Jump to content

Most Compact Film Body


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Earley,

The M4-P comment was in response to " how compact did I want". I probably shouldn't quoted.

Yes, I did read the responses. Is the CL all manual? I guess I somehow got it in my head that it was electronically controlled. I read a couple places where the meters were problematic. Any truth in that in general? I don't care if I have a meter, but if its there, I'd like it to work.

 

Thanks,

Matt

 

The CL is manual but yes light meters can fail and I understand some parts cannot be replaced. Also the frame lines are for the paired CL lenses.

 

If you want an M mount body then you're best off buying another M... body.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just bought a brand new 28mm M Asph, so I think the Barnack's are the wrong way for me to go and nothing really seems so much smaller as to make too much difference.

I dragged a couple of other cameras I've collected over the years out - all of the Olympus XAs, a Yashica GSN, Voigtlander VF101, and a Canonet QL17. Of course they'll all need batteries if I decide to use them.

So, I think I'll just stick with a pre M6 M camera so I don't have to fool with even more batteries.

Might toss all of the others on Fleabay to be rid of batteries altogether and maybe help finance the body.

 

Thanks all for your input.

Matt

 

hmm..,that O replica, though...

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Thanks all for your input.

Matt

 

hmm..,that O replica, though...

 

Out of topic, "0" Replica :p is something else but to use it daily, it's not  practical at all (for me it took some time not to ruin film).

Beautiful it is for sure.

Wonderful lens 50mm Anastigmat made for modern film (and modern rendering at sorrow of some users prefering old day "non coating old glass" rendering).

 

But the non capping shutter, the non standard "speed", no RF make a long learning curve to use this beauty.

 

As side note, comparing mine with the "most expensive Leica" sold recently (N° 122 at 2.4MEuro), almost identical (this lens cap is genius and never-loss),

the "0" Replica is very well made and can be used.

Edited by a.noctilux
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica "0" Replica more infos...

 

A gorgeous camera! Thanks for sharing, I need to learn more about these ...

 

RFF

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147805

 

Wiki : https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Leica_0_(2000)

 

And more with links in those two articles.

 

 

Talking about compactness...

If more modern film, Minilux is compact and lovely lens.

 

I don't know which one I prefer because each has something the other lacks :ph34r:.

They may use same film and as great pleasure to use.

 

 

 

post-21145-0-01479500-1501633825.jpg

Edited by a.noctilux
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a certain body that is more compact than others among the Leica film bodies?

 

Thanks,

Matt

 

I have an M4 which has had both the self-timer and frame selector removed when its damaged body-shell was replaced with one from a donor MD-2. I then had a custom covering made (cheap enough as it simply didn't need two holes cutting in the material). Whilst not an actual Leica modification, this does make the camera very streamlined and marginally more compact. If you really want a more compact body its a solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an M4-P, which I love because of it's compactness.

I was just wondering if there was something even more so.

I'm considering a second body.

Maybe, I'll just get another M4-P.

 

 

It depends what you mean by 'compact'. It seems most people are simply referencing the CL as compact because it is shorter in length, but how do you intend to use that compactness? The CL is still as thick as an M body, and it's nearly as tall, so it still isn't going to fit into a pocket particularly well, it's nearly as heavy so isn't going to give you any help during a long day shooting. In addition the viewfinder and focusing isn't as good as an M (because of the shorter rangefinder base) so taking a quick grab shot that needs focusing before hiding the camera again can start to be a drawn out affair especially in low light. So 'compact' has it's downsides. 

 

I think the smallest useful package capable of using M mount lenses is to keep using the M4-P and invest instead in a trio of compact Voigtlander Color Skopar lenses, the 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think the smallest useful package capable of using M mount lenses is to keep using the M4-P and invest instead in a trio of compact Voigtlander Color Skopar lenses, the 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm. 

 

Or remove the self-timer and frame selector and add a lens like this: http://www.japanexposures.com/shop/camera-lens/ms-super-triplet-perar-3.5-35-mark-ii.html which would keep dimensions quite 'pocketable'.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the advice of 250swb above,

 

For ‘compactness’ I would rather use a CV color-skopar lens on a Leica M body than buy a CL. 28mm is my most used focal length on a film M and I take my CV 28mm color-skopar when I don’t want to carry the weight and bulk of the 28mm summicron asph.

 

The CV 28mm is a very nice little lens, both in construction and performance. Pair it with a CV 50mm, or a 50mm elmar-m (as I do) and you have a very versatile and compact set for travel.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Or remove the self-timer and frame selector and add a lens like this: http://www.japanexposures.com/shop/camera-lens/ms-super-triplet-perar-3.5-35-mark-ii.html which would keep dimensions quite 'pocketable'.

 

I had the first version of that lens. I hardly used it, it wasn't bad optically, but still nowhere near a Skopar 35mm, but the irritation factor did it for me, it was just to clunky to use quickly. Maybe the MkII is another thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any “M” body is going to be larger than a screw body. If you could use screw lenses rather than wanting to use M ones you could try a Leica Standard with a 35mm Summaron and have a very compact set to fit in your pocket.

 

This is very true, but the OP was asking about M lenses. But it is only true up to a point, as soon as you want to use any lens other than a 50mm there is the accessory viewfinder to take into account and which makes it much taller than an M body. Of course you can remove the viewfinder to put the camera away, but I'm sure most people asking the question would mean 'compact while using'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...