smallest 35mm SLR ever?

Phil_F_NM said:
The Pentax LX and MX are both very small. Only the prisms are just a few mm taller than the top plate of a mechanical film M camera. The bodies are both very similarly sized to a Barnack.

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

Hi Phil,

The Pentax LX and MX are also a lot thicker than RF's because of the pentaprism... OM's are small too but there's no way to avoid thickness if a pentaprism is used...

A 24x36 SLR with the flat mirror system used on the half frame Pen, and a faster shutter, would be a great camera: I think it was never made, and I guess it won't be made, but with a similar 38mm pancake, that would be the first real pocketable SLR...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Canon once had this problem solved with pellicle mirrors. The camera bodies could have been made a few millimeters thinner since the mirror wouldn't have to swing up. Of course, the Pellix, EOS RT and EOS 1n RS were all quite large cameras.

Yeah, the LX is thicker, but it's still one of the smallest 35mm SLRs and definitely the most capable, most customizable SLR system at that size.

Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
Canon once had this problem solved with pellicle mirrors. The camera bodies could have been made a few millimeters thinner since the mirror wouldn't have to swing up. Of course, the Pellix, EOS RT and EOS 1n RS were all quite large cameras.

Yeah, the LX is thicker, but it's still one of the smallest 35mm SLRs and definitely the most capable, most customizable SLR system at that size.

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

Hi Phil, for sure you like your Pentax cameras... They're nice of course...

But the Nikon FE2 has a faster shutter that goes to 1/4000, and is nearly the same size... Well, the Nikon is a few milimeters smaller in some measurements, and also a bit lighter... And the most important: Nikon is a nice system... 🙂

I might try a Pentax one day, though...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Pentax were quite proud of how small the MX was.
(from a 1981 MX brochure)
MX-M3.jpg
 
Nothing wrong with the FE2 at all. I love Nikons, but if I'm going to use one, I'd use one of the flagship bodies. The F3 is an amazing camera.

I love the Pentax LX because it is one of a very few cameras with as much system compatibility/customization. The FE2 is nice, but the LX has to be compared with the F3 since it's a pro system camera. Incredibly bright prisms, interchangeable screens, weather sealing, full mechanical backup and one of the most sensitive light meters ever put into a camera before or since. The lenses are without equal in mine any many other opinions as well.

There is a reason that the LX still fetches around $500 for a used body; it's because the camera is a high note in the history of film cameras. Pentax produced the LX for almost 20 years, so there's no shortage, people just don't get rid of them because they are really amazing.

Too bad I sold mine years ago.

Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
Nothing wrong with the FE2 at all. I love Nikons, but if I'm going to use one, I'd use one of the flagship bodies. The F3 is an amazing camera.

I love the Pentax LX because it is one of a very few cameras with as much system compatibility/customization. The FE2 is nice, but the LX has to be compared with the F3 since it's a pro system camera. Incredibly bright prisms, interchangeable screens, weather sealing, full mechanical backup and one of the most sensitive light meters ever put into a camera before or since. The lenses are without equal in mine any many other opinions as well.

There is a reason that the LX still fetches around $500 for a used body; it's because the camera is a high note in the history of film cameras. Pentax produced the LX for almost 20 years, so there's no shortage, people just don't get rid of them because they are really amazing.

Too bad I sold mine years ago.

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

Hi Phil,

Nikon F3 is not a bad camera, but for its looks (bulky, horrible red line...) and size and weight, and giving exactly the same image quality, I prefer my beautiful clean black FE2... I also think FE2's mechanical back-up speed of 1/250 is a lot more convenient for most lenses and situations than F3's 1/60...

Cheers,

Juan
 
No, back in the days of the MX, Leica was teetering on losing all its market share. They were still recovering from production of the M5 but never recovered from the rise of the SLR.

Regarding the size, everyone else's cameras continued to get incredibly bloated as we have today. The Nikon F5 or a D3 with a 70-200 f/2.8 weighs just a couple ounces less than my Speed Graphic with Graflite flash. That's not small at all.

The thickness of the SLRs is published to the lens flange, but the grip portion is VERY close between the Pentax MX/LX and the Leica M. Compare the old small SLRs to the M8 and they are dwarfed.

Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
No, back in the days of the MX, Leica was teetering on losing all its market share. They were still recovering from production of the M5 but never recovered from the rise of the SLR.

Regarding the size, everyone else's cameras continued to get incredibly bloated as we have today. The Nikon F5 or a D3 with a 70-200 f/2.8 weighs just a couple ounces less than my Speed Graphic with Graflite flash. That's not small at all.

The thickness of the SLRs is published to the lens flange, but the grip portion is VERY close between the Pentax MX/LX and the Leica M. Compare the old small SLRs to the M8 and they are dwarfed.

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

Hi Phil,

We don't carry or pocket the grip portion, but the whole camera and lens...

And even if Leica had bad days, it's true the world picked and picks Leica and Nikon over Pentax... And I'm a no brand man: I use Hasselblad and Bessas and love them the same... What I like in the Pentax is the whole mechanical back-up, but for that I like a Nikon FM3a better... But as I told you, your Pentax is very good for sure.

Cheers,

Juan
 
OM may not be the smallest SLR but it sure is the prettiest IMO (subjective comment I know) ... a black OM-1 is just pure class!

Nikon, Pentax etc made very good cameras but Maitani made one that was also beautiful ... yes I'm biased! 😀
 
Last edited:
Keith said:
OM may not be the smallest SLR but it sure is the prettiest IMO (subjective comment I know) ... a black OM-1 is just pure class!

Nikon, Pentax etc made very good cameras but Maitani made one that was also beautiful ... yes I'm biased! 😀
Click to expand...

And with the Zuiko 40 f/2, size is small for SLR's...

I just remembered the new 40 f/2 by Voigtländer is made in F and KA mount: another small option for Pentax bodies...

Or the "divided opinions" 45 f/2.8P on a Nikon...

Yet far from RFs and pockets, but definitely not bulky either...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Keith said:
OM may not be the smallest SLR but it sure is the prettiest IMO (subjective comment I know) ... a black OM-1 is just pure class!
Click to expand...

Completely agree - not only pretty but an outstanding engineering achievement.

I used the Pentax MX with 40mm pancake and 50 f1/.4 when I was a student - I thought it was a great camera. But it had to be sold to fund a used Leica M2.

Around '95 I added a Nikon FM2n. It was a competent but utilitarian camera.
That camera was only bought so I could try out a Noct-Nikkor lens. A lens which was not all it was supposed to be, I sold camera and lens.
I remember hating the inability to ratchet wind.

Just over a year ago, I found for sale, in the same shop, a mint black MX with 50 f/1.4 and a mint black OM1n with 50mm f/1.8 - both about £120.
My nostalgic prior experience with the MX should have won out, the the OM1n was just in another class:
The OM viewfinder was brighter and the MX just felt less refined with it wind on and shutter action.

The OM1n's a keeper - It's got the highest magnification viewfinder of any 35mm SLR.
I found a Zuiko 50 f/1.2 and now use the 50 f/1.8 as a lupe.
I dare anyone to compare the view through a modern DSLR viewfinder with that of the OM1 viewfinder - it has to experienced to be believed.

Donald.
 
I think my OMs have generated more comments when shooting from interested people that any other cameras I own ... generally "Wow! What a lovely old camera!"


home04.jpg
 
FrozenInTime said:
Completely agree - not only pretty but an outstanding engineering achievement.

I used the Pentax MX with 40mm pancake and 50 f1/.4 when I was a student - I thought it was a great camera. But it had to be sold to fund a used Leica M2.

Around '95 I added a Nikon FM2n. It was a competent but utilitarian camera.
That camera was only bought so I could try out a Noct-Nikkor lens. A lens which was not all it was supposed to be, I sold camera and lens.
I remember hating the inability to ratchet wind.

Just over a year ago, I found for sale, in the same shop, a mint black MX with 50 f/1.4 and a mint black OM1n with 50mm f/1.8 - both about £120.
My nostalgic prior experience with the MX should have won out, the the OM1n was just in another class:
The OM viewfinder was brighter and the MX just felt less refined with it wind on and shutter action.

The OM1n's a keeper - It's got the highest magnification viewfinder of any 35mm SLR.
I found a Zuiko 50 f/1.2 and now use the 50 f/1.8 as a lupe.
I dare anyone to compare the view through a modern DSLR viewfinder with that of the OM1 viewfinder - it has to experienced to be believed.

Donald.
Click to expand...


I handed my OM to a friend the other day who is a semi pro photographer and dedicated Nikon user ... I saw his expression totally change when he looked through the OM's finder!
 
Comparing the Leica M and the Pentax LX: in practice they are very similar in bulk, and the Leica is slightly heavier. Neither has a significant advantage in size or weight. (That's the 43mm f/1.9 lens on the LX.)

attachment.php


attachment.php


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • _IMG9955.jpg
    _IMG9955.jpg
    66.7 KB · Views: 0
  • _IMG9954.jpg
    _IMG9954.jpg
    74.2 KB · Views: 0
  • _IMG9952.jpg
    _IMG9952.jpg
    94.6 KB · Views: 0
ChrisN said:
Comparing the Leica M and the Pentax LX: in practice they are very similar in bulk, and the Leica is slightly heavier. Neither has a significant advantage in size or weight. (That's the 43mm f/1.9 lens on the LX.)

attachment.php


attachment.php


attachment.php
Click to expand...

Hi Chris,

Nearly similar? Neither has a significant advantage in size?

On your images, the SLR is taller (pentaprism) and A LOT thicker than the RF! 50% more! And it's like this even though the RF has a longer lens: it could have a flat lens on and be half as thick as the SLR...

Am I seeing visions? 🙂 'Cause I see the same here at home...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Hi Chris,

Nearly similar? Neither has a significant advantage in size?

On your images, the SLR is taller (pentaprism) and A LOT thicker than the RF! 50% more! And it's like this even though the RF has a longer lens: it could have a flat lens on and be half as thick as the SLR...

Am I seeing visions? 🙂 'Cause I see the same here at home...

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Juan, you are drawing very fine distinctions - I can only speak from using them, not from measuring them. 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom