Which SLR is most like an RF?

scottgee1 said:
Paul, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Pen-F/FT were strictly 35mm half frame format cameras. Or were they 'switchable'?
Click to expand...
Scott, you are right, all Olympus cameras with "Pen" in the name are half-frame only. Perhaps the suggestion that they're "RF-like" comes from how slim and sleek they are, with no protruding mirror box and no pentaprism hump. I have a Pen FT, a very compact rig to carry about, just as easy as a Bessa R. 🙂
 
Some components of my Yashica FX-3/2000 are the same as with Bessa-R (i.e. mechanical shutter). I bet it's made by Cosina. It's small, black, lightweight, rugged, no AE. I bought this body for my Zeiss 1.4/85
Another body for Zeiss SLR lenses is my old Contax 139. With AE, electronical. A bit odd in handling (Contax style right speed wheel and stuff like that) but compact and black as well...
cheers, Frank
 
First post from me, I've been lurking for a while and like the forum!

My vote also goes to the Olympus OM. I have an OM2n with a 50/1.8. It is relatively quiet, small and sturdy. Inexpensive, as well.
 
Last edited:
Sonnar2 said:
Some components of my Yashica FX-3/2000 are the same as with Bessa-R (i.e. mechanical shutter). I bet it's made by Cosina. It's small, black, lightweight, rugged, no AE. I bought this body for my Zeiss 1.4/85
Another body for Zeiss SLR lenses is my old Contax 139. With AE, electronical. A bit odd in handling (Contax style right speed wheel and stuff like that) but compact and black as well...
cheers, Frank
Click to expand...

Very true! I have a Yashica FX3 that I bought as a backup to the Contax 139. The 139 has died, the FX3 still works well. I haven't checked their size weight against each other, but I think the FX3 might be a little smaller. The later version of the FX3 went to 1/2000 on shutter speed.

I agree on size with the Olympus OM1 and 2. I don't think I saw any of the other models to compare, nor many of the others mentioned here, other than the Pentax ME.

One that surprises me that it hasn't been mentioned is the Fujica ST 801/901 cameras. Both are small. In fact, I remember the photo press credited Fuji with having a small lightweight SLR out before Olympus did. I think that is correct. That was at a time when most other brands were turning their cameras into strong heavy tanks.

The Fujinon lenses did not take a back seat to anybody. They had lenses from 19mm to 400mm that I know of. I am not sure, but I think their zooms may have been limited to 75-150, and the later 43-75. All their lenses, at least in screw mount, were not only very good performers, but they were compact like the cameras. I have the 28mm and 135mm lenses as well as a couple of others. They are compact and great performers. Their control of flare, even into the sun, was incredible. The ST801 went to 1/2000, but the ST901 had automatic exposure. It was easy to hold for arial shots, hanging out the back of a Chinook connected to a monkey strap in Korea. One hand for holding to the chopper and the other to take photos. 😀 Both also had split rangefinders on their viewing screens.

I guess all that to say I would take a split between Olympus OM's, Pentax ME's and the two Fujicas. Oh, and I wouldn't discount the FX3 either. I would disagree with the 167MT. As I recall, it was rather large and heavy with that builtin motor drive. Anyway, interesting thread. I have learned some things about other compact cameras.
 
Sonnar2 said:
Some components of my Yashica FX-3/2000 are the same as with Bessa-R (i.e. mechanical shutter). I bet it's made by Cosina. It's small, black, lightweight, rugged, no AE. I bought this body for my Zeiss 1.4/85
Another body for Zeiss SLR lenses is my old Contax 139. With AE, electronical. A bit odd in handling (Contax style right speed wheel and stuff like that) but compact and black as well...
cheers, Frank
Click to expand...


Yashica and Contax were manufactured by Kyocera.

Keith
 
I put a vote in for the Zeiss Ikon Contaflex. Mine is smaller and lighter than my Kiev 4, even smaller than my Retina IIIc. Very quiet, unobtrusive. I forget it's an SLR, it inhabits one of the RF shelves in my collection. It doesn't like sitting amongst its huge big brothers, more "modern" SLRs. A beautiful shooter, I use it all the time.
 
The closest I have personally owned is the Nikon FG which was a really nice size in comparison to my F3+MD4! 🙄 I regrettably sold it for some reason that I don't remember. One of my kids is a lucky Nikon FM2 owner and that is just an awesome little camera - very close to an RF in concept if not execution.

Also welcome to the forum wilt!! 🙂
 
Some of your choices have been too physically large and heavy, IMO. I've owned or own some of them- Olympus OMs, Nikon EM, FG, Yashicas, and Contax Aria. My vote HAS to go to the Olympus OM series. Small, light, rugged, and if you include features into the equation, the OMs can't be beat. Put a small, prime lens on one, and it is very slim and lightweight. "OTF" "real time" exposure and "OTF" flash modes, multi-spot metering, etc. The Contax Aria body and lenses are close, but noticeably heavier and not as packed with important to me, features.
 
George S. said:
Some of your choices have been too physically large and heavy, IMO. I've owned or own some of them- Olympus OMs, Nikon EM, FG, Yashicas, and Contax Aria. My vote HAS to go to the Olympus OM series. Small, light, rugged, and if you include features into the equation, the OMs can't be beat...(snip)
Click to expand...
With all due respect, yes the OM series can be beat. Most of the suggestions on this thread suffer from the "error of small sampling." I have also owned the OM-1 along with all Nikon FM/FE variations and the FG, Contax 167 and 139 and Leica R3 and R4. With the benefit of actual use and experience to back my assertion I remain firmly convinced that the Alpa 4 through 8 series clearly come closest to the parameters Scott originally stated. I have heard Zuiko, Takumar, and Nikkor glass described as unbeatable, none better, etc. but that is simply not true. Again, the error of small sampling and limited exposure to all available options comes into consideration; none of these lenses come close to comparison in quality to the Kern, Kinoptik, Angenieux, Schneider, Schact, Kilar, and Delft lenses used with the Alpa cameras. They are in an entirely different league, many having been originally designed for 35mm motion picture use where quality takes on a much greater importance (capturing images enlarged to motion picture screen size as opposed to 8x10, or 11x14). In addition to all of this, the Alpa cameras without the "b" suffix do not have instant return mirrors and thus can be used with collapsible 50mm lenses from Delft and Schneider, as many were. A collapsible 50 on a small SLR is about as RF like as you can get 😉. As I mentioned on the first page of this thread, Olympus benefited from accolades they did not necessarily earn as the "innovators" of the compact SLR -- Alpa broke this ground 25 to 30 years prior by following the simple principle of form and function, along with excellent design and engineering.
 
Last edited:
I've got a Minolta XD-11 (and much of the rest of the X series also), and the Yashica FX3 & Super 2000. The Yashica is smaller and much lighter, all mechanical shutter speeds, with a 1/2000 shutter for the Super 2000, and you can mount Zeiss/Contax glass on it.

The XD-11 is very solid, has a aperture & shutter priority mode and 1/100 mechanical shutter speed backup, and Rokkor glass is _cheap_ and good.

I've got a Contaflex IV also, and it's surprisingly small, and the Tessar is beautiful. It shoots about as fast as my Kiev's 🙂 (not very), but the shutter's flaky, and hard to work on... just ask Jon G & Rick O. So it doesn't make the #6 or #7 requirements.

Of course, 1/2 of my BRF's are of the larger, fixed lense variety and my compact GIII QL17 & Hi-Matic E are surprisingly _heavy_, so even my RF's don't quite meet Scott's requirements 🙂 But since most of us are gearhead's anyhow 🙂, that won't stop us.
 
Honu-Hugger said:
SNIP!
With the benefit of actual use and experience to back my assertion I remain firmly convinced that the Alpa 4 through 8 series clearly come closest to the parameters Scott originally stated.
Click to expand...

Honu-Hugger, I'd like to learn more about the Alpas. Can you point me to any Web resources for them?

TIA!/ScottGee1
 
Wow! A lot of very helpful suggestions! Thank you all for sharing your thoughts and experiences. Very educational!

And this Sunday there's a Photorama show in town (Southfield, Michigan). Coincidence? I think not . . . 😉 Though the last one I attended was pretty lame, I plan to go to check out as many of these cameras as I can. Also helpful is Michael McBroom's 'Bluebook' that describes a LOT of cameras.

From what I can determine, the overall bulk of a system has a lot to do with what I call 'form factor'. In this case, the diameter of the lens mount is the key. It seems that the smaller that is, the smaller the kit gets.

We can see a simple example of this by comparing a lens over three different form factors, e.g., a Canon 50/1.4.

LTM: 55 x 41.7mm, 246g

FD: 67 x 49mm, 350g

EOS: 73.8 x 50.5mm, 290g

The progression is pretty clear. Well, except for the weight reduction on the EOS - thanks, polycarbonate!

From that perspective, the M42 mount becomes attractive. Good to hear that good service is still available for them!

A lot of people obviously like Olympus OM series cameras. Based on past experience, I do too. But Camtech is telling people that they can consistently provide parts for only the 3T and 4T so that's subject for concern. Key parts are simply not available for earlier models. A shame really as Oly meets a lot of the criteria otherwise.

Minolta does not seems to be supporting any of their older cams either.

The vintage cameras are intriguing but again, parts and service raise their ugly heads.

I'm still checking on availability of p&s for Pentax bayonet mount cams and Nikon. Any info on them would be appreciated.

Of course additional responses/suggestions are most welcome!

Thanks again!/ScottGee1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Follow-up to 'Which SLR is most like an RF?'
Replies
8
Views
1K
scottgee1
S
Back
Top Bottom