Mos6502
Well-known
"What is the smallest camera?" is one of those questions that gets asked a lot, and browsing other discussion spaces online, seems even more frequently asked by people new to photography. The obsession with finding the smallest camera possible that can still do this or that, or has X or Y function has always struck me as bizarrely trivial. The latest generation of film photographers and prospective film photographers are obsessed with fully automated P&S cameras, and one of the most frequently asked questions made by those looking for one, is "how small is it?" I suppose this fixation on camera size is driven by a need to have the camera be as familiar (ie. like a phone) as possible. But it's hardly a new fixation. The postwar obsession with miniaturization meant compactness earned bragging rights for manufacturers, and marketing may have instilled in photographers the general idea that smaller = better.
However, what really, is the practical result of obsessing over saving 5mm here or 3mm there? A Pentax MX may be smaller than a Pentax K1000 for example, but it is not so much smaller that you could fit an extra pair of socks in your luggage if you chose the former over the latter, and I doubt it is so much smaller that it'd be appreciably less noticeable to passers-by on the street. Yet its compactness is frequently mentioned as a bonus. And of course we get the same mindset in rangefinders, and in TLRs, and wherever, no matter how little sense it actually makes. I do sometimes see people make the case that smaller cameras are easier to handle, but this really depends on who is handling the camera, sometimes larger cameras are easier to handle!
Recently I saw somebody ask the question because they wanted a camera that was more "portable" than a Pentax MX... and it left me wondering just how much more "portable" a camera really can get. Apparently they had never heard of or seen a camera strap, which does wonders for making any camera portable. Back to the phone thing: I guess today the idea that you could have something specialized, something that does only one task, and is distinct appliance from anything else, is becoming a bit foreign. I have to wonder if the idea of having a watch on your wrist or a camera around your neck, is odd to some people who expect everything to go into a pocket like everything else does.
However, what really, is the practical result of obsessing over saving 5mm here or 3mm there? A Pentax MX may be smaller than a Pentax K1000 for example, but it is not so much smaller that you could fit an extra pair of socks in your luggage if you chose the former over the latter, and I doubt it is so much smaller that it'd be appreciably less noticeable to passers-by on the street. Yet its compactness is frequently mentioned as a bonus. And of course we get the same mindset in rangefinders, and in TLRs, and wherever, no matter how little sense it actually makes. I do sometimes see people make the case that smaller cameras are easier to handle, but this really depends on who is handling the camera, sometimes larger cameras are easier to handle!
Recently I saw somebody ask the question because they wanted a camera that was more "portable" than a Pentax MX... and it left me wondering just how much more "portable" a camera really can get. Apparently they had never heard of or seen a camera strap, which does wonders for making any camera portable. Back to the phone thing: I guess today the idea that you could have something specialized, something that does only one task, and is distinct appliance from anything else, is becoming a bit foreign. I have to wonder if the idea of having a watch on your wrist or a camera around your neck, is odd to some people who expect everything to go into a pocket like everything else does.
