Smallest reflex system?

LyleB · Feb 4, 2010

How about a Nikon N75 with a 28-80 F3.5/5.6 AF-G lens. Total weight, including batteries 621 grams. 139mm X 91mm x 66mm (body). This is a NICE camera, pretty full-featured.

2F/2F · Feb 4, 2010

Peter de Groot said:
Useless...

Please.....enlighten us further.

MattKing · Feb 4, 2010

Re: the OM10

An OMG (aka OM20) is as light as an OM10, has a built in manual exposure function, and has most of the design "peculiarities" of the OM10 corrected.

I have two of them, and they have been very reliable.

Matt

Peter de Groot · Feb 4, 2010

2F/2F said:
Please.....enlighten us further.

I consider this more like a toy camera then a serious slr camera. The ones that I have seen where not fully manual and of course the negative size has it's serious limitations if you want to make failry big enlargements. Maybe the word useless was a bit strong More then a play around with I didn't do but boy do I want one. Just for fun ;-)

Alex1994 · Feb 4, 2010

I'd recommend an OM series camera, the lenses for it are really spot-on, cheap, pin-sharp fast prime lenses. Get a 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8 and you're sorted.

2F/2F · Feb 4, 2010

Peter de Groot said:
I consider this more like a toy camera then a serious slr camera. The ones that I have seen where not fully manual and of course the negative size has it's serious limitations if you want to make failry big enlargements. Maybe the word useless was a bit strong More then a play around with I didn't do but boy do I want one. Just for fun ;-)

The word useless was entirely misused. If you want to call it useless, list your criteria ("useless for..."), don't just call it useless, period...because it is not...and that is a fact.

paul ewins · Feb 4, 2010

The only thing that makes the auto 110 useless is the film available to it. When it was introduced you could get transparency (Kodachrome!) and monochrome film as well as the consumer stuff. Now the only 110 film left is 200 speed consumer neg film. I have been reloading 16mm tri-x into recycled 100 cartridges and if you start to work with the limitations of the negative size then it really is a nice little camera. I learn to "embrace the grain" and try for minimalist results rather than go all Ansel Adams.

2F/2F · Feb 4, 2010

paul ewins said:
I learn to "embrace the grain"...rather than go all Ansel Adams.

Anyone who doesn't do this before even acquiring the camera in the first place deserves their results.

It can definitely be a "serious" camera...but was never intended to be a "professional" camera, or to be able to match the results of a larger format. Come on now. That is just plain common sense.

FWIW, I use mine often, and love it. I reload with slit 120/220 film, and also use whatever is left of the pre-packaged Fuji 200. One of my favorite things to load it with is Delta 3200. The camera over exposes it, making it even grainier than it already is. If you have one of these cameras, and want GRAIN, this is the way to go.

What I wish existed was a high-quality re loadable cassette that was designed for re-use. I would love to design a metal one. Maybe I will some day, if I get into a school that will let me use the materials shop.

I am also going to look into getting my backup body adjusted to underexpose by a stop, so I can shoot high speed films without overexposing them.

Chan Tran · Feb 4, 2010

If you're looking for a 35mm (full frame not half frame) SLR then the choices are the Olympus OM1,2,3,4, The Pentax ME, MX. I personally would pick the Pentax MX.

darinwc · Feb 4, 2010

The Pentax ME is the smallest SLR I own. Smaller than the Olympus OM*, the Nikon FG, or the Canon anything. It does have the limitation of aperture priority only. But even with a 50mm lens, any slr is not very pocketable.

HOWEVER I find that the size of the camera body not all that relevent to actual use. For one thing, if you are using anything longer than 50mm, or just about any zoom, you are going to have quite a bulge.

(Is that an 80-200mm f2.8 EDIF in your pocket or are you just really happy to see me?)

And the metal bodies of the above mentioned are NOT light. Especially compared to the newer plastic AF cameras. I remember handing over my OM2+50f1.4 to a friend and her saying "wow its soo heavy. This is really a professional camera!" Of course they are much lighter compared to my canon F1n, FTB, or for that matter Mamiya RB.

Sooo.. I would say the Pentax 110 fits the bill as the smallest SLR. The OM* series is probably the best quality small SLR ever. But if you are looking to buy a real camera dont disqualify the slightly larger size SLR's like the Pentax Spotmatic, Nikon FM/FE/FA, Canon A*, and many many more.

if you are looking for a truly pocketable camera, I would advise you to look at the Olympus RC, Cannonet Ql17, Olympus XA, or compact autofocus cameras.

makanakijones · Feb 4, 2010

I have almost ten tiny monolens cameras, but I am looking for a good and small reflex, it is that simple.

Galah · Feb 4, 2010

Peter de Groot said:
I think the smallest system would be the pentax 110. Useless but it is the smallest.

I beg to disagree; not "useless". Maybe defunct, but not useless.

It was a small but complete "system" with several interchangeable lenses and capable of surprisingly sharp prints: a truly "pocketable" SLR.

The tiny (manual) lenses looked like toys, but were quite practical.

darinwc · Feb 5, 2010

makanakijones said:
I have almost ten tiny monolens cameras, but I am looking for a good and small reflex, it is that simple.

We will need a bit more information.

Why are you looking for the smallest SLR?
Do you want to carry it in your pocket?
Do you have small hands?
Are you really looking for the a lightweight camera for hiking?
You mentioned monolens, have you considered a rangefinder with interchangable lenses?

What lenses will you be purchasing with it?
ultrawide/wide/normal/macro/portrait/telephoto/supertelephoto
zooms?

Lenses, flash, tripod, etc can take up a lot of space fast.
Will the size of the whole kit be a consideration?

Peter de Groot · Feb 5, 2010

Galah said:
I beg to disagree; not "useless". Maybe defunct, but not useless.

It was a small but complete "system" with several interchangeable lenses and capable of surprisingly sharp prints: a truly "pocketable" SLR.

The tiny (manual) lenses looked like toys, but were quite practical.

Ok. It is a nice camera and I do want one so i take back the word useless. Mea culpa

redrockcoulee · Feb 5, 2010

The pancake lens with the M series Pentax cameras MX ME Super etc.. 40mm lens is of high prices due to its small size

The lenses for the Pentax 110 may soon be going the way of the good Pentax primes (increased prices) as some people are using adapters to mount them on mini 4/3 system as they offer full coverage. I have not used my 110 for years but do have it actually loaded and two more rolls in the freezer guess I should be more responsible to it

dynachrome · Feb 6, 2010

smallest reflex system

If I want a small and light 35mm SLR with a sharp lens and an easy to find battery I take out a Konica TC-X with the 40/1.8 Hexanon and put in a fresh AAA battery. The shutter is not overly loud. I still sometimes use my Pentax Auto 110. The focusing 18mm wide angle is my favorite lens for it. Getting good processing is more difficult than finding film. Once I used the camera at a Bar-B-Q and someone asked "Does it squirt water?"

The Olympus OM-10 can have the oily magnet problem but it's not the only camera to have this problem. This is easily solved with an overhaul. The OM-10 is very light, has a bright viewfinder and a sensitive meter. With the Manual Adapter everything can be set manually. I would not compare the construction of an OM-10 with that of a Nikon FE2 but if you are not too rough with it, an OM-10 can be a pleasant camera to use.

A Pentax MX or ME Super with a 50/1.7 M lens is a small package. The 40mm lens is not any sharper but slightly smaller and much more expensive. A Minolta X-370 or X-700 with a 50/1.7 MD lens is not very heavy and the cloth shutters are fairly quiet. Even an inexpensive Vivitar V4000S with a 55/1.8 SMC Pentax lens is not too heavy and still quite capable.

goros · Feb 7, 2010

Hola Maka,

As many have pointed out here, it would be an Olympus and, as you want a "spotish" light meter, it must be either the OM3 or OM4 with a true spot meter. The OM3 is very difficult and/or expensive to find in the second hand market. My choose will be a OM4Ti. Also, Zuiko lenses are very compact comparing with Nikkors or Canons.

Nos vemos en el nuevo CUFAE.

Pumal · Feb 7, 2010

Try to get a used Pentax Hand Held Spotmeter and you can use any Olympus.

Rol_Lei Nut · Feb 7, 2010

frdrx said:
Of course. It is true that Contax lenses aren't particularly small, possibly with the exception of the 45 mm Tessar.

The Zeiss 35 & 85mm f/2.8 for Rolleiflex are actually very good and tiny, though I've heard rumours that they aren't identical to the C/Y versions (anyone know more?).
Also the 18mm isn't too big or heavy for its FL (try using Leica R lenses!!!)

I use Zeiss lenses on Rolleflexes as my compact SLR system (however I'm not giving an unreserved reccomendation for the camera bodies).

If you can do without SLR capabilities, rangefinders are acgtually the lightest and most compact (tiny lenses!).

Pumal · Feb 7, 2010

I agree. I use my Yashica 14e IC f/1.4 a lot. ( for street and night)

elekm · Feb 7, 2010

I think the f/2.8 85mm Sonnar for the Rolleiflex SL 35 series is a terrific, underrated lens. Very sharp with great character. And as mentioned, it's compact.

Shaggysk8 · Feb 7, 2010

I have an Ensign Autorange 16-20 not sure how it compares and it does not have any metering, but it is small, almost pocket size

naaldvoerder · Feb 8, 2010

The Contax Aria is very small and has spotmetering

Jaap Jan

frdrx · Feb 8, 2010

Rol_Lei Nut said:
The Zeiss 35 & 85mm f/2.8 for Rolleiflex are actually very good and tiny, though I've heard rumours that they aren't identical to the C/Y versions (anyone know more?).

I have both of these lenses in Contax/Yashica mount (along with the 2.8/28 and 1.4/50, which are similar in size), and although they are relatively small, I think they are far from being the smallest around.

Rol_Lei Nut · Feb 8, 2010

frdrx said:
I have both of these lenses in Contax/Yashica mount (along with the 2.8/28 and 1.4/50, which are similar in size), and although they are relatively small, I think they are far from being the smallest around.

Again, it's very possible that the Rolleiflex & C/Y versions were different schemes and builds. The only SLR 35mm lenses which I've seen similar in size to the Rolleiflex CZ 35mm (L: 51mm W: 61mm) are the Pentax 35mm f/3.5 and the Schneider Curtagon (a "short mount" version).
As far as short teles go, I've seen no automatic diaphragm SLR lens close to the size of the CZ 85mm (L: 49mm W: 62mm).
(Big caveat, I haven't seen many Olympus OM lenses and I've heard that many Pentax M lenses weren't stellar).

Smallest reflex system?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency