lufftpablo
Member
hello guys some month ago i bought a canonet but i am not very pleased with it.
for me the problem is that it is not as small as i thought and it is much heavier than what i expected.
could you recommend me another camera lighter and if is possible smaller?
thank you
for me the problem is that it is not as small as i thought and it is much heavier than what i expected.
could you recommend me another camera lighter and if is possible smaller?
thank you
furcafe
Veteran
Olympus XA is about as small & light as you can get & still have a coupled RF (w/aperture priority AE to boot!). Slow lens, though (35/2.8).
mh2000
Well-known
XA is of course the smallest and lightest, Retina IIa (and other models) are still small, fast lens, beautiful cameras, but still a little heavy. The Olympus ECR and RC are nice smaller cameras.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Another vote for the XA or the XA4, nothing better in size and quality. There are some trade offs. If you are looking for something new (more money and automation) then I would strongly recommend any of the GR Series (R-1, GR-1, GR-D for digital, lots of others). A bit bigger physically in one way than the XA, smaller or equal in the other two. Great lenses and reasonable control.
Low cost, Olympus XA series, High cost, Ricoh GR series.
B2 (;->
Low cost, Olympus XA series, High cost, Ricoh GR series.
B2 (;->
lufftpablo
Member
i will consider de xa what i want is a camera that could be always in the pocket of my jacket
Leighgion
Bovine Overseer
If smallest and lightest with a real coupled rangefinder is the goal, you can't beat an XA. My only complaints about mine is that I wish I could get full manual control instead of just aperture priority, but it's still a great little cam.
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
Contax T maybe? Smaller and has a RF.
Without RF you can consider the rollei 35 or a Minox.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
Without RF you can consider the rollei 35 or a Minox.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
Beemermark
Veteran
Rollei is the smallest. No coupled RF though.
Bill58
Native Texan
The Konica C35 is pretty small/ light. Great lens too.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Olympus XA series, Minox 35 series, Ricoh FF-1/FF-1s to name a few...
Chris
Chris
Eugen Mezei
Well-known
Minolta Hi-Matic F. Light and a bit smaller than the Canonet. Visible, contrasty rangefinder patch. Fully automatic, but this works so good, you will never have misexposures. (I haven't and I use it now more than 10-15 rolls of film.) Have it almost always in my coat pocket.
camera.bear
Well-known
I'll second the Hi-Matic F. It is a great little camera to use and I really like mine. I also like my Hi-Matic 7sII and it gives control of exposure but it is heavier that the F.
The F is definitly the more pocketable of the two due to the lower profile of the lens. More Hi-Matic pics:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/camerabear/tags/himatic/show/
The F is definitly the more pocketable of the two due to the lower profile of the lens. More Hi-Matic pics:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/camerabear/tags/himatic/show/
btgc
Veteran
Canonet is too heavy? But metal cameras are supposed to be heavy...wait, metal bodied SLR with 100-300 is heavy, but this little rangefinders are handy, that's how I'd say 
So I mark Oly 35RC and Ricoh 500G-family as candidates. Small, lightweight (considering small body and lens barrel).
So I mark Oly 35RC and Ricoh 500G-family as candidates. Small, lightweight (considering small body and lens barrel).
ZeissFan
Veteran
I'm also surprised that you feel the Canonet is too heavy. Its contemporaries from Olympus, Konica and Minolta are about the same size and weight.
From Rollei,there is the XF 35, and also there is the Voigtlander VF 101 and the Zeiss Ikon Contessa S 312. Both the Voigtlander and Contessa are small cameras but not too light.
From Rollei,there is the XF 35, and also there is the Voigtlander VF 101 and the Zeiss Ikon Contessa S 312. Both the Voigtlander and Contessa are small cameras but not too light.
racoll
Well-known
Another vote for the Oly 35RC and the Ricoh 500 G. The 35RC is one of my favorite cameras of any kind, film or digital, RF or SLR.
mh2000
Well-known
FallisPhoto
Veteran
The Olympus XA is probably the smallest and lightest 35mm RF you are ever going to find. One drawback to that is that the controls are necessarily going to be kind of tiny and fiddly and this can be a problem if you have big hands. Other options would be the Pax, the Olympus 35RC and the Konica C35. Those last three are not a whole lot smaller or lighter than the Canonet though.
Edit: The Retina IIa, Karat 36 and Karat IV are not smaller, but they are lighter.
Last edited:
Svitantti
Well-known
Canonet with a 40/1.7 is a great choice if it doesn't have to fit in your pocket like a Retina or XA.
FrankS
Registered User
Olympus RC, Ricoh 500, small and light, and manual control
ZeissFan
Veteran
I think of the Retina IIa (postwar lever wind) as small but not light. The prewar zone-focus models were small and sort of light in weight and definitely can fit into pants pockets.
Kodak's little Signet is a sweet little camera, while the Bolsey B is tiny, although I wouldn't put either into pants pocket.
Getting vintage again, the folding Zeiss Ikon Contina is rather compact, and its build is excellent.
The Olympus XA probably is the reigning rangefinder champ for size and weight.
(By the way, the Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta A folds very flat and can be slipped into pants pockets, although if they're dress pants, you should expect it to create some issues on the one side because of the weight.)
Kodak's little Signet is a sweet little camera, while the Bolsey B is tiny, although I wouldn't put either into pants pocket.
Getting vintage again, the folding Zeiss Ikon Contina is rather compact, and its build is excellent.
The Olympus XA probably is the reigning rangefinder champ for size and weight.
(By the way, the Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta A folds very flat and can be slipped into pants pockets, although if they're dress pants, you should expect it to create some issues on the one side because of the weight.)