Smallest 35mm SLR

GregL65 · 01-23-2012, 12:23 AM

Is the Pentax *ist really the smallest 35mm SLR?

Thanks,

Greg

Adam · 01-23-2012, 12:44 AM

In terms of weight, depth or height, it definitely isn't, though I had a look through the camera database and wasn't able to find a camera that was less wide than it.

Have a look through the camera database if you're curious:
Film Cameras - Pentax Camera Database and Reviews - DSLR, Digital, and Legacy Cameras

Of course, it doesn't include SLRs by other manufacturers.

RioRico · 01-23-2012, 04:27 AM

I'll guess that the Olympus Pen-F and Pen-FT were smaller.

Nesster · 01-23-2012, 04:30 AM

My thoughts exactly, Rico, I learned photography on the Pen... but then these are 1/2 frame. Is the MX heavier but smaller in any dimension?

RioRico · 01-23-2012, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by Nesster

My thoughts exactly, Rico, I learned photography on the Pen... but then these are 1/2 frame

Ah, what a beauty! I 'learned' photography on a 1934 German Kodak Retina folder, the first 135 camera; but the Pen-FT was my graduate school. I could fit an entire camera system in one pocket of a field jacket. Oh how I miss mine...

Jüri · 01-27-2012, 02:18 PM

I've read that Pentax *ist the is smallest full frame autofocus film SLR camera.

Geoff H · 01-28-2012, 09:38 AM

I believe that the MX was the smallest ever full-frame SLR - deliberately designed to be fractionally smaller than the OM-1. That they made it strong enough to survive a 5 fps motordrive (and in my case many thousands of miles in a bike frontbag) is nothing short of miraculous.

**TomB_tx** · 01-28-2012, 11:49 AM

The Pentax MX brochure called it both "The world's smallest, lightest, most complete, full-featured 35mm SLR" and "the smallest and lightest professional motor drive camera" - so they left room for something smaller, but not "professional" or motor-drive capable.

p. rex · 02-11-2012, 10:56 PM

Isn't the ME even smaller than the MX?

stevebrot · 02-11-2012, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by p. rex

Isn't the ME even smaller than the MX?

No...very close though. All of the M-series bodies were small with the MX being the smallest.

Steve

**ChrisPlatt** · 02-12-2012, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Geoff H

I believe that the MX was the smallest ever full-frame SLR - deliberately designed to be fractionally smaller than the OM-1. That they made it strong enough to survive a 5 fps motordrive (and in my case many thousands of miles in a bike frontbag) is nothing short of miraculous.

Later Olympus OM-1 cameras were motor drive capable without modification. When I worked in camera repair
at Olympus USA headquarters (1986) Pro Services had to reset many OM bodies out of sync due to motor use.

I wonder how well the Pentax MX worked with that 5 fps motor drive? I have never even seen one in person.

Chris

01-23-2012, 12:23 AM	#1
GregL65 Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Bellevue, WA Posts: 63	Smallest 35mm SLR Is the Pentax *ist really the smallest 35mm SLR? Thanks, Greg

01-23-2012, 12:44 AM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	In terms of weight, depth or height, it definitely isn't, though I had a look through the camera database and wasn't able to find a camera that was less wide than it. Have a look through the camera database if you're curious: Film Cameras - Pentax Camera Database and Reviews - DSLR, Digital, and Legacy Cameras Of course, it doesn't include SLRs by other manufacturers. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

02-12-2012, 10:54 AM	#11
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,694	Originally posted by Geoff H I believe that the MX was the smallest ever full-frame SLR - deliberately designed to be fractionally smaller than the OM-1. That they made it strong enough to survive a 5 fps motordrive (and in my case many thousands of miles in a bike frontbag) is nothing short of miraculous. Later Olympus OM-1 cameras were motor drive capable without modification. When I worked in camera repair at Olympus USA headquarters (1986) Pro Services had to reset many OM bodies out of sync due to motor use. I wonder how well the Pentax MX worked with that 5 fps motor drive? I have never even seen one in person. Chris Last edited by ChrisPlatt; 02-13-2012 at 11:53 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lenses for Pentax KX (35mm SLR)	julia123	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	01-15-2012 01:32 PM
Smallest Pentax 35mm SLR?	Erik	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	50	09-26-2010 08:21 AM
Where'd you start - 35mm SLR or dSLR?	johnmflores	Pentax DSLR Discussion	89	08-20-2010 12:44 PM
The world's smallest SLR (1978)	ismaelg	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	24	11-09-2009 07:33 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Auto 110 (smallest SLR collector item)	hinman	Sold Items	10	05-14-2008 10:34 AM

01-23-2012, 04:27 AM	#3
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	I'll guess that the Olympus Pen-F and Pen-FT were smaller.

01-23-2012, 04:30 AM	#4
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	My thoughts exactly, Rico, I learned photography on the Pen... but then these are 1/2 frame. Is the MX heavier but smaller in any dimension?

01-23-2012, 04:34 AM	#5
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by Nesster My thoughts exactly, Rico, I learned photography on the Pen... but then these are 1/2 frame Ah, what a beauty! I 'learned' photography on a 1934 German Kodak Retina folder, the first 135 camera; but the Pen-FT was my graduate school. I could fit an entire camera system in one pocket of a field jacket. Oh how I miss mine...

01-27-2012, 02:18 PM	#6
Jüri Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Tartu, Estonia Posts: 83	I've read that Pentax ist the is smallest full frame autofocus film SLR* camera.

01-28-2012, 09:38 AM	#7
Geoff H Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 52	I believe that the MX was the smallest ever full-frame SLR - deliberately designed to be fractionally smaller than the OM-1. That they made it strong enough to survive a 5 fps motordrive (and in my case many thousands of miles in a bike frontbag) is nothing short of miraculous.

01-28-2012, 11:49 AM	#8
TomB_tx Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,446	The Pentax MX brochure called it both "The world's smallest, lightest, most complete, full-featured 35mm SLR" and "the smallest and lightest professional motor drive camera" - so they left room for something smaller, but not "professional" or motor-drive capable.

02-11-2012, 10:56 PM	#9
p. rex New Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14	Isn't the ME even smaller than the MX?

02-11-2012, 11:07 PM	#10
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by p. rex Isn't the ME even smaller than the MX? No...very close though. All of the M-series bodies were small with the MX being the smallest. Steve