Olympus 35SP

[Apjcphoto]

It's been sitting in a drawer for about 30 years. Had a little knock at some stage as the rangefinder wasn't working. It's just back from having that fixed, CLA'd and light seals replaced. There's a roll of HP5 sitting in there now. Really looking forward to finishing it!


A.

 

[HiHoSilver]

Apjc - that little camera has been of interest for me. I'm prob. hunting unicorns, but would like a 35 that's sorta pocketable & good enough to challenge a decent slr. Something easier to grab when heading out the door. Your impressions would be appreciated.

 

[frank]

I've had a couple of these over the years. I just never developed confidence in this camera. a Leica CL seems more robust to me, and smaller.

 

[02Pilot]

I've had one for a while and shot with it fairly often. It's a good camera with the useful addition of a dual-function meter (wide and spot) and an extraordinary lens. I can understand Frank's thoughts regarding the robustness of the camera, as it does incorporate some plastic and the shutter is not the smoothest ever devised (it's really a bit agricultural if I'm honest). That said, mine has never let me down.

But it's the photos that really set it apart. The lens is just phenomenal; 42mm is a great all-purpose focal length, and whatever magic Olympus worked on this thing made it very, very capable of producing pretty images of high quality. If I had one as my only camera I'm sure it would more than adequate.

A quick sample from mine:

 

[frank]

The SP is one of the best fixed lens rangefinders of its day. But they were built largely for the amateur market, the pros needing greater robustness and lens interchangeability.

 

[HiHoSilver]

Frank & Pilot, Thank You for your kind help. 'Checked photoethnography on both. The other contender in a similar strain is the original Oly XA. They seem rather capable, w/ the CL being for a more generous budget - with corresponding generous capabilities. KEH had a BGN CL body for $680. A lens would bring it into 500cm price range.

 

[frank]

CL bodies can be bought for around $200 with meters that no longer work. (Just like the M2,3,and 4)

Another worthy contender would be a Kodak Retina: lla, lllc, lllC

 

[gone]

KEH has certainly changed since it's new ownership. A fully working CL in excellent condition should cost no more than $350. Better to just buy a cheaper one w/ a non working meter, as sooner or later that thing is going to crap out on you anyway. Very Rube Goldberg setup. I once owned a CL w/ a screw mount 50 Summicron and it was a really sweet combo. Had to keep it in a case though that had two strap lugs on either side to avoid the ridiculous CL Hang (another one from Rube).

O2Pilot, did you know that clicking on the image that you posted brings one to a yahoo sign in? First time I saw that.

 

[macfred]

O2Pilot, did you know that clicking on the image that you posted brings one to a yahoo sign in? First time I saw that.

Cicking the image takes me to flickr (yahoo is the owner) - the photo isn't visible because the owner marked it as privat.

 

[02Pilot]

Photo is hosted on Flickr, but I don't know why it would direct you to a login. Even checking through my anonymous browser the photo still shows up normally when you click the bar.

In any case, the XA is a whole different ballgame. I have an XA4 Macro, which has a wider lens but is otherwise very similar. It's much smaller and more convenient, but it makes the 35SP feel like a solid piece of granite when it comes to durability. The XA-series is not known for being enormously robust at this point; age has taken its toll on the electronics. The lenses are quite good, but not in the same league as the 35SP, and considerably slower if that matters. The XA is aperture priority only, while the rest of the series are program exposure only, where the 35SP gives you full manual control plus program.

As much as I enjoy the XA4, and as easy as it is to carry, I would be very hesitant to rely on it.

Sure, there are other options you could consider, but prices will definitely escalate once you get into the interchangeable lens setups (ask me how I know...). The 35SP is a great camera and a great value if you can accept its limitations.

 

[ciniframe]

Never owned one but the fast lens is appealing. Do have a 35RC thats very compact and seems rugged enough. The trick with the RC is to get a 43.5mm to 43mm step-down filter adapter and just leave it on the camera, then you are not stuck with that odd filter size. I did that and the adapter does not block the meter window, only makes the lens a couple of mm longer.

 

[flavio81]

I wanted so hard to get one, and at the end I found a 35SP in good condition and guess what? I found the build quality lower than my expectations. Also the shutter was noisy and clunky. My Kodak Retina IIIc is a Mercedes S-class classic, compared to that machine.

On the other hand i don't like the 42mm focal length. For me 45mm is minimum for general purpose use.

I liked the Yashica Electro 35GSN much, much more, even if build quality is also not so great.

As for the Olympus camp, i love my Olympus Pen S3.5, and I find the Olympus Trip 35 a nicer camera (than the 35SP). But to be honest, in camera forums, most Olympus cameras are overrated.

 

[darinwc]

Hi Flavio! I'm interested in what you like in the Yashica GSN over the Olympus SP?
Yes the shutter in the SP is louder than some others. but certainly much quieter and less vibration than any slr. Any I dont remember the Yashica being particularly quiet, though I dont have one to compare right now.

Very curious to know.

 

[02Pilot]

Yeah, I'm curious too. I had a GSN that was as close to mint as could be (after I serviced the shutter and replaced the POD), and aside from the lens it was one of the more unpleasant cameras I've ever used. One exposure mode only, big, cheaply-built; I couldn't believe how thin the metal of the top plate was. The electric shutter is quieter than the mechanical one of the 35SP, it's true, but my trust in 50-year-old electronics is not high, and the components make the lens barrel huge. The lens was really good in most conditions, but it flared a lot when you pointed it toward any powerful light source.

 

[KidA]

I'm not huge into rangefinders, but I am huge on Olympus OMs. I bought a 35sp just for kicks and I love it. It's the camera I keep in my glove compartment in my car or for casual walks around my neck. It's only real limitation (strictly speaking as a professional camera) is it's fixed lens. Hard to believe it was a consumer camera. The eccentric Mr. Ken Rockwell puts it best: It's the kind of camera a pro photographer brings on vacation. Read his review on it!
http://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/35-sp.htm

 

[Apjcphoto]

Hi guys. Thanks for all the comments. Good to see civil disagreements on a forum! I'm just happy to have my hands on this machine and I'm looking forward to getting good use out of it. Beats having it in a drawer for another 30years!

Thanks for for the link to Ken Rockwells review, he doesn't half gush over this camera at all right? The only thing that's niggling at me is the min focus distance. It's just a little to long for the fill the frame headshots I love. (I know, not really the tool for the job and all that)

 

[KidA]

Yeah, perhaps not the greatest tool for really close focusing exposures... but at least it's under 1m, which is OK. Not sure how comfortable you are with cropping from 35mm, but this lens is so good, I'm not so scared to crop up to 15-20% of the original neg. <----I might get some heavy criticism for this, but I do it somewhat often and most of the time, I forget I ever cropped.

Mr. Rockewell , an obviously very opinionated man; but somehow, I enjoy reading his reviews. They are very informative if you're able to sift thru what he finds good or bad about a camera and make your own judgement.

 

[thuggins]

Hard to believe it was a consumer camera. [/url]

The SP was hardly a "consumer" camera. With the spot meter, full metering in manual mode, etc, etc it is one of the most advanced rangefinders ever made. Olympus made two distinct series of rf's in the '70s. The SP and it's brethren were professional models. The RC and it's less memorable siblings were the consumer models.

That being said, after many rolls of film I do prefer the RC. After 37 frames thru the SP the shutter release gives one a severe case of pushbuttonitis.

If you want interchangeable lenses and close focus, get an OM.

 

[flavio81]

Hi Flavio! I'm interested in what you like in the Yashica GSN over the Olympus SP?
Yes the shutter in the SP is louder than some others. but certainly much quieter and less vibration than any slr.

My Nikon F is certainly quieter than an Olympus 35SP. And i could bet my Canon F-1 has almost as low vibrations as any rangefinder.

The yashica Electro 35 GSN is quieter, i recall; zero vibrations. What is in it for the Yashica over the Olympus? The lens is 45mm on the yashica, a focal length more suited to portraits; the yashica lens has beautiful bokeh and excellent performance overall, the metering is really, really reliable, and the viewfinder is very good. The reliable AE system (plus good viewfinder) makes the Yashica a quicker camera to operate. Also the size of the GSN makes it comfortable to the hand. It is not a heavy camera, considering its size.

On paper the Oly is the superior camera, but on practical use the Yashica would be better.

 

[georg16nik]

...

The yashica Electro 35 GSN is ..[].. It is not a heavy camera, considering its size....

Yeah, above 700g. for a fixed lens 35mm film cam is not heavy; if your main gear is Mamiya RB67 or Pentax 6×7.
The magnesium bodied Ricoh GR1 is not a heavy camera for its size..~ 200g and shoots on 35mm film as well.

 

[darinwc]

It is strange that the SP has such a loud shutter. I have the RC and the RD as well. The RD has a super quiet shutter in comparison. But they are both Seiko shutters... I wonder if there is something else in the shutter release perhaps that makes the extra noise.

The yashica is too big for me actually. But I am not a big guy.. I like small cameras. That's definitely a personal preference of course.

 

[darinwc]

The yashica has automatic exposure with a step less shutter. Is it aperture priority then or program?
Do you usually spot wide open?

 

[02Pilot]

The difference in sound from the Electro 35 to the 35SP is primarily down to the design choices made by Yashica and Olympus. The Yashica is an electrically-actuated stepless shutter with very few moving parts, while the Olympus is a mechanical shutter that can be regulated by mechanical linkage to the meter, and thus many moving parts. The Yashica design is arguably the more modern, as it is much more an electrical device, but the level of technology development at the time means that the components are relatively large, hence the size of the package. The Olympus is a complicated hybrid setup, but still more compact than the Yashica.

To my knowledge, the Yashica Electro 35 line are aperture-priority only. The advantage of the stepless shutter here is that it can regulate speed more precisely than the stepped shutter in the Olympus, though it is of course still subject to struggling in difficult light due to relatively primitive metering.

 

[flavio81]

The advantage of the stepless shutter here is that it can regulate speed more precisely than the stepped shutter in the Olympus, though it is of course still subject to struggling in difficult light due to relatively primitive metering.

For some reason this Yashica meter is really really good. Perhaps it is reading from a narrow central spot of the image rather than the whole scene. I'm speculating of course, but in front of the CdS sensor there is a big lens thing.

On the other hand, the Yashica auto exposure system works even during the exposure, so in a very long exposure (say, more than 1 second), any change in lighting will be accounted for.

The yashica has automatic exposure with a step less shutter. Is it aperture priority then or program?
Do you usually spot wide open?

It is aperture priority, not program.
I've shot wide open quite a bit with it and always was satisfied, though never enlarged past 8x10".