Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,912   Posts: 1,521,632   Online: 980
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    9

    Smallest 35mm body?

    Is it the Pentax MX?

  2. #2
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,239
    Quote Originally Posted by praktica View Post
    Is it the Pentax MX?
    Are you asking about SLR's? There are plenty of 35mm cameras much smaller than the MX; Minox EL/GL series, Olympus XA series, Rollei 35 series, and many others.

    Lee
    Last edited by Lee L; 03-09-2008 at 11:13 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,347
    Images
    87
    If you mean 35mm full-frame, interchangeable lens, SLR perhaps. But there are much smaller 35's around of various flavors. For non-SLR's, the Rollei 35 or Minox 35's are good candidates. For interchangeable-lens SLR's I doubt that here are any smaller than an Olypus Pen F, but they are half-frame cameras.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Eastern Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,595
    I love my 2 MX's but without the winder I find them a bit TO small.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Jersey (again)
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,959
    In addition to the other cameras mentioned, the Tenax is a very tiny 35mm camera, as is the Tessina. The East German Taxona also was small.

    The Ducati is a tiny half-frame camera.

    Many of the early folding Retinas were small. The folding Ikonta 35/Contina 35 and Contina II were small, when collapsed. And the Contessa S 310/S 312 also were small cameras -- just slightly larger than the Rollei 35.

    The original post is vague, and it's possible that it refers to full-frame SLRs. The Pentax MX (and ME) probably was the smallest of the downsizing craze that began in the early 1970s with the Olympus OM-1 and continued to some extent with the Nikon FE/FM (they were smaller than the Nikon EL/EL2, the Nikkormat FT/FT2/FT3 and the Nikon F/F2), the Minolta XD series and the Canon A series. All of these were smaller than the models that preceded them and smaller than most of the subsequent models.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,910
    my me super is pretty small, smaller than my pen ft ..
    but the olympus stylus + yashica t4 were even smaller.
    Ես այլեւս չի պատասխանելու իմ էլեկտրոնային փոստով
    եթե դուք պետք է ինձ դիմեք ինձ միջոցով իմ կայքը կամ բլոգում

  7. #7
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    The smallest/lightest fully-functional, full-frame 35mm I have used ...and kept... is the Olympus XA.

    There are smaller ones, of course.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    269
    You need to qualify the question further. As many folks have pointed out, there are some very small rangefinders and P&S's. Even there you have details of body size vs. with or without lens, etc.

    The smallest full frame, fully featured 35mm SLR bodies are generally considered to be the OM 1 & 2. I've never handled the Pentax MX, but judging by a picture it doesn't look any smaller than the OM's. And if that shoe isn't removable, it would be much less "pocketable". What about the Pentax lenses? Are they as small as the Zuikos? The 40mm f2 pancake lens on an OM 1 or 2 is about the smallest package in this class that you're going to find. If you look at half frame, the smallest fully featured 35mm SLR's have got to be the Pen F's. Because there is no prism housing and with the 38mm F2.8 pancake lens mounted, it is hands down the most pocketable.

    For rangefinders and P&S's, the Rollei 35 probably has the smallest body, but it has a sizeable lens sticking out. The 35 RC is just slightly larger. The XA's and Stylus's mentioned above close up fully in their own sliding case, making them easily the most convenient overall for carrying.

    So is this just an academic question wondering about the practical limits of engineering a camera given the constraints of 35mm film? Or are you looking for a camera to carry around and use? If it is the latter, then image quality should be a consideration as well. That makes the XA or Stylus the overall best choice. With the XA you get some manual control, with the Stylus it's auto-everything.

  9. #9
    Marc Akemann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor area, Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,258
    Images
    4
    The smallest 35mm I've seen is a Pintoid camera. I'm making one today as a matter of fact.
    http://www.merrillphoto.com/pintoidhowto.htm
    http://www.merrillphoto.com/pintoids.htm
    If this camera isn't the smallest 35mm, it's certainly the lightest!

    Marc

  10. #10
    Christopher Walrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Milton, DE, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,980
    Blog Entries
    29
    Images
    19
    My homemade 35mm matchbox pinhole camera.
    Thank you.
    CWalrath
    APUG BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE
    DE Darkroom

    "Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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