Mos6502
Well-known
"What is the smallest camera?" is one of those questions that gets asked a lot, and browsing other discussion spaces online, seems even more frequently asked by people new to photography. The obsession with finding the smallest camera possible that can still do this or that, or has X or Y function has always struck me as bizarrely trivial. The latest generation of film photographers and prospective film photographers are obsessed with fully automated P&S cameras, and one of the most frequently asked questions made by those looking for one, is "how small is it?" I suppose this fixation on camera size is driven by a need to have the camera be as familiar (ie. like a phone) as possible. But it's hardly a new fixation. The postwar obsession with miniaturization meant compactness earned bragging rights for manufacturers, and marketing may have instilled in photographers the general idea that smaller = better.
However, what really, is the practical result of obsessing over saving 5mm here or 3mm there? A Pentax MX may be smaller than a Pentax K1000 for example, but it is not so much smaller that you could fit an extra pair of socks in your luggage if you chose the former over the latter, and I doubt it is so much smaller that it'd be appreciably less noticeable to passers-by on the street. Yet its compactness is frequently mentioned as a bonus. And of course we get the same mindset in rangefinders, and in TLRs, and wherever, no matter how little sense it actually makes. I do sometimes see people make the case that smaller cameras are easier to handle, but this really depends on who is handling the camera, sometimes larger cameras are easier to handle!
Recently I saw somebody ask the question because they wanted a camera that was more "portable" than a Pentax MX... and it left me wondering just how much more "portable" a camera really can get. Apparently they had never heard of or seen a camera strap, which does wonders for making any camera portable. Back to the phone thing: I guess today the idea that you could have something specialized, something that does only one task, and is distinct appliance from anything else, is becoming a bit foreign. I have to wonder if the idea of having a watch on your wrist or a camera around your neck, is odd to some people who expect everything to go into a pocket like everything else does.
However, what really, is the practical result of obsessing over saving 5mm here or 3mm there? A Pentax MX may be smaller than a Pentax K1000 for example, but it is not so much smaller that you could fit an extra pair of socks in your luggage if you chose the former over the latter, and I doubt it is so much smaller that it'd be appreciably less noticeable to passers-by on the street. Yet its compactness is frequently mentioned as a bonus. And of course we get the same mindset in rangefinders, and in TLRs, and wherever, no matter how little sense it actually makes. I do sometimes see people make the case that smaller cameras are easier to handle, but this really depends on who is handling the camera, sometimes larger cameras are easier to handle!
Recently I saw somebody ask the question because they wanted a camera that was more "portable" than a Pentax MX... and it left me wondering just how much more "portable" a camera really can get. Apparently they had never heard of or seen a camera strap, which does wonders for making any camera portable. Back to the phone thing: I guess today the idea that you could have something specialized, something that does only one task, and is distinct appliance from anything else, is becoming a bit foreign. I have to wonder if the idea of having a watch on your wrist or a camera around your neck, is odd to some people who expect everything to go into a pocket like everything else does.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
With film bodies here is no real compactness with any 135 fillm format SLR.
You need to move on now defunct Olympus XA to realize how huge the benefit of compactness could be.
On digital it is obviously Ricoh GR/d/ series. Which have larger than phones sensors with much smaller than phones bodies and superior to non existing on phones ergonomics.
You need to move on now defunct Olympus XA to realize how huge the benefit of compactness could be.
On digital it is obviously Ricoh GR/d/ series. Which have larger than phones sensors with much smaller than phones bodies and superior to non existing on phones ergonomics.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
...as someone who travels quite a lot and likes to travel "light" (always too much gear, but packed into surprisingly small bags), I definitely value compactness.
Part of the reason I started using a Summar over a collapsible Summicron so much was because it was that little bit smaller and could fit into a tighter pocket in my bag, for instance. Similarly, the SOOFM "barn door" hood might look absolutely ridiculous in use, but the fact it folds up so flat is a huge advantage over the generic vented E39 hood I used on the Summicron previously.
Sometimes every few mm you can save on the overall dimensions of your kit makes a difference.
Part of the reason I started using a Summar over a collapsible Summicron so much was because it was that little bit smaller and could fit into a tighter pocket in my bag, for instance. Similarly, the SOOFM "barn door" hood might look absolutely ridiculous in use, but the fact it folds up so flat is a huge advantage over the generic vented E39 hood I used on the Summicron previously.
Sometimes every few mm you can save on the overall dimensions of your kit makes a difference.
Mos6502
Well-known
I suppose making a pocket 10-11mm wider would ruin the trip? 
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Nah, but it would mean I couldn't fit my pocketknife (for example) in the 10mm that had been taken up by the longer camera/lens/hood!I suppose making a pocket 10-11mm wider would ruin the trip?
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
I (mostly) agree with the OP's thoughts. Keeping in mind that with cameras, "small" and "compact" are two entirely different matters.
Small often means flimsy - Dinky Toy cameras produced for the prosumer market. Their users are not especially demanding but want gear that does it all for them. My Nikon D90 and F65s fall neatly into this category. Nice, even cute, easy to handle, ergonomically pleasant, and they do most things I want in a camera without my having to think too much about the technicalities. Amazingly, they also give me excellent images, but I reckon this has more to do with the superior quality of almost all Nikon lenses and not so much the cameras.
As we all know, the F65s are film cameras, not digital. Their D equivalent would be the Nikon Coolpic range, I think. Which in the right hands can give very decent results. As well, my SO goes on using that D90 I bought in 2009 as my first entry camera into the pixel universe. Compared to today's larger Nikons, it's small and rather basic. But it goes on giving me acceptable images if I use it within its quite limited (by today's greatly more advanced standards) range.
Compact is entirely another matter. My Fuji XE2, while technically an amateur P&S camera (of a sort), gives me images of a quality I want, but this has not happened without a long and at times hear-pullingly frustrating learning curve. Again, the excellent Fujinon lenses have as much if not more to do with the results I get, than the actual camera. Here I have to say, most of the XE2's package of Let's Play bells and whistles, are wasted on me - I have it firmly set on Provia for color and basic monochrome for B&W, and that's it.
I value compactness, but I've never been someone who carries a camera in a pocket. My criteria here lies in how well with the camera and a few other bits and pieces, fit into a backpack.
All this said, I won't go into the whys I decided a decade ago to buy into Nikons D700 and later D800. These are bricks and at my age they are now difficult to cart around when I travel, especially if I opt to take one or two Nikon lenses and a few other bits and pieces in the same pack. At least the chargers and cords and the Macbook I inevitably cart along in my journeys, go into my packed bags and usually stay safely locked away in my hotel room when I go with one of my Nikon cement blocks to explore the many exotic locales I come across in my wanderings.
As we are led to believe that (sometimes) common sense grows in one's old age, I'm now looking at downsizing to a Nikon Zf or, more ideally for me in my travels around Asia, a Zfc.
Small often means flimsy - Dinky Toy cameras produced for the prosumer market. Their users are not especially demanding but want gear that does it all for them. My Nikon D90 and F65s fall neatly into this category. Nice, even cute, easy to handle, ergonomically pleasant, and they do most things I want in a camera without my having to think too much about the technicalities. Amazingly, they also give me excellent images, but I reckon this has more to do with the superior quality of almost all Nikon lenses and not so much the cameras.
As we all know, the F65s are film cameras, not digital. Their D equivalent would be the Nikon Coolpic range, I think. Which in the right hands can give very decent results. As well, my SO goes on using that D90 I bought in 2009 as my first entry camera into the pixel universe. Compared to today's larger Nikons, it's small and rather basic. But it goes on giving me acceptable images if I use it within its quite limited (by today's greatly more advanced standards) range.
Compact is entirely another matter. My Fuji XE2, while technically an amateur P&S camera (of a sort), gives me images of a quality I want, but this has not happened without a long and at times hear-pullingly frustrating learning curve. Again, the excellent Fujinon lenses have as much if not more to do with the results I get, than the actual camera. Here I have to say, most of the XE2's package of Let's Play bells and whistles, are wasted on me - I have it firmly set on Provia for color and basic monochrome for B&W, and that's it.
I value compactness, but I've never been someone who carries a camera in a pocket. My criteria here lies in how well with the camera and a few other bits and pieces, fit into a backpack.
All this said, I won't go into the whys I decided a decade ago to buy into Nikons D700 and later D800. These are bricks and at my age they are now difficult to cart around when I travel, especially if I opt to take one or two Nikon lenses and a few other bits and pieces in the same pack. At least the chargers and cords and the Macbook I inevitably cart along in my journeys, go into my packed bags and usually stay safely locked away in my hotel room when I go with one of my Nikon cement blocks to explore the many exotic locales I come across in my wanderings.
As we are led to believe that (sometimes) common sense grows in one's old age, I'm now looking at downsizing to a Nikon Zf or, more ideally for me in my travels around Asia, a Zfc.
JohnGellings
Well-known
Some people just like things small. Some people like things big. Some people do not care.
My favorite camera at the moment is the GFX-50R. It is big. However, it is the right tool for the project I am working on now. Anything else would feel like a compromise.
That said, I have always like small (and well designed) cameras. Something like the Ricoh GR series fits in my coat pocket without me feeling it there. AND it is capable of great IQ for largish prints (unlike most phone cameras). To me, that just does it for me. It is nice not to have to take a bag in order to have a camera. Why not a strap? I do, when I feel safe. However, I am not always in safe places. I do not need to advertise my camera while riding the trains etc.
My favorite camera at the moment is the GFX-50R. It is big. However, it is the right tool for the project I am working on now. Anything else would feel like a compromise.
That said, I have always like small (and well designed) cameras. Something like the Ricoh GR series fits in my coat pocket without me feeling it there. AND it is capable of great IQ for largish prints (unlike most phone cameras). To me, that just does it for me. It is nice not to have to take a bag in order to have a camera. Why not a strap? I do, when I feel safe. However, I am not always in safe places. I do not need to advertise my camera while riding the trains etc.
Small cameras have always been around. I used to carry a Minolta 16-II around for a pocket camera, over 50 years ago.
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
My new phone is a Motorola Razr 2023. It's a folding phone and it's really quite compact when it is folded up and that does have it's benefits.
For a camera, though, I had an Olympus E-PL1 for a long time, actually I do have it back as my son never used it - in two years not one image - but I have to have an external finder and etc so it ends up being fairly bulky anyway. My practical limit is a 35mm rangefinder. Funny that ...
For a camera, though, I had an Olympus E-PL1 for a long time, actually I do have it back as my son never used it - in two years not one image
- but I have to have an external finder and etc so it ends up being fairly bulky anyway. My practical limit is a 35mm rangefinder. Funny that ... 
Always wanted a Tessina!
For now, I've got a Contax T.
I don't go for small, just for the sake of small. A few mm here or there is meaningless. But I *do* compare weights.
I've had some truly great lenses in the past, I'm thinking of the 100/2.8 Makro Sonnar Contax-N. But ultimately when heading out on a photo junket, I found I left it on the shelf more often than not. It was just too much weight to carry around, when there were much lighter alternatives. Even though the Sonnar rendered images that were exceptional. I don't want to make photo junkets a workout! They are supposed to be fun and enjoyable, right?
Now it would be different if someone were paying me to produce images, then I'd carry the preferred tool regardless...
For now, I've got a Contax T.
I don't go for small, just for the sake of small. A few mm here or there is meaningless. But I *do* compare weights.
I've had some truly great lenses in the past, I'm thinking of the 100/2.8 Makro Sonnar Contax-N. But ultimately when heading out on a photo junket, I found I left it on the shelf more often than not. It was just too much weight to carry around, when there were much lighter alternatives. Even though the Sonnar rendered images that were exceptional. I don't want to make photo junkets a workout! They are supposed to be fun and enjoyable, right?
Now it would be different if someone were paying me to produce images, then I'd carry the preferred tool regardless...
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
Weight is a good point. My favorite longer lens is the Elmar 90/4. It doesn't get much lighter than that!
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Tessina cameras are very cool but a bit fragile in use. I had one for a while and enjoyed it.
But my favorite smallest cameras are Minox 8x11: I used to have one in my pocket literally all the time and have a huge number of photos made with them that I find very satisfying. Past that into 35mm, the Rollei 35 and Minox 35 have been mainstays in my pocket since the late 1980s; the two I still have are the Rollei 35S I bought in 1990 and the Minox 35GT-E I bought about 1998. Both of them have been around the world with me on my travels perhaps six or eight times.
Cameras like these have many constraints, but can be "always there" no matter where you are or what the situation might be, without thinking about them. Larger but still small cameras ... things in the Leica M size category .. are very portable but not pocketable compact: they're more to carry, even on a strap, and require that you think about them when you're carrying them. For some things, the pocketable compacts are the only way to go.
G
But my favorite smallest cameras are Minox 8x11: I used to have one in my pocket literally all the time and have a huge number of photos made with them that I find very satisfying. Past that into 35mm, the Rollei 35 and Minox 35 have been mainstays in my pocket since the late 1980s; the two I still have are the Rollei 35S I bought in 1990 and the Minox 35GT-E I bought about 1998. Both of them have been around the world with me on my travels perhaps six or eight times.
Cameras like these have many constraints, but can be "always there" no matter where you are or what the situation might be, without thinking about them. Larger but still small cameras ... things in the Leica M size category .. are very portable but not pocketable compact: they're more to carry, even on a strap, and require that you think about them when you're carrying them. For some things, the pocketable compacts are the only way to go.
G
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
I do remember, fondly, a very compact little gem of a 35 mm camera - the Contessa. Fold up the 45/2.8 Tessar and it'll fit in your pocket easy enough, just make sure you have a good belt because that much metal is HEAVY Beautiful though and took exquisite photos. Don't remember why I got stupid enough to sell it...
Zeiss Contessa at CameraQuest
Beautiful though and took exquisite photos. Don't remember why I got stupid enough to sell it... Zeiss Contessa at CameraQuest
Tim Murphy
Well-known
Dear Mos502,
I'm still the guy that wears a wristwatch and believes that every camera and lens serves a purpose.
And the purpose is never portability to me. It's about what I want to accomplish. But I'm an old miserable person so I don't care what people want.
I only care about what I want to do and how I do that.
Obviously, people will disagree with that, and I'm OK with that too.
"You be me for a while and I'll be you", to quote a Replacements song.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg PA
agentlossing
Well-known
Do you ever commute via train or bus, or travel via the aforementioned, or plane or boat? Compactness means a lot when packing, especially packing light. If all you are doing is intentionally going out to shoot photographs, then your camera can be as large as you can comfortably carry in the hand or a bag ( in fact larger is probably more comfortable, until you get into large format cameras!), but a small camera works wonders when photographing isn't your main objective. Especially when we're talking pocketable cameras.
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
Damn I miss the 'Mat's almost as much as I miss Husker Du.Dear Mos502,
I'm still the guy that wears a wristwatch and believes that every camera and lens serves a purpose.
And the purpose is never portability to me. It's about what I want to accomplish. But I'm an old miserable person so I don't care what people want.
I only care about what I want to do and how I do that.
Obviously, people will disagree with that, and I'm OK with that too.
"You be me for a while and I'll be you", to quote a Replacements song.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg PA
Evergreen States
Pierre Saget (they/them)
Interesting that you bring up TLRs. My Autocord on its own is a pretty light and compact camera for something that produces a 6x6cm negative. But I have so far been unable to reliably get a sharp picture with it without a cable release and a monopod. So for me, it really isn't that compact. Every other camera I own I do not use a monopod or tripod ever.
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
Have you tried using a neck strap and holding/pulling it down against your chest? I get good results that way with my Rolleicord III usually.
Peter Jennings
Well-known
All I know is the smaller and lighter the camera, the more likely it is I'll take it out with me to shoot. The more comfortable I am carrying the camera, the more pleasurable my shooting experience will be. I'd imagine a lot of other casual photographers think the same way.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
For me, compactness without ergonomics is pointless. Never got on with p&s cameras and struggled with anything smaller than an OM. Easy to shake when pressing the button, awkward to hold for larger hands.
I prefer to carry around an AF SLR if I am going out to photograph. Nice hand grip, big bright viewfinder, different (high quality) lenses - these are higher on my priority list than compactness. That is why I can walk around a whole day with an F5 hanging around my neck.
I prefer to carry around an AF SLR if I am going out to photograph. Nice hand grip, big bright viewfinder, different (high quality) lenses - these are higher on my priority list than compactness. That is why I can walk around a whole day with an F5 hanging around my neck.
Last edited: