Olympus RC vs Rollei 35

Cameraquest seems to suggest that the Olympus RC may be a better
camera than the Rollei 35.

I'm considering the Olympus RC as a potential future purchase, how
does it compare to rollei 35 in your opinion?

also, how does it compare to the olympus XA in terms of optics?

Would having the olympus XA negate the incentive for purchasing the
Olympus RC?

I have an Olympus RC and like it a lot. It cost only $25 or so from an eBay
auction, and I had it serviced at a cost of about $100. It's a great, small
camera. I would guess the image quality from a given example today depends
strongly on the care given by the owner for the past 30-plus years and the
care taken by service person. I think I got lucky with mine.


"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...
Cameraquest seems to suggest that the Olympus RC may be a better
camera than the Rollei 35.

I'm considering the Olympus RC as a potential future purchase, how
does it compare to rollei 35 in your opinion?

also, how does it compare to the olympus XA in terms of optics?

Would having the olympus XA negate the incentive for purchasing the
Olympus RC?

I have an Olympus RC and like it a lot.

what have you done about its batteries?

"Sabineellen" wrote in message
...
I have an Olympus RC and like it a lot.

what have you done about its batteries?

Adding a dropping diode was part of the $100 service. Steven Gandy or his
subcontractor did the servicing... www.cameraquest.com.
I use a silver cell I think.. not sure what's in there now. Thanks for the
reminder... I should check, and, if it's an alkaline, toss it out before it
leaks. (Do silver cells leak?)

Even without a battery, it is usable in manual or GN mode. I often do this,
guessing the exposure; it's not too hard in daylight with print film. With
flash ... set the aperture as recommended on the flash, and the shutter to
1/30 or even slower if scene is relatively dark.

-Pete

(Mike Henley) wrote in message . com...
Cameraquest seems to suggest that the Olympus RC may be a better
camera than the Rollei 35.

I'm considering the Olympus RC as a potential future purchase, how
does it compare to rollei 35 in your opinion?

also, how does it compare to the olympus XA in terms of optics?

Would having the olympus XA negate the incentive for purchasing the
Olympus RC?

Well, one thing is for su you'd save a lot of money by going with
the Olympus! Most of the Rollei 35 cameras that are in good condition
seem to command a pretty heathly price. The RC is similar to a lot of
cameras from that era, such as the Yashica and Minolta versions. And
from my limited experience, the optics are pretty good for most of
those. I do think that a Rollei 35 with either a Tessar, Xenar or
Sonnar lens will probably be superior in terms of optics. However, the
rangefinder in the RC is a huge advantage of the Rollei's distance
scale.

Hope that helps,

-Karl
http://www.karlwinkler.com

The Olympus 35RC has a 5 element lens that is far superior to the 4 element
Tessar in the Rollei. The Olympus XA has a 6 element lens that I have found
to be sharper than the RC. I have had several of the Rollei 35 cameras and
I found them to not be very easy to use due to poor ergonomic design. The
Olympus RC is very easy to use (and installing a Schottkey diode in the
battery circuit makes it work on the silver oxide batteries). I have found
the XA to be a fun pocketable camera with a built in lens cap, but it is so
light that you have to really hold the camera steady when you trip the
shutter (my first roll of film had major camera shake).

karl

"Karl Winkler" wrote in message
om...
(Mike Henley) wrote in message
. com...
Cameraquest seems to suggest that the Olympus RC may be a better
camera than the Rollei 35.

I'm considering the Olympus RC as a potential future purchase, how
does it compare to rollei 35 in your opinion?

also, how does it compare to the olympus XA in terms of optics?

Would having the olympus XA negate the incentive for purchasing the
Olympus RC?

Well, one thing is for su you'd save a lot of money by going with
the Olympus! Most of the Rollei 35 cameras that are in good condition
seem to command a pretty heathly price. The RC is similar to a lot of
cameras from that era, such as the Yashica and Minolta versions. And
from my limited experience, the optics are pretty good for most of
those. I do think that a Rollei 35 with either a Tessar, Xenar or
Sonnar lens will probably be superior in terms of optics. However, the
rangefinder in the RC is a huge advantage of the Rollei's distance
scale.

Hope that helps,

-Karl
http://www.karlwinkler.com

I'm considering the Olympus RC as a potential future purchase, how does it
compare to rollei 35 in your opinion?

Nearly thirty-five years ago, when I was selling both new in a downtown Denver
camera store, the Olympus RC was among my favorite cameras. It was the one I
regularly recommended to those not looking for an SLR.

The Olympus had a compact size, great feature set, fair price, Olympus lens,
and very nice handling.

The Rollei was popular, but mostly among the lawyers and accountants, who liked
the name, form factor, and so on.

After demonstrating the viewfinders and the overall usability, a lot of my
customers left with the Olympus.

Good luck. ...pt

-------------------------------
Business/Communications start at http://www.PhilipTobias.com.
Grow your business using my technical and marketing communications -
Effective writing, graphic design, multimedia, photos, and Web sites.

"karl.kathy" wrote:

The Olympus 35RC has a 5 element lens that is far superior to the 4 element
Tessar in the Rollei. The Olympus XA has a 6 element lens that I have found
to be sharper than the RC. I have had several of the Rollei 35 cameras and
I found them to not be very easy to use due to poor ergonomic design. The
Olympus RC is very easy to use (and installing a Schottkey diode in the
battery circuit makes it work on the silver oxide batteries). I have found
the XA to be a fun pocketable camera with a built in lens cap, but it is so
light that you have to really hold the camera steady when you trip the
shutter (my first roll of film had major camera shake).


Excellent commentary, thanks for posting it.

I wondered if you had compared the Olympus 35RD to the others.
It was always a camera I preferred to the RC.

The Olympus 35RD vs the 35RC has a 6 element vs 5 element lens that is wider
(40mm vs. 42mm) and faster (f/1.7 vs f/2.8). The 35RD shutter control is
more typical of the rangefinder cameras of that era, rotate shutter speed
control ring around the lens. The 35RC shutter speed control was a knob on
the top deck of the camera. I personally preferred the 35RC control, but
that may have been strictly due to the uniqueness of the control (very
similar to the Petri Color 35). As for comparing photographs between the RC
and RD, they are both excellent cameras and I could not discern a
difference between the pictures taken with them. The extra speed from the
RD came in handy in low light situations, but I usually don't take low light
pictures without flash. Both of the cameras utilize a GN flash control
system, set the camera to flash, set the GN of your flash and the camera
aperture automatically adjusted for the distance you focus at. This is a
very accurate auto flash system and in some cases is more accurate than the
auto flashes used today with the little photocell on the front (light
objects close to the flash can cause the photocell to reduce the flash
output and cause under exposure to the picture).
The 35LC is a larger bodied rangefinder camera with a 7 element, 42mm f/1.7
lens. The camera used a center the needle exposure control system and the
exposure metered from the lens position so that filters were automatically
compensated for. The 35SP and 35SPN (an SP with a battery check button) are
also larger bodied cameras with the same lens as the LC, the SP had a spot
meter built into it that was moderately useful (I used it only under odd
lighting conditions, and technically I could have guessed the compensation
and been as accurate as what the spot meter recommended). The 35SP/SPN had
the exposure meter mounted to the upper right of the camera, so filter
compensation was not taken into account automatically by the meter. The
Olympus S was also a larger bodied rangefinder camera with a 7 element,
42mmf/1.8 lens, exposure meter was located on the upper right of the camera
body and hence did not compensate for filters, utilized a match needle
exposure control with match needle visible from the top deck and in the
viewfinder (very similar system to the LC).
The ECR and EC-2 cameras were great little rangefinder cameras with fully
auto exposure. I prefer the ability to override the exposure
recommendations, so I never used them.

karl


"TP" wrote in message
...
"karl.kathy" wrote:

The Olympus 35RC has a 5 element lens that is far superior to the 4
element
Tessar in the Rollei. The Olympus XA has a 6 element lens that I have
found
to be sharper than the RC. I have had several of the Rollei 35 cameras
and
I found them to not be very easy to use due to poor ergonomic design.
The
Olympus RC is very easy to use (and installing a Schottkey diode in the
battery circuit makes it work on the silver oxide batteries). I have
found
the XA to be a fun pocketable camera with a built in lens cap, but it is
so
light that you have to really hold the camera steady when you trip the
shutter (my first roll of film had major camera shake).


Excellent commentary, thanks for posting it.

I wondered if you had compared the Olympus 35RD to the others.
It was always a camera I preferred to the RC.

The Olympus 35RD vs the 35RC has a 6 element vs 5 element lens that is wider
(40mm vs. 42mm) and faster (f/1.7 vs f/2.8). The 35RD shutter control is
more typical of the rangefinder cameras of that era, rotate shutter speed
control ring around the lens. The 35RC shutter speed control was a knob on
the top deck of the camera. I personally preferred the 35RC control, but
that may have been strictly due to the uniqueness of the control (very
similar to the Petri Color 35). As for comparing photographs between the RC
and RD, they are both excellent cameras and I could not discern a
difference between the pictures taken with them. The extra speed from the
RD came in handy in low light situations, but I usually don't take low light
pictures without flash. Both of the cameras utilize a GN flash control
system, set the camera to flash, set the GN of your flash and the camera
aperture automatically adjusted for the distance you focus at. This is a
very accurate auto flash system and in some cases is more accurate than the
auto flashes used today with the little photocell on the front (light
objects close to the flash can cause the photocell to reduce the flash
output and cause under exposure to the picture).
The 35LC is a larger bodied rangefinder camera with a 7 element, 42mm f/1.7
lens. The camera used a center the needle exposure control system and the
exposure metered from the lens position so that filters were automatically
compensated for. The 35SP and 35SPN (an SP with a battery check button) are
also larger bodied cameras with the same lens as the LC, the SP had a spot
meter built into it that was moderately useful (I used it only under odd
lighting conditions, and technically I could have guessed the compensation
and been as accurate as what the spot meter recommended). The 35SP/SPN had
the exposure meter mounted to the upper right of the camera, so filter
compensation was not taken into account automatically by the meter. The
Olympus S was also a larger bodied rangefinder camera with a 7 element,
42mmf/1.8 lens, exposure meter was located on the upper right of the camera
body and hence did not compensate for filters, utilized a match needle
exposure control with match needle visible from the top deck and in the
viewfinder (very similar system to the LC).
The ECR and EC-2 cameras were great little rangefinder cameras with fully
auto exposure. I prefer the ability to override the exposure
recommendations, so I never used them.

karl

Are there any good classic rangefinders that use modern batteries? (no, i don't
mean the bessa r or konixa hexar, or a leica, i mean something i can find for
less than $200)