smallest 35mm SLR ever?

35mm cameras have similar shape if we look at them from the front (SLRs being taller because of the pentaprism...), but what really makes them different, is how flat they are if we compare them taking a side look: that's what's important -decisive- not only for carrying or quickly hiding them, but also for how unobtrusive they seem to non photographers eyes when we shoot near them... And to easily be able to continue shooting...

My Bessas with the CV 28 3.5 are even thinner than just an SLR body without lens! And a Leica with a collapsible 50 3.5 even thinner!

An SLR with a normal lens is a huge thing compared to a RF with a flat lens... They're so different... Just as different as their sound...

Cheers,

Juan
 
ChrisN said:
Juan, you are drawing very fine distinctions - I can only speak from using them, not from measuring them. :)
Click to expand...

Hi Chris,

Precisely I speak from using them: their size in my hands, my bag or my pockets, and the faces on people... We agree: clearly my distinctions are finer than yours... But not only mine: also all photographers' distinctions decades ago and today... I'd buy any RF sized SLR right now...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Wow, what a funny and cheap lie... It's a lot thicker (what matters the most) and with the pentaprism it's even taller... ...
Click to expand...

It depends on what you measure. The back-to-lens flange is "thicker" on the Pentax, but the actual body thickness is similar and the back-to-filter is less on the MX with 50mm f/2.0 than an M body with the then current 50mm f/2 Summicron (note that they same camera, that's body+lens, and not body and illustrate it that way).
 
The Zenit-S (remember 'C' is 'S' in Cyrillic, as in CCCP = SSSR) may be the smallest 35mm SLR, but the smallest 35mm TLR (and possibly the smallest ever 35mm camera, full stop) is the Tessina. Mind you, the format was only 14x21mm...

I seem to recall that the (non-instant-return) mirror on the Zenit-S is winched down with a piece of string, but it's years since I handled one. Am I remembering this correctly?

Cheers,

R.
 
my first serious camera was an EOS Rebel X. I think its the smallest EOS camera Canon made.

it makes the diminutive 50mm look oversized
L1000043.jpg


here is its next to my dead '51 FED 1 :(
L1000039.jpg


and here it is next to something a bit more contemporary.
L1000040.jpg
 
Without measuring, my contender is the Contax 159MM - it's tiny. The modern (D)SLR is usually bulked up by the hand grip.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Hi Bingley, I'd like to see an SLR as thin as a RF... The XD series are 51mm thick (body) and Bessas are only 30mm thick, so XD SLR's are not exactly as deep as Bessas, but 70% thicker! And if you add the general difference in lenses size, SLR's end up being twice as thick as RF's with flat lenses... If both were half their thickness, this wouldn't matter because both would be as thin as for pockets, but the truth is that only RF's with flat or collapsible lenses fit pockets... How could SLR's be as thin as RF's if SLR's are RF's with a moving mirror placed between lens and film?

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

It depends on where you measure, Juan. If you measure back to front through lens mount, you're correct. But if you measure back to front on the rest of the body (where I would hold the camera) the XD and Bessa are nearly the same size. An XD w/ a pancake or small wide lens can fit into a large-ish pocket, although an rf w/ a collapsible lens will be even smaller. My only point is that the Minolta XD series is quite small for an slr (I once had a Nikon F, which is my point of comparison), and has an almost rf-like feel in my hands. YMMV.
 
I had a Mecaflex. It was very awkward-shaped (which made it seem far bigger than it was), had no prism and was 24x24. More collectable than usable. Cost me £25 in Glasgow 35 years ago. Soon sold it at a profit.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom