Olympus 35 RC / Some concerns about buying it

[doga_d]

<p>Well I've no experience with any rangefinder cameras but I want to own one.<br>

Started with canon QL 17 but couldn't find a decent one and I saw the olympu 35 RC while searching for RF cameras and even found a proper, clean one for about 90 bucks.<br>

Now I have some concerns.<br>

First of all in comparison to QL 17 how good is the oly 35 RC ?<br>

Secondly, I've seen 35 SP as well, what's the difference between 35 RC and SP ?<br>

Lastly, in terms of usage with AE, which camera is easier to deal with ? As I said I'm a newbie.</p>

<p>I have 4 hours to decide cause the camera will be sold in that time, so I need some quick information.<br>

Thanks in advance.</p>

[maury_cohen]

<p>Here's a webpage that has some helpful info. on these Olympus models.<br>

<a href="http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~yue/misc/rangfndr.html">http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~yue/misc/rangfndr.html</a><br>

I was around, and serious about photography at the time these were current. My recollection was that they were very comparable to the Canon QL cameras.</p>

[marc_rochkind]

See this page, and also the links to the different RFs:

 

http://www.cameraquest.com/com35s.htm

 

Stephen Gandy thinks very highly of the 35RC.

[indraneel]

<p>The 35RC is extremely small and silent, very very good if you don't need a slower than 1/15 sec shutter. Fantastic lens if in original condition, no flare and focuses fast. Relatively rugged. AE works quite well. The 35SP is bigger and heavier and not inconspicuous. Lens is great, again no flare, shutter has zero noise (leaf shutter). The SP is however cumbersome to use with its strange EV metering, shutter speeds on the lens, etc. It does have a somewhat reliable spotmeter (if that's working). The SP also has shutter speeds up to 1 sec, but AE locks up and is similar to 35RC.</p>

<p>Between the two, I wish the 35RC had slower shutter speeds up to 1 sec. Get the RC if you're not a collector and lack of slower shutter speeds is not an issue. The SP is great as a prop.</p>

<p>The metal portion of a collapsible rubber hood makes a nice hood without blocking the finder.</p>

[doga_d]

<p>Thanks for comments but unfortunately I couldn't win the auction and 35 SP's price is exceeded my affordability limits. So do you guys know any online store selling those rangefinders ? On ebay it's hard to find a "mint" one and when you find, everyone tries to get it and thus the product gets overpriced.</p>

[starvy]

<p>I think you will find a good example to be more than capable. Zuiko glass has a real cult following the build quality on these cameras are rather good too.</p>

[keith selmes]

<p>I had a Canon QL, and a 35RC. I sold the Canon back on ebay and kept the 35RC. There was nothing wrong with the Canon, but I preferred the size and feel of the 35RC. Purely personal of course, but many do speak well of this camera.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Keith's comments pretty well match my own.</p>

<p>I have my second Olympus 35 RC now, after having sold my first several years ago - which I regretted. When I found another a few years ago in a local pawn shop for $20 I grabbed it. After having owned several different types of compact non-interchangeable lens rangefinders over the past 20 years, the 35 RC is the only one I kept.</p>

<p>I had a Canonet G-III QL17 for over 10 years and enjoyed it. Also had a Canonet 28 but didn't use it as often. Both are excellent examples of the compact non-interchangeable lens rangefinder category. The Canonets have slightly better viewfinders, but are vulnerable to sticky shutters after many years unless serviced. The 35 RC seems less prone to developing that problem.</p>

<p>The Olympus 35 RC is about as small a camera as you'll find with all of its features, including good, usable true rangefinder focusing. I can carry it in my front pocket with baggy khakis or jeans. It's very well made, although not quite as sturdy as the Canonet (which may be overbuilt for a camera of its type - very rugged and reliable). It's very quiet and well suited for discretely photographing events such as live theater or other performances where using an SLR would disturb other audience members.</p>

<p>The AE is arguably its weakest point, but it's still useful. Metering seems accurate. But I use it mostly in manual mode, which disables metering. I usually take a reading in AE mode to estimate conditions, then switch to manual. I don't check metering for every exposure unless lighting conditions are changing. With experience it becomes easier to estimate exposures fairly accurately.</p>

<p>Another quirk of the 35 RC is the self timer lever. I've seen a few examples where someone damaged the camera by forcing the self timer lever upward. Or perhaps the lever was snagged on something and broke it. Not a major problem, but that lever is more vulnerable than the self timer mechanisms on other compact rangefinders like the Canonets.</p>

<p>As Marc suggested, study the articles on Stephen Gandy's site. Those articles cover the spectrum of popular 35mm compact non-interchangeable lens rangefinders.</p>

<p>As you've discovered, internet chatter and hype have tended to inflate the prices of cameras like the 35 RC. I'm not sure they're worth the high prices often asked for them. I began buying them in the late 1980s or early 1990s when the Olympus, Canonet, Yashica and other 35mm compact non-interchangeable lens rangefinders were unfashionable and dirt cheap - they usually cost well under $20 in pawn shops, thrift stores and even in the bargain bins of camera shops. Before the "cult classic" label was attached by internet hype, these were excellent values. But for $100 or more, they're not really a good value now.</p>

[darin_cozine]

<p>You should be able to find a nice working 35RC for under $50. The RC is lighter and smaller than the canon QL17. The Canon QL17 has a more 'refined' feel to it. But dont let that fool you. The 35RC is a well-made camera and you will probably have more luck finding a working copy. (not saying anything bad about canon, just the oil on these 30-year old cameras is usually gumming up the shutter)<br>

Heres a short comparison:<br>

QL: 620 g (the olympus OM1 with a 50mm f1.8 lens is 680g)<br>

RC: 410g smaller and lighter<br>

RC: 42mm f2.8 lens<br>

QL: 40mm f1.7 lens<br>

RC: shutter and aperture visible in viewfinder<br>

QL: aperture in finder, slightly larger, brighter viewfinder</p>

<p>Both have excellent lenses, both are very well made.</p>

<p> </p>

[keith selmes]

<p>Having checked completed listings on Ebay, there are one or two amazing high prices for 35RC.</p>

<p>The norm seems to be rather more than I paid, say about £50 in UK money. Not too expensive, but in fact a bit more than inflation. Better than money in the bank anyway.</p>