I'm going to have to say the ME is. Probably the ME Super/MG/MV are the
same size also. You might not want a MG or a MV because IIRC they don't
have a shutter lock. I just did a comparison between the ME and a Ricoh
body, and the Ricoh is maybe 1mm-2mm thicker, but is noticeably taller and
wider. Other advantages to the ME include aperture priority, and a
mechanical speed of 1/100, B, and ~1/750 when the batteries are dead.
BTW, the specification for the K-mount says the mount is 45.5mm from the
film, or 1.791", so I don't think you are going to find a K-mount body 1.8"
thin or less.
Todd
At 01:26 PM 4/17/01 -0400, you wrote:
>I wisht to begin to carry a reasonably light K-mount body and reasonably
>light lens in a belt pouch, wherever I go. Because it is the lightest body,
>I was thinking of going with an MZ-M. But at 2.2 inches (56mm) thick (dep),
>it is about 0.4 inch thicker than my Super Program (1.8 in., 71 mm). To
>carry a lens already mounted, I'd be limited to the shortest pancakes (0.7
>in., 18mm). Heck--I could equip a Super Program with a 50/1.7M or A (1.2
>in. / 30mm long); the extra 0.1 inch would gain me nearly a stop and a
>half.
>
>I was hoping that Boz's site would list body dimensions, but it doesn't
>appear to do so. Nor does the mega site for Chinon and other K-mounts list
>body dimensions.
>
>So: Which bodies are less deep than 1.8 inches (71 mm)? Pentax, Chinon,
>Cosina, Ricoh--I don't care which brand.
>
>If I can't find a slimmer body, I may just carry the lens capped and mount
>it as-needed. I'd hate to do so, for this would cost me many grab shots
>
>Before you advise me to buy a rangefinder, let me state that while I am a
>huge fan of rangefinders, I want this body to serve as a backup body for my
>other K-mount lenses.
>
>Paul Franklin Stregevsky
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
