Recommendations for a small, light, inexpensive 35mm camera w/ a 50 lens

Alan Gales · Aug 27, 2015

fotch said:
Personally, I don't trust the Nikon EM or FG. The few I have had or friends had failed. The Nikon FE or FM or solid performers. JMHO

I used to sell them brand new back in the day. I always thought the film advance levers felt cheap on them. They were entry level cameras and not of the same build quality of the FE and FM series.

Bobkins · Aug 28, 2015

I always liked Olympus cameras and lenses for digital cameras because of small size.
I 'd suggest OM1 or OM2 (didn't own).
Also had OM10 but OM1 like more -it feels great, sounds better, solid, classic, and cheap..

Liked Yashica Electro - I think it 45mm lens, fast -great camera

PinRegistered · Aug 28, 2015

4season said:
Great size comparison!

Anyone know how the aforementioned Contaflex would compare? I am intrigued but cannot seem to find actual dimensions or weight.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

darkosaric · Aug 28, 2015

I never had problems with nikon FG and FG-20, but FE failed after 2-3 months. That does not mean that any of those cameras are bad - you just need to be lucky to get camera that is not beaten to death in last couple of decades. All those nikon cameras are old and you just need to be lucky. If you want to play safe --> FM3A is the way to go.

gone · Aug 28, 2015

I love Retinas, especially the Ia models because of their simplicity, really good IQ and small size. Owned one that worked perfectly, and probably should never have sold it, but we've all been there. So a Ia might work fine.

My FG has been very reliable over the years. I bought it w/ a broken film advance arm, and figured out how to repair it by using a donor camera's arm. The donor may have even been an EM, I don't remember. The crank arms weren't quite interchangeable, but I got around that by replacing the shutter button from the donor camera along w/ the arm.

Sometimes the simplest solution is the way to go. Since the FG is already here, I looked at my H 50 lens, and the front element is so deeply recessed that a hood isn't necessary unless you screw a filter onto the end. So I'm going to measure the circumference of the interior of the lens housing just in front of the front element, buy a cheap yellow filter of roughly that size, and hold it in w/ some removable silicone type adhesive tacked to the edges. If I do that then a hood isn't necessary, and I should end up w/ a lens/filter/hood-no hood that is the same physical size as a Series E 50 lens w/ a filter and hood. A yellow filter is the one I use nearly all of the time, and if another type of filter is needed at some later date, yes, it will be a small PITA to get it out and glue another one in, but that's a rare occasion.

Took the FG out yesterday on a trial, and the camera must be light enough for my purposes because when I got home at the end of the day and pulled off my soaked T-shirt (Florida summers), it was a surprise to see that the camera had to be taken off first. I had forgotten that it was there.

Vitoret · Aug 28, 2015

on the rangefinder side i really recommend the Voigtlander Vitoret Dr.. got mine for 13 euros in great conditions but i see it going online for 40 euros or so..
it's a joy to use, a well built camera with super quality lens for the price
It has a built in selenium lightmeter and a bright viewfinder. It feels solid and well balanced and is so good for street photography with his quiet shutter.

Ah i almost forgot that it's SO gorgeous!

I think it's a bit underrated as a camera and there's not much resource online or user experience about it

one pic from my beloved Vitoret

theart · Aug 29, 2015

Bobkins said:
I 'd suggest OM1 or OM2 (didn't own).
Also had OM10 but OM1 like more...

The OM10 can be great if you find one in good shape and it has the manual adapter. But a decent OM1 or OM2 isn't that much more expensive.

ME Super · Aug 29, 2015

momus said:
If I remember correctly, my Pentax ME Super w/ a 50 was small and pretty light (great viewfinder), but the shutter speed adjustment was far too cumbersome. For all intents and purposes it didn't have that feature, it was that slow to use, and it has no AE lock.The ME also has no AE lock and no way to compensate for tricky metering, like the EM. Leaving that out on a camera that had no manual override was a huge mistake in my opinion.

The ME Super has an exposure compensation dial around the rewind crank that adjusted +/- 2 stops in full stop increments, IIRC. You could get exposure compensation in 1/3 stop increments by changing the ISO dial (which is the same control as the exposure compensation dial except you pull up on the knob to set the ISO). It also has aperture priority auto exposure, but not shutter priority. I learned to work around not having shutter priority mode by using the aperture priority mode, then changing the aperture until I got the shutter speed I wanted. Being able to see the shutter speed the camera selected in the viewfinder was a huge deal for me once I got the camera (you don't get this with the likes of the K1000). I think the only time I actually used the buttons to change the shutter speed was if I was running full manual (which I hardly ever did).

Sadly I no longer have my ME Super. I wish I did. It was a great little camera.

Brett Rogers · Aug 29, 2015

4season said:
Great size comparison!

Anyone know how the aforementioned Contaflex would compare? I am intrigued but cannot seem to find actual dimensions or weight.

Their main advantage in the context of dimensions, is how Zeiss managed to keep the protrusion of the 45mm Tessar from the body so minimal. Unlike some lens shutter SLRs, the first two major types (the original, or, Contaflex I, as it is usually referred to, and the Contaflex II—essentially a I with uncoupled selenium meter) are fitted with a between the lens shutter, rather than a behind the lens shutter such as most of the Retina Reflexes and all of the Voigtländers such as the Bessamatics and Ultramatics had. But it is probably the use of front cell focus that kept the lens protrusion so modest in the case of the first two. Models from the III onwards stayed with a between the lens shutter but have a unit focus (and 50mm) Tessar and these have a totally different form factor. They have their own virtues, but are nowhere near as compact. They are really a completely different camera to the first two models, and had many of their own changes along the way, from the Contaflex III to S.

A Contaflex is not an SLR for every person. The knob wind (models I to IV) and lack of an instant return mirror can Eg. make shooting fast moving subjects challenging (though it can be done, of course). It's a camera for a more considered approach to imaging. On the plus side, f/2.8 lens notwithstanding, the viewfinders are extremely bright, the shutters sync electronic flash to 1/500, you never have to worry about winding the camera on immediately on even the sunniest of days, as might be the case with, say, an Exakta or Contax SLR, or many FP rangefinders. And the self timer also pre-releases the mirror and capping plate. Do this, and no 35mm SLR has a smoother shutter (well, except, possibly, a Bessamatic). I tend to use my Super BC or Rapid most of the time (I have around thirty on hand including all the Tessars, so know my way around them a bit), because I can swap film magazines and fit the wide and tele lenses. But the early type is a delight, possibly the prettiest of all Contaflexes, and a delight to use. And there are not too many true SLRs made of real metal one can literally fit into one's front jeans pocket, if desired.

The above post pertains entirely to the various Contaflexes with Tessar lenses. There were also Alpha, Beta and Prima models with three element Pantar lenses (made for Zeiss by Rodenstock, I believe) with Reflex Prontor shutters instead of the ultra-reliable reflex Synchro Compurs used in all the Tessar models. The Pantar models are usually little cheaper, making for little incentive to acquire one when all the Tessar models have such excellent optics.
Cheers
Brett

MattKing · Aug 29, 2015

theart said:
The OM10 can be great if you find one in good shape and it has the manual adapter. But a decent OM1 or OM2 isn't that much more expensive.

The OM20 (OMG) is a great upgrade from the OM10. The manual option is built in, most of the design peculiarities of the OM10 have been dealt with, it is just as light as the OM10 and it uses modern batteries (unlike the OM1).

Les Sarile · Aug 29, 2015

ME Super said:
Sadly I no longer have my ME Super. I wish I did. It was a great little camera.

That really is sad considering your forum's name. But it can be easily remedied!

gone · Aug 30, 2015

Ah, so much for first impressions. The wife and I bused to Ormond by The Sea yesterday, a relatively unspoiled, small community up the coast line from where we live, and on such an all day outing it was aggravating dealing w/ the weight, not size, of the FG with H 50 lens. Having to shift it around on my body so often over the course of the day was a PITA. Back to the hunt, but w/ a different twist.

It has to be LIGHT, and if I am after good IQ, exposure control, etc, I am going to get what I have always got. Namely. sucked right back into the "pro" photography rather than moving in the new/old direction.

After looking at an old Imperial Mark III bakelite camera in a thrift store, it struck me that this is the weight that should work. The Mark III is basically a Kodak Brownie clone that takes some sort of MF film, 616 or something, but it seems they can be readily converted to 120 and you can get 16 shots on them. Even 12 negs w/ 120 is fine w/ me. The build quality on something like that is better than a Holga or Diana (what isn't?) and Brownie camera are capable of good photos. So now, w/ the world of old 35mm and MF cameras available which are available that can shoot, or be made to shoot, 120 film, I have a huge selection of even cheaper cameras that look should work better for my purposes. The cost savings can go toward film or what not. A win-win sort of thing. First, I'll go through all these helpful suggestions again though.

The tiny Rollei 35, Konica 35 and its clones, etc, are perfect except for their wider lenses, and some of the other ideas here might work if I unattach myself from the 50 lens idea.

Chan Tran · Aug 30, 2015

momus said:
Ah, so much for first impressions. The wife and I bused over to Ormond by The Sea yesterday, a relatively unspoiled small community up the coast line from where we live, and on such an all day outing it was pretty aggravating dealing w/ the weight, not size, of the FG with H 50 lens. Having to shift it around on my body so often over the course of the day was a PITA. Back to the hunt, but w/ a different twist.

It has to be LIGHT, and if I am after good IQ, exposure control, etc, I am going to get what I have always got. Namely. sucked right back into the photography, rather than moving in the new/old direction.

After looking at an old Imperial Mark III bakelite camera in a thrift store, it struck me that "this is the weight that should work". The Mark III is basically a Kodak Brownie clone that takes some sort of MF film, 616 or something, but it seems they can be readily converted to 120 and you can get 16 shots on them. Even 12 negs w/ 120 is fine w/ me. The build quality on something like that is better than a Holga or Diana (what isn't?) and Brownie camera are capable of good photos. So now, w/ the world of old 35mm and MF cameras available which are available that can shoot, or be made to shoot, 120 film, I have a huge selection of even cheaper cameras that look like what I'm after. The cost savings can go toward film or what not. A win-win sort of thing.

Film is so expensive today and film cameras so cheap so I would use the very best camera when shooting film.

4season · Aug 30, 2015

Thank you for the Contaflex info PinRegistered & Brett Rogers! Perhaps I'll pick up a I or II at some point. Am kind of intrigued by the close-focusing capabilities

LarryP · Aug 30, 2015

well if medium format is in play one of the old voightlander folders might work. I enjoy taking my perkeo 1 out on occasion. very small folded literally shirt pocket pants pocket small much lighter than a spotmatic k1000 and even with the novar sharp enough stopped down to f 8 or 11.

4season · Aug 30, 2015

40/2.8 is what I call a "Happy Compromise": You can get a very small but sharp lens, and it can be used in place of both a moderate wide-angle and normal lens. Most are probably 4-element Tessar-types.

Momus, You do realize that many supposedly auto-only cameras can be effectively overridden, right? As long as the camera has an accessible ASA/DIN/GOST/ISO control, you can use that to dial in exposure correction. Ideally, you'd pick a film that's at least one or two stops faster than the slowest that the camera's meter can recognize, then those lower settings can then be used to produce +1 and +2 EV exposures. You can also do -EV in the same way.

filmamigo · Sep 1, 2015

An FG is only 490 grams. Not sure how big/heavy that lens is though. It will be tough to get much lighter than the FG and not be a "toy" like your EM. Even a Voigtlander Bessa R3M is only a few grams less.

If the lens is the major contributor to weight/awkwardness, what about a Pentax MX + the M 40mm f/2.8 pancake? Or the M 50 f/1.7. Both very light.

Brett Rogers · Sep 2, 2015

LarryP said:
well if medium format is in play one of the old voightlander folders might work. I enjoy taking my perkeo 1 out on occasion. very small folded literally shirt pocket pants pocket small much lighter than a spotmatic k1000 and even with the novar sharp enough stopped down to f 8 or 11.

There is no "h" in Voigtländer.

gone · Sep 3, 2015

I always put that H in Voigtlander too. In America, it just feels like it should be there, but I am no English professor (thank god for small, or large, favors).

Finally came to my senses and slid away from everything mentioned, especially by me, and bought a $30 Konica C35 rangefinder. It's 38mm lens is too wide, but those cameras are cheap and very light, and the Hexanon is the real deal. In the end, it came down to weight more than size. I would love a 50 lens or even longer, but you can't have everything

Film ain't expensive, it's dirt cheap. Freestyle has Arista EDU 100 in 36 exposures for $3.60, which is a film that I like very much. That's 10 cents a shot. Hard to get cheaper than that.

LarryP · Sep 3, 2015

Brett you are right. My head hangs in shame I should have caught my misspelling especially since I was handling it a little before that post.

darkosaric · Sep 3, 2015

momus said:
I always put that H in Voigtlander too. In America, it just feels like it should be there, but I am no English professor (thank god for small, or large, favors).

Voigtländer is last name, so it should be unchanged. In my case "Amerikans" almost always writing my name as Darco (even when I sign myself in email as Darko) - so I get used to it.

LarryP · Sep 3, 2015

I'll take Amerikan but I draw the line at Yankee

Brett Rogers · Sep 4, 2015

LarryP said:
Brett you are right. My head hangs in shame I should have caught my misspelling especially since I was handling it a little before that post.

Nonsense, no shame is deserved or needed. But from my observations online I'm inclined to think that a lot of people, (particularly Americans, is it the Jon Voight, factor?) are simply not aware that there's no "h" in it. Of course it does lead to the occasional ebay bargain when an item has been incorrectly input in the listing details.
Cheers,
Brett

bruniroquai · Sep 4, 2015

OM2 paired with 50/1.8

Recommendations for a small, light, inexpensive 35mm camera w/ a 50 lens

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency