Relatively modern small 35mm SLR, manual exposure camera?

[Lee L]

Yes, the R6 Leica SLR!

Also the R6.2, which had a few mods. The only one I can recall off the top of my head was the 1/2000 shutter speed. Both fully mechanical, batteries only for the meter.

Lee

 

[BobbyR]

Also the R6.2, which had a few mods. The only one I can recall off the top of my head was the 1/2000 shutter speed. Both fully mechanical, batteries only for the meter.

Lee

Unless one really needs , or wants the 6.2, get the R6, as it is FAR, FAR less expensive than a 6.2.

I just bought a R6.2 and to get one for under one thousand dollars, usually takes time and patience, but also checking Ebay every day.

I thought I had a good deal on mine (and when it came here damaged I found out seller quality is extremely important, so I DID get a GREAT deal) but shortly after one went up on Ebay for a four figure amount or best offer. The next day it sold for 800 dollars.

 

[fmajor]

If i hadn't gone the way of Minolta (with their superb equipment that is now astoundingly inexpensive and abundant), i'd be looking long and hard at the R6.2 and a limited array of that choice Leica glass.

It seems to fit the criteria in the OP, though i noticed a suitable camera has been acquired.

 

[Allan Swindles]

Olympus OM-1, too big? Too old, maybe for you, but with a new set of light seals you cannot better it. I have one of the original non - MD models, over 30 years old and as good as new, then there's that Zuiko glass.... don't discount it until you've tried it. Just handle one, you won't want to put it down.

 

[Fotogeorge]

If i hadn't gone the way of Minolta (with their superb equipment that is now astoundingly inexpensive and abundant),


My oldest Minolta SLR, that I still use, is the Maxxum 800si. It's in LN condition. At one time it was a good choice for even shooting weddings. Without the verticle grip, it is small, light weight and fits easily in a small bag or my coat pocket, especially with a small prime lens like the Minolta 50mm 1.7, 28mm 2.8, or 20mm 2.8 lenses. The AF is fast and accurate. The large, bright glass pentaprism-viewfinder is a joy to look through. Few DSLRs come close to such a viewfinder. Perhaps only the new Sony A700 comes close to the same quality. I regret that none of my SLRs or DSLRs have an absolutely quiet shutter, like a rangefinder

 

[ic-racer]

Olympus OM-1, too big? Too old, maybe for you, but with a new set of light seals you cannot better it. I have one of the original non - MD models, over 30 years old and as good as new, then there's that Zuiko glass.... don't discount it until you've tried it. Just handle one, you won't want to put it down.

Actually the OM-1 is the the category of "already have." And yes I love it. It's a Non-MD and it was purchased new in 1974.

 

[MattKing]

Actually the OM-1 is the the category of "already have." And yes I love it. It's a Non-MD and it was purchased new in 1974.

I've found my OMG (s) are very good complements to my OM1 (s) - reasonably rugged, but definitely lighter. Unlike OM1s they have a built in flash shoe and use current batteries. Unlike OM10s they come with the manual exposure built in, and most of the bugs fixed. They do require batteries, however, to function.

In some parts of the world they are known as the OM20.

Matt

 

[Andr3w]

I vote for the OM-4 Ti. Uses 1.5 volt batteries, they fixed the battery drain from the OM-4 and it has the best meter ever for slides. I liked the Contax Aria, but it had too much plastic. The film doors are always cracked on those things.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I vote for the OM-4 Ti. Uses 1.5 volt batteries, they fixed the battery drain from the OM-4 and it has the best meter ever for slides.

I'll second that!
• Fond memories of the OM4 Ti 1984-1989.
• Robust and cheap batteries
• Spot/highlight meter is a boon for trannies
• And it fits oh-so-neatly into small hands.
• Thinking of buying one for a collection...
• I happened across this non-Ti specimen on eBay (in USA); not sure the price truly reflects age...?:
• Background info...note juicy bit regarding 2.2° spot meter and 8-spot averaging

 

[Davidw]

Unless one really needs , or wants the 6.2, get the R6, as it is FAR, FAR less expensive than a 6.2.

I just bought a R6.2 and to get one for under one thousand dollars, usually takes time and patience, but also checking Ebay every day.

I thought I had a good deal on mine (and when it came here damaged I found out seller quality is extremely important, so I DID get a GREAT deal) but shortly after one went up on Ebay for a four figure amount or best offer. The next day it sold for 800 dollars.

Isn't the R6 known for electronics problems?

 

[Lee L]

Isn't the R6 known for electronics problems?

Perhaps among people who don't know that it's a mechanical camera or among "internet experts". The only electronic component is the metering system, but without it the camera still works fine. Same with the R6.2.

Lee

 

[ic-racer]

Lee, thanks for showing my your "R" cameras. In some ways that R6 looks like my 'Holy Grail' in that it has the same layout and feel of my defunked and somewhat poorly manufactured Rollei SL35e.

 

[Lee L]

Lee, thanks for showing my your "R" cameras. In some ways that R6 looks like my 'Holy Grail' in that it has the same layout and feel of my defunked and somewhat poorly manufactured Rollei SL35e.

You're welcome. Hope it helped with possible choices. And thanks for showing us your new work. I'd be up for meeting by the steelyard to shoot sometime that's mutually agreeable. John and others might want to come as well.

And Davidw, I want to be clear that I wasn't poking fun at you, but at the quantity of misinformation available from and propagated by self-proclaimed experts on the internet.

Lee

 

[Davidw]

You're welcome. Hope it helped with possible choices. And thanks for showing us your new work. I'd be up for meeting by the steelyard to shoot sometime that's mutually agreeable. John and others might want to come as well.

And Davidw, I want to be clear that I wasn't poking fun at you, but at the quantity of misinformation available from and propagated by self-proclaimed experts on the internet.

Lee

Actually, I may have confused it with the R4 or one of the other models. It came from a book, the title of which I cannot remember right now.

 

[Davidw]

Actually, I may have confused it with the R4 or one of the other models. It came from a book, the title of which I cannot remember right now.

It was McBroom's camera bluebook, and I'm pretty sure I was thinking of the R5 or an earlier model. It also said that the later serial #'s had the electronic bugs worked out.

 

[Zugzwang]

How about a Contax 139Q? Really tiny.

 

[Lee L]

It was McBroom's camera bluebook, and I'm pretty sure I was thinking of the R5 or an earlier model. It also said that the later serial #'s had the electronic bugs worked out.

That would be the early version of the R4, not the R5.

Lee

 

[elekm]

I think the Leica SLR wasn't mentioned because the title of this thread asked about smaller SLRs. That sort of rules out the Leica and definitely the Zeiss Ikon Contarex cameras.

The Kyocera Contax range included some smaller SLRs, including the above mentioned 139Q and I think the S2 and possibly the others.

The Zeiss Ikon/Voigtlander Icarex 35 is a smaller SLR and came with either a bayonet or 42mm thread lens mount. The bayonet is a breech-lock type system. These cameras seem to be well built, have a focal plane shutter, and instant return mirror and CdS metering systems.

The first Zeiss Ikon Contaflex is a small SLR but is a fixed-lens camera and lacks an instant-return mirror. Aside from that, it's an excellent camera.

The Pentax MX, which I've mentioned before, sometimes feels a bit too tiny to me. My main quibble is that the shutter speed dial is too tightly sprung and can't be rotated easily with your index finger.

 

[John Koehrer]

I think the Leica SLR wasn't mentioned because the title of this thread asked about smaller SLRs. That sort of rules out the Leica and definitely the Zeiss Ikon Contarex cameras.

The Leica 6 & 6.2 are relatively small cameras.

 

[dynachrome]

The Vivitar you mentioned is mostly plastic. If you don't mind this kind of lightweight camera then a V4000 or V4000S is also nice. I have four of these. They go for $25 or less on eBay and have very good meters. The Minolta X-700 is a hybrid of metal and plastic construction. It's heavier than a Vivitar V4000S but lighter than a Nikkormat FT3. The X-700 has a very bright finder, interchangeable screens, TTL flash metering, manual/aperture priority/program modes, a depth of field preview button and a PC socket. I have two of these. One has a grid screen and the other a plain matter screen. Without a battery the X-700 is a paperweight but with a battery it's very nice. A Nikkormat FT2 or Canon FTb/FTbN are nice. These both have mirror lock-up but the lock-up feature is easier to use on the Canons. The Canons also have the QL feature.

 

[Ken N]

Olympus OM 3 or 3T. Relatively small, beautiful metering system and can be used in full manual mode. Oh, and there is the spectacular Zuiko glass. Bill Barber

An OM-3Ti just found its way into my camera bag where it joins the OM-2S and OM-4T. I can say with a very straight face that the OM-3Ti is among the world's most beautiful cameras.

Ken Norton

 

[nsurit]

OM 3T - Hmm, Ken what do you want? Just kidding, but it is the only single digit OM I've never owned. Don't bring it to Texas with you. Bill BArber

 

[Ken N]

OM 3T - Hmm, Ken what do you want? Just kidding, but it is the only single digit OM I've never owned. Don't bring it to Texas with you. Bill BArber

Bill, if I fail to live up to the expectations required of the possessor of such an instrument, please feel free to relieve me of it.

Hmm. When are those wildflowers in bloom?

Ken