What is the largest and smallest 35 mm fullframe SLR?

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>The F5 certainly seems like a much larger monster in my memory. Especially when you compare it to the F4 without a motor drive. I always think of the Minolta XM when I think of big cameras, but it's tiny compared to those monster Nikons!</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>Andrew -<br>

That really frosts my pumpkin ... :o) !<br>

F4s goes in the trash can and the RB67 comes out of the closet...<br>

(with the AC motor driven 250 exp. back someone gave me free to haul away)<br>

Now that's bulk, mate.<br>

Pictured below is the <em><strong>boat anchor, </strong></em>but not pictured is the additional 4" x 8" x 6" 'contol box that ran this mess. I put this in the back of my pick up truck every winter to boost my traction.</p>

<p>Big Gear Jim (LOL)</p><div></div>

[stephen_ascherl]

<p>Maybe this camera is too weird to even be considered, but I thought the smallest in the 24x36mm format was the Compass camera made before WWII? I don't believe it used roll film however.</p>

[jodys]

<p>The most pointlessly large and bulky SLR I own is the Mamiya DSX1000. From Butkus' manual, the dimensions w/f1.4 lens are: 151.5mm x 95mm, and 100.5mm thick (the manual doesn't give sizes w/o lens). Again with the f1.4 (an excellent lens, btw), it comes in at a whopping 960g.</p>

<p>I have two early cameras with metered prisms that are taller (an Exakta VXIIb w/ 'cell' prism, and a Praktica IVf), but the Mamiya, as I said, is just pointlessly large. It dwarfs my Pentax Spotmatics.</p>

[andylynn]

Jim, those Mamiyas are huge. I had an RZ67, and lucked out finding an appropriately sized padded Kodak camera bag for it (I think it was a camcorder bag). Great camera, but impractical for me, and I traded it to another forum member for a Hasselblad.

[paul_p11]

<p>Well, Compass wasnt an SLR camera... The same like ather small cameras: Tessina, Photavit, or French Elje.</p>

<p>I was asking about SLR for 35 mm film, and 24 x 36 mm frame. :)</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>The ME Super is a little smaller than the MX, and feels even smaller because its body on either side of the mirror box is not as thick. My ME Supers are definitely shorter than my MX's.<br /> To add to the fun, the largest SLR using 35mm film I've ever handled is the Bronica SQ-Ai with the 35mm back and action prism.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>well, there is always someone who doesnt understand simple question</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, there are also those who think things are simple when they're not, as the diversity of answers shows very clearly. Why get insulting about it? <a href="

[marc_rochkind]

Smallest full-frame SLR was the Pentax ME.

 

-Marc

[fred_c1]

<p>No one heard of the Nikon EM?</p>

[paul_p11]

<p>Well, yesterday I had some free time and took pictures comparing few models (Praktica Super TL, Exa, Zenit S, Pentax ME & MX). I've got no any larger or smaller 35 mm SLR, although have some larger and smaller SLR, but no for 35 mm.</p>

<p>Hope, that these few photos help to evaluate the size of the different camera model.</p>

<p><img src="http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/8039/11654652.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/5679/18245891.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8586/20638615.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/8531/26417215.jpg" alt="" /><br /></p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Have you all forgotten the behemoth (weight-wise at least) of the Contarex bullseye?</p>

[furcafe]

<blockquote>

<p>Have you all forgotten the behemoth (weight-wise at least) of the Contarex bullseye?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't have a scale handy, but I don't think the Bullseye is significantly heavier than a Nikon F Photomic.</p>

[m_roslan_habibullah]

<p>The Dekon Dejur fitted with the 45mm Simlar lens could be a good candidate for smallest full frame SLR or at least one of the smallest. Got to locate the camera and measure it though. As far as I remember, it is smaller than the Oly.</p>

[alan_rockwood]

<p>The old Kowa 35mm SLR cameras (such as the SETr, if I remember one of the model numbers correctly) were very small.</p>

<p>I'm sure this has been mentioned already, but the Pen FT SLR camera was extremely small, but of course it was a half frame so it doesn't fit the title of the thread.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>I am not sure what the official findings will be but my two SLRs, the NikonF4 and the Pentax ME, are definitely in the running for the largest and smallest 35mm full frame.</p><div></div>

[snik75]

<p>It isn't a "classic manual camera" but the Pentax *ist is one tiny SLR. No taller than an MX, but half an inch less wide, and much lighter. With AF and a built in flash, too!</p>

[david_brainard]

<p>I've never placed it next to a Nikon F4; but a Topcon Super D was no midget.<br>

Dave</p>

[john_bear]

<p>Apologies for entering the debate very late (just when it all seemed to be done and dusted), but there is a 35mm SLR that is smaller than the Pentax ME.<br>

It's 0.5mm shorter and a whole mm less wide than the ME.<br>

It's the 130mm x 82mm 1959 Topcon PR !!!!!</p>

[alan_rockwood]

<p>The Kowa 35mm SLR cameras were pretty small. I wonder where they fall in the size hierarchy. </p>