XicoS
Newbie
Hi all,
My first post here, after many searchs. Great forum!
I am looking for a compact Olympus RF. I currently use a Canon Canonet (the original one) and an Olympus Trip 35 viewfinder. I would like to have the quality of RF photography in the Olympus trip body size.
I know the Olympus 35 RC is almost the size of Olympus Trip, and a good RF camera. But the 35 RD seems to be just slightly larger and heavier - but is higher quality. And, then, there is the 35 SP - even larger, perhaps even better lens.
As my point is having something smaller than my Canonet, but with at least the same quality and perhpas better ergonomics, I can't decide between these 3 options - SP, RC and RD.
What do you think? Can you help me?
Thank you,
Xico
My first post here, after many searchs. Great forum!
I am looking for a compact Olympus RF. I currently use a Canon Canonet (the original one) and an Olympus Trip 35 viewfinder. I would like to have the quality of RF photography in the Olympus trip body size.
I know the Olympus 35 RC is almost the size of Olympus Trip, and a good RF camera. But the 35 RD seems to be just slightly larger and heavier - but is higher quality. And, then, there is the 35 SP - even larger, perhaps even better lens.
As my point is having something smaller than my Canonet, but with at least the same quality and perhpas better ergonomics, I can't decide between these 3 options - SP, RC and RD.
What do you think? Can you help me?
Thank you,
Xico
stuken
Established
I have the SP and its fantastic, infact, if/when somebody buys my bessa from the classifieds it will be my only rangefinder. The biggest difference between the SP and the RC is the speed of the lens. Do you need the 1.7 lens on the SP or can you live wit the 2.8 on the RC? The RC is also not as adjustable as the sp, less shutter speeds ect.
Both are great cameras, and will give you very sharp results. I've never used an RD, but I would be surprised if it wasn't just as good as the other two. Just write out a list of pros and cons, size, speed ect.
Both are great cameras, and will give you very sharp results. I've never used an RD, but I would be surprised if it wasn't just as good as the other two. Just write out a list of pros and cons, size, speed ect.
chris91387
Well-known
i just happened to have my oly 35sp and ql17 sitting with me. here's some pictures.
the ql17 is slightly smaller as you can tell from the pictures.
i love the sp and use the spot meter often. both cameras give great results and i keep both with me almost all of the time. one for b&w and one for color. i leave the leica at home unless im shooting something special. i figure if these get stolen then i'm not out too much money.
the ql17 is slightly smaller as you can tell from the pictures.
i love the sp and use the spot meter often. both cameras give great results and i keep both with me almost all of the time. one for b&w and one for color. i leave the leica at home unless im shooting something special. i figure if these get stolen then i'm not out too much money.
Attachments
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
The RC doesn't have the spot meter, does it?
I had an SP and loved it. I have an RD in my hands (not mine but it's handy) and it's nice. What I like about the SP (not sure the RC has it) is that it meters by exposure value and you turn the aperture and shutter to make the value shown in the viewfinder. It's hard to explain but I found it very intuitive. The RD doesn't do that.
I had an SP and loved it. I have an RD in my hands (not mine but it's handy) and it's nice. What I like about the SP (not sure the RC has it) is that it meters by exposure value and you turn the aperture and shutter to make the value shown in the viewfinder. It's hard to explain but I found it very intuitive. The RD doesn't do that.
Monz
Monz
I have the Oly RD (x2), the Oly SP and Canonet QL17 III.
The RD is prone to the sticky shutter problem but if you get this fixed, it is a fantastic little camera in use. The SP has a spot meter, a slightly better lens (7 elements instead of 6) but is quite a bit bulkier... and the shutter is louder. The spot meter also has a tendency to fail.
--
Monz
The RD is prone to the sticky shutter problem but if you get this fixed, it is a fantastic little camera in use. The SP has a spot meter, a slightly better lens (7 elements instead of 6) but is quite a bit bulkier... and the shutter is louder. The spot meter also has a tendency to fail.
--
Monz
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Btw, the 35 SP has almost the exact dimension as a Leica M. If you can find one in good working condition, go for it, it's the best Olympus RF. Period.
If you like something smaller, the 35 RD is the one to go for. Although it has 6-element lens like the Canonet, I like the pictures better on the RD. Here's a sample:
If you like something smaller, the 35 RD is the one to go for. Although it has 6-element lens like the Canonet, I like the pictures better on the RD. Here's a sample:
agi
Well-known
If Shadowfox (Will) speaks about Oly's you listen. I've only used the 35UC which is the same as the SP and it's fantastic. Man that lens.
XicoS
Newbie
Wow, so many replies! Thank you all! Chris91387, thank you very much for the pictures, that was nice!
In fact, my Canonet is the original one, not the QL17. The original one is larger than the QL17.
In fact, my Canonet is the original one, not the QL17. The original one is larger than the QL17.
John Lawrence
Well-known
What about an XA? I don't have mine anymore, but it's one of the few cameras I regret selling.
chris91387
Well-known
i have an xa2 and don't like it. it just doesn't feel like a camera. it feels like a toy. takes fine pictures but i have no "connection" with it. real convenient size.
John Lawrence
Well-known
I've never used an XA2 - but I thought the XA I had was a great camera. It used to be known as "the camera professionals took on holiday with them".
Former Sunday Times (UK) travel photographer Philip Dunn has a blog and I seem to remember him extolling the little XA's virtues.
Of course what works for one may not work for another etc., but I found it ideal in terms of size, image quality and speed of use.
Former Sunday Times (UK) travel photographer Philip Dunn has a blog and I seem to remember him extolling the little XA's virtues.
Of course what works for one may not work for another etc., but I found it ideal in terms of size, image quality and speed of use.
agi
Well-known
The XA is an excellent RF and a take everywhere pocket camera. The XA2 isn't an RF so it wouldn't fall into what the OP is looking for.
bmattock
Veteran
Despite the better lens of the RD and the SP, I would tend to give the nod to the RC. However, if you want the actual size of the Trip and are willing to give up manual shutter speed and aperture control, then the ECR might be what you're looking for. They come with their own problems, including (often) corroded battery wells, but they are available quite inexpensively, they are well-made, and they use the same lens as the RC. One of my favorite, however, is the EC (same battery issues). Better viewfinder, same lens, no rangefinder. Not truly needed for some types of photography with that lens.
R
ruben
Guest
It depends on where you put the accent (I am thinking in Spanish = what is more important for you).
If image quality is the priority, the differences are really minor on the basis of three excellent lenses. Nevertheless the supersticious spirits from the Neerthentalyan times say this is the priortiy:
a) SP
b) RD
c) RC
If camera size is your priority, then you will have to reverse above.
If aperture priority is what you like - then the SP is the only one which answers this need, and only with its auto-program, designed to give heavy emphasys on aperture over speed.
The RC and RD are shutter priority in auto mode. Both have a fairly small yellow patch - in contrast to the SP, meaning that in case you choose the RC or RD you will have to make sure the yellow patch is at least very visible, or the overall viewing system has been treated by a technician, or you will take them to a technician, or you will make some sort of solution.
Additionally the SP and RD are f/1.7, while the RC is f/2.8. This will be of importance only in case you are specially looking for night shooting without flash and with very high speed film.
Otherwise the RC is a small lyon.
Both the RC and RD have an important manipulation design mistake, by which the aperture ring is the most close to the body, making the aperture change very difficult unless for some specific reason (technician, luck, etc) in your camera this ring is specially soft. Since these two cameras are rather very small, the ring is thin as well. Its placement is a torture, unless you shoot with patience, or for some reason you don't need to fiddle with the apertures.
All in all you have got it, the SP is the luxury boat of the fleet, and with a handy lever on the distance ring. This is the camera I will buy first, unless I had a specific reason for choosing one of the other two.
Now this is not an overall description, and some very important data may be beyond my post, of course, like the highly nice fact that in the viewfinder of the RC you have both the selected aperture and shutter speed, while the info on the SP viewfinder has been the subject of bitter or comic controversy.
Cheers,
Ruben
If image quality is the priority, the differences are really minor on the basis of three excellent lenses. Nevertheless the supersticious spirits from the Neerthentalyan times say this is the priortiy:
a) SP
b) RD
c) RC
If camera size is your priority, then you will have to reverse above.
If aperture priority is what you like - then the SP is the only one which answers this need, and only with its auto-program, designed to give heavy emphasys on aperture over speed.
The RC and RD are shutter priority in auto mode. Both have a fairly small yellow patch - in contrast to the SP, meaning that in case you choose the RC or RD you will have to make sure the yellow patch is at least very visible, or the overall viewing system has been treated by a technician, or you will take them to a technician, or you will make some sort of solution.
Additionally the SP and RD are f/1.7, while the RC is f/2.8. This will be of importance only in case you are specially looking for night shooting without flash and with very high speed film.
Otherwise the RC is a small lyon.
Both the RC and RD have an important manipulation design mistake, by which the aperture ring is the most close to the body, making the aperture change very difficult unless for some specific reason (technician, luck, etc) in your camera this ring is specially soft. Since these two cameras are rather very small, the ring is thin as well. Its placement is a torture, unless you shoot with patience, or for some reason you don't need to fiddle with the apertures.
All in all you have got it, the SP is the luxury boat of the fleet, and with a handy lever on the distance ring. This is the camera I will buy first, unless I had a specific reason for choosing one of the other two.
Now this is not an overall description, and some very important data may be beyond my post, of course, like the highly nice fact that in the viewfinder of the RC you have both the selected aperture and shutter speed, while the info on the SP viewfinder has been the subject of bitter or comic controversy.
Cheers,
Ruben
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
My knock against the RC is that the slowest shutter speed is 1/15, in addition to the ergonomics.
SP is king of the hill, but I would love to have an RD as it is more pocketable than the SP, especially with a hood attached.
The spot meter of the SP is worth its weight in gold. I have two SPs and the spot meter works flawlessly in both.
The SP lens is prone to flare with a light source in the frame ... not sure how the RD compares on that score. Other than that, the SP lens is very, very good.
SP is king of the hill, but I would love to have an RD as it is more pocketable than the SP, especially with a hood attached.
The spot meter of the SP is worth its weight in gold. I have two SPs and the spot meter works flawlessly in both.
The SP lens is prone to flare with a light source in the frame ... not sure how the RD compares on that score. Other than that, the SP lens is very, very good.
bmattock
Veteran
I agree that it is odd that the slowest speed for the RC is 1/15, but really, on a pocket rangefinder, do you need anything slower? I haven't yet put mine on a tripod or had need of a slower speed. In fact, 1/30 is about as slow as I'd want to do when using it street-shooting, which is what it is really good at.
mh2000
Well-known
I've owned both the RC and ECR and ended up prefering the cleaner design of the ECR.
For serious shooting I much prefer my Retina IIa.
I have never been that happy with the results from my XA... ok for 8x10's, but not superb... I love the camera design though, so I've kept it since new and occasionally use it... till I again look at photos from it... sigh... my Minox GL is much better optically.
For serious shooting I much prefer my Retina IIa.
I have never been that happy with the results from my XA... ok for 8x10's, but not superb... I love the camera design though, so I've kept it since new and occasionally use it... till I again look at photos from it... sigh... my Minox GL is much better optically.
John Hermanson
Well-known
My first post. I vote for the 35RD, as long as it does not have oily shutter blades, you should be veryt happy with it. John, www.zuiko.com
Marlon dela Cruz
Marlon
My first post too, all I can say is that I've recently acquired an RC and I'm happy with it. I've just ran my first roll (Ektar 100) through it and I'm satisfied. It has calmed my GAS symptoms down for now.
ColinW
* Click *
Of the one's mentioned, I have an RC and an ECR. The ECR is good but I'm not keen on the full automation. I love my RC and can't complain about it all. If you want more details try Andrew Yue's site:
http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~yue/misc/rangfndr.html
This page gives a quick comparison and the links near the top of the page give you more details on the individual RFs.
http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~yue/misc/rangfndr.html
This page gives a quick comparison and the links near the top of the page give you more details on the individual RFs.