Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,481   Posts: 1,571,145   Online: 1174
      
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 61 to 65 of 65
  1. #61

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Jersey (again)
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,997
    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.

  2. #62
    alexfoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Greece
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    76
    -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.

  3. #63
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,700
    Quote Originally Posted by fretlessdavis View Post
    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.
    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.

  4. #64
    fretlessdavis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Southern AZ
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    277
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    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.
    New-ish convert to film.
    Pentax MX for 35mm
    Bronica ETRS for 645

  5. #65
    narsuitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    560
    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/
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Photo 071425 sml.JPG  

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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