Compare Yashica T4 Super To The Olympus Epic

M

murrayb53

Established
Local time
6:35 PM
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
120
I've read much about the Oly Epic but what about the Yashica T4 Super?
I know the T4 has a Zeiss Tessar and is a 3.5, but IMO the Zuiko 2.8 is every bit as good.
What about exposure and AF systems between the two?
Does anyone own a T4 who can critique it?

Thanks,
Steve
 
I've owed both and still have an Epic. I sold the T4 Super when I saw people paying over $300 for them on eBay a few years ago. The T4 lens is good, very good. But the flash exposure consistently was too over-exposed. I find the Epic to be not bad at all but since getting an XA a few months ago think the lens on the XA to be a much better performer than either the Epic or T4.
 
I can't compare the two only having a T4, The T4 has a super lens, never any real trouble with exposures with the exception of flashed ones being over done, the AF seems fine and there is an infinity lock. From what I have seen the Oly is good too.

Bob
 
I have both Yashica T5 (aka T4 Super) & mju II (aka Stylus Epic). I think you'd be happy with either.

No problem with AF or exposure on either cameras. mju II does have the bonus "spot metering" mode, but with T5 I still can manipulate the exposure by utilising the AF lock, which locks AE at the same time. Locking first on something darker/brighter than reframe the subject works as +/- EV, when necessary. For street/travel photography it's more than adequate.

To sum up, they're two great compacts from the same class, but T5 always has the slight edge for me. It's not just the T* lens but also the handling. I can handhold T5 noticeably longer, thanks mainly to the feather-light shutter release. I do use the waist-level scope to get interesting pics, more often than I thought. :)

BTW, I have an Oly XA, too. It's a real classic. Rather a different type of camera, though.
 
I prefer the Zeiss lens on my Contax T2 to the lens on the EPIC or the lens on the Yashica T2. I don't have a T4. The XA also sports an excellent lens, but I find the lens on the T2 better with color.
 
I own both. Got the Epic first and really loved it. Then I got a T4 Super and liked the lens even more. I think you can see it in 4X6 prints though you have to look for it. Epic has an advantage in size (smaller), T4 has an advantage in form factor (easier to brace either horozontal or vertical), plus the superscope, of course.
 
I was a bit of a P&S junkie so had both. The Epic is the one with the clam shell right? Anyway I remember the Epic being better built while the Yashica has the better lens. In fact the Zeiss lens in the Yashica got me believing in the high end lens hype.
 
I own both the T4 Super and Stylus Epic and did a small amount of subjective testing. In general I found myself using the T4 Super more often than the Epic, but you may find the Epic suits you better. I've written more on this subject on my blog.
 
Today saw used T5 (T4 Super, I believe) going for $100 eq. I like Yashica, I like used cameras, though I can not justify $100 for used plastic camera w/ excellent lens which can stop working two days after arrival, when one can buy Mju/Epic times cheaper and swap them like socks.
In a word - if one needs T* lens in compact package - go for it, what else.
 
I have a T3D with the T* coated Tessar. Man, it's amazing! I'd have to pit my Epic (the old f3.5 one) against it. For now, the closest comparison I have is against the 35 RC.

I think the sharpness is about equal, but the Tessar renders more contrast (or more flare resistant) than the Zuiko.

Here's one from the T3D

711760389_9bf7592f1c.jpg



Here's one from the 35 RC:

1337154042_004a755989.jpg
 
I can only speak to the T4 but in general I like Zeiss lenses better for color than black and white so my T4 usually accompanies another camera to take care of color work while I use something else for black and white.

I've traveled exclusively with the T4 and while there were times when I wanted more control, however it was a great companion on a trip where photography wasn't my primary goal and the prints from slides came out great even at 8 x 10. They could certainly go much bigger. Also exposing slide film like Velvia correctly is no problem for the t4.

Although everyone raves about the XA, I find the lenses tend to flare with quite ugly diamond looking flares and there is a good amount of light fall off in the corners. Not sure if the Epic shares this. I would like to try one for black and white though.
 
btgc said:
Today saw used T5 (T4 Super, I believe) going for $100 eq. I like Yashica, I like used cameras, though I can not justify $100 for used plastic camera w/ excellent lens which can stop working two days after arrival, when one can buy Mju/Epic times cheaper and swap them like socks.
In a word - if one needs T* lens in compact package - go for it, what else.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't pay $100 for any used P&S film camera with full program AE only. I paid 8 euros for my Yashica T3 Super, 3 euros for my Konica Big Mini F and nothing for my Epic Stylus. Well, the Epic Stylus was a gift from a relative who went completely digital, but I wouldn't pay more than 10 euros for one.

In general I find both the later Yashica T series cameras and the Epics a bit overappreciated. If you don't mind carrying a slightly bigger and heavier camera almost any of the 1980's prime lens AF compacts with a f/3.5 or f/2.8 lens is a great picture taker. This includes at least all the better Canon Sure Shots, Nikon L35AF series cameras and the AF3, Ricoh FF-70 (and probably the AF-5 as well, although I haven't tried it), Konica MT-9 & MT-11 and Pentax PC35AF series. Especially the FF-70 and PC35AF are forgotten gems with great five element lenses.
 
Dr. Strangelove, you seem to be one of those happy sneakers who find value for almost nothing :) You mention prices in euros - where you are ? As my only reasonable option to feed GAS is big auction site, I just love thrift store prices mentioned on Net.
For example, only time I have seen BMF 2.8 on UK site, it went off for ~45pounds. Agree, that sometimes Mju/Epic described "like new" touch very high price tag (yeah, using pouch for P&S pays back :) )
After my mju which I bought new for almost ~200USD (local price) had problem, I got one for spare parts and don't concentrate on them. I fell back towards 80's P&S, and right now I'm waiting for Canon MC and Ricoh FF-70. Btw, I also noted that samples from Ricoh AF-2 (and AF-5 seems to be similar) look good, with appealing contrast.

Maybe some RFF'ers can point to resorces or tell more about lens designs - those little Tessars and Mju bright lens are about 4/4 design, and I wonder that 5/5 are so rare (to mention FF-70 and PC35AF), what are their advantages and weaknesses, well - just to feed mind with theoretical stuff (as good pic can be made without lens at all, as we know).
 
btgc said:
Dr. Strangelove, you seem to be one of those happy sneakers who find value for almost nothing :) You mention prices in euros - where you are ? As my only reasonable option to feed GAS is big auction site, I just love thrift store prices mentioned on Net.
For example, only time I have seen BMF 2.8 on UK site, it went off for ~45pounds. Agree, that sometimes Mju/Epic described "like new" touch very high price tag (yeah, using pouch for P&S pays back :) )
After my mju which I bought new for almost ~200USD (local price) had problem, I got one for spare parts and don't concentrate on them. I fell back towards 80's P&S, and right now I'm waiting for Canon MC and Ricoh FF-70. Btw, I also noted that samples from Ricoh AF-2 (and AF-5 seems to be similar) look good, with appealing contrast.

Maybe some RFF'ers can point to resorces or tell more about lens designs - those little Tessars and Mju bright lens are about 4/4 design, and I wonder that 5/5 are so rare (to mention FF-70 and PC35AF), what are their advantages and weaknesses, well - just to feed mind with theoretical stuff (as good pic can be made without lens at all, as we know).
Click to expand...
Finland. I buy stuff mostly from a local 'net auction site, which is of course much smaller than any of the big eBay sites simply because the population of Finland is only about 5 million. The number of available items is smaller, but the good thing is that there are less people looking for the good deals. When I bought the T3 Super, I was the only bidder!

The BMF was actually part of a package deal, which included a µ Zoom, a Canon AF35M (Sure Shot / Autoboy) and an Olympus Superzoom 80G for a total of 10 euros... I bought them from a student who just tried to offload all the old film cameras of his friends and relatives; he probably got them for free. Now the only problem is that no one wants to buy the Superzoom 80G from me.:D It's not a bad camera at all; it's about the same size as the µ Zoom and the lens is quite decent (in fact it's probably the same lens as in the µ Zoom modified for slightly different focal lengths), but the 38-80 mm zoom range is not as useful as the 35-70 mm of the µ zoom. It's still available as new for about 50 euros, but in practice nobody wants to buy film zoom compacts any more, new or second hand.

About lens designs: the lens is a fairly big part of the total manufacturing costs. 5 element designs are more expensive than 4 element designs, but for most purposes a good 4 element Tessar is almost as good as a five element design as long as you don't need anything faster than f/2.8 or wider than 35 mm. The most significant differences are at wide open. A Tessar at f/2.8 will be somewhat softer, although the difference is not really visible on 10x15 cm prints, which is what most of the AF compacts were designed for. Stopped down one f-stop or more the differences quickly disappear.

So, a 5 element lens was a bit of an overkill for a compact, which is why Nikon used one only in the original L35AF. The L35AF2 and AF3 switched to a 4 element lens. The other 5 element users were Pentax and Ricoh. Pentax was always a crazy company lead by engineers. Good for the users, not so good for the bottom line... The Ricoh FF-70 on the other hand was a spiritual predecessor of the GR series, a high quality camera targeted for serious photographers rather than ordinary consumers. It's recommended price in Japan was 45 000 yens in year 1985, which was about the same as a Canon T50 body!
 
Last edited:
Dr. Strangelove said:
I wouldn't pay $100 for any used P&S film camera with full program AE only. I paid 8 euros for my Yashica T3 Super, 3 euros for my Konica Big Mini F and nothing for my Epic Stylus. Well, the Epic Stylus was a gift from a relative who went completely digital, but I wouldn't pay more than 10 euros for one.

In general I find both the later Yashica T series cameras and the Epics a bit overappreciated. If you don't mind carrying a slightly bigger and heavier camera almost any of the 1980's prime lens AF compacts with a f/3.5 or f/2.8 lens is a great picture taker. This includes at least all the better Canon Sure Shots, Nikon L35AF series cameras and the AF3, Ricoh FF-70 (and probably the AF-5 as well, although I haven't tried it), Konica MT-9 & MT-11 and Pentax PC35AF series. Especially the FF-70 and PC35AF are forgotten gems with great five element lenses.
Click to expand...

I can add the Minolta AFZ to those cameras - lovely 35mm/2.8 lens. Quite large for a p&s and not great flash control, but the lens is great.
 
Ah, Finland ! Friend of mine went there for nice old SAAB900 - he's sick with them. And you save on cheaper shipping, too :) Here in Latvia for price of nice Electro you will be offered P&S f8 plastic lens and no choice, that's because I go BAS.

Thanks for comment on lens design - that's true that lenses are softer wide open, didn't know direct relation to construction schema. Although compact zooms have even more complex designs, seems that 5/5 is max in non-exclusive fixed lens P&S range (GR series lenses have up to 9 elements....if translation from Japanese is correct). Also interesting remark abot FF-70 relation to GR line (where you read that, btw ?).

If PC35AF would have longer speeds like XA2, I would get it and love it for manual advance, so useful in crowd.

Back to mju/epic - that deal on new Mju should be terrific, if they are new not refurbished. Gosh, shop should have tough times to put them on such sale !

It's amazing that such array of features is packed into so small body ! Only inconvenience are small buttons, with form and size I'm fine (well, I'm not smith, though also not violine player). When used hardly, several parts wear out and thanks to supercompact size and tight packaging, it's hard to work on this camera.

Dr. Strangelove said:
The most significant differences are at wide open. A Tessar at f/2.8 will be somewhat softer, although the difference is not really visible on 10x15 cm prints, which is what most of the AF compacts were designed for. Stopped down one f-stop or more the differences quickly disappear.
Click to expand...
 
btgc said:
Thanks for comment on lens design - that's true that lenses are softer wide open, didn't know direct relation to construction schema. Although compact zooms have even more complex designs, seems that 5/5 is max in non-exclusive fixed lens P&S range (GR series lenses have up to 9 elements....if translation from Japanese is correct). Also interesting remark abot FF-70 relation to GR line (where you read that, btw ?).
.
Click to expand...
Well, there is no "direct relation" of lens sharpness at wide open and optical formula. A poorly designed or manufactured 5 element lens can be much softer than a good 4 element lens. But a well designed 5 element lens should be sharper and have less color aberrations than a well designed 4 element lens. Let's not forget that we are talking about f/2.8 or slower normal and wide-normal (35-58 mm on a 24x35 mm frame) lenses here. Wider lenses will require more complex designs for acceptable corner sharpness. The same is true for faster lenses, which often use formulas derived from the Zeiss Sonnar, Planar or Biometar. Cheap P&S cameras were made in the 1990s with three element or triplet lenses even at 26 mm focal lengths, but those will be more or less soft at wide open an the lenses were also slow (often f/5.6 or slower).

About the FF-70 and the GR line: I did not read it anywhere, but it's fairly obvious considering the high price and exceptional specs of the FF-70 (5 element lens, 2 - 1/500 sec exposure time) . It's closest relative at the time was the Canon AF35ML, which had a very fast lens (f/1.9) for a P&S camera, five element as well. The whole class of "pro" quality P&S cameras of course did not really emerge until the 1990s with such cameras as the Contax T series, Leica Minilux, Konica Hexar AF, Nikon 35Ti & 28Ti and the Ricoh GR, but cameras such as the FF-70 and AF35ML clearly were predecessors of them. They never achieved the same fame though, since in the 1980's most serious amateurs and pros were still shooting fixed lens rangefinders such as the Olympus XA and the AF compact cameras were looked down at, even if many of them were actually quite good optically.
 
Price as we know reflects technology and materials used to build camera. Quick look reveals that, just to mention, TF-200D cost at that time 55 800 yen -- even more than FF-70.
From TF-200 specs (speeds rather for daylight use, lens element count) I conclude that price were so high because it were early zoom-equipped camera. In this case price may not reflect very high picture quality, right ?

Returning to 5/5 in P&S it would be strange to implement it badly, especially when engineers probably had to push this product hardly because people can be happy enough with cheaper and common solutions. Though they (Ricoh and Pentax) chose to do this way, eh. That's why I'm etching on seat while my FF-70 slowly travels somewhere - and fact that I have seen very few pics made by this model, makes me more impatient.

Probably we stole topic - my apologies to murrayb53 :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom