Tsheltry
Member
Does anyone know what the smallest ltm mount canon(or other brand if it's that much better) rangefinder? I'm wanting something very small as a second body.
Smallest ltm canon
- Thread starter Tsheltry
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 21
- Views 4K
nasmformyzombie
Registered
Take a look at the Canon camera museum here.
The open back film loading Canons are about the same size except for the 7 series, which is larger. The models with built in trigger winders are taller. In the Canon museum there are dimension and weight specifications for all models.
The older bottom loaders are a bit smaller, some not by much. The smallest are the oldest models and are the least user friendly.
I've not owned a Leica Barnack camera. Too fiddly for my taste.
The open back film loading Canons are about the same size except for the 7 series, which is larger. The models with built in trigger winders are taller. In the Canon museum there are dimension and weight specifications for all models.
The older bottom loaders are a bit smaller, some not by much. The smallest are the oldest models and are the least user friendly.
I've not owned a Leica Barnack camera. Too fiddly for my taste.
The Leica CL.
Add a LTM to M adapter and it becomes a LTM camera,
WITH TTL metering !
Steve M.
Veteran
That's an excellent suggestion. I had one w/ a collapsible 50 Summicron (which you couldn't collapse on the CL) and it was tiny and light. You can usually pick up a nice one w/ a dead meter at a good price, which is my preferred type of CL. Compared to this, the M3 DS w/ a 50 DR that it replaced felt closer to a medium format camera in weight and size.
Mackinaw
Think Different
- Local time
- 11:56 PM
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 4,718
Owning a bottom load Canon III-A, I’ve always been impressed how much smaller it is the a Leica M. Make that substantially smaller. My III-A, and a 25mm lens, fits neatly inside my pocket. Great combo too.
Jim B.
Jim B.
Steve M.
Veteran
Here's a nice little CL w/ a working meter for a sweet price. I never had one w/ a meter that worked, so have no idea how that even works. This one will be gone very quickly at this price.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-Leitz...701824?hash=item3adbcc4a40:g:ABUAAOSwubRXIa1x
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-Leitz...701824?hash=item3adbcc4a40:g:ABUAAOSwubRXIa1x
nasmformyzombie
Registered
Canon III-A: 136 x 72.2 x 30.5 mm.
Leica M3: 138 x 77.0 x 33.5 mm.
Substantially smaller? The Canon is not as tall, not quite as wide, almost the same length, but to me it's splitting hairs. An M3 is tiny compared to a modern SLR.
The previously suggested Leica CL is 121 × 76 × 32 mm.
Tsheltry
Member
I've considered it. I'm just worried about the meter dying on me🙁. My localish camera store has one with the 40mm for $500 I think. Is that a good price?
B-9
Devin Bro
That's a great price for a body with lens...
Especially if it has a working meter, the 40mm Rokkor/Summicrons are fetching 400+ usd these days.
Especially if it has a working meter, the 40mm Rokkor/Summicrons are fetching 400+ usd these days.
Mackinaw
Think Different
- Local time
- 11:56 PM
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 4,718
Numbers on paper don’t tell the entire story. Besides the Canon III-A, I also own a Leica M3 and MP. The III-A is much smaller than an M-series Leica. No contest really. Hold one in your hand and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
Jim B.
Tsheltry
Member
Is the canon III much different than the IIIa? I found one with a 50mm 1.9 for a decent price. I've never used a camera with a winding knob before so that turned me off of it a little
Livesteamer
Well-known
The Canon III and IIIa are similar. Canon made many different models with only slight differences. If you want a Canon bottom loader I would suggest the very last few, easily identified by the shutter dial have an arrow in the center of the dial to set speed by. These models have an improved finder that is better than the earlier ones. I have a Canon IVSB2 with that finder and I think it's better than my Leica IIIc's. Joe
Tsheltry
Member
The finder on my L3 is excellent, I'd like to find something similar quality to that but with 50 and 100 finders instead of the 35 and 50 on the L3
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Like Stephen said, the CL (or CLE). With a 28mm 2.8 LTM lens on there it's as small as you can get.
nasmformyzombie
Registered
The IV series has a switchable magnification finder at 50mm (F-0.67x), 100mm (1x), and 135mm (1.5x). This is a bottom loader/Barnack copy which means the viewfinder will be smaller than on your L3. Not sure about mag finders on other bottom loaders.
I have a Canon VI L, which is something of an updated version of your L3. There are several differences with the VI L, including a larger shutter speed dial than the L3. The VI L also has built-in automatic parallax correction with projected frames for 50mm and 100mm lenses. The VI L is an upgrade over the L3 and is priced accordingly. I am otherwise unfamiliar with the particulars of the L3.
The bottom loaders are smaller than the rear loaders, but for me too fiddly with film loading and with viewfinders that are too squinty. If you can live with the slightly larger footprint of the rear loaders, and you share these concerns, they are much better shooters than the bottom loaders.
Lastly, as a Leica owner I could be burned at the stake for stating this, but the screwmount Canons are far better values for the money than their Leica counterparts. The only advantage the Leicas have is they are smaller than the Canons.
wjlapier
Well-known
Not LTM, but...
Not LTM, but...
Might be a tiny as you can get with a 28mm.
Not LTM, but...
Might be a tiny as you can get with a 28mm.
peterm1
Veteran
If you are happy to go really old school I would suggest something like a Leica 111a. I had one for several years and really liked it. Although its serial number dated to 1936 (and the Elmar 50mm f3.5 lens to 1934) it had been factory updated after the war to have flash sync and coating on the lens. It performed nicely. Its small but not so small that it is hard to handle. The Leica 111c is only slightly larger. Both are smaller than any Canon LTM camera I ever owned. Of course having a lens that slides into the camera body helps and it is readily possible to slip such a camera into a pocket for carrying.
nasmformyzombie
Registered
The numbers do tell most of the story, unless you believe in alternative facts. The remainder of the story to me is in looking at the experience of the individual user. I started with Contax SLR's, built like proverbial tanks, and accordingly large and heavy. When I pick up my M3 I can never get over how small it is compared to Contax SLR's. My perspective on the size of a Leica M is informed by my use of those beastly cameras from Contax.
I can't imagine wanting a camera any smaller than the M3. I don't know if I could properly operate a camera any smaller. This assumes I can operate any camera properly but that's another story. 😉
goamules
Well-known
My M3 weighs 2 lbs, 5 oz. My Canon IVSB weighs 1 lb, 7 oz. That extra pound (almost twice as heavy) is a big difference around your neck. The depth of the Canon with this lens you'll note is less than half what the M3 is too. All that weight tipping forward on the strap is a hassle.
Back to the OP, why do you want a smaller camera? I'm assuming to pocket one at some times? And why LTM, so you can use your lenses right? Then get a Canon IVSB, and report back to us after 4 rolls through it. If you get a Canon P or L series, you are getting basically the same size and viewfinder brightness of the M3, i.e. about the same camera. You wanted smaller right?
Back to the OP, why do you want a smaller camera? I'm assuming to pocket one at some times? And why LTM, so you can use your lenses right? Then get a Canon IVSB, and report back to us after 4 rolls through it. If you get a Canon P or L series, you are getting basically the same size and viewfinder brightness of the M3, i.e. about the same camera. You wanted smaller right?
Peter Jennings
Well-known
This is not entirely accurate. The 1x and 1.5x magnifications do roughly equate to those focal lengths, but what you see through the finder is not a rectangular frame. The image is circular and what you see is only a rough estimate of what will be in the frame. I'd highly recommend an external finder for shooting long focal lengths on a III, IV, and V series Canon RF.
Similar threads
