what are the most compact SLR's

[puketronic]

Thanks for the many suggestions, so far.

This is my short-list.

-Olympus OM-1n + 40mm f2.0 or 50mm f1.8
-Pentax MX + 40mm f2.8
-Nikon FM + 45mm f2.8

Mechanical Shutter is my preference, it is not a deal breaker. There are quite a few small mechanical cameras, so I wouldn't really need to go with an electronic shuttered camera. Or so it seems.

The PEN sound sweet, but full-frame is even sweeter.
Contax sounds cool too, but it is more expensive than the above aforementioned cameras..asides from the lens quality (maybe).

I'd go Pentax MX + 40/2.8 if I am absolutely OK with a 40mm lens. This settup seems not too expensive and very well-rounded. The OM -1 also sounds excellent too but the 40/2.0 is much more expensive than the Pentax 40/2.8 and I don't need extra speed. The 50mm f1.8 is appealing because it is dirt cheap, and small. The Nikon FM + 45/2.8 sounds comparable in size, maybe a tad bulkier (I'm guessing), but that 45mm focal length is a plus for me.

After writing this reply, I am leaning towards Nikon. How is the 45mm? I assume that the FM + 45mm f2.8 is not too much larger than the other combinations and I also assume that it is not much more expensive. Are these assumptions correct?

I think that the size differences won't be substantial, but are all of these lenses decent? I don't need to have the absolute best lens.

 

[fretlessdavis]

Thanks to the many suggestions, so far.

I think that this is my short-list.

-Olympus OM-1n + 40mm f2.0 or 50mm f1.8
-Pentax MX + 40mm f2.8
-Nikon FM + 45mm f2.8

Mechanical Shutter is my preference, it is not a deal breaker. There are quite a few small mechanical cameras anyways...

The PEN sound sweet, but full-frame is even sweeter. Contax sounds cool too but it is more expensive than the above cameras and maybe it holds no advantage.

I'd go Pentax MX + 40/2.8 if I am absolutely OK with a 40mm lens. This settup seems not too expensive and very well-rounded. The OM -1 also sounds excellent too but the 40/2.0 is much more expensive than the Pentax 40/2.8 and I don't need extra speed. The 50mm f1.8 is appealing because it is dirt cheap. The Nikon FM + 45/2.8 sounds comparable in size, maybe a tad bulkier (I'm guessing), but that 45mm focal length is a plus for me.

After writing this reply, I am leaning towards Nikon. How is the 45mm? I assume that the FM + 45mm f2.8 is not too much larger than the above aforementioned cameras, or too much more expensive either? What is the size of this settup with the Olympus OM1-n + 50mm f1.8 (or another comparable settup?)

Well, I think that the size differences won't be substantial but are all of these lenses good? I don't have to have the absolute best lenses, in terms of image quality.

Don't forget to research that Chinon 45mm pancake for Pentax K before discounting the MX!

 

[blockend]

Anyone wanting to embrace auto focus technology should look at the Canon 3000 series compact SLRs. With Canon's 2.8 40mm pancake, it makes a coat pocket size AF, multi-mode point and shoot with modern lens technology. Having searched for the ideal carry round film camera, but been thwarted by some aspect of performance, the Canon 3000 makes an unlikely candidate, but ticks most of the boxes. It's not quite as small as mechanical cameras like the MX and OM1, but it's very light, easier to hold and cheap. I bought a mint body and a new lens for around £100.

 

[Xmas]

the later Nikon 5cm series E or pancake AIs are more
compact

 

[Mark Fisher]

OM 1 or 2 with the 35mm f2.8 is compact and inexpensive. The 35 is considerably shorter than the 50,

 

[Oren Grad]

This is my short-list.

-Olympus OM-1n + 40mm f2.0 or 50mm f1.8
-Pentax MX + 40mm f2.8
-Nikon FM + 45mm f2.8

...

After writing this reply, I am leaning towards Nikon. How is the 45mm? I assume that the FM + 45mm f2.8 is not too much larger than the other combinations and I also assume that it is not much more expensive. Are these assumptions correct?

"Not too much larger" is a subjective call. I have all three of these cameras. The FM is the largest, the MX smallest. For my taste, the FM looks and feels a lot larger than the MX. The difference in feel and visual impression is mostly because the FM body is substantially taller. YMMV - because this is so subjective, you really need to try for yourself. Differences that seem substantial to me might be unimportant to you.

If you would consider the 50/1.8 Zuiko to go with an OM-1, then you should certainly look at the 50/1.7 SMC Pentax-M to go with an MX. It's very small for a fast 50, far easier to focus than the 40/2.8, optically superior, and usually substantially cheaper to boot.

If size overrides all else - say, if you want to stuff the camera in your coat pocket - the MX/40 combination is the way to go.

 

[Oren Grad]

Anyone wanting to embrace auto focus technology should look at the Canon 3000 series compact SLRs. With Canon's 2.8 40mm pancake, it makes a coat pocket size AF, multi-mode point and shoot with modern lens technology. Having searched for the ideal carry round film camera, but been thwarted by some aspect of performance, the Canon 3000 makes an unlikely candidate, but ticks most of the boxes. It's not quite as small as mechanical cameras like the MX and OM1, but it's very light, easier to hold and cheap. I bought a mint body and a new lens for around £100.

The EF 40/2.8 STM is a really fine lens, very small, and super value at the price. The combination of that lens and one of the smaller Rebel/Kiss class film bodies with the quiet film advance is very sweet if you want a compact, unobtrusive AE/AF SLR. But if one prefers manual focus it's a recipe for ongoing aggravation.

 

[frank]

If you can carry a spare button cell, then the Nikon FG with series E 50f1.8 is a compact and capable and inexpensive option.

 

[blockend]

The EF 40/2.8 STM is a really fine lens, very small, and super value at the price. The combination of that lens and one of the smaller Rebel/Kiss class film bodies with the quiet film advance is very sweet if you want a compact, unobtrusive AE/AF SLR. But if one prefers manual focus it's a recipe for ongoing aggravation.

That's true. Sometimes I prefer manual lenses and shooting at hyperfocal distance, other times AF comes in handy. The 40mm 2.8 focuses pretty well on manual, but it's fly by wire electronic and can go to sleep if left awhile. Easily woken by a jab on the shutter button, but I shoot on autofocus. Think of the combo as a really nice plastic point and shoot with optical viewfinder, and it makes sense. Compare it to a manual SLR and you may be disappointed. IQ on the pancake is excellent.

 

[frank]

What is this autofocus you speak about?

 

[puketronic]

"Not too much larger" is a subjective call. I have all three of these cameras. The FM is the largest, the MX smallest. For my taste, the FM looks and feels a lot larger than the MX. The difference in feel and visual impression is mostly because the FM body is substantially taller. YMMV - because this is so subjective, you really need to try for yourself. Differences that seem substantial to me might be unimportant to you.

If you would consider the 50/1.8 Zuiko to go with an OM-1, then you should certainly look at the 50/1.7 SMC Pentax-M to go with an MX. It's very small for a fast 50, far easier to focus than the 40/2.8, optically superior, and usually substantially cheaper to boot.

If size overrides all else - say, if you want to stuff the camera in your coat pocket - the MX/40 combination is the way to go.

Thanks. I haven't looked at any measurements yet, or too many visual aids, but the FM not being much larger was just my thinking. I'm not going to worry about a 1mm difference, but a few mm's might bother me.

I also realized that you cannot change the screens for the FM but I believe you can for the MX and I know you can for the OM's and so I think that I am leaning towards one of those now.

Questions:

I know this is maybe subjective but,

Is the MX and OM with their respective compact lenses (40mm f2.0 & 50mm f1.8 for Olympus and 40mm f2.8 & 50mm f1.7 for Pentax) in the same league in terms of size? More precisely: MX + 40mm vs OM + 40mm and MX + 50mm vs OM + 50mm. Both cameras/lenses seem very suitable, in terms of size. From the picture provided by Les Sarile, it seems so, but those are f1.4 lenses.

Focus and viewfinder is important to me too.

Is it practical to focus with any of these combinations with an all-matte screen? I don't like focus-aids which is one reason why I tend to not use 35mm SLR's.

 

[blockend]

Using an all matte screen, wide aperture lenses are useful, some would say necessary. Big apertures almost always come with physically larger lenses, which goes against the general theme.
If you want a pocket SLR camera, lens size may be more important than body dimensions. If it's going to hang round your neck, a few mill' in size either way won't matter. Some late AF SLRs, especially entry level models, were larger but lighter than manual era cameras if weight is your criterion.

 

[Xmas]

Thanks. I haven't looked at any measurements yet, or too many visual aids, but the FM not being much larger was just my thinking. I'm not going to worry about a 1mm difference, but a few mm's might bother me.

I also realized that you cannot change the screens for the FM but I believe you can for the MX and I know you can for the OM's and so I think that I am leaning towards one of those now.

Questions:

I know this is maybe subjective but,

Is the MX and OM with their respective compact lenses (40mm f2.0 & 50mm f1.8 for Olympus and 40mm f2.8 & 50mm f1.7 for Pentax) in the same league in terms of size? More precisely: MX + 40mm vs OM + 40mm and MX + 50mm vs OM + 50mm. Both cameras/lenses seem very suitable, in terms of size. From the picture provided by Les Sarile, it seems so, but those are f1.4 lenses.

Focus and viewfinder is important to me too.

Is it practical to focus with any of these combinations with an all-matte screen? I don't like focus-aids which is one reason why I tend to not use 35mm SLR's.

Yes it is easy to focus with the plain OM1 screens but you will need to eBay for one as few people bought them the grid (10 from memory) dearer than the ungrid (4).

Id worry more about ergonomics than size btw.

 

[Oren Grad]

Thanks. I haven't looked at any measurements yet, or too many visual aids, but the FM not being much larger was just my thinking. I'm not going to worry about a 1mm difference, but a few mm's might bother me.

It's way more than a 1 mm difference.

I also realized that you cannot change the screens for the FM but I believe you can for the MX and I know you can for the OM's and so I think that I am leaning towards one of those now.

Both the MX and the OM-single digit cameras have a wide range of focusing screens available. The MX can use the screens for the Pentax LX, too.

Questions:

I know this is maybe subjective but,

Is the MX and OM with their respective compact lenses (40mm f2.0 & 50mm f1.8 for Olympus and 40mm f2.8 & 50mm f1.7 for Pentax) in the same league in terms of size? More precisely: MX + 40mm vs OM + 40mm and MX + 50mm vs OM + 50mm. Both cameras/lenses seem very suitable, in terms of size. From the picture provided by Les Sarile, it seems so, but those are f1.4 lenses.

Very close. If you're shaving it to the millimeter I think the MX has the edge, but overall they're comparable and it certainly makes sense to consider both. The 40/2.8 SMCP-M is easily the smallest of the lenses, so that will obviously skew the comparison for the complete package of camera plus lens.

Focus and viewfinder is important to me too.

Is it practical to focus with any of these combinations with an all-matte screen? I don't like focus-aids which is one reason why I tend to not use 35mm SLR's.

I'm afraid I don't have enough experience with the OM screens to provide much comparative help here, and so much depends on your eyesight. You may need to try various screens for yourself to see which gives the best manual focusing acuity for you. Sometimes an eyepiece diopter correction lens can help. FWIW, Beattie Intenscreens are also available as a third-party option for both Pentax and Olympus, but they are very expensive.

Re the viewfinder, note that the MX shows both aperture and shutter speed along with metering LEDs, while the OM-1 has meter needle only.

The other main difference between the MX and the OM-1 is that the control layout is very different. The MX has its shutter speed dial in the usual place on the top deck, and the Pentax lenses have aperture rings close to the body and focus rings further out. The OM-1 shutter speed dial is a thin ring around the lens mount, and on the compact OM Zuiko primes the aperture ring is out at the end of the lens barrel, beyond the focusing ring.

 

[Les Sarile]

Size lineup - front and side views, with dimensions and weights with attached lens.

The MX with the pancake lens is really compact.
BTW, the Nikon FM body alone is 590g while the FM2 is less at 540g.
I never really thought of the XD-11 as a small camera but dimensionally it is.
I've always known the LX is the smallest of the interchangeable prism cameras but as you can see, it is practically the same size as the regular sized cameras.

I wish I had the other pancake lenses for Minolta (45mm f2.8 TD), Nikon (45mm f2.8 P) and Olympus (40mm f2) but if you haven't already looked you may be surprised by their quite high prices . . .
Currently, the Pentax pancake lens can be found at very reasonable price range.

 

[lxdude]

I also realized that you cannot change the screens for the FM but I believe you can for the MX and I know you can for the OM's and so I think that I am leaning towards one of those now.

The MX can take numerous different screens. It also takes the LX screens, which are brighter. The extra brightness means the meter might underexpose up to 1/3 stop. Not a problem for me, though the meter can be easily adjusted by a service shop to compensate.

Is the MX and OM with their respective compact lenses (40mm f2.0 & 50mm f1.8 for Olympus and 40mm f2.8 & 50mm f1.7 for Pentax) in the same league in terms of size? More precisely: MX + 40mm vs OM + 40mm and MX + 50mm vs OM + 50mm. Both cameras/lenses seem very suitable, in terms of size. From the picture provided by Les Sarile, it seems so, but I'm unsure which lenses those are.

I don't know about the 40mm lenses, but IMO with the 50mm lenses they are definitely in the same league.

Focus and viewfinder is important to me too.

Is it practical to focus with any of these combinations with an all-matte screen? I don't like focus-aids which is one reason why I tend to not use 35mm SLR's.

I use an all-matte LX screen in one of my MX's and a matte/microprism dot LX screen in the other. And my LX and Nikon F3HP both have all-matte screens. I find for me, focusing aids are only needed in dim light.

The OM-1 and MX cameras feel different and have some differences in features. I like both better than the FM series because I find the FM finder "squinty" and hard to use with glasses.

The MX has a more traditional layout, with the shutter speed knob on top, aperture ring at the rear of the lens, and DoF preview lever on the front. F/stop and shutter speed are both visible in the finder. Meter indication is by LED. The viewfinder magnification is somewhat more than the OM-1's though the OM-1's is (I think) next largest, and they both show almost the entire picture area. The shutter knob on MX's is heavily detented, making it harder to turn than on most cameras. Once used to it, it's not that a big deal to me or others I've talked to about it.
The OM-1 has the shutter speed ring on the front around the lens mount and the aperture ring in front of the focusing ring on prime lenses. DoF preview is by a button on each lens. Meter indication is by needle, and f/stop and shutter speed are not visible in the finder.

Subjectively, this is my take on each. I would gladly use either. They are both great machines. Both are very quiet and have very low vibration, especially on first curtain opening (when it really counts).

I chose Pentax because of the LX. It's a beautifully made machine about the same size and weight of a Nikon FM/FE, but with excellent, bright and clear interchangeable finders and is almost as easy to use with glasses as the F3HP. I also have two MX's and two ME Supers and what stands out for me with all is compactness and great viewfinders. Another reason, not to be discounted, is that I had always used lenses with controls that turned the same way (Fujica ST, Pentax Takumar, Nikon). I didn't have to retrain myself after four decades, especially as I still use some Nikon stuff.

My point is that I chose based on aggregate reasons. If I were looking for what you're looking for, it's hard for me to say if I would have settled on the MX or the OM-1.

The unusual control locations on the OM-1 make it for me an ergonomic delight. Some people don't like it, but I find for me it makes the camera very easy to use, handling as if it's larger than it is. I find the viewfinder very easy on the eyes, even with glasses, though as with the MX, it's so big it's hard to take it all in at a glance. The sensation with both is sort of like sitting a little close to a movie screen. But there's something about the OM finder that feels a little better to my eye than the MX. On the other hand, it has a little less contrast than the MX, just not quite as crisp, so it can be a little harder to find perfect focus without an aid. The lack of information in the OM finder would be a problem for me sometimes, especially with hand-held macro where I am often changing both shutter and aperture settings. The original meter battery is a mercury type, so you will have either use the air-cell type battery or have it adjusted to take the 1.5V silver oxide battery (what I would do). Or if you get lucky, it will have already been adjusted.

The OM-1n is the newest model and IMO, the one to get. It has a flash ready light in the finder, and supposedly Olympus made some internal changes for improved function and durability. Regarding flash on camera, the hot shoe on the OM-1 is detachable, and it has a tendency to crack or break. The MX hot shoe is permanent and quite durable.

If you could handle each one, that might decide it for you right there. They are both really good. Even with lenses-my Pentax M-series lenses are small, light, and smooth. The OM lenses are the same, but also (to me) have a jewel-like quality to them that is obviously subjective. On the other hand, when Olympus went to plastic for some of their aperture rings, the rings lost their precision feel for me, feeling cheap and no longer nearly as smooth.

What really matters is which combination of features and feel works for you. If you can get to a photographic swap meet in your area (there's a couple a month here in SoCal) then you would have an opportunity to handle each and decide. Or, given prices these days, you could buy both and just sell the one you don't want.

Here is something interesting to illustrate what I'm saying: I never had any interest in the ME Super. I don't use AE and I didn't like the push-button shutter changing when I tried it on the Pentax 645. But one day a friend needing money offered to sell me his ME Super. I bought it to help him out more than to have the camera. My first impression was that it had a nice viewfinder and felt good in my hands. I set it aside and didn't even pick it up for a couple of years. One day I decided to sell it, and went to clean it up. I could see it needed new seals and probably a CLA, so I figured I'd sell it cheap. But while I was messing with it I started realizing what a good job Pentax had done on the camera. The viewfinder was very bright, clear and contrasty, it felt good in my hands even though it was tiny, it had a nice balance and feel. It just had a charm to it. So I decided to get it CLA'd ($63), and to use it for a while even though its non-interchangeable screen had the split-image/microprism and I didn't like the push-button shutter change. I found upon using it that once I figured out how to best use the push buttons they ceased to be an issue, and I can now change speeds quickly and precisely. I use the focusing aids because they are there even though I prefer plain matte. It's become my usual walking around coat-pocket camera with a 28 or the tiny Pentax 24-35 zoom, plus a 50 and sometimes something longer.
So until you handle something you'll never know for sure if you'll like it. Specs and features are not the whole story.

 

[andrew.roos]

If you are feeling wealthy then the Leica R6/6.2 with 50mm 'cron would be worth considering. Small (but not light) SLR, fully mechanical shutter with spot and centre weighted metering. But pricey.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[elekm]

The one thing about the Pentax MX is that the shutter speed dial is too tightly sprung. At least it is on my camera. You have to use considerable effort to change speeds.

I also find that the body is a shade too small, although I like that the self-timer doubles as the depth-of-field preview lever.

For my taste, the ideal camera body size is the Minolta XD-11, Nikon FM/FE, Contax 139, Canon AE-1, etc.

 

[fretlessdavis]

The one thing about the Pentax MX is that the shutter speed dial is too tightly sprung. At least it is on my camera. You have to use considerable effort to change speeds.

I also find that the body is a shade too small, although I like that the self-timer doubles as the depth-of-field preview lever.

For my taste, the ideal camera body size is the Minolta XD-11, Nikon FM/FE, Contax 139, Canon AE-1, etc.

Half of a never-ready case makes it the perfect size, and a little added bump protection, for me. Grabbing for it while fighting the pump while climbing has never been an issue with this set up, unlike some of my larger cameras. Also, it must be a fairly common issue, the shutter speed dial thing, but I haven't experienced it yet. It is stiffer than other cameras I've had, but I can easily flick through shutter speeds with my index finger. Mine is overdue for a CLA, and there's a teeny bit of play in the knob, so maybe mine is just wearing out =/

 

[lxdude]

The one thing about the Pentax MX is that the shutter speed dial is too tightly sprung. At least it is on my camera. You have to use considerable effort to change speeds.

Yes, they are all that way. I have adjusted to it and automatically use more force, and can one-finger it. It no longer bothers me. But given especially that the knob is shorter than on most other cameras, giving less area to get hold of, it's definitely tighter than it needs to be. I've often wondered why they made it so tight. Maybe a repair person could take some tension out of the detent.

I also find that the body is a shade too small, although I like that the self-timer doubles as the depth-of-field preview lever.

For my taste, the ideal camera body size is the Minolta XD-11, Nikon FM/FE, Contax 139, Canon AE-1, etc.

A lot of guys find the body to be too small, though I'm fine with it, and I don't have small hands. Same with the OM-1 for some folks. To me, the OM-1 handles larger than the MX due to its control layout. You illustrate the subjectivity of camera choice- no matter how nice, if a machine isn't right for you, it's just not.
A main reason I like the LX is that it gives F3/F1N capabilities in a body more the size and weight of the cameras you mentioned. I think that for a lot of people, that category is the sweet spot.

 

[lxdude]

Half of a never-ready case makes it the perfect size, and a little added bump protection, for me.

Good idea!

 

[fretlessdavis]

Good idea!

Unfortunately, the original Pentax ones are impossible to find. A little known secret I discovered after buying 4 off-brand ones from a going-out-of-business sale... The Diamond Brand M Series cases fit MX's. They're a but loose and unusable in the ME Super/ME/MG/MV that they're designed for, but they fit on the MX snugly, with minor splaying:



I'd avoid that lens, though-- The S-M-C Takumar 28mm f/3.5. Dim in the finder, and unsharp. I may have been unlucky, but out of 2, neither were that good.

Maybe I have bad luck with 28mm's in general, as my SMC-M 28mm had it's rear group fall out, breaking the mirror and scratching the focusing screen of my ME Super. I also had a Vivitar 28mm f/2.5 that stopped focusing to infinity after a rough trip in my camera bag, and I accidentally unmounted my second S-M-C Tak 28mm (using the Pentax M42 adapter with the lock removed), dropping it a few feet onto concrete...

 

[blockend]

I had an OM-1 for some years when they were still made, and I never found it particularly robust. I also knew someone who had an ME and MX, and they weren't as solid as other cameras of the era, internally or externally. By contrast a friend had a Nikkormat and treated it in a way I wouldn't have dared treat my Olympus. These things are always subjective, but the fashion for smaller SLRs didn't always translate into utility. They are the kind of cameras that encourage the use of a case, which kind of defeats the object if size is the overriding factor.

 

[lxdude]

Unfortunately, the original Pentax ones are impossible to find. A little known secret I discovered after buying 4 off-brand ones from a going-out-of-business sale... The Diamond Brand M Series cases fit MX's. They're a but loose and unusable in the ME Super/ME/MG/MV that they're designed for, but they fit on the MX snugly, with minor splaying:

I'd avoid that lens, though-- The S-M-C Takumar 28mm f/3.5. Dim in the finder, and unsharp. I may have been unlucky, but out of 2, neither were that good.

Maybe I have bad luck with 28mm's in general, as my SMC-M 28mm had it's rear group fall out, breaking the mirror and scratching the focusing screen of my ME Super. I also had a Vivitar 28mm f/2.5 that stopped focusing to infinity after a rough trip in my camera bag, and I accidentally unmounted my second S-M-C Tak 28mm (using the Pentax M42 adapter with the lock removed), dropping it a few feet onto concrete...

Yeah, sounds like it!
I'm surprised that you found the S-M-C Takumar (which would make it the later version of the 28/3.5 Takumar) to not be sharp.
It's well regarded, as is the SMC Pentax 28/3.5, the same lens in K-mount.

 

[fretlessdavis]

Yeah, sounds like it!
I'm surprised that you found the S-M-C Takumar (which would make it the later version of the 28/3.5 Takumar) to not be sharp.
It's well regarded, as is the SMC Pentax 28/3.5, the same lens in K-mount.

I had assumed the K and S-M-C were the same, but I recently found out that the K 28mm f/3.5 was a totally new design. The K 28mm f/3.5 is definitely sharper than the 2.8 versions, and both seem to be better than the M42 versions. Again, maybe I was just unlucky with sample variation.

Maybe I'm just spoiled by my Super Tak 35mm, which is the sharpest lens I own. Looks incredible at f/5.6.

Sadly a new 28mm for my 35mm system is a long way down the list. At the moment, a Geronar 210mm, ETRS 40mm PE, some carbon fiber cloth and resin (LF psuedo-restoration project to get something massively light AND durable to drag with me climbing), a polarized glass LED panel, and a new tripod all need to come before that...