smallest 35mm SLR ever?

shadowfox

shadowfox

Darkroom printing lives
Local time
6:32 PM
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
8,770
4816135731_2415ccdd42_z.jpg


... Zenit-C and it's an FSU camera :)

NOTE: In case you're new to FSU-dom, the upper camera is a Zorki 1, it's the size of a Leica II/III.
 
Last edited:
I'd take an FSU Zorki-C over any OM anytime, the OM's plastic controls always feel kinda flimsy, and at least you cannot call the Zorki-C SLR that.

Cannot think of anything smaller, unless removing the prism would be an option, in which case the Nikon F might almost be acceptible.
 
Not sure which plastic controls you mean, Johan. Self timer (handle-only) and on-off switch, that the Zorki doesn't have ?

Does look like a cool camera though, Will. Now put a Helios 40 on it for perfect balance :)
 
At least with OM1 and 2 (and those are the one I like), Only plastic controls are the thumb-rest part of the advance lever, meter switch, and ISO dial. That's the same as newer Ms other than the meter switch.

Actual advance lever, rewind knob, shutter release, selftimer, aperture and speed rings are all metal. I don't feel flimsy at all.

Only but frequently seen problem with Russian cams that I encountered was advancing/frame spacing. If that's in the clear, this looks like a real nice "pocket" SLR.

That said, Zorki-C looks really nice. I love the main body shell looking so much like Barnacks (and its copies).
 
Maybe they changes it for OM-1n? I wash checking it with mine in the office. Selftimer lever looks like plastic but it was actually metal. Now I'm on the bus, but will check with OM-2n at home. Yes I have an OM living in the office just in case. ;)

Was Zorki-C completely Russian original design or was there a German original camera in same size?

Edit: Yeah, sorry, Zenit-C, not Zorki.

Edit2: I confirmed, at least for OM1n, BOTH ISO and Self-timer controls are made of metal.
 
Last edited:
Actually it is a Zenit-C, but it is obviously based on the Zorki design (and manufacturing also, I bet).

As an OM user myself, this is the first picture I took :)

4816759868_98c1b5a823_z.jpg


For another 35mm (full-frame, not half-frame like Pen-F) to be actually smaller than the OM is quite remarkable.

As for the origin of design, I'm guessing it's pure FSU, why? because if Leica ever came out with this design, people would laud it as another brilliant innovation and became famous :)

The camera is pretty cool to use precisely because how small it is, but still feels solid. The viewfinder is like a mini ground glass. I can tell where the focus is easily, pretty neat.

ferider said:
Does look like a cool camera though, Will. Now put a Helios 40 on it for perfect balance :)
Click to expand...

Roland, I lucked out on a cheap Mir-1 37/2.8 which is derived from Zeiss Flektogon that I can use with this camera. I'm waiting for a Helios 40 to fall from the sky, those sellers on ebay wants an arm and a leg for it. :rolleyes:
 
I prefer one more centimeter in size, and going to the classic Nikons and a shutter of 1/4000... Fast lenses are useful, as fast film and fast shutters... The thing (to me) is that no SLR is really as pocketable as a RF with a flat lens, so I find no benefit in having less camera for near the same size... In any case all 35mm SLR's are thick because of the mirror...

Cheers,

Juan
 
The body on the Minolta XD series (XD, XD11, XD7, XD5) is exactly the same width and depth as a Bessa R3A, and only a tiny bit taller. Light weight, too. Put a pancake lens on the XD, and its feel is very rf-like.
 
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
 
Bingley said:
The body on the Minolta XD series (XD, XD11, XD7, XD5) is exactly the same width and depth as a Bessa R3A, and only a tiny bit taller. Light weight, too. Put a pancake lens on the XD, and its feel is very rf-like.
Click to expand...

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