Re: K-mount SLR Bodies: Who's the thinnest of them all?
Chris Brogden writes: Wasn't the ME the smallest SLR ever made, or am I imagining that I heard that? The Auto 110 is smaller.. you didn't specify which format :) Cheers, - Dave David A. Mann, B.E. email [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ "Why is it that if an adult behaves like a child they lock him up, while children are allowed to run free on the streets?" -- Garfield - 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 .
K-mount SLR Bodies: Who's the thinnest of them all?
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 .
Re: K-mount SLR Bodies: Who's the thinnest of them all?
Paul 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 ... Paul, drop me a line if a Program Plus might be of interest to you. I find myself with a bit more gear than I am using these days. - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - 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 .
Re: K-mount SLR Bodies: Who's the thinnest of them all?
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wisht to begin to carry a reasonably light K-mount body and reasonably light lens in a belt pouch, wherever I go. How about an ME or ME Super with the 40/2.8 pancake? That's a pretty small package. Wasn't the ME the smallest SLR ever made, or am I imagining that I heard that? chris - 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 .
Re: K-mount SLR Bodies: Who's the thinnest of them all?
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 .
Re: K-mount SLR Bodies: Who's the thinnest of them all?
The ME S, MX, and LX are each within about 1/2mm of each other at about 50mm deep, measured to the front of the lens mounting flange from the eye piece or the rectangular frame in which you'd place the film information. I would imagine that they won't get any thinner than that -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. - 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 .
Re: K-mount SLR Bodies: Who's the thinnest of them all?
Boz, the Minox 35 is, of course, a very logical suggestion. Before entering SLR photography in 1999, two Minox 35s and an Olympus XA were my only cameras (12 years). Been there, done that. The Minox 35s, like the Rollei 35s, use scale focusing, in which you must guess the distance.If I do elect to get a small rangefinder-type camera, it would have to have a real manual-focus-capable rangefinder for accurate focusing, such as the XA, a Konica Hexar, or a 1990s-vintage Contax. I'd even consider the Contax APS SLR, if the price were half what it deservedly is. But I'm not sure that 35mm or 28mm would be my focal length of choice. I could find a 40 or 45mm rangefinder, but once you start considering an old rangefinder, you're talking about at a camera that's much larger and heavier than a 200-gram Minox 35. For a bit more weight and size, l might as well use an SLR. I really don't feel like spending more money for a "dedicated" solution; rather, I'd like a body and lens (preferably one that I already own) that can step in as spares or fallbacks. "Bojidar Dimitrov" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Look into a (non-K mount) Minox 35 mm camera. It's an incredibly small package. The one that I have is about the size of a deck of cards, with a 35/2,8 lens. The lens folds inside the body when the camera is not in use. Cheers, Boz 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 .
