Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,557   Posts: 1,545,206   Online: 958
      
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 65
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by puketronic View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Oren Grad; 03-15-2014 at 01:27 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by blockend View Post
    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.

  3. #33
    frank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Bit north of Toronto
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    622
    Images
    2
    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.
    My blog / photo website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    606
    Quote Originally Posted by Oren Grad View Post
    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.

  5. #35
    frank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Bit north of Toronto
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    622
    Images
    2
    What is this autofocus you speak about?

    My blog / photo website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by Oren Grad View Post
    "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.
    Last edited by puketronic; 03-15-2014 at 02:05 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    606
    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.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by puketronic View Post
    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.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by puketronic View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by puketronic View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by puketronic View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by puketronic View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Oren Grad; 03-15-2014 at 02:54 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    826
    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.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin