Smallest 35mm or 110 camera with ultra wide lens?

[Don_ih]

Fuji Silvi 24mm. It's a bit bigger than an Olympus mju ii but can focus very close. I don't think there's a better, wider, more compact camera.

The Lomo Fisheye is terrible.

 

[Cholentpot]

The Ricoh Auto Half is pretty wide. Fuji made a full-frame 35mm with a 24mm lens (Silvi), I think I saw (or maybe dreamed) a full-frame p&s camera with a 21mm lens but can't remember the name. Not sure how wide the Olympus Pen interchangeable lenses are.

I have an Auto 110. It's too much of a pain to deal with 16mm negatives.

If you don't want it I'll take it...

I've gone to 24mm on 16mm film. But it was rolled through a 35mm camera. I got some really nice pano's though.

 

[Paul Howell]

Forgot the Pentax PZ3, under 400 grames, but limite number of autofocus lens, a 28 for sure, maybe a 24, lots of zooms, I use a 28 to 90 on my Pentax K2000 digital body, light weight, good for travel, but slow, 3.5 to 5.6.

 

[Paul Howell]

For got the lowly ZX-M, 320g, built on the ZX3 body, manual focus, was the replacement for the K1000. Will work in manual meter mode with K and M42 lens, all modes with KA lens, AF lens can used in manual focus mode. No bracketing or M/E has a built in winder.

 

[benveniste]

By any reasonable definition of "ultra wide," the smallest I combo I can think of is the Minolta CLE and a Voigtländer 21mm f/4. Good luck trying to get the composition, right, though. For about another 60 grams, you can switch to something like a Nikon N/F75 and a Voigtländer 20mm f/3.5 II, which makes for a nice, light combination with metering and focus confirmation.

 

[bluechromis]

Canon Rebel at 365 grams, not including a lens, second the is the Minolta 3Xi at 420g, will take all A mount lens, 20. 24, and 28mm along with a couple of fish eyes.

Yes, the Rebel is surprisingly light and relatively compact compared to autofocus SLR's. In addition to EF lenses, with adapters, it can also use lenses from other mount systems such as M42 and Nikon. They are also affordable, so could be tried without a lot of financial risk.

 

[Huss]

If you don't want it I'll take it...

No kidding, I'll take it but a buddy is already giving me his.
No hassle at all dealing with 110 (16mm) images. Cut them into strips of 6, use a Lomo Digitiliza film holder to copy them.

 

[Cholentpot]

No kidding, I'll take it but a buddy is already giving me his.
No hassle at all dealing with 110 (16mm) images. Cut them into strips of 6, use a Lomo Digitiliza film holder to copy them.

16mm is easier to scan than 35 for me.

You can never have too many Auto 110's.

 

[Les Sarile]

Slightly astray from the original question, what about lightest 35mm's that can accommodate/have an ultra wide lens? Lighter than 400g?

The MX itself weighs 499g without the lens so this combo is well past your weight consideration but I doubt there is an equivalent or smaller full fisheye combination smaller . . .

MX_MX lenses by Les DMess, on Flickr

Compared to the Olympus Pen FT that weighs 476g but only produces s half frame of 35mm, the MX is very similarly sized and offers a much much larger and brighter viewfinder . . .

Smallest 3 by Les DMess, on Flickr

As distressed looking externally as my sample looks, it produces very sharp results too as can be seen in this Kodak Portra 400 shot . . .

Kodak Portra 400-11-26 by Les DMess, on Flickr

 

[Don_ih]

If you don't want it I'll take it...

No kidding, I'll take it but a buddy is already giving me his.

16mm is easier to scan than 35 for me.

I'm talking about enlarging. I wouldn't bother to use film if I didn't enlarge it. Dust is 4 times as problematic in a 110 negative, compared to a 135 negative. Basically, I would use it except there's never any situation where it's a better choice than a small rangefinder or a regular 35mm slr. Maybe if I run out of 35mm film, I'll use up the 200 feet of Orwo 16mm I have. (It would also help if you could buy decent 16mm film without sprocket holes.)

 

[Don_ih]

The MX itself weighs 499g without the lens so this combo is well past your weight consideration but I doubt there is an equivalent or smaller full fisheye combination smaller . . .

MX_MX lenses by Les DMess, on Flickr

Compared to the Olympus Pen FT that weighs 476g but only produces s half frame of 35mm, the MX is very similarly sized and offers a much much larger and brighter viewfinder . . .

Smallest 3 by Les DMess, on Flickr

As distressed looking externally as my sample looks, it produces very sharp results too as can be seen in this Kodak Portra 400 shot . . .

Kodak Portra 400-11-26 by Les DMess, on Flickr

I heard from an old photojournalist once that people would scratch out manufacturer names and "made in" labels to get cameras and lenses out of the place where they bought them - to avoid duty - and also to avoid confiscation of goods not labelled for export. Looks likely for that lens.

 

[jsmoove]

@Les Sarile The MX's look really nice. I wish the Minolta Hi Matics had wide angles, some of them are really light.
@Chan Tran Weight and size really....just after a camera that isn't a chonker, that is light for travel, has something like a 17mm. The Pen F mentioned here already also seems like an idea, half frame doesn't bother me. Sounds intriguing.
110 in this case doesn't seem to make sense for ultra wide.

Thanks all for the suggestions

 

[Alan Johnson]

I have a Fuji Silvi which is sometimes used for travel with its 24-50 zoom. It's my second one, I dropped the first one but liked it so much I bought another.
Otherwise there are Voigtlander ultrawide lenses like the 15mm Heliar that could be combined with more usual focal length lenses.
The lightest body for these would be a Bessa L. But this would be a much bigger outfit giving extra quality.

 

[Les Sarile]

I heard from an old photojournalist once that people would scratch out manufacturer names and "made in" labels to get cameras and lenses out of the place where they bought them - to avoid duty - and also to avoid confiscation of goods not labelled for export. Looks likely for that lens.

Read that in a 60's Pop Photo mag before too so seems likely what mine went through.

 

[Les Sarile]

@Les Sarile The MX's look really nice. I wish the Minolta Hi Matics had wide angles, some of them are really light.

I have the Hi Matic 9 which is excellent but it is huge compared to the MX and not light either. Any of these cameras before mid 80's will not be light!

 

[Chan Tran]

@Les Sarile The MX's look really nice. I wish the Minolta Hi Matics had wide angles, some of them are really light.
@Chan Tran Weight and size really....just after a camera that isn't a chonker, that is light for travel, has something like a 17mm. The Pen F mentioned here already also seems like an idea, half frame doesn't bother me. Sounds intriguing.
110 in this case doesn't seem to make sense for ultra wide.

Thanks all for the suggestions

What lens on the half frame? I don't think you can get very wide angle lens for the half frame. I don't think you can get more than 74 degree angle of view going for smaller format than 35mm and you get that with a 28mm on a 35m camera.
I see that the widest lens available for the Pen F is 20mm which has 73 degree angle of view and in this c ase the Nikon 28TI is slightly wider and smaller.

 

[4season]

Too bad about the no-Lomo, no-electronics criteria, because the Lomo LC-Wide has a 17mm lens and is practically focus-free.

 

[jsmoove]

@Les Sarile Apparently the Hi-Matic F is 360g w/o battery ? 38mm though.
I also came across the Konica TC-X, 375g, there is a 28mm for it.
I'm on the lower end budget for this one (<$200)
I have a Nikkormat with an adaptall 17mm, it takes great shots, but it sure is a chonker

 

[Chan Tran]

I would be happy with the Pentax MX and the Pentax SMC 18mm f/3.5 K mount. It's a true ultra wide angle lens. Not too big in my opinion. Back in the late 70's (around 79) I used a Pentax MX and the 17mm f/4 it's more compact but it's a fish eye.

 

[Les Sarile]

I have a Nikkormat with an adaptall 17mm, it takes great shots, but it sure is a chonker

I also have a Nikkormat FT3 and it weighs 747g without a lens.
Since you already have that with the 17mm, what's keeping this from being the go to? Is it the weight, the size or both?

 

[jsmoove]

@Les Sarile Oh the camera is for my partner, she has been using the Nikkormat too, likes the wide angle lens I have with it. Doesn't like how heavy it is though, she wants something a bit more compact. I was curious to know what was out there
@Chan Tran The MX does sound pretty good to me too

 

[Huss]

A tiny 35mm P&S with an excellent 28mm lens is the Nikon LiteTouch 600 AF.

 

[millardmt]

I was checking out the Pentax Auto 110, which has its 18 mm f/2.8.
Are there other similar small cameras that have this type of combo?
Doesn't have to be interchangeable, not lomo-brand lomography.

Ricoh GR-21 (Autofocus 35mm with 21mm fixed lens)
https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Ricoh_GR21

 

[wjlapier]

A few of my smaller 35mm cameras with the limited edition x100. The Fujifilm Mini Tiara is 28mm.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Wasn't there a 21mm lens on the Vivitar Ultra Wide and Slim? Fixed everything, but man was it wide...

Okay, I see it was 22mm. Still pretty wide, and very small, light camera, too.