Remember when SLRs used to be SMALL?

I had a Pentax ME Super and a 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens. Pocket sized, but dense and heavy. I gave the ME-Super away, and one day slapped the 40mm lens onto a Pentax ZX-M an spent a day shooting with it. Small, light: my neck stopped hurting!

The 40mm and my Pentax istDS fit into a coat pocket.
 
oftheherd said:
Thanks. Go ahead and throw a match on my GAS. 😀 😀 😀
Click to expand...

Here is a couple more matches ... a few wide open shots using expired T400CN

A nice 3d effect; the stop sign in the 2nd pick is about 6 ft behind the mail box

Its really more of a portrait lens
 

Attachments

  • minolta046.jpg
    minolta046.jpg
    40.4 KB · Views: 0
  • minolta048.jpg
    minolta048.jpg
    54.3 KB · Views: 0
I have a Nikon FG and it's the smallest film SLR I have.

It fits on the palm of my hands.

Comes complete with all stuff you usually get in a average SLR in a small package. The Nikon logo on it looks weird as I usually tag Nikon Logos on huge SLRs like the F4 and F5. The FG is half of the size of a F4s.

Samuel
 
IGMeanwell- I see what you mean, what a beautiful effect.

I love my Nikon FG, and with it's 50mm 1.8, it's almost as small as my Bessa R with J8, though heavier because of all the metal.
However, once I put my Nikkor-S 50 1.4 on there, it gets a wee bit bigger. 😉
But I do so so love that lens.
 
payasam said:
I never weighed my M3 or Canon FTb, but the first was certainly heavier though somewhat smaller. Leicas have a good amount of metal in them.
Click to expand...

Just weighed them. FTb 740 g, M2 580 g, bodies only. The old time SLRs (the real ones, before they were plasticized) were pretty hefty cameras!
 
Hi All,
I used the Nikon F & F2 for a lot of years, until I met Ruben who "lit the OM-1 fire."
The Nikon FM2, somewhat heavier and larger than an OM-1, is also comfortable to carry and use. I was never into the autofocus, SLR behemoths of the early 1990's.
NOTE: Please click a 2nd time (+) to bring the Thumbnails up to size.
Cheers, Mike
 

Attachments

  • FM2_Lrz_IMG_0075.jpg
    FM2_Lrz_IMG_0075.jpg
    123.4 KB · Views: 0
  • TwoForThree2b_IMG_1519.jpg
    TwoForThree2b_IMG_1519.jpg
    77.8 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Here's an interesting comparison. The X-700 isn't the smallest of SLRs but it is probably somewhere around the average. Admittedly the capabilities do rather exceed those of the Zenith but so does the size! The Zenith is quite tiny in the hands.

I really like the Pentax MX, being so small, but since I have very large hands it always felt cluttered and awkward to me. The Zenith, having fewer controls, doesn't have that issue.
 

Attachments

  • Minolta_Zenit_1.jpg
    Minolta_Zenit_1.jpg
    23.7 KB · Views: 0
  • Minolta_Zenit_2.jpg
    Minolta_Zenit_2.jpg
    27.2 KB · Views: 0
  • Minolta_Zenit_3.jpg
    Minolta_Zenit_3.jpg
    39.9 KB · Views: 0
The OMs, Pentax M series and similar are smaller than an M5. 😀

The E-410 & E-510 are attractive from the standpoint of both size and lens compatibility, but the feel of the body is not the same.
 
Kim Coxon said:
Quite a few of them. The 50/1.2 is certainly on a par with the Pentax offering. The entry level ones were not quite as good and the range of zooms was more limited. My favourite was the AX3.

http://pentax-manuals.com/fujica/fujica.htm

Kim
Click to expand...

Just based on how I have seen them sell on ebay I always figured the AX3 must have been the better one. How were the bayonet lenses? Hopefully on a par with the screw mount.

Thanks for that link. Interesting. I did see on a quick purusal a couple of curiosities. He inadvertantly listed the ST 901 with a top shutter speed of 1/2000. The only one of the line that had that was the ST 801. I nice speed to have I guess, and probably has kept up the sales, but I never considered it too practical. I don't think I ever used that speed. If anything, it is probably more useful to keep 1/1000 more acurate.

Also, the listed the 75-150 as having a 62mm filter size. That seems kind of big. I never saw one but an acquaintace in Korea in the 70's had. He didn't even have a Fujica, but was quite impressed with the small size of the lens. That doesn't seem to track with the 62mm filter. Also, I would have thought with that much glass up front, a max aperture of more than f/4.5 could have been acheived. Did you ever see or use one of those. I keep watching ebay for one and think I have seen two in the last 6 or 8 years. The last one I was a victim of my own bidding strategy, waiting to snipe in at the last moment, then not having a opportunity to be there when it closed. sigh.
 
mpt600 said:
My first slr was a Fujica STX-1. Got it about 1982 if memory serves, and, quite typically, a month or so later the new improved STX-1n came out. Can't remember what the differensces were, though. Wish I still had it, just for old times sake. Remember the fastest shutter speed being 1/700th of a second, I liked the honesty. Some manufacturers would've labelled it 1/1000th and not worried too much.
Click to expand...

Maybe that was their problem. 😀
 
warren1960 said:
>> Since you comment on the Fujica lenses being brilliant, you get a pass. I was about to call you out to Fujicas at 30 paces for saying you don't think they are svelte. 😀 😀 😀

I don't have the 801 here, but you are probably right; it feels about the same as the OM in my hands. I love it, but it's been a problem camera. In the mirror chamber, there's a flap of fabric at the top of the mirror that blurs the VF. A week after I bought it (used) the SS dial fell apart. Then one of the tines of the take-up spool broke, at which time I noticed that it was already missing another tine. This is a fatal flaw, and now I don't use it for fear of rendering the thing a paperweght.

I would love to replace it with a 901, but they are kinda hard to find.
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear of your problems with the 801. They normally are a good camera that lasts a long time. It must have had a hard life before it came to you. You might look for a parts 801. I have had somewhat of a problem with the SS insert with the speeds. I guess that is what you are referring to. I use rubber glue and watch it carefully. It wasn't a problem until about the 3rd time I took it off to get inside for some reasons I forget now.

The 901's are getting harder to find, but there are out there. I would just suggest you keep looking for one that doesn't raise to too high a price. That happens on ebay as you are probably aware. My scientific studies indicate that prices on ebay are subject to tides, phases of the moon, and oracular interfercence. Just watch for when they align and you should get a good one.
 
Probably the smallest 135mm lens ever build, either Rangefinder or SLR

Fujitar06m.jpg


Not exactly a fast lens, but 6.5cm length (must be a superb telephoto ratio!) and 208g weight

Anyone know FUJITA as a third-party lens maker??
 
Cornelis Verwall, I chap I "met" over on flickr has the Zuiko 40/2 pancake for his OM-1. I had always heard that it was "good but not great", and its high price tag not worth the it unless you are a collector. However, I'm now jones-ing for it ... Cornelis has posed a few shots made with it, and I think it's quite nice, perhaps even brilliant. Maitani designed as the ultimate carry-around lens, to make the OM w/ a standard lens the SLR version of the M3 w/ a 50.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cverwaal/1607471752/
 
While I like them very much one problem with both the MX Pentax and Olympus cameras is that they are a little fragile. I had been warned of this but found out myself the hard way when my mint MX being carried in an ERC over my shoulder swung (lightly) against a door frame as I walked thru it. The impact must have been minor but it still left a deformed pentaprism housing. The camera worked but no longer looked purty. I think this was not all that unusual an experience. Yep nice cameras but treat them with kid gloves if you want to keep them in good nick. I am kinda thankful for big cameras made formt hat horrible but resilient stuff, plastic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom