The Tiniest?

R

Rodchenko

Olympian
Local time
12:03 PM
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
2,994
I've come to realise I like small cameras.

Though I've owned some big machines, my favourite medium format cameras are my old Fuji 645, and current Nettar folder, which is almost as small as a lot of compact digitals.

I've had a series of Minoxes. I love my new (if battered) 35RC. My favourite SLRs are OMs, which are pretty tiny.

And, in my view, the prettiest camera is the little Braun Super Paxette (though I'd love a Tessina).

So, I got to thinking: What's the smallest RF? Minoxes and Rolleis are probably as small as 35mm cameras can get (Tessina aside), but neither has a rangefinder.

It could be the XA (102x64.5x40mm), but is there anything smaller than that (and how usable is it)?
 
The Contax T is a very nice (and small) little Rangefinder, but I think the XA still beats it.

I know which I'd rather have though.
 
Hmmm, well, I've got out the instruction manuals and they tell me:-

XA2 etc 102 x 65 40 mm (no flash fitted)

mju- 1 117 x 63 x 37mm and

mju-II 108 x 55 x 37mm

The XA range all look the same size to me but the three flashes I have for them in the collection are all different sizes. Roughly speaking, 145mm long with a normal/common A11 flash fitted.

Not RF's either but the Contax Tix (APS) is neat and so is the Minox 35 ML when shut at 100 x 62 x 32mm.

Plus the APS Kodak T550 which is AF like the mju's and the Tix.

And then we go bigger (and better) to the Leica mini range, the Pentax ESPIO mini and so on.

Regards, David
 
In my book 35RC is smallest FL RF comfortable to use (but there are lots of similar sized f/2.8 lenses species). XA? XA2 wins as easer to use, if I want to do precion work I choose to open camera instead of fiddling XA's rangefinder.
 
While a little bigger than the XA, the kodak instamatic 60 is an interesting smaller rangefinder. I think easier to keep in a back pocket than an XA. The clamshell always opens when you take it out (could be a good thing or a bad thing) and make you possibly bump the shutter as you fiddle with it. Instamatic will stick out so you can easily grab it ;)
 
IIRC, there were several 110 pocket rangefinders. Canon, maybe? Will google and post what I find.

Edited to add: Yes, there were: Canon 110 ED and ED20 had rangefinders. Maybe others.

Edited to add more: Fool me! I didn't catch that ZF1 above was already talking about 110 rangefinders!
 
ZF1 said:
While a little bigger than the XA, the kodak instamatic 60 is an interesting smaller rangefinder. I think easier to keep in a back pocket than an XA. The clamshell always opens when you take it out (could be a good thing or a bad thing) and make you possibly bump the shutter as you fiddle with it. Instamatic will stick out so you can easily grab it ;)
Click to expand...

I have an instamatic 60, cool little camera. Be aware the oddly shaped batteries are no longer made so it takes some effort to get them working.
 
The tiniest what? Rangefinder camera with 24x36mm format should be the Olympus XA and /or the Minox 35, the smallest camera using a 24x36mm, well this answer vary depending on what lens you'd like to have but assuming this is not your problem I think (not sure) that the Minolta TC qualify (but cheap is not, even now!), the smallest RF with interchangeable lenses should be the Leica CL/Minolta CLE. In the digital world in theory the Pentax Q should be the smallest, at least if we look at interchangeable lens cameras, but the lenses add to the bulk in a peculiar way that make it not as pocketable as, say, a Ricoh GR is. Of course, a lot of very small digital cameras are around but mostly they are not really good. Going to subminiature cameras there might be something smaller but the only camera I would bother using is the classical Minox using 16mm film.

You might want to have a look at this

http://www.submin.com

To me anyway the perfect camera is not the smallest but a combination of being able to put it in the pocket, having decent controls (after all the camera might shrink to tiny size but our hands are always the same) and passing unnoticed when you use it. For instance, I have the K-01 which is not particularly small but when you take it out of your bag nobody is going to think you are particularly menacing and mostly it goes pretty much unnoticed.

Ah, sorry, I almost forgot this one, perhaps my dream camera from a collector's point of view:

http://gajitz.com/antique-spy-tech-tiny-feature-rich-1930s-camera/

Also perfect match to a Reverso Gyrotourbillon, should you win the lottery:

http://www.anselmo1910.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Reverso-Gyrotourbillon-2-back.jpg

GLF
 
Hi,

Much as I like the XA I think it is a bit too small and fiddly to use. The range-finder image can vanish unless you are lined up exactly right and that can take time. So I use the XA2 more; it's a very practical and usable camera.

As for all the other non-RF's, or non-CRF's as they should be called, most of them out perform the older CRF's in practice. My mju-II with spot metering, built in (annoying) flash and AF is preferable in use to the 35 SP. And, even with the slower lens and no spot metering the mju-I is a very usable camera.

But looking at something bigger but still with a prime lens I'd recommend the Konica A4 as the most usable and versatile.

So, we started asking about small CRF's but end up with small cameras and a discussion on usability. Nothing wrong with that.

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