Remember when SLRs used to be SMALL?

PhotoMat

PhotoMat

Well-known
Local time
8:11 AM
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
546
View My Gallery
When I recently had my Canon F1 in hand, I remarked to myself about how small the manual SLRs used to be. Compared to my Canon 5D (or most other DSLRs), my F1 is downright svelte! And this was a professional grade camera in its day! Sigh...

The following pic really puts things into perspective.
 

Attachments

  • M6 F1.jpg
    M6 F1.jpg
    133.5 KB · Views: 0
PhotoMat said:
When I recently had my Canon F1 in hand, I remarked to myself about how small the manual SLRs used to be. Compared to my Canon 5D (or most other DSLRs), my F1 is downright svelte! And this was a professional grade camera in its day! Sigh...

The following pic really puts things into perspective.
Click to expand...

The F-1 is the BOMB!!!!!! 😀

I love it and use mine too all the time along with my Leica`s and Canon RF`s, they all get along just fine 🙂

Tom
 
Its funny I was musing with my local pusherman (the local camera shop) about how much smaller my Minolta X-370 was compared to my other cameras ... though with the 58mm 1.2 it gains some size

I do like the smaller cameras
 
Yeah. Next to my Dynax 9, my Oly Om4 looks quite little.

But then I've got a Novoflex 1200 in the mail for the Oly that might upset the balance a little...
 
jmilkins said:
Yeah. Next to my Dynax 9, my Oly Om4 looks quite little.

But then I've got a Novoflex 1200 in the mail for the Oly that might upset the balance a little...
Click to expand...

lol, Well the OM-4 and its brothers the OM-1, 2, 3, 2s, and 4T are about the smallest SLRs ever made. I love mine...I have two OM-4T bodies and an OM-1n and a big collection of OM lenses and accessories. Modern SLRs are just too big; even 'big' cameras from the past like the Nikon F3 and Canon F-1 are tiny compared to cameras like the D70 and Kodak 14n I have...not to mention the really huge ones like the Canon 1D series and the Nikon D2x. Makes my shoulders hurt just to look at one of those "Pro" digital SLRs.
 
OM1 et al, Pentax MX and the other M series. It's all the electronics and auto everything. The MX with the 40 pancake is almost more pocketable than many RF's.

Kim
 
I rememer a couple of years back I used a Canon F1 for a school trip to document it. It was really heavy and sturdy and I took some great photos with it. All the girls in the class we're asking that how can you carry that heavy camera all day long when they had their digital pocket cams. 🙂

I chose Olympus OM-system mainly for the fact that it is small, very small. When I need a camera with me I wan't it to fit easily in my bag. And Olympus was the SLR-system that met those requirements. 🙂 (proud owner of two bodies and several lenses)

Heres a picture that show that even SLR:s come in many sizes. 🙂
2.jpg
 
Last edited:
I already posted this somewhere here, but 🙂

1438544991_a468299559.jpg

1439406358_189778fbee.jpg


This is a exact copy of Minolta X-300/370, and it really caught me by suprise how small it is.... R3a an Seagull are the same height when you align it... hot shoe to hot shoe... 🙂 ...and it's the same in all dimensions...
only the lenses are bigger... it would be nice to have 45/f2 rokkor... that would be street-small 🙂
 
My Pentax MX with the 40/2.8 pancake lens is smaller than my Bessa-R with the J-8.
And my GX1S (*istDS2 clone) digital SLR is not much bigger.

BTW: There are REALLY small DSLRs on the market now. Like E-400 or D40, for instance.
 
Until the OM-1 came along, SLRs were large relative to RFDRs. Today's digital SLRs appear large in comparison because they are almost always equipped with large motorised zoom lenses.
 
I agree with Patrick and payasam.

The body of some of the newer dslr is not that much larger than the body of older, manual focus cameras like OM, ME/MX or Nikon FM/FE-Series. The main difference in size is due to using "big fat zoooooooom lenses". If you use primes like a 2,8/24 or a 1,4/50 with a Nikon D80 the size is not that much different compared with an FM2.

Thomas
 
It seems funny to hear the Canon F1 called small. It its day, and especially after the advent ot the Fujica ST 901, the Olympus line, and later the Pentax M series, it seemed big and clunky. All the magazines talked about how SLRs were being made smaller.
 
nikola said:
I already posted this somewhere here, but 🙂

1438544991_a468299559.jpg

1439406358_189778fbee.jpg


This is a exact copy of Minolta X-300/370, and it really caught me by suprise how small it is.... R3a an Seagull are the same height when you align it... hot shoe to hot shoe... 🙂 ...and it's the same in all dimensions...
only the lenses are bigger... it would be nice to have 45/f2 rokkor... that would be street-small 🙂
Click to expand...

I recently got a Minolta XG-1 out of a thrift store with the 45 f/2 lens. They do make things more compact. Considering many cameras did and still do use a lens with an f stop of f/1.7, 1.8, or 1.9, f/2 isn't that much of a disadvantage, and the size is nice. When you get to f/1.4, you need a bigger lens to let in more light. The f/1.2, mentioned above, which I also lust after, will really add to the size. I have been looking, but not too seriously, for on in the Minolta mount for the XG-1, or in screw mount for my Fujica. I would like to have one but don't want to pay what they usually cost. sigh.
 
As an owner of the original Fujica ST 701, I can attest to the benefits of a smaller SLR. My first was a Yashica Electro, not a bad camera, but after a day of toting that thing around, at age 23, my neck and back hurt. The ST 701 came out and it blew me away. My Minolta X700, and it ealier partner X-370, is quite small and with the 45mm is is tiny compared to most dSLRs. I have my eye on the new E-410, great specs, because of it size and weight.
 
oftheherd said:
I recently got a Minolta XG-1 out of a thrift store with the 45 f/2 lens. They do make things more compact. Considering many cameras did and still do use a lens with an f stop of f/1.7, 1.8, or 1.9, f/2 isn't that much of a disadvantage, and the size is nice. When you get to f/1.4, you need a bigger lens to let in more light. The f/1.2, mentioned above, which I also lust after, will really add to the size. I have been looking, but not too seriously, for on in the Minolta mount for the XG-1, or in screw mount for my Fujica. I would like to have one but don't want to pay what they usually cost. sigh.
Click to expand...


the 58mm 1.2 MC Rokkor is big ... but thats only compared to the X-370 itself

still a more compact package than my D80 with the Sigma 30mm 1.4

though I can say without a doubt the 58 1.2 is easily the most amazing lens I have used, it has that 3d quality to it that is hard to quantify and I will be using it quite frequently in the coming days (fall foliage)


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • oldnewlens.jpg
    oldnewlens.jpg
    68.2 KB · Views: 0
Funny you should mention the size of the DSLRs. Yesterday, I took out my diminutive Canon Model P w/ a CV21 to a local park and there was a camera club there all w/ huge digitals. There was one very short (vertically challenged), plump (plus- sized) Korean lady who was carrying the latest (and big bucks) Canon something w/ an 18- inch lens. The whole rig looked as big as her. I'd hate to tote that thing around.

p.s. In a hour, she (and her three buddies) never took a single pic of any of the busy action. The thought ocurred to me that maybe that $$$$ gear is just a status symbol in a country obsessed w/ same of all kinds.
 
Last edited:
the CanonF-1 is anything but small as a vintage SLR, I have about 40 SLRs which are smaller, and just one, Nikon F1, which is bigger. The original Pentax (1957) was in fact smaller than a Canon V or Leica M3 of the same era. The Asahiflex (without prism) was about the same size as a Leica IIIf and weights the same. If you doubt, see my page http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Pentax_Asahiflex.html - there is apicture together with a Leica Iii which was even smaller.
 
Last edited:
I love using my F-1's, from the mechanical to the last electronic one. It's not really fair to compare the "bare" F-1 to the DSLR's. When you put the full motor drive on, they get much closer in size, and get weighty, as well. They are also a superb platform for large lenses, which could explain part of their professional reputation.

To a sports or nature photographer, the size and weight were not as important as the ability to get the photo.... and these cameras could do that very well.

Rangefinders are superb in their own way, but the elderly SLR is an important tool for film users. And they have certainly gotten affordable!

Harry
 
While pining for another small RF, I stumbled on my Pentax ME Super I bought off the bay, CLA'd for $45, sans lens. Unfortunately all I have for it is a large, cheap, but surprisingly decent Vivitar 80-200/3.8.

Ahhh...makes me think I could save money by finding a small lens for it instead of another RF....

And, I really, really miss my Nikon FE. Small (for SLR) and relatively quiet - not as loud as my Fed 4 anyway.

Sadly, I've been eyeballing the little Olympus E-410 - since you can use darn near any MF lens with a converter since the flange to sensor distance is so small.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom