Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,871   Posts: 1,583,367   Online: 1081
      
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 65
  1. #51
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,756
    Quote Originally Posted by blockend View Post
    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.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    88
    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.

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    858
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    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".

  4. #54
    Copyhat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Aarhus, Denmark
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    28
    Nikon FG20 is the most compact and lightest SLR offering from them. The Konica autoreflex series is just about the same size.
    S°ren Hammer
    - Konica T3N
    - Konica FS-1
    - Nikon F4s
    - Nikon F5
    - Nikon F801

  5. #55
    zanxion72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Athens
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    122
    Pentax Auto 110 is quite small. It is as tiny as an slr could ever get.

  6. #56
    frank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Bit north of Toronto
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    951
    Images
    2
    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.
    My blog / photo website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

  7. #57

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Switzerland
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    9
    I have a nikon fm2 with a voigtlander ultron 40 2.0 slii. Pretty compact setup.

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,490
    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...
    - Bill Lynch

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    388
    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

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,490
    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.
    - Bill Lynch

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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