smallest possible camera for star trails

[wildestseas]

<p>This year I hope to do some star trail photography while on some backpacking trips. I've got a digital kit that I'll be taking for daytime use, but I still need to find a manual 35mm camera for the long, night-time exposures. I've used an Olympus OM-1n in the past for this type of photography and it worked great - but back then digital was a novelty and the OM-1n was my main camera. This year some of my backpacking trips will be over 100 miles and I plan to saw the handle off of my toothbrush to cut down on weight. Carrying the overbuilt lump of plastic that is my digital kit (in addition to a tripod) is going to be a pain in the ass as it is, and I groan at the thought of lugging an extra SLR along for two weeks just to take a dozen or so exposures with it. I don't need any features beyond a mechanical shutter that can be locked open. I have a little Olympus XA rangefinder that is beautifully small and would be perfect for star trails if it had a mechanical shutter with a bulb mode. Do any of you know of any relatively cheap old cameras (rangefinders or point-and-shoots) with wide-angle lenses that have mechanical shutters that can be locked open? Something as simple as a pinhole camera would work if I didn't need a wider aperture (and prefer a sharper lens).</p>

[jerry thirsty]

<p>Very few fixed lens rangefinders had wide angle lenses (I assume you mean wider than 40mm?). Bessa-Ls are pretty cheap at KEH; maybe pair one up with a small M-mount lens. What digital kit are you carrying? Are there any small film bodies compatible with its' lenses?</p>

[jerry thirsty]

<p>Sorry, make that screw mount, not M-mount.</p>

[stemked]

<p>Jonathan,</p>

<p> Sometimes an oldie is the best way to go. FRom what I've read on other forums long exposures with digital photography requires special techniques to avoid noise in the image. Why not stick with film? If I wated an ultra small film camera I would either think about 1) Olympus (sorry I can't recall the name of their smallest cameras 2) Pentax, especially the MX which can run without batteries. Then pick up a Pentax 24mm f2.8 K or A lens (very small) and you have a compact body. If you want even smaller and are ok with a 40mm view the old Pentax 40mm f2.8 Pankacke and an MX has to be the smallest 35mm film/lens combo around.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Take a look at this page - <a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/com35s.htm">http://www.cameraquest.com/com35s.htm</a> - it describes a bunch of classic compact 35mm film cameras. Maybe one of them has a "B" mode and would be small and light enough for you.</p>

<p>

You could also ask the guys in the "Classic Camera" forum here.

[mountainvisions]

<p>There are lots of compact SLRs.</p>

<p>You could take a Pentax MX as doug mentioned. It's all mechanical, and super compact, but it's like the OM, OVERBUILT.</p>

<p>One thing that sticks out at me while looking at the list Bob linked to (nice link btw) is that a lot of those cameras are compact, but few are light.</p>

<p>I have a few cameras on the list and they are heavy.</p>

<p>You might actually be better off with a plastic wonder that uses the same lenses as your digital kit. For instance if I shot Canon, I'd go with the cheapest rebel that had a cable release.</p>

<p>I shoot mostly Pentax so I'd simply take a lightweight Pentax film body. Something like a MX, ME, or program plus, or whatever I could find cheap and light. The only criteria you would really prefer is that it will fire in bulb without batteries OR that it is very battery conservative. For instance the Pentax 645 (not that I am recommeding this camera as it's huge) runs for 40 hours in bulb on batteries. Over the summer that is about 5 nights of trails on a set. So if you have to carry a camera dependent on batteries make sure it runs for a long time.</p>

<p>Something like the older cameras that run on button cells would be fine. The reason, they'll run all night on a fresh set of button cells, but you can carry a few nights worth as spares without adding more than a toothbrush handle in weight.</p>

<p>Personally, your plan is similar to what I would do, and I feel your pain with the gear on a 100 mile trek. It's worse if the people you are going with aren't photographers, then that extra gear is always even more of a burden. That said, if the trip is novel enough that you won't get another chance to do it soon, I'm a fan of having a second camera anyway.</p>

<p> </p>

[jdrose]

<p>I have a Leica CL with the 40mm and it is very petite. It has a (B)ulb mode and the shutter is mechanical. Unfortunately, it is not a cheap camera by any means and it weighs over a pound with the lens. Perhaps it is not wide enough as well?</p>

<p>Another option might be the Nikon FG20 with one of the lighter plastic third party 28mm lenses. I hiked all over Zion and the Grand Canyon with the set-up. Very light. If I remember correctly the FG20 would work in (B)ulb mode without a battery. All other speeds were electronically controlled.</p>

<p>6x6 Folder wouldn't be a bad way to go. Light, very petite, all mechanical. Not very wide though.</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>Do you want to do anything else other then star trail photography? I just did a much shorter (about 18 mile) backpacking trip with an OM-1n and 4 small primes and it wasn't that bad. If you want to only do star trail pictures take your OM-1n and a 50/1.8 along with getting something like a $10-20 Targus tripod. I have one of those super cheapies (along with a Bogen 055xb). The Targus is total crap, but it is fairly stable even in light winds (up to around 10mph) with something like a 50/1.4 or even 85/2 on an OM-1n (I shot both ways plus with a 24/2.8 on it and saw no vibration blur in shots from 1/8s to 7 minutes) and it is very, very light weight.<br />If you want to take a few other pictures consider getting or taking a Zuiko 24/2.8 along with a Zuiko 50/1.8. All told that comes out to something less then 2lbs (like 1.5lbs) with around a 1lb tripod.<br />Below is a star trail picture I did on the backpacking trip with a Zuiko 50/1.4 (3/4 moon, that is why the sky is a bit light from the 7 minute exposure on iso400 film, f/2 aperature).</p><div></div>

[wildestseas]

<p>Thank you for all of your thoughts. I've decided that it's hard to beat the Olympus OM-1. I just picked one up for $35. It was mechanically sound but the exterior was caked with dust - hence the low price. Turns out the dust was protective: fifteen minutes with an old toothbrush, a rag and some acetone and it suddenly looks like a gem. For another $20 I picked up a Tamron 28mm F/2.5 lens. I can't believe the engineering that went into these things. </p><div></div>