[rollei_list] Re: size of Pentax ME/MX compared to Leica M
- From: Jan Decher <jan.decher@xxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 10:16:55 -0800
Austin:
ME/MX thickness is of course slightly in the area of the mirror box. But
with the 2.8/40 pancake it's definitely less than Leica M with rigid 2/50
Summicron.
This unfair comparison aside, I think Leica built it's "pocketable"
reputation with the earlier Screwmount Leicas. From what I have read a lot
of pre-1954 Leica users and proponents (like Leitz' own Walther Benser)
took some time to adjust to the M3 because of its size and weight. The
advantages (combined view and longer rangefinder; bayonet lenses) are
obvious. But a Leica IIIf or IIIg with collapsible Elmar or Summicron if
way more compact than an M. It's funny that during this recent retro craze
Leica has not gone back to make at least one IIIf/g as a commemorative
model or even cast a digital camera into the old compact rounded Leica
look. The Digilux 2 is a Klutz from what I can tell, even bigger than the
squarish Leica M5.
Jan
From: "Austin Franklin" <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Jan,
> Yes, Pentax ME and MX were slightly smaller than a Leica M4! The
> original German brochures for these tiny SLR's actually showed the MX
> in front of a silhouetted outline of the Leica to get this point
> across. Even the flash shoe on the pentaprism was right in line
> withthe shoe on the Leica.
> Add the 2.8/40 mm Pentax M pancake lens and you have as pocketable an
> SLR as a Leica M with collapsible Elmar.
How about front to back (thickness)? I'm hard pressed to believe it's
thinner (or even near as thin) in this dimension.
The Olympus OM was quite compact as well, as is the Contax Aria.
Regards,
Austin
Other related posts:
