On Saturday, December 15, 2001 at 12:33, Winsor Crosby
<olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote re "RE: [OM] Trouble in OM paradise" saying:
> >At 18:19 12/15/01, Tom Trottier wrote:
> >>The Olympus Stylus Epic is probably the smallest full-frame 35 (The
> >>Tessina is smaller but heavier and has 14x21mm negs) and it has auto
> >>focus, spot metering, motor drive & rewind and energy-saving flash.
> >>Plastic body, f/2.8, 145g, the size of 3 film boxes, and $80. So they
> >>haven't lost their creativity.
> >>
> >>tOM
> >
> >For cameras in current production, I believe the Minolta TC-1 is
> >smaller and is likely *the* smallest, but not by much. At $900,
> >smaller size costs much more (among other bells and whistles). I
> >haven't searched exhaustively for the smallest (in production), so
> >there may be another camera staking claim to it.
> >
> >The Olympus XA, long out of production, is slightly smaller than the
> >Stylus along two of three dimensions. The Rollei 35, also long out
> >of production, is smaller than the XA along the same two dimensions,
> >although it is much heavier with metal frame and body.
> >
> >The Rollei 35 and its succesors through the 35TE/SE held an
> >unchallenged "smallest full frame" status from 1966 until the
> >Olympus XA, circa 1978. If the lenses are omitted on both, the
> >Rollei body is smaller. The Minox EL (1974) came close. The
> >Minolta TC-1 has much less debatably taken that position away from
> >the Rollei 35 by beating it in two of three dimensions and having an
> >integral flash. I've included their dimensions below so that you
> >can see how close these all are dimensionally. The stylus is 15mm -
> >20mm longer. Otherwise, the differences are just a few millimeters
> >among all of them. They all push the envelope hard on how small a
> >full frame can be made.
The Stylus (Mju) came before the Stylus Epic (Mjy II).
> >Oly Stylus: 117mm x 63mm x 37mm
> >Oly XA: 102mm x 65mm x 40mm
Oly Styus Epic 111mm x 60mm x 38mm
> >Minox EL: 102mm x 69mm x 34mm (lens collapsed)
> >Rollei 35: 97mm x 60mm x 44.8mm (lens collapsed)
> >Minolta TC-1 99mm x 58.4mm x 30.5mm (body, not counting lens)
> >
> >AFIK no camera makers other than Minolta, Olympus and Minox (35EL in
> >1974) have created full-frame 35mm that challenge Rollei's "smallest
> >size" achievement in 1966.
> >
> >-- John
> >
> >
> All true, but the Stylus includes an electronic flash and a motorized
> winder. If you add those to the other cameras the difference is
> dramatic.
The TC-1 does have a motor drive and flash.
The Epic is lighter than the TC-1 (185g vs 145g) and the shape fits in the
pocket better than the squarish TC-1, and probably in the hand. To make it
smaller on the left, the film runs from right to left.
The epic is also 90-95 0.000000e+00ss expensive.
Lets not mention the Loma Compact.
Tom
------- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur -----------------
,__@ Tom A. Trottier +1 613 860-6633
fax:231-6115
_-\_<, 758 Albert St.,Ottawa Ont. Canada K1R
7V8
(*)/'(*) ICQ:57647974 Tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx N45.412
W75.714
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Laws are the spider's webs which, if anything small falls
into them
they ensnare it, but large things break through and
escape.
--Solon, statesman (c.638-c558 BCE)
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --
Benjamin Franklin
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|