[TwoUptons]

The 105R is one of the least compact "compacts" I can recall, aside from maybe the Samsung space camera...(ECX-1)
(and yes, I'm aware of the IQZoom 200...)
But those compacts all have auto film winding (and rewinding), autofocus, and built-in flash... they are very different animals from a MX, with a very different typical use...

I have a 90WR that's similarly large, though there it's for robustness, not focal range.
Those seem to have remained relatively inexpensive compared to their non-WR cousins.
Perhaps because of the heft.
Takes good pictures, though...

-Eric

---

Last edited by TwoUptons; 05-14-2022 at 09:18 AM. Reason: looked up the name of the space camera

[LesDMess]

The 105R is one of the least compact "compacts" I can recall, aside from maybe the Samsung space camera...(ECX-1)
(and yes, I'm aware of the IQZoom 200...)
But those compacts all have auto film winding (and rewinding), autofocus, and built-in flash... they are very different animals from a MX, with a very different typical use...

I have a 90WR that's similarly large, though there it's for robustness, not focal range.
Those seem to have remained relatively inexpensive compared to their non-WR cousins.
Perhaps because of the heft.
Takes good pictures, though...

-Eric

That 105R was the most I've spent for a camera when I bought it new. My first Pentax! That year - late 80s, I went to Germany and felt better about it after I saw how much it cost over there! I used it for a number of years - still have it, and it served me well.

[sconut1]

LesDMess Thanks for posting that photo earlier of the MX beside a point and shoot camera. Its a good reminder of just how tiny M series SLRs are with the pancake lens.

[ChrisPlatt]

A lightweight plastic point and shoot beats any SLR in the pocketability department.

IMO to be truly pocketable a camera must also be lightweight
therefore the Pentax M series, Olympus OM etc are disqualified.

My even smaller Contax T and Petri Color 35 cameras easily fit my coat inside chest pocket
however it is real unpleasant to have those lumps of metal banging against my chest all day...

Chris

[nickthetasmaniac]

Ha ha, is that a Pentax MX with a pancake lens in your pocket or are you just happy to see me . . .



Besides it's size, the Olympus Stylus Epic is a very competent shooter as well.

Well, to be fair I don’t think I’d walk around with a Zoom 105R in my pocket either On a side note, I think a lot of my childhood was shot on one of them...

[TwoUptons]

A lightweight plastic point and shoot beats any SLR in the pocketability department.

IMO to be truly pocketable a camera must also be lightweight
therefore the Pentax M series, Olympus OM etc are disqualified.

My even smaller Contax T and Petri Color 35 cameras easily fit my coat inside chest pocket
however it is real unpleasant to have those lumps of metal banging against my chest all day...

Chris

Pentax did make the PC35 compact without a zoom (and a few other compacts without a zoom).

It's a pretty decent camera in that 1980s kind of way, but it's no Stylus, and really not even an equivalent to the XA...

It isn't manual enough to be manual but isn't automated enough to be fully automatic... and it isn't very small...

-Eric

[LesDMess]

LesDMess Thanks for posting that photo earlier of the MX beside a point and shoot camera. Its a good reminder of just how tiny M series SLRs are with the pancake lens.

I was shooting EOS AF cameras when I acquired my first Pentax SLR - the MX.



That gigantic viewfinder of the MX at 0.97X magnification compared to the EOS3 at 0.72X was stunning to me!

[nosliwmit]

I traveled around the world with an Olympus Stylus back in '98 and I wish I still had it. It took nice pictures (with some classic in-built vignette!), was cleverly designed and served me very well. Wish I still had it, if for no reasons beyond sentimentality.

[gofour3]

I got a Pentax Espio 150Sl gifted to me about 10 years ago:

https://retrocamerashop.com/products/pentax-espio-150-sl

It meets the fit in you pocket requirement, but otherwise it's an annoying little bugger...

Phil.

[tncowdaddy]

It meets the fit in you pocket requirement, but otherwise it's an annoying little bugger...

Oh? What makes it annoying?

[gofour3]

Oh? What makes it annoying?

The zoom function, which is controlled by a toggle switch, The lens zooms out/in like Pinocchio's nose and makes an annoying noise doing so.

The little Espio 150Sl is capable of taking good pictures though, so it's not a bad camera just annoying.

For a small camera/prime lens combo, I'd rather use one of these options:

ME & M40/2.8 or the *ist & FA43/1.9 Ltd (manual focus)

Phil.

[ChrisPlatt]

I once owned a couple of Espio Mini/UC-1 cameras with fixed 32mm f/3.5 lens, often said to be Pentax best 35mm point & shoot.
They were pocketable. I believed the hype but over time they proved a disappointment in image quality and unreliable in operation.

Chris

[Eyewanders]

All it takes is one celebrity to be pictured with that camera and their followers will go out and buy one.

Phil.

This is true to an extent, but what I've been seeing is simply supply/demand issue. I don't think it's really the "Lomography movement" either.
The truth is that there are legions of new film shooters that are interested in film cameras but they've largely been bought up. I think the easiest answer is just that 15 years ago, 10 years, hell even 3 or 4 years ago most of these P&S models were still dirt cheap except for a select few standouts that had a reputation and were sought out by experienced film shooters. Those are gone, or when they're for sale they're prices are outlandish. Young photogs, to their credit, turned to the Goodwill bins and quickly discovered that as far as 35mm goes as you have a light-tight box and a decent enough glass in front of it, the differences in final image aren't enormous at least to less discerning. And the "style" of the photos they produce, especially the smaller cheaper ones, looks just like the family photos that their folks took back in the 80s and 90s... The look good.
And so everyone started buying them... but even these mass produced P&S models have a supply limit, and the very cool thing is, that limit has been realized.

All in all it's a good thing for film photography, IMHO.

---------- Post added 05-16-22 at 03:59 PM ----------

Pentax did make the PC35 compact without a zoom (and a few other compacts without a zoom).

It's a pretty decent camera in that 1980s kind of way, but it's no Stylus, and really not even an equivalent to the XA...

It isn't manual enough to be manual but isn't automated enough to be fully automatic... and it isn't very small...

I dunno... It's no XA in terms of focus control, but it's not *that* far beneath it. I've gotten some pretty great results out of that little f2.8. (Mine's a PC35 AFM)
The XA is smaller without the flash. WITH the flash I think (without measuring them) it's actually larger.

[TwoUptons]

This is true to an extent, but what I've been seeing is simply supply/demand issue. I don't think it's really the "Lomography movement" either.
The truth is that there are legions of new film shooters that are interested in film cameras but they've largely been bought up. I think the easiest answer is just that 15 years ago, 10 years, hell even 3 or 4 years ago most of these P&S models were still dirt cheap except for a select few standouts that had a reputation and were sought out by experienced film shooters. Those are gone, or when they're for sale they're prices are outlandish. Young photogs, to their credit, turned to the Goodwill bins and quickly discovered that as far as 35mm goes as you have a light-tight box and a decent enough glass in front of it, the differences in final image aren't enormous at least to less discerning. And the "style" of the photos they produce, especially the smaller cheaper ones, looks just like the family photos that their folks took back in the 80s and 90s... The look good.
And so everyone started buying them... but even these mass produced P&S models have a supply limit, and the very cool thing is, that limit has been realized.

All in all it's a good thing for film photography, IMHO.

---------- Post added 05-16-22 at 03:59 PM ----------



I dunno... It's no XA in terms of focus control, but it's not *that* far beneath it. I've gotten some pretty great results out of that little f2.8. (Mine's a PC35 AFM)
The XA is smaller without the flash. WITH the flash I think (without measuring them) it's actually larger.

The PC35 is a bit taller; wider than the XA without the flash; not as wide as the XA with the A11 flash (the 1-AA one); it's also thicker by a good bit.
And that's without the optional winder...

The main bodies are almost identically thick, but the clamshell bits of the PC35 are about 1/3 deeper (and much larger overall) than the XA bits.

In my experience, the XA has a better lens, but it isn't worlds better... I certainly have no real complaints about the PC35 optically.
I'm not sure what the aperture range or shape is for the PC35 or Stylus... The XA has a four bladed aperture and goes to f22...

I really like the fact that the XA is a rangefinder. That's part of what makes it so neat. And nearly silent in operation.
The Stylus autofocus is much better than the PC35... about a decade's worth of improvement... part of what makes it such a good camera.
I'd complain about the Stylus' reliability, since that seems to be a thing these days, but it took me three tries to get a PC35 with a flash that would stay down...

-Eric

[Eyewanders]

The PC35 is a bit taller; wider than the XA without the flash; not as wide as the XA with the A11 flash (the 1-AA one); it's also thicker by a good bit.
And that's without the optional winder...

The main bodies are almost identically thick, but the clamshell bits of the PC35 are about 1/3 deeper (and much larger overall) than the XA bits.

In my experience, the XA has a better lens, but it isn't worlds better... I certainly have no real complaints about the PC35 optically.
I'm not sure what the aperture range or shape is for the PC35 or Stylus... The XA has a four bladed aperture and goes to f22...

I really like the fact that the XA is a rangefinder. That's part of what makes it so neat. And nearly silent in operation.
The Stylus autofocus is much better than the PC35... about a decade's worth of improvement... part of what makes it such a good camera.
I'd complain about the Stylus' reliability, since that seems to be a thing these days, but it took me three tries to get a PC35 with a flash that would stay down...

-Eric

I'd certainly KEEP my XA over my PC35AFM for all those reasons. But I just posted a couple shots in the "show us your film shots" thread, one with the T2 and one with the Pentax. They're only two examples and I've frames that more closely resemble one another but I hate posting comparative shots on my Flickr very often. All that to say, the T2 missed focus 75% of the time and at the end of the day, that unscientific little test had me weirdly preferring the shots from a (currently) $50 camera over a $1500 one.

The XA would have made a shot better than them both. I love that thing's rendering, don't get me wrong.