Ken Rockwell Review of Olympus 35SP

[dtcls100]

Just saw that KR has posted a new, very favorable review of the Olympus 35SP. He compares the lens very favorably to the Leica Summilux and Summicron, saying that it combines the best features of both and calling it the "Summiluxicron."

Nice to see he shares my enthusiasm for the fabulous qualities of this camera. Let's see if his review impacts prices . . . . Fortunately, I have already stocked up on 3 fully working cameras (1 black, 2 chrome) and 1 near fully working camera (chrome) with only the spot metering non-functional.

 

[clayne]

It will most certainly impact prices, buy one now if you want it.

That being said, there are tons of similar cameras just like the 35SP from the same era that are just about the same camera.

 

[dtcls100]

That being said, there are tons of similar cameras just like the 35SP from the same era that are just about the same camera.

Don't know of any other rangerfinders of that era (or perhaps any) that have optional spot metering. 35SP was pretty unique in that regard, particularly when combined with auto exposure.

 

[btgc]

There should be trendy badges "Reviewed by Ken" to wear proudly on cameras 🙂

 

[clayne]

Don't know of any other rangerfinders of that era (or perhaps any) that have optional spot metering. 35SP was pretty unique in that regard, particularly when combined with auto exposure.

Besides spot metering there are many similar shutter priority 38-45mm compact rangefinders of that same era and style. The 35SP is a great camera but it's not the only one.

 

[dtcls100]

Besides spot metering there are many similar shutter priority 38-45mm compact rangefinders of that same era and style. The 35SP is a great camera but it's not the only one.

Optional spot metering is a pretty important and notable feature. Also, the 35SP has full program AE, not shutter priority. Lens quality is pretty amazing as well, as many owners can attest. Flashmatic mode also is very useful. No other rangefinder has the combination of these features. While it is true that there are other fine 35mm rangefinders, your original statement that they are pretty much all the same camera is simply inaccurate.

Do you consider all the 35mm SLRs that were made during the 1970's pretty much the same camera? They all have lenses, all take film, all have viewfinders, and all take pictures . . . . .🙂

 

[clayne]

Optional spot metering is a pretty important and notable feature.

I'm not disagreeing, although I would say it's a nice to have, not an absolute need vs averaged metering.

Also, the 35SP has full program AE, not shutter priority.

Alright, I'll give you that, it does have "P" mode. However, not a lot of people value P mode and prefer Av (most people) or Tv (not particularly valuable). The other compact RFs of this era are all Tv for the most part. I think only the Electro offered Av. The one thing I do think is cool about the 35SP is that the meter is enabled (albeit uncoupled) in manual mode, unlike the others of this era.

Lens quality is pretty amazing as well, as many owners can attest. Flashmatic mode also is very useful. No other rangefinder has the combination of these features. While it is true that there are other fine 35mm rangefinders, your original statement that they are pretty much all the same camera is simply inaccurate.

It isn't inaccurate. They're all basically the same camera with minor differences in either metering style or lens focal length.

Have you ever used a 35RC, QL17, HM 7sII, Konica S3, Konica C35, Electro 35CC, Ricoh 500, etc.? Use all of them and then you'll start to realize it's the same basic camera with per-manufacturer twists on minor features and styling. I wouldn't be surprised if these were all manufactured by ONE company - and it's been speculated before that they actually were (I believe by Konica or Ricoh). Even the lens label of "Zuiko", "Rokkor", "Canon", etc. is rumored to be marketing.

Do you consider all the 35mm SLRs that were made during the 1970's pretty much the same camera? They all have lenses, all take film, all have viewfinders, and all take pictures . . . . .🙂

No, that's an over-simplification. I'm simply pointing out that the similarities between all of the compact Japanese 35mm rangefinders of the 70s is not a coincidence. I'm doing that because it should be clear that while the 35SP does offer some cool features, one could throw the dice a different way, pick up any of the other manufactured models and have an extremely similar experience. They're all pretty solid great little cameras.

Alot of people, including myself, use them in manual metering mode anyway (for the ones that allow manual) either due to not wanting to hassle with PX batteries or just simply finding shutter priority to be useless.

 

[Frontman]

Have you ever used a 35RC, QL17, HM 7sII, Konica S3, Konica C35, Electro 35CC, Ricoh 500, etc.? Use all of them and then you'll start to realize it's the same basic camera with per-manufacturer twists on minor features and styling. I wouldn't be surprised if these were all manufactured by ONE company - and it's been speculated before that they actually were (I believe by Konica or Ricoh). Even the lens label of "Zuiko", "Rokkor", "Canon", etc. is rumored to be marketing.

Actually, having owned/used/repaired all of the cameras you have mentioned, there are actually very significant differences in many of their designs. The RC is unique in how the shutter operates, the QL17 uses a shutter similar to the SP, but the lens is of a different design with different construction. The CC has a great lens which uses thorium glass, but uses a fully electronic shutter. The S3 and Konica C35 are the exceptions, their lenses seemed to have been shared by a few different companies, but these are not in the same league as the Olympus SP. The spot meter function might seem superfluous, until you try using it, then you realize what a useful feature it is.

 

[dtcls100]

Have you ever used a 35RC, QL17, HM 7sII, Konica S3, Konica C35, Electro 35CC, Ricoh 500, etc.? Use all of them and then you'll start to realize it's the same basic camera with per-manufacturer twists on minor features and styling. I wouldn't be surprised if these were all manufactured by ONE company - and it's been speculated before that they actually were (I believe by Konica or Ricoh). Even the lens label of "Zuiko", "Rokkor", "Canon", etc. is rumored to be marketing.

I actually have used a number of these cameras. Your suggestion that they are somehow all basically the same cameras is way off the mark. Obviously, you are not too familiar with the 35SP, given your prior admittedly erroneous comments. Also, if you look at the basic size (for example, Olympus 35SP is much larger than a 35RC), different lens and shutter designs, etc., different features, you unfortunately don't seem to know what you are talking about here. Your reductionist thinking seems to be that because they were all built in the 1960's -1970's, are 35mm rangefinders, and have slightly wide to standard lens in front, they must all be the same camera. Kind of like saying that because two people walking down the street each have a head, two arms, two legs, a torso, and brown hair, they must be identical twins. Utter nonsense, dude!

 

[clayne]

I'm not saying they are absolutely the *same* camera - I'm saying that the base design, even the majority of the chassis materials, etc. are sourced from the same manufacturer or a consortium of them. Do you seriously not even see the cosmetic and design resemblance from just looking at the various models? This isn't the same as "hey look, that k1000 uses the same layout as an F2, hence all 35mm SLRs are made by the same people", so dispense with the strawman. You refuse to lend to the possibility that these cameras aren't as different as you want to make them out to be. I assume that's because you own a 35SP. Me, I have zero beef with the 35SP and think it's a fine camera.

Look at the physical cameras, their size/shape, metering designs, exposure control levers, lens cosmetics, advance and release placements/design, viewfinders, etc. and you'll notice that there's more to it than meets the eye. I'm surprised, if you've used a number of those cameras, you didn't arrive at the conclusion on your own.

 

[dtcls100]

I'm not saying they are absolutely the *same* camera - I'm saying that the base design, even the majority of the chassis materials, etc. are sourced from the same manufacturer or a consortium of them. Do you seriously not even see the cosmetic and design resemblance from just looking at the various models? This isn't the same as "hey look, that k1000 uses the same layout as an F2, hence all 35mm SLRs are made by the same people", so dispense with the strawman. You refuse to lend to the possibility that these cameras aren't as different as you want to make them out to be. I assume that's because you own a 35SP. Me, I have zero beef with the 35SP and think it's a fine camera.

Look at the physical cameras, their size/shape, metering designs, exposure control levers, lens cosmetics, advance and release placements/design, viewfinders, etc. and you'll notice that there's more to it than meets the eye. I'm surprised, if you've used a number of those cameras, you didn't arrive at the conclusion on your own.

Wow, guess you are one of those fine folks that don't let facts get in the way of their opinions. Did you read Frontman's comments above? Ever look at the major size differences between a 35 RC, 35 SP, and Electro 35? Your own factors point to significant differences. But I guess you are unaware of them -- as shown by your obvious unfamiliarity with even the 35SP's features as shown by your prior posts.

BTW, you have any other interesting conspiracy theories to share? 🙂

 

[dtcls100]

I'm not saying they are absolutely the *same* camera - I'm saying that the base design, even the majority of the chassis materials, etc. are sourced from the same manufacturer or a consortium of them. Do you seriously not even see the cosmetic and design resemblance from just looking at the various models? This isn't the same as "hey look, that k1000 uses the same layout as an F2, hence all 35mm SLRs are made by the same people", so dispense with the strawman. You refuse to lend to the possibility that these cameras aren't as different as you want to make them out to be. I assume that's because you own a 35SP. Me, I have zero beef with the 35SP and think it's a fine camera.

Look at the physical cameras, their size/shape, metering designs, exposure control levers, lens cosmetics, advance and release placements/design, viewfinders, etc. and you'll notice that there's more to it than meets the eye. I'm surprised, if you've used a number of those cameras, you didn't arrive at the conclusion on your own.

Wow, guess you are one of those fine folks that don't let facts get in the way of their opinions. Did you read Frontman's comments above? Ever look at the major size differences between a 35 RC, 35 SP, and Electro 35? Your own factors point to significant differences. But I guess you are unaware of them -- as shown by your obvious unfamiliarity with even the 35SP's features as shown by your prior posts.

BTW, you have any other interesting conspiracy theories to share? 🙂

"Better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

 

[River Dog]

Have you ever used a 35RC, QL17, HM 7sII, Konica S3, Konica C35, Electro 35CC, Ricoh 500, etc.? Use all of them and then you'll start to realize it's the same basic camera

I own the RC, SP, and a 35CC - they seem distinctly different to me; in metering, exposure settings, shutter release, shutter, overall size, weight and ergonomics. I would dump the RC and CC if I had to choose.

 

[Landshark]

Nah! There's only one Supercorporation in Japan and they make 'em all. RF, SLR, LF, they just ship them from different P.O. boxes.

 

[Lawrence A.]

From our own Stephen Gandy:
"Meter works in manual operation. This is the only leaf shutter compact RF of this era that I can think of which has manual metering. Typically manual over-ride means no meter."

"The Olympus 35 SP's dual spot and centerweighted metering system is unique. IF this is what you need, there is simply no other choice among classic 35mm rangefinders."

"Yes indeed, it was far ahead of its time. If you don't count the Leica M5 and CL with their large spot meters, the 35 SP is also the only 35 rangefinder with spot metering! Besides that, the 35 SP was the 1st camera with AE exposure AND spot metering! "

So yes, it was a unique camera for its time. I've shot a lot of the about mentioned cameras, and the SP is not some clone of a generic Japanese rangefinder with a few items tinkered with. It is a very fine camera, and ahead of Olympus's other very fine rangefinders. The lens is a definite contender.

 

[ianstamatic]

the SP is a great camera.

while the lens is capable of hi resolution, however it is a low contrast lens.
It resolves well but without the razor bite and contrast of say m-rokkor 40/2
It also flares quite dramatically.


I like how you can adjust the RF from the opened back of the camera.