If ONLY they'd given it a rangefinder :(

[OlyMan]

Just had my second roll back from my trip 35. My landscape shots have come out really well: great sharpness and contrast, even considering the film was slightly out of date. But my low-light (indoors) close-up stuff leaves a lot to be desired. I made a rough guess that from my eye to the tip of my outstretched arm and forefinger was round about a meter, and took a number of shots of my dad's model railway using that principle. In pretty much all instances, the focus plane is about 4" to 6" further away than I anticipated, leading to a high number of out of focus shots which were otherwise well composed and well exposed.

I love this camera because of its battery-independent "programmed" exposure, and because of the lens which is (potentially) tack sharp on any photo up to 12"x8" (or even more). But unless you're shooting with a very small aperture and/or permanently shooting landscapes you need to be a very good judge of short distances. It seems every product has to have an Achilles heel, and although I still love the Trip 35, I think it's fair to say I've had my confidence dented a bit. If only Olympus had given it a coupled rangefinder, it would potentially have been the world's most perfect take-anywhere camera.

I will persevere!

 

[jesse1dog]

Buy an ECR !!!!

j

 

[OlyMan]

😀 Nah, ECR still takes batteries does it not? May as well just use my RC or my SP The attraction of the Trip 35, to me, is its totally-battery-free programmed exposure mode.

To be fair to Olympus, they didn't make the Trip 35 for taking shots of model railways, they made it to take "tourist style" snapshots on vacation, where the lens would be used almost entirely on its 3m or infinity setting and to that extent I cannot argue that it no doubt works a treat.

I guess this exercise has just given me a bit of a reality check about what both it and I can successfully do.

 

[FrankS]

Clearly your arms are not as long as you thought! 🙂

 

[feenej]

I have the same experience with my zone focus XA2. Great in daylight, but I wish it was an XA when I get blurry low-light pics. I also have an zone focus Olympus EC that just reeks of quality, but I have not had a chance to get the weird batteries it takes yet.

 

[shadowfox]

Get an old external rangefinder (they are small enough to be a keychain).

Most of the time you don't need it, but for such occasion where critical focus is desired, it's very handy. I bought one off the bay for about $20, it's German made, brand: Pratiza.

 

[FrankS]

Measure your arm. Remember.

 

[feenej]

Do you focus it then read the distance?

 

[jesse1dog]

Yes, I went and kicked myself!
Of course the 35ECR is battery operated and you wanted something without batteries!
Olympus supplied a 0.5m measuring cord with the XA4 I think.
On the same principle tie a 1metre piece of string to the Trip !!

 

[aad]

I've had a few similar issues, but if I use 400 speed film it seems a lot better.

Still, I think it isn't the first choice for a 3 ft./1 meter shot.

 

[OlyMan]

One thing that may help me for future reference: does anyone know if for any given focus/aperture combo if the zone of acceptable focus extends further away from the exact focus point than it does back towards the camera? If it does, then in future I know that when I'm focussing on close subjects to try to aim for the subject being slightly further away than 1m than slightly too close, which seems to have been my failure point on this occasion.

 

[Hibbs]

"Clearly your arms are not as long as you thought!!"

I have the same problem...but with another part of my body!

~hibbs

P.S. - I love my Pen EED...but it needs batteries too!

 

[bcostin]

The original Canonet rangefinder is sorta similar in that it also has a selenium cell and doesn't take batteries. Unfortunately it is larger and heavier than the Trip, partly due to the faster lens.

 

[ColinW]

Olyman,

I have the same problem myself, and it's bloody annoying, :bang:
have you tried this?

http://tomchuk.com/rf_hfd/

It seems to work ok, good luck.

 

[OlyMan]

That's clever! Someone's given that a lot of thought!

 

[julio1fer]

One thing that may help me for future reference: does anyone know if for any given focus/aperture combo if the zone of acceptable focus extends further away from the exact focus point than it does back towards the camera?

Yes it does. The length of the zone in focus, from the exact focus point towards the camera, is about 1/2 of the length of the zone that goes from the exact focus point towards infinity.

 

[Paul C. Perkins MD]

If Only . . .

If Only . . .

If you want to shoot available light pictures with a 35mm camera - a TRIP 35 would not be on my short list. . .

For bashing about in broad daylight, the TRIP 35 is just fine - and one of my very favorite pictures was taken with it - but it would no more occur to me to try and use it in an available light situation than it would to crawl up the 150 steps to the local cathedral. True - I'd get there eventually - but . . . well . . . you get the point. Yeah . . . it's perseverance . . . but why?

Available light shooting is THE niche for 35mm rangefinders. My instruments are an M2 or M4 with 35mm F:1.5 Canon, 50mm F:1.2 Canon and 100mm F:1.2 Canon. There are certainly cheaper alternatives to this set-up - but my point is this: To do low light photography - you REALLY need a rangefinder on the camera. Find the right instrument - and the experience will be less perseverance and more pure enjoyment of your craft.

Why torture yourself?

Paul

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Available light shooting is THE niche for 35mm rangefinders. ...
To do low light photography - you REALLY need a rangefinder on the camera...
Why torture yourself?l

I disagree. Even a Leica rangefinder patch is hard for these aging eyes to see in near darkness.
In this case a good zone focus camera is easier for me to use.
I especially like the absolutely superb in-finder focus scale of the Petri Color 35.

Or an SLR.

Why torture yourself?

Agreed.

Chris