what are the most compact SLR's

[lxdude]

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.

Well yeah, a Nikkormat was built like a truck. But if reasonable care is taken, the MX and OM-1 hold up fine. The MX is very reliable--Pentax did a good job of shrinking the Spotmatic/KX down into such a compact size. My cameras are not pristine, but none have taken a bad hit, either.
Kind of like say, a Honda Civic. They don't feel anywhere near as solid as a big car, but they can take a lot of abuse and keep going. Very reliable. But in an altercation with a big car or a solid object, they would probably fare worse than the big car.

 

[benveniste]

The smallest and lightest SLR may well be the Great Wall PF-1, also sold as the Continental TXL, Fujica ST-F, The Haminex 35 Reflex Flash, Nagai SRF and the Yumica RFX-1. It's essentially a toy SLR with a non-interchangable 40mm f/2.8 lens and a fixed shutter speed.

Personally, I'll stick with a Pentax 110 SLR or even a Nikon Pronea S as long as I have frozen film.

 

[Oren Grad]

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.

Not just the size and weight. Even apart from the feature set, they tweaked lots of other details in the LX body compared to the MX - rounded edges, repositioned strap lugs, different body covering, tweaks to the shape and feel of the controls. I still enjoy the MX too, but among 35mm SLRs the LX is my "comfortable old shoe".

 

[Copyhat]

Nikon FG20 is the most compact and lightest SLR offering from them. The Konica autoreflex series is just about the same size.

 

[zanxion72]

Pentax Auto 110 is quite small. It is as tiny as an slr could ever get.

 

[frank]

I tried 35mm half frame once. The camera wasn't much smaller than a full frame 135 format, and the negs were twice as small. Not worth the hit in image quality, IMO.

 

[Rikard_L]

I have a nikon fm2 with a voigtlander ultron 40 2.0 slii. Pretty compact setup.

 

[wblynch]

Well, I haven't seen it mentioned here but one might consider an OM-3.

It is within range of the size and weight of the OM-1 and is built tougher. It has the extra shutter speed of 1/2000. Then there is the acclaimed metering and no need for battery availability concerns.

The OM-3 has the built-in flash shoe and TTL flash accommodations. Don't forget the adjustable eyepiece diopter.

The OM-3 are dropping in price and seem more affordable now than ever.

Just something to chew on...

 

[GarageBoy]

Are the OM3/4 the same size as the 1/2?
I'd love a SLR camera I can stick in my coat pocket and replace my P&S

 

[wblynch]

They are the same size but the prism housing is a little bulkier on the 3/4 for the diopter and flash shoe.

They are heavier than a P&S so you're going to feel it in that pocket.

 

[elekm]

For a coat pocket camera, I probably would opt for one of the small rangefinders from the 1970s. There are some nice cameras from Vivitar, Konica, Canon, Olympus, Minolta and Rollei/Voigtlander. There's also the Zeiss Ikon S 312/Voigtlander VF 101, which are a bit uncommon but are solid rangefinders with a 40mm Tessar/Skopar lens.

I think the Pentax MX with the 40mm pancake lens is the smallest full featured SLR, but it has some weight to it, as a quality camera should have.

 

[alexfoto]

-I like for compactness the Leica r4s (not the first r4 with electronic problems), with elmarit 35 2,8 (and special the first version of that lens, the second and third is over corrected and lost they're ''character'', those is good only for sharpener worry'ds..), the combo is small, light and the same time pleasure to use.

 

[lxdude]

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.

Where'd you find that out? I'm always interested in having any misconceptions of mine corrected.

 

[fretlessdavis]

Where'd you find that out? I'm always interested in having any misconceptions of mine corrected.

The PentaxForums.com has great info on older lenses. There were two versions of the M42 28mm f/3.5 lens before the SMC, both slightly different, but 7 elements in 6 groups. The S-M-C version was actually different, being smaller all around, 7 elements in 7 groups.

The K version was changed again, being 8 elements in 7 groups, growing a bit in size from the M42 ones.

The SMC-M one changed again, being 5 elements in 5 groups, and shrunk back down to accomadate the standardized 49mm filter thread. Definitely not as sharp as the K series.

I think out of all the lenses I've owned, there was the most variation of the 28mm f/3.5 from it's beginnings as the massive 58mm front Super Takumar, through the smaller Super Takumar, S-M-C Takumar, SMC, and SMC-M. It was changed fairly significantly with each generation.

I think the K one is the sharpest of them all, and I believe it's generally regarded as the best of that lens by most.

 

[narsuitus]

When I need to carry an SLR that is smaller and lighter than my other SLRs, I carry the Pentax ME.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/11336821@N00/5580899210/