Olympus Trip 35: The Leica of the Point and Shoots?

How many Trips is one too many...been so impressed with my first (a silver-buttoned version) that I've just bid on and won another, but this one is a later black-buttoned version. I've also seen a website selling restored examples with varying colours of leatherette. Been tempted to get a pink one for the Missis, not that she even needs one!
 
Frank: Speak for yourself. I'm normally easy. With a good cab franc, I'm so easy it's pathetic.

Cabernet leather for my Trip ... Hmmmmm.
 
The Trip 35 is not for me.

That's my conclusion after making some 15 shots. There are two problems, one is mine, the other built in in the camera. My problem, as i suspected, I consistently setting the distances for less than it should be.

Rectifying this mistake is not an unsurmountable issue, but it is a small project and there is another related small project - to become as good as to do it without thinking. Because if you start thinking about the correct distance, then better start thinking about the speed on a Canonet.

Fine, not impossible. But there is another issue for which the Trip is not built to solve: photographing at low light, a mall for example. Then the camera will be using the widest apertures, f/2.8, and here within 15 feet there is no room for mercy. Although it is remarkable that at ISO 400, not a single underexposure in the mall.

So thanks for the trip and the tips, this is not the camera for me to carry now as permanent companion, but another project for the future.

Cheers,
Ruben

next in my menu: Yashica GX.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everyone is different Ruben, no worries. Lots of folks like the Yashica Electros for example, but they're not for me. Thank goodness we have choices!
 
Last edited:
I think that some of the older Konica cameras come close to Leica quality, like the Konica IIIA or IIIM. Even the II and III have dynamite lenses and solid metal built.
 
raid said:
I think that some of the older Konica cameras come close to Leica quality, like the Konica IIIA or IIIM. Even the II and III have dynamite lenses and solid metal built.
Click to expand...

Yes. Even the Konica Auto S2. Don't own one though I recommended one to a friend who bought it. It's a beauty and they're quite affordable. Although the build quality of the Konica Auto S3 isn't nearly what it was in the early 60's, and it probably was built by Cosina, man does that thing have a lens...
 
NickTrop said:
Yes. Even the Konica Auto S2. Don't own one though I recommended one to a friend who bought it. It's a beauty and they're quite affordable. Although the build quality of the Konica Auto S3 isn't nearly what it was in the early 60's, and it probably was built by Cosina, man does that thing have a lens...
Click to expand...


All Konica RF cameras have good lenses.
The Auto S3 looks as if it were built cheaply, but its lens has an excellent reputation. The S2 or the S are bigger and heavier.
 
Last edited:
Ruben, sorry the Trip is not what you expected, but in all fairness to the guys who designed it, I'm pretty sure they didn't have in mind someone using it to photograph the insides of shopping malls. It is a pitty though that they just couldn't have included a coupled rangefinder, for those who wanted the same convenience of a batteryless, take-anywhere camera but with accurate focussing. Perhaps they judged that including an RF on the Trip would affect the sales of the RC.
 
OlyMan said:
Ruben, sorry the Trip is not what you expected, but in all fairness to the guys who designed it, I'm pretty sure they didn't have in mind someone using it to photograph the insides of shopping malls. It is a pitty though that they just couldn't have included a coupled rangefinder, for those who wanted the same convenience of a batteryless, take-anywhere camera but with accurate focussing. Perhaps they judged that including an RF on the Trip would affect the sales of the RC.
Click to expand...
The Trip 35 was a simple "almost P&S" camera. It was designed to be relatively cheap and therefore it could not have expensive parts like a coupled rangefinder. Without a rangefinder you could have scale focus, zone focus or fixed focus. Fixed focus means at best so-so image quality at all ranges except at the one fixed range and is not really at all usable with fast lenses. Scale focusing is even more difficult to use than zone focusing, so Olympus chose the latter.

In fact zone focus was the only sensible choice for an inexpensive P&S cameras with a fast lens before AF became affordable enough. In the 1980s zone focusing fell out of favor, since research showed that ordinary P&S users found it too difficult. At the same time ASA/ISO 200 films became better, which made fixed focus cameras with f/4 or slower lenses much more usable and versatile than before. The cheapest models in the Trip series were also fixed foxus after the Trip 35 was discontinued.

One of the last cheap zone focus cameras in production was in fact also an Olympus, the AM-100 introduced in 1987. It was essentially the same camera as its somewhat more expensive cousine the AF-10, but with a zone focusing lens.
 
Dr. Strangelove said:
The Trip 35 was a simple "almost P&S" camera. It was designed to be relatively cheap and therefore it could not have expensive parts like a coupled rangefinder. Without a rangefinder you could have scale focus, zone focus or fixed focus. Fixed focus means at best so-so image quality at all ranges except at the one fixed range and is not really at all usable with fast lenses. Scale focusing is even more difficult to use than zone focusing, so Olympus chose the latter.

In fact zone focus was the only sensible choice for an inexpensive P&S cameras with a fast lens before AF became affordable enough....
Click to expand...

Hi Doc,
I am not knowledgeable of the difference between scale focus and zone focus, and perhaps this may be of some help to ventilate my model. Could you explain the concept using the Trip 35 as example ?

Thanks,
Ruben
 
ruben said:
Hi Doc,
I am not knowledgeable of the difference between scale focus and zone focus, and perhaps this may be of some help to ventilate my model. Could you explain the concept using the Trip 35 as example ?
Thanks,
Ruben
Click to expand...
The Trip 35 has four focus settings or focusing zones, marked with half a person (1 meter), two persons (1.5 meters), three (or group of) persons (3 meters) and mountain (infinity) symbols. In zone focusing you estimate the approximate range of the main subject and set the focus zone accordingly. For people, which are the primary subjects for most P&S users, the symbols give a very good hint of the correct zone. For other subjects you will just have to estimate the range and set the zone accordingly.

In scale focusing camera the focusing ring rotates freely without any stops from closest focusing distance of the lens to infinity, just like it would on a rangefinder or manual focus SLR camera. The only difference is that you have to estimate the range to the main subject or use an external rangefinder. When using a scale focus camera without an external rangefinder, most people try to use smaller apertures in order to increase the depth of field and minimize the chances of the main subject being out of focus in case of incorrect estimation. This is often combined with hyperfocal technique. Of course all this means that using scale focus cameras for handheld low light photography is very difficult and requires fast films at least.

The expression "zone focusing" is indeed sometimes used with scale focus or even rangefinder cameras. Typically it means a technique where you do not even try to use the rangefinder for every shot, but you just try to keep the main subjects (and background if desired) within the "zone of focus" or depth of field. Usually it involves using relatively small apertures, typically f/5.6 and smaller. Here is a nice article about hyperfocal technique and zone focusing:

http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/marine/569/rusrngfdrs/focusing.html
 
I found my Trip 35 in an Op-Shop (thrift store?) last week, paid AUD$10 for camera and flash. I had 0% expectation regarding its picture quality.

Heres one of the test shots I took with it, used super el-cheapo Focal (K-Mart Australia house brand) 400 film. Then had it developed at same K-Mart by some pimply faced girl who looks like she would have trouble working a kettle let alone a film processing machine.

1625412645_2dbd8a71bb_o.jpg
 
Trip 35 is the ultimate street camera for me. It's unobtrusive, easy to adjust, and very, very reliable in automatic mode. I take it everywhere now. Mine came with a Hoya Skylight filter and a Starblitz 160A manual+automatic flash.

I brought it to a hot air balloon festival last weekend and got a lot of curious glances despite being in a sea of very very intimidating DSLRs with very very long lenses.
 
Funny, but I have same feeling about this camera as in the title of this old thread.
Purchased one yesterday from local camera store. Paid 85 CAD, taxes included. It is not garage sale purchase, but pleasant transaction with people who sold me many Leica stuff at reasonable price.
Because of them I could compare Leica and Oly Trip 35.

Easy to take a snap from the car.



Minimal focus distance, f8 and simple flash.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom