Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: size is relative

  1. #1
    Daveco
    Guest

    size is relative

    I remembered where I had stored my Pentax after going to AF SLRs. It surprised me how small the Spotmatic is compared to the M8. I remember when the Olympus SLR came out, and I thought my Pentax was "bulky".


  2. #2
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: size is relative

    Interesting comparison, but you should take the M8 out of the case and re-shoot it to be more accurate
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: size is relative

    Ohhh! I'll play!

    Two old SLRs, one new RF:




  4. #4
    Daveco
    Guest

    Re: size is relative

    Jack, unfortunately after purchasing the Leica stuff and food, I find I am without the necessary coin needed to remove the case.
    Nice Konica's, Maggie.

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: size is relative

    Thanks, Daveco!

    My dad bought 'em new, back in the 1970's, along with my Canon QL-17 GIII (which is in storage in California, along with my F3 and SX-70).

  6. #6
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: size is relative

    Sold my F3HP just a few months ago...
    My old Asahi Pentax was stolen in the late 60's.
    -bob

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,282
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: size is relative

    Sometime size just plain varies. Here are three equally valid ways to take a picture with 28mm-eff FOV.

    scott

  8. #8
    Digital Dude
    Guest

    Re: size is relative

    Quote Originally Posted by scott kirkpatrick View Post
    Sometime size just plain varies. Here are three equally valid ways to take a picture with 28mm-eff FOV.

    scott
    Your photo is a good reality check for sure, and I'm soOoo glad I didn't opt for the Nikon. I know; different tools for different reasons but for me, size does matter.
    Regards,

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: size is relative

    Wow, that E-3 looks HUGE! It sure ain't the OM-2 I used at the paper.

    Scott, did you have your CV21's flange milled or did you go the sharpie route? Or did you leave it uncoded?

    Here's my CV21 rig:


  10. #10
    Member Seascape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    239
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: size is relative

    That E3 looks mighty large. I thought all the talk was about it being a compact format......kinda surprising to see the comparison to the M8

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,282
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: size is relative

    I kinda made fun of the E-3 by sticking the FL50 bouncing flash on it. But try to point Leica's little flash at the ceiling someday. I use all three of these. The E-3 is a fine little sports camera, and its AF is pretty reliable once i learned to use the bare center spot for my focusing, not the area around it, and certainly not all of them.

    scott

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,282
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: size is relative

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie O View Post
    Scott, did you have your CV21's flange milled or did you go the sharpie route? Or did you leave it uncoded?
    I tried Sharpie-coding it as a pre-asph Elmarit, but one of the marks falls on a screw in the mount, so that hasn't worked. Several tries to make it a Elmarit 21-asph have also failed, but Sean Reid reports that this coding works for him (perhaps with a JLM-milled mount and white paint on those screws). I have an M-coder on order and will try some more with it to see if something works. If not, I'll remove the mount and send it to John Milich. Right now it is uncoded.

    scott

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: size is relative

    I've got the LTM Voigtländer 21mm and I'm using a Milich LT-M8 adapter, coded as Elmarit-M 21mm f/2.8 ASPH (011000), and I'm getting fantastic results. When the CV 35mm Nokton 1.4 Classic comes out, I'm just going to immediately send the flange to John.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,282
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: size is relative

    continuing the CV21 digression... Got my M-coder, and found that my Prevette-style tape on the front marking scheme had slipped a bit. Also had to put white nail polish over the screw head that pops up in the middle of the second lowest bit of the bar code. Now it thinks it is a pre-asph 21 Elmarit. Hope to complete some white wall comparisons this weekend to see if there is really a difference between the corrections offered for the pre-asph and for the asph 21, and which fits the CV21/4 better.

    scott

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: size is relative

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie O View Post
    Wow, that E-3 looks HUGE! It sure ain't the OM-2 I used at the paper.

    Scott, did you have your CV21's flange milled or did you go the sharpie route? Or did you leave it uncoded?

    Here's my CV21 rig:

    I agree that the E3 looks huge but having the larger, i.e. very large, flash on top makes it look that much larger. Take off the flash and yes it still is larger than the M8 and larger by far than the GRD2 but not exaggeratedly so.

    Woody

  16. #16
    Member pthompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Lawrence, Kansas
    Posts
    20
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: size is relative

    The Canon FT has been my main camera since I bought it new in 1967 (replaced a Kodak rangefinder). People generally blame the pentaprism when they point to the large size of slr's, but it's really all the auto stuff and power sources that have bloated the things. Here are two manual cameras that are pretty much the size that God intended cameras to be...

  17. #17
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: size is relative

    Someone should post a photo of an M8 and an OM-1 next to each other. I always loved the Olympus SLRs because they were so good, but so small. You still see readily that the lenses are larger though.
    Carsten - Website

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: size is relative

    I used an OM-2 at the paper; what a great little camera!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •