1.35v mercury one can be replaced by a 1.4v zinc hearing aid battery with an 'o' spacer or use your hand held meter.

Robint · Nov 18, 2008

Correction! The apparent meter needle viewing distance is 16.5ft. (5.0m) The meter needle marks 11ft. (3.3m) and the apparent viewing distance is 6.6ft. (2.0m). The Modern Photography test for the OM 2 (OM 1) states that with the large discrepancy in the viewing ranges, as the distance increases, this minimises eye refocusing problems and makes easy to see all at once.
For a Leica user all prime Zuiko lenses have the aperture ring in front of the focusing ring. There are 2 200mm lenses an f4 and a f5. The f4 uses 55mm filters, weighs 490g (17.3oz) and is 127mm (5") long. The f5 uses 49mm filters, weighs 370g (13.1oz) and is 105mm (4.1") long.

Nicholas Lindan · Nov 18, 2008

There is no doubt whatsoever - you should use the same camera I am using. Whatever it is that may be.

Lee L · Nov 18, 2008

Nicholas Lindan said:
There is no doubt whatsoever - you should use the same camera I am using. Whatever it is that may be.

Not according to the magazines I read, whatever they are...

I think the I's have it.

Lee

Andy K · Nov 18, 2008

Nicholas Lindan said:
There is no doubt whatsoever - you should use the same camera I am using. Whatever it is that may be.

The OP stated "But sometimes I wish I had a longer focal length than my 90mm Elmarit. I think a light 200mm lens will be enough, and it should be small and light also. I do not need and want an autofocus nor any kind of automatic exposure, just a "Leica with a mirror".

What kind of 35mm reflex camera can you recommend that is light and has a good, bright finder?"

The OM-1 meets those criteria perfectly.

Now, have you something useful to add to the topic?

BobbyR · Nov 18, 2008

I would also consider the Pentax MX.

lens_hacker · Nov 18, 2008

For a small/light SLR comparable in size and weight to the M3, the Nikon FM or FM2 is a reasonable selection. The Nikkor 200mm F4 is a good choice for a small/compact 200mm lens.

BUT: if you just need something longer than the 90 Elmarit, you could also pick up a 135/4.5 Hektor or 135/4 Elmar for the M3. The M3's 135 lines are quite good. My Hektor was $50 at a camera show.

I have a 200mm F4.5 lens Komura in Leica Thread Mount, and it is RF coupled. Close focus is 20ft. You need to use an external finder for accurate framing. More a curiousity than a useful lens. I use the 135 lens with the M3.

fschifano · Nov 18, 2008

While not the smallest and lightest SLR by any means, I can recommend the Nikon F3HP. This camera has, by far, the best viewfinder I have used in any SLR camera save the Leicaflex. It is far better than the viewfinder of the FM, FM2, and similar cameras. It is on par with the excellent viewfinders found on the F4 and F5 cameras without the extra bulk, weight, and automation which you do not want. Couple that to a 200 mm f/4 AI or AIS lens and you have a reasonably compact camera with an excellent lens and viewfinder. I'll add that the F3's are available on the used market for very attractive prices right now. In some cases, they can be had for less than the inferior FM2n. The 200 mm. f/4 lens may cost more than the camera body, but are still quite attractively priced.

Rol_Lei Nut · Nov 18, 2008

I'll follow up with all the camera-lens combinations "I" have, or have used which may fit:

1) Leicaflex SL + 180 f/3.4 - 820 + 760 grammes = 1.6 Kg. Absolute best focussing. Well-dampened shutter & mirror. Extremely good lens.
2) Leica R4 + 180 f/3.4 - 635 + 760 grammes = 1.4 Kg. Better than most focussing (nowhere as good as Lf. SL). Shutter lag compared to Lf. SL. Lens as above.
3) Nikon FM/FE2 + 200 f/4.0 - 572 + 544 = 1.12 Kg. Compact camera, but not as nice to focus as Lf. SL and has noticeably more mirror & shutter slap. Very good lens (AI & AIS versions), one of Nikon's most underrated.
4) Rolleiflex SL35-E/SL35 + Zeiss 200 f/4.0 - 560 + 578= 1.14 kg. Compact cameras, though not super reliable. SL35-E is a nice user, if you find one that works properly. Very good lens, but poor ergonomics. Rolleinar 200 f/3.5 is very good optically (not quite as good as Zeiss), larger but with better ergonomics.
5) Pentax Spotmatic + Pentacon 200 f/4.0 - 600 + 600 = 1.2 kg. Nice camera, especially if you don't need to change the lens often. Lens not quite as good as the others listed and has a rather delicate diaphragm mechanism. (I once briefly had a Pentax 200 f/4.0 and did not like it). Probably the cheapest combination.

I'll leave out the Exakta because of weight and focussing issues...

Good luck!

Lightweight SLR, only for long focal lengths

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency