What is the largest and smallest 35 mm fullframe SLR?

<p>Hi -</p>

<p>I wonder, what is the biggest, I mean largest 35 mm fullframe SLR ever produced?</p>

<p>There is no such a big problem answering what is the smallest 35 SLR... The smallest 35 mm fullframe SLR ever built is most probably <a href="http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Pentax_MX">Pentax MX</a>, or <a href="http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Pentax_ME">Pentax ME</a> (which is slightly taller then MX, but is less by 5 mm width). There is of course smaller SLR, the child of ingenious Maitani Yoshihisa - <a href="http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Olympus_Pen_F">Olympus Pen F</a>, but it is for half-frame, not fullframe...</p>

<p>So, the smallest is Pentax (MX or ME) I think... Others believe that the smallest is the famous Olympus OM-1n - it was the first of the smallest, that's for sure. But what about the largest?</p>

<p>There is famous (and very expensive now and then) <a href="http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Contaflex_(TLR)">Zeiss Contaflex</a> which is quite big, but this is TLR, not SLR. There are some weird Agfas, like <a href="http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Agfa_Flexilette">Flexilette</a> or <a href="http://elekm.net/pages/cameras/spotlight_optimareflex.htm">Optima-Reflex</a>, but they are TLR too...</p>

<p>My suspicion fell on one of early Praktica cameras (<a href="http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Praktica_IV">Praktica IV</a> for example), which in the aerly sixties were in the forefront. Later <a href="http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Praktica_nova">Praktica Nova</a> also belongs to rather bigger cameras, but is it the one - the biggest?</p>

<p>So, what is your suggestion in that matter? Do you know the larger (or mayby the smaller) cameras, other then these I mention? And do note please - I ask about SLR (Single Lens Reflex), for the full frame of 35 mm film.</p>

<p>Thanks for your answers - and your time, if you write it. :) And Happy New Year!</p>

<p>Paul</p>

<p>largest is the Nikon F4</p>

<p>and the smallest is not the MX nor the OM-1, OM-2. At least the EXA I is smaller</p>

<p>Nikon F4 ?<br>

with MB-21 battery - 169 x 134 x 77 mm<br>

with MB-20 battery - 169 x 118 x 77 mm<br>

Only Praktica I know about is the BMS - 138 x 87 x 49 mm<br>

Next estimate ...<br>

Jim</p>

And if you throw an MB-23 on that sucka, it's even bigger. I've got one and I like it, as the ledge for gripping with your

thumb is more prominent, making the camera easier for me to hold. But it takes a bit of fiddling to get it into the

camera bag with that grip attached, as that is one big picture takin' machine.

<p>The last Nikon pro film offering, model F6 is a "moose". And is likely the largest / heaviest 35MM SLR ever built. But it won't fit this forum's definition as "classic". The Zeiss Contarex (Bullseye) weighs almost 4 lbs!<br /> The lightest is the OM1. It weighs in at a svelte 680 grams with a 50MM/F1.8 lens! A Pentax Spotmatic body alone weighs over 800 grams, or about 30oz. Most other 60's,70's & 80's 35MM SLR bodies weigh at least 900 grams (2 lbs). And many weigh close to 3 lbs!</p>

<p>The Voigtländer Bessamatic is pretty big and unwieldy... and I guess the ZI Contarex is also in the "too big" league.</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure an F5 on its own is larger than an F4 with a battery grip.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>largest is the Nikon F4</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would say F4 too. The first time I s aw one I couldn't believe that it only produced little postage stamp size images. They could have fitted 120 roll film in there!</p>

<p>Thank you for the answers!</p>

<p>To John Tran - I've Exa 1a and both Pentaxes (MX & ME), and Exa is the biggest of that trio. :)</p>

<p>Here is my old photo... At the 'little end' there is Minolta 110 MKII (not for 35 mm), the next one is Olympus OM-10. Exa, as the biggest from that part of my colection is at the other end of the row...</p>

<p>By the way - both of the Pentaxes (ME and MX) are smaller than Oly OM-10.</p>

<p><img src="http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/390/cameras.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Okay, here's some weight figures, obtained from various places on the Interwebs:<br>

Nikon F4 with MB-23 (body only) 1400 grams<br>

Nikon F5 (body only) 1210 grams<br>

Nikon F6 (body only) 975 grams<br>

Nikon F6 with MB-40 (body only?) 1157 grams</p>

<p>Looks like we have a winner in the chunkiness category!</p>

<p>IMHO the smallest 24x36 format film SLR is the Cosina built, Konica TCX with the 40mm f1.8 Hexanon.</p><div></div>

<p>Well these two are close and I have a pic of them:</p><div></div>

<p>Largest is Canon <em>EOS</em>-1n <em>RS?</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is no such a big problem answering what is the smallest 35 SLR...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You think? Heh, heh....<br>

What variables to use? Dimensions, volume, mass, with or without powerpacks? What if a powerpack is built in? Country of origin (the largest or smallest SLR in xxxx)?</p>

<p>I'm sure it isn't the actual largest anywhere, but probably the DDR record for a 35mm SLR is the Pentacon Super.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>The Nikon MB-20, MB-21 or MB-23 are not motor drives (that's built into the body). One or the other must be on the camera for the F4 to work; they are merely battery holders. Thus, they should be included in the bulk/mass discussion.<br>

Jim</p>

<p>No can't count SLR with attached motor drive because if so something like the Canon F1 or Nikon F2 high speed would be biggest. Only count camera with minimum configuration that it can function. The F4 won't work without a battery pack for example so we can count that.</p>

<p>The Contax AX is pretty big, but I don't have the specs. It was necessarily large because it autofocused by moving the entire film plane with a ceramic rod so any lens that fit the camera could autofocus. Anyone know how it compares in size?</p>

<p>According to its manual -<br>

Contax AX is 162 x 123.5 (h) x 72 mm and the body w/ battery = 1080 gr.<br>

Jim</p>

<p>To <strong>all of you</strong> - many thanks to all your answers!</p>

<p>To <strong>JDM von Weinberg</strong> - well, there is always someone who doesnt understand simple question... Looking at some of my cameras I havent any problem telling which one is smaller or greater. Of course one can always add some more variables: number of screws, the weight of used leather or diameter of control knob...</p>

<p>Thanks God others answered as simply, as the question was.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>To <strong>Alan Johnson - </strong>thank you for the picture! I've got Oly OM10 and Praktica Super TL (<strong>smaller</strong> than Praktica IV from your picture). And that smaller Praktica is about 1.5 cm higher then Olympus OM10, looking from the bottom to top of the prism housing.</p>

<p>I didnt know, that Oly OM20 is so much higher, to be - as you write - close to each other.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>And once more - dont hesitate to respond, if you know something else camera.</p>

<p>Regards, Paul</p>

<p>Just pulled out the Nikon F4, F5, and F3 for a comparison. The F5 is the largest, followed closely by the F4. The F3 is actually the tallest with the MD3 attached, but quite svelte without it. As for the smallest, I will be guided by others.</p>

<p>Dang ... F5 at the mir.com site -<br>

<strong>Dimensions (W x</strong> <strong>H x</strong> <strong>D): </strong>Approx. 158 x 149 x 79mm (6.2 x 5.9 x 3.1 in.)<br /><strong>Weight (without batteries): </strong>Approx. 1,210g (42.7 oz.)<br>

So, it's 10mm taller than the F4 (with MB-21) but 11mm narrower and 2 mm thicker ... tie or a win?<br>

I hate the internet :o(<br>

Jim</p>

<p>Actually one of the first "true" SLRs Zenit or Zenit-C are smallest ones. They just marginally bigger then Oly OM1 and Pentax MX.</p>

<p>Yeh and rather bulky device is the mirror box attached to Leica to make it SLR-like camera. Would it count?</p>

<p>Jim: I'd say the F5 is bigger, because the smallest box you could put it in would have a larger internal volume than the smallest box you could put the F4 in.</p>