Talk:Olympus folders

"Semi Olympus I"

The big book of ads (see new addition to the bibliography) doesn't mention this, instead talking about the "Semi Olympus". My guess is that "I" was a later invention; I've reworded accordingly. If I'm wrong, revert. -- Hoary 11:03, 18 May 2006 (EDT)

There is no way to be sure. My theory would be that it was first called "Semi Olympus" for short, then there was an overlap in the production of the models I and II (see the article), and during that time it was called Semi Olympus I (Ｉ型). I concede that this theory is not very solid, it is essentially based on the s/n 6358 observed on the lens of the Semi Olympus I with Koho shutter in the Olympus collection. --Rebollo fr 11:40, 18 May 2006 (EDT)

I read at John Foster's page that, on the basis of his research, he has doubts about the serial number 6358, and that he thinks it might be a composite camera. So the above theory is probably collapsing. --Rebollo fr 08:39, 20 May 2006 (EDT)

Semi Olympus (I) release date

The big book of ads says it was released in 1937, not 1936. I haven't changed this. -- Hoary 11:03, 18 May 2006 (EDT)

All the sources I have seen say 1936 for the version with a Compur shutter and 1937 for the version with a Koho shutter. Maybe it was not advertised before 1937? --Rebollo fr 11:40, 18 May 2006 (EDT)

First, sorry, I was a bit careless above. The big ad book doesn't say when it was released; rather, it provides information that strongly suggests it was released in 1937.

The book provides a single advert (item number 37 on p62). It's quite elaborate and reproduced well. There's no mention of Compur or コーホー and instead the shutter is described as a ルレツクス (which I take as 旧仮名使い for ルレックス), a shutter incorporating the latest technology from overseas (and therefore surely made in Japan), and having speeds of T, B, and 1–200. I imagine (but don't know for sure) that ルレックス (Lulex, Lurex, Rulex, Rurex?) is to Kōhō as Compur is to Deckel.

This ad appeared in the June 1937 issue of Asahi Camera (we should remember that magazines were issued well before their cover dates; I think that "June 1937" would have meant late April 1937 but I'm no expert).

The note on this ad points out that the camera came in an earlier version with a Compur shutter and a later one with a Kōhō one. The speeds are as stated in our article here. There's no mention of ルレックス, again suggesting that ルレックス and Kōhō are, in effect, two names for the same thing.

Unfortunately there's also no mention of when the shutters were switched. All we read is that the camera (with whatever shutter) appears as numbers 1213 and 1214 on p.30 of カメラ図鑑, year not specified (!), that the camera (with whatever shutter) was described as a new product in the March 1937 issue of カメラクラブ, and that it was advertised in the June '37 Asahi Camera (of course). (For other cameras, there's often a long list of magazines carrying ads. Nothing like that here.)

I find it very hard to believe that the camera was released in 1936 and not advertised till 1937. It's possible that it was released and advertised in '36 but even the apparently tireless editors of this extraordinary book couldn't find any earlier ads for it. The year when the camera emerged would seem the kind of thing that an Olympus corporate history (etc.) ought to get right. But as for books and web pages written by and for collectors, I wonder. Of course, the best are very scrupulous indeed; but I think a lot simply recycle what the authors have read elsewhere, so inaccuracies continue to be repeated. -- Hoary 18:53, 19 May 2006 (EDT)

This ad is very interesting. Rulex is the name of a shutter model made by Neumann & Heilemann, there is even a page about it here. To my knowledge the only other reference to a Semi Olympus with Rulex shutter is the record of an eBay transaction stated in the article. Now we can confirm the existence of three variants of the Semi Olympus. Please also tell us the original price.

The absence of ads earlier than 1937 is not a compulsory argument. Maybe the company waited some time before advertising because it was not yet ready for a significant production. Only a handful of the Compur model (the variant supposed to have been sold in 1936) were made. John Foster suggests here 400 and Francesch suggests 1000.

Another possibility would be that what was described as a new product at the beginning of 1937 was simply one of the shutter variants. The first model with Compur having a German shutter, we could imagine that the simple fact to mount a Japanese made shutter was advertised as something new. This is not unreasonable at a time when the ads often emphasized the fact that a camera was wholly made in Japan.

Anyway, we are probably speaking of months only. I am quite confident about 1936 mostly because all the documents issued by Olympus give that year. But we can at least express some doubt and explain that no ad prior to 1937 has been observed. --Rebollo fr 19:35, 19 May 2006 (EDT)

Now we can confirm the existence of three variants of the Semi Olympus. I don't think so. Rather, it's a suggestion that there was a third variant. Whatever else the editors of the ad book did or didn't know, they obviously did know what was written in the advert: after all, it appeared in their own book. They had an opportunity to note that the version advertised was a third version, or that it doesn't seem to have been released at all, yet they didn't note this. If "Rulex" was the shutter produced by N&H, it's imaginable that (1) "Lurex" or whatever was the deliberately misleading name used by Kōhō (such misleading names were common at that time, and indeed I'd guess that "Rulex" itself was supposed to remind customers of "Rolex") and (2) that Kōhō actually was N&H. For what it's worth, the speed advertised for this ルレックス shutter aren't the same as those mentioned for the Rulex in Camerapedia.

Here I do not agree.

1. Kōhō actually was N&H: it is well documented that "Kōhō" was the name of the shutter made by Takachiho. Neumann & Heilemann is an altogether different company, that produced shutters, lenses and probably also cameras.
2. "Lurex" or whatever was the deliberately misleading name used by Kōhō: The "Kōhō" is a shutter model by Takachiho, not a company. The Rulex is another shutter model by Neumann & Heilemann, and someone has reported that he had for sale a Semi Olympus with a shutter marked "Rulex" with the "N&H" logo. I think this is enough evidence to read ルレツクス as Rulex.
3. such misleading names were common at that time: it is true that misleading names were common, but I do not think that a name would only differ by the romanization, using the "L" and "R" confusion; at the time the product name was as much the katakana writing and spelling as the romanization.
4. I'd guess that "Rulex" itself was supposed to remind customers of "Rolex": that is a possibility. Apparently the name Rulex already appeared on the shutter plates of some German cameras in the 1920s, I don't know if it was the shutter name or the model name, and I don't know if there is a relationship with the Japanese Rulex shutter.

--Rebollo fr 05:57, 20 May 2006 (EDT)

Fine. You're much better informed than I am, and the ideas you've shot down were mere speculation. However, I'm still puzzled by the way the editors of the ad book don't comment on the apparent/actual fact that there were three versions of the camera. This is particularly odd when we consider the importance of this camera in the history of Olympus, and of course the importance of Olympus itself. I can't help thinking that there's some misunderstanding somewhere. -- Hoary 06:24, 20 May 2006 (EDT)

You have excellent sources too, and speculation is always welcome. I just happen to be interested by Neumann & Heilemann because it seems a crucial company for the early history of the Japanese cameras (connections with Minolta, now with Olympus, maker of the first Japanese 6×6 TLR, etc.), so I am paying special attention when I observe one of their products.

As for the Semi Olympus versions, please bear in mind that the archives of Takachiho burnt down in 1945 in the bombing of the Hatagaya plant, that also destroyed the production line of the Koho shutters (the source here is Francesch, and I have heard that himself went to Japan to make research at the Olympus headquarters). Today the only way to recollect information is a careful examination of the ads and of the few surviving cameras. The fact that one variant of the Semi Olympus remained unnoticed is not that surprising.

What is beginning indeed to puzzle me is the date. If the Semi Olympus was advertised as a new product in Mar 1937, and with both Rulex and Compur shutters somewhere between April and June 1937, that could indicate that the Olympus chronology is one year too early. What is apparently solid is that the first Zuiko lens was completed in 1936, but the mentions of the Semi Olympus being sold from 1936 might not be that solid. --Rebollo fr 06:52, 20 May 2006 (EDT)

The Olympus Photo Club history pages were already aware of the Compur, Rulex A and Koho variants. This site seems somewhat better informed than the Olympus corporate site itself. They say 9/1936 for the Compur and Rulex variants, and give the same prices as the ads you found (98 yen and 78 yen respectively).

I am beginning to insert the info about the Semi Olympus (I), there is already much new material. --Rebollo fr 12:55, 20 May 2006 (EDT)

Incidentally, I have reliable-looking and recent information about the Chrome Six cameras. (I just haven't yet got around to digesting it.) I'd imagine that similar information about their predecessors has also appeared in カメラレビュー or a volume of the Asahi Sonorama "Classic Camera" series. Unfortunately most are out of print and these are more expensive used than when they were new, but if I see something good and cheap I'll consider buying it. -- Hoary 20:16, 19 May 2006 (EDT)

Please also tell us the original price. Ah, now we see what happens when I write comments before 7 a.m. (Insomnia hit. Now of course it's later, and I should be wide awake, but I'm not because I slept so little.) The ad talks about a ルレツクスA shutter (speeds to 1/200) and a Compur shutter (speeds to 1/250). For the camera with Zuiko f4.5 and ルレツクスA shutter, it's 78 yen; with Zuiko f4.5 (yes, the same) and Auto-Compur shutter, it's 98 yen; and for an ever-ready case, 5 yen. Again, this is interesting, as it suggests that the version with the Japanese shutter wasn't a straightforward replacement for the one with the Compur shutter, and of course it proves that the latter was advertised as late as 1937. -- Hoary 20:45, 19 May 2006 (EDT)

Yes. In this page of the Olympus corporate site, we read that the original price of the Semi Olympus (I) was 105 yen. This seems to indicate that even the Olympus corporate site is not so well informed.

Semi Olympus III

The big book of ads shows an ad for this camera and says it's hard to work out how it differed from the Six, if it differed at all. I haven't mentioned it. -- Hoary 11:03, 18 May 2006 (EDT)

Would it be a 4.5×6 version of the Olympus Six? Maybe it was never sold, I have never seen a mention of it in any collectors' book. It would be very interesting to insert this info in the article, with a description of the ad. --Rebollo fr 11:40, 18 May 2006 (EDT)

It was the Olympus Six. I didn't read carefully enough the first time around. However, it really was advertised as the Semi Olympus III. More about it below. -- Hoary 22:53, 19 May 2006 (EDT)

Duplicate internal links

I noticed that you removed the duplicate links, for example to Zuiko, Koho or Copal. I know this is the policy in a wikipedia article, and I agree that duplicate links are unnecessary in sentences that are very close together and are describing the same camera model.

However if someone is looking at this page to get info about a specific model, let's say the Chrome Six III, I am wondering if it wouldn't be useful for him to have these links. I would tend to adopt the following policy: no duplicate links to the lens and shutter name inside a model description, but duplicates allowed when the model differs. Or we could section the article (eg ==Semi Olympus==, ==Olympus Six==, ==Olympus Chrome Six==), and leave one duplicate link per section.

What do you think? --Rebollo fr 11:54, 18 May 2006 (EDT)

Yes, on reflection I agree with you. I removed too many of the links. I shouldn't create work for you; within the next twelve hours I'll reinstate some of them. -- Hoary 19:08, 18 May 2006 (EDT)

Ads for the Semi Olympus II and (yes!) III

The big ad book has two ads for the Semi II, which it says was advertised in Asahi Camera from October '37 till March '40. In both ads, the lens is described as a 瑞光 (yes, in kanji) 7.5cm f4.5. (In the ads for the Semi (I) and Semi III, the lens is described as ズイコー.) In both ads the camera is described as having shutter times of T, B, and 1 second and faster; and as having a self-timer. There's no mention of a case.

In the October '37 ad (the earliest one the editors could locate), the shutter is a ローレル, with speeds to 1/150. There's no mention of price (or of the "Semi I").

In the June '38 ad, the shutter has the same specs but it's a コーホー. Price is 95 yen.

There's one ad for the Semi III, for 6×4.5 and 6×6. It's from Asahi Camera, June 1940. (There was an ad in the next month's AC as well.) The shutter seems to be コーホーⅡ (I mean the Japanese character for "II"), but it's reproduced so small that at the end all I can see is a "Ⅱ"-ish blob; it could be Ⅲ or something else instead. Whatever its name, the shutter's speed now goes up to 1/200. The lenses are ズイコー (yes, back to katakana again) 7.5cm. You have the choice of f4.5 for 190 yen and f3.5 for 235 yen. (There's also a lens hood, ambiguously either for the f3.5 alone or for both, for just 3 yen.) We read in the back of the book that the camera actually materialized as the Six. ("Semi" does seem a strange name for such a camera.) -- Hoary 22:54, 19 May 2006 (EDT)

Great info. A couple of questions about these ads:

1. In the Oct 1937 ad, is there a picture, and is it the version with an off-centered finder or with a centered finder? The version with an off-centered finder is presented in this brochure dated 1937 available at the Olympus corporate site. In this brochure, the lens is called 瑞光 in kanji, the shutter is called ローレル and goes to 1/150. The book by Francesch tells that Laurel was the first name proposed for the Takachiho made shutter, but that it was already registered by someone else and that the name was changed to Kōhō. There is no price printed in the brochure, but a sticker with a price of 105 yen.
2. Is the June 1938 ad similar to the Mar 1938 ad presented in one of our links, or to the Oct 1939 ad presented in another link? The Mar 1938 ad gives a price of 105 yen, and the Oct 1939 ad says 105 yen too. The price would have been reduced to 95 yen, then returned to 105 yen. That is strange. Maybe one of the sources made a mistake in the date. All the Semi Olympus II ads observed have 瑞光 in kanji.
3. Could you compare the camera pictured in the Semi III ad to the one pictured in the undated ad presented in our third link? In this ad, ズイコー is back to katakana, and the shutter is called 新コーホーⅡ, barely legible. In an undated brochure for the Olympus Six available at the Olympus corporate site we can clearly read コーホーIII. --Rebollo fr 06:27, 20 May 2006 (EDT)

OK, but you'll have to wait a few hours. -- Hoary 07:49, 20 May 2006 (EDT)

1. In the Oct 1937 ad, is there a picture, and is it the version with an off-centered finder or with a centered finder? It's to one side. Both the picture in the book and that in the PDF are small, but I don't notice any differences.
2. Is the June 1938 ad similar to the Mar 1938 ad presented in one of our links, or to the Oct 1939 ad presented in another link? It's similar to the former in that it too has stylized scenery as an element. (Are you asking about the camera? In all three ads, the camera looks the same to me.)
3. Could you compare the camera pictured in the Semi III ad to the one pictured in the undated ad presented in our third link? In this ad, ズイコー is back to katakana, and the shutter is called 新コーホーⅡ, barely legible. In an undated brochure for the Olympus Six available at the Olympus corporate site we can clearly read コーホーIII. Yes, it's ズイコー (katakana). I can't see whether the shutter is コーホーⅡ or コーホーⅢ, but I'm certain there's no 新 in front of コーホー. Hoary 10:37, 20 May 2006 (EDT)

1. So the Laurel shutter and off-centered finder defines the first Semi Olympus II version. The Olympus Photo Club page about the Semi tells about a version with a "Daured" shutter (ダウレッド). Apparently it was an alternate name tried by Takachiho after they noticed that they could not use the "Laurel" name. The page dates it from May 1938, that seems a mistake. It is probable that this quite unfortunate name did not last long. Note: the Laurel name precedes Koho, so the release date for the Semi Olympus I with Koho is after Oct 1937. Another possibility is that it never existed and that the camera displayed in the Olympus collection is only a later composite. Indeed the page cited above gives no price, so they must not have found any ad.
2. More precisely, is there any hint of the true chronological order of the three ads? The price evolution does not seem very logical.
3. Very weird from Olympus to have named their 6×6 model a "Semi". On the Olympus Photo Club page about the Six the first Olympus Six models are said to be for 6×6 format only, sold in Dec 1940. They also give cheaper prices (128 yen for f:4.5 and 160 yen for f:3.5).--Rebollo fr

2. More precisely, is there any hint of the true chronological order of the three ads? The price evolution does not seem very logical. The ads in the big ad book are clearly dated. Of course it's conceivable that mistakes have been made here and there, and one must also remember that ads may have been created three months or so before the cover date of the magazine.

3. Very weird from Olympus to have named their 6×6 model a "Semi". It certainly is, but do remember that it wasn't "Olympus" that did any naming: the company was 高千穂, and one might guess (only a guess) that the company thought that, as the "Olympus Standard" had gone nowhere, "Semi Olympus" had a kind of "brand recognition" whose value might outweigh the oddness of calling "semi" what would normally be called "six". And that 高千穂 then thought that no, that was a silly idea, and instead settled on "Six". (NB: mere guesswork!) On the Olympus Photo Club page about the Six the first Olympus Six models are said to be for 6×6 format only, sold in Dec 1940. They also give cheaper prices (128 yen for f:4.5 and 160 yen for f:3.5). The ad book says in two places that it's dual use (for 6×6 or 6×4.5); as for almost all the cameras it illustrates, it doesn't mention a release date or price. The advert (Asahi Camera, December 1940) for the Six also doesn't mention the price and more interestingly it bills the camera as "6×6^m/_m" -- which makes it sound less like a Six than a Mycro! -- and doesn't mention 6×4.5. Perhaps Takachiho assumed that readers would assume that 6×4.5 would be an option; perhaps the company didn't plan to make 6×4.5 an option at the time the ad was designed but then changed its mind; perhaps the editors of this book made a mistake. The book also says that the Six came with 新コーホーⅢ shutter although it was advertised with a コーホーⅡ shutter; and 「セミオリンパスⅢとオロンパスシックスのちがいをいろいろ調べてみたがわからない」, adding that, when looking at what's shown in the ads, there are differences in the appearance of the surround of the front of the lens. Unfortunately these differences aren't specified and the miniaturization of the reproduction of the ads means that although I can say, yes, they do look different somehow, I can't specify how they look different. This book is of course several years old now, and presumably what it says is well known to historically-minded, Japanese-reading members of some Olympus photo club; since it was published, it's possible that more records or cameras may have turned up and clarifications have been published (most likely in カメラレビュー：クラシックカメラ専科). -- Hoary 21:43, 20 May 2006 (EDT)

2. The ad whose date is most dubious is the the March 1938 one reported in this page. A date like March 1939 looks more logical. My reasoning is that the authors of the Olympus Photo Club, whatever mistakes they could make elsewhere, certainly did not invent the May 1938 date and 95 yen price for the "Dauled" version. It predates the Koho version, that was advertised in June 1938 with the same 95 yen price, as stated in your book. And later the price had risen to 105 yen in Oct 1939 as stated in the other ad.--Rebollo fr 08:04, 21 May 2006 (EDT)

カメラ図鑑

I think that the カメラ図鑑 alluded to in your big ad's book is the book titled 国産カメラ図鑑 by Sugiyama and Naoi (see a presentation here). I do not have a copy of it, as it is out of print and very expensive used, but it is in my wishlist. I have seen ISBN 0870117432 and ISBN 4257031875. --Rebollo fr 07:09, 20 May 2006 (EDT)

Ah yes, that would make sense. I wrongly assumed that it was one of those annual publications. I saw that book once or twice when it was available new. It's impressive, and if it had been ¥5,000 rather than ¥15,000 I'd have bought it. -- Hoary 07:49, 20 May 2006 (EDT)

Olympus Photo Club history pages

The Olympus Photo Club history pages need special attention, they seem very informative. --Rebollo fr 10:02, 20 May 2006 (EDT)

They certainly do. While a 6x4.5 mask could easily have got lost, presumably the writers of the site have checked that the pop-up finders of their early examples of the "Six" are complete and lack any frame for 6x4.5. That suggests that, yes, the Six was only for 6x6. But although they list it separately, they don't (yet) present any proof that the Semi Olympus III was ever produced. (However, I may have missed something: I was browsing hurriedly as today I'm connected expensively via modem.) -- Hoary 21:52, 20 May 2006 (EDT)

After a more extensive exploration of their site, I think that the info they publish needs some caution. The pictures are specially problematic. For example nearly all the Olympus Six pictures are misidentified, and the mistakes are big, like a model with Copal shutter illustrating the page about the first prewar version, or the same camera with the same lens number used to illustrate two different versions. Moreover the Semi and Six cameras displayed are mostly the well known models preserved in the Olympus collection, and already pictured in the book by Francesch and in the McKeown (confirmed by the lens numbers). I'll add a word of caution on the link's comment.

The surest proof that a model is dual or single format is the number of red windows in the back. Of course it is difficult to observe because the pictures are often front views. I have never seen a Six with one red window only, but I have not observed many rear views of the Six. In the finder, close scrutiny of the pictures show two vertical lines engraved in the front window. All the cameras pictured at the Olympus Club site have these two lines visible when you enlarge the picture. --Rebollo fr 07:21, 21 May 2006 (EDT)

Here and below, you've raised a number of interesting points. Unfortunately I'm too sleepy to address most of them right now. Hang on a few hours.

Whew, just think: we haven't yet got past 1940 or thereabouts. There's still a long way to go! But it's a pleasure working with you. -- Hoary 11:04, 21 May 2006 (EDT)

It's a pleasure too. Just consider that the prewar period is probably the tougher part, with the rarer models. --Rebollo fr 13:33, 21 May 2006 (EDT)

Ads for the Semi Olympus III and Olympus Six

Here is a summary of the ads that we have for the Semi Olympus III and Olympus Six. Please correct me if I am wrong. For the moment we have four ads:

• Asahi Camera, June 1940, in your book, called Semi Olympus III, mention of 6×6 and 6×4.5 (how is it mentioned?), f:4.5 lens for 190 yen and f:3.5 lens for 235 yen, コーホーⅡ shutter
• Asahi Camera, Dec 1940, in your book, called Olympus Six, mention of 6×6 only, difference in the appearance of the lens, コーホーⅡ shutter
• this one, source unknown, 1942 or later according to this page, called "最新型オリンパスシックス" indicating a new model, mention of dual format "6×6cm(セミ判兼用)", f:3.5 and f:4.5 variants, picture with the f:4.5 lens, price not mentioned, shutter name unclear: I can read "新コーホー", then something that could be Ⅱ or Ⅲ with a partly erased third bar, then some barely legible character that I do not recognize. Other features advertised: "ボデーレリーズ" (body release) and something like "精密焦？深度？" that could be the depth of field scale.
• undated brochure available in pdf at the Olympus corporate site, called "オリンパスSIX", "OLYMPUS TOKYO" logo (a logo used by Takachiho), dual format "6X6.4.5X6", versions "オリンパスシックスＩ" with f:4.5 lens for 128 yen and "オリンパスシックスⅡ" with f:3.5 lens for 160 yen, shutter called "コーホーシャッターIII".

If you have access to a scanner, I would be interested to see a scan of the ads you mentioned. Meanwhile I have some questions. The difference in the lens aspect between the Semi Olympus III and Olympus Six is perhaps due to the difference between the f:4.5 and f:3.5 versions, that have different a lens bezel. You can see an example of both in the fourth brochure. My other question is related to the features announced in the third ad: on the June and Dec 1940 ads, is there a body release and is there a depth of field scale? The shutter plate of the Semi Olympus II is black, flat, has no depth of field scale, is written OLYMPUS-TOKYO N on top, has decorative lines on the sides and the aperture scale at the bottom. The shutter plate of the Olympus Six is black, a bit conical, with a depth of field scale on top and is marked OLYMPUS at the bottom. --Rebollo fr 08:26, 21 May 2006 (EDT)

While I don't have immediate access to a scanner, I should be able to manage scans in a few days. I'll then send what I have to you. (In terms of either absolute page numbers or percentage, it's small; there'd be no copyright issues.) It's much better that you see the photos (and descriptions) for yourself. Bearing in mind that I expect soon to be able to send you this stuff, I'll defer responding to most of your points here. This does not mean that I'm ignoring them. You will get a response, in one form or another. -- Hoary 05:52, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

Speculation about the Koho II and III

I have observed a total of three variants of the Koho:

• the original one to 1/150, with the winding lever at the top right, the release lever at the top left, the selftimer lever with a red dot at the bottom left and a soft release screw at the left, one example here
• the same one to 1/200, on a Semi Olympus II shown here, also on a Condor 4.5×6 camera with what was apparently a complicated body release linkage
• another model to 1/200 with the winding lever at the top left, the selftimer lever with a red dot at the bottom left, and the release apparently at the bottom left, activated by a body release, examples on various Six models like this one

My speculation is that the first variant was the original Koho, the second was the Koho II and the third was the Koho III. This theory is only sustained if the cameras advertised with a Koho II have no body release, or some contrived body release linkage. --Rebollo fr 14:00, 21 May 2006 (EDT)

The Semi Olympus with Koho: did it really exist?

All the pictures of the Semi Olympus (I) with Koho shutter seem to show the same camera, with lens number 6358, preserved at the Olympus camera collection. John Foster has emitted doubts about this model, based on the high serial number, and says that it could be a composite. Indeed this lens number would date at least from 1938, because a Semi Olympus II body with centered finder has been seen with lens number 3797.

Moreover the editors of the big book of ads apparently found no ad for this variant. Let's also consider that the Olympus Photo Club page that describes this variant does not show any release price, contrary to what they do for all the other variants, that probably indicates that they found no ad either.

Now my speculation is that this variant never existed, except for one composite camera preserved by Olympus. If it had existed, it would have appeared together with the Semi Olympus II in the ads, at least in small script, and there would also be a Semi Olympus (I) variant with the transitional shutter name "Laurel". --Rebollo fr 14:43, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

Any opinion about the following paragraph?

I am about to insert the following two paragraphs at the end of the Semi Olympus section, removing the redundant info at the end of the Semi Olympus II section:

It is commonly said that the shutter was later changed to a Koho with 1-150-B-T speeds, a shutter made by Takachiho and based on the Prontor II. Some doubts can be expressed about this variant with a Koho shutter, see below.

Note: the following paragraph is speculative. Please share any information that could confirm or infirm it.
The existence of the Semi Olympus with Koho shutter would imply a sales overlap with the Semi Olympus II, because the first version of the Semi Olympus II was advertised with the earlier shutter name "Laurel". However none of the ads observed for the Semi Olympus II mentioned the Semi Olympus, and no advertisement has been found for the Semi Olympus with Koho shutter either. All the pictures observed of this variant show the same camera with lens No 6358, preserved held at the Olympus collection, while the lower lens number observed on a Semi Olympus II is No 2001, on a camera preserved held at the Olympus collection too. On the basis of the serial numbers, John Foster has emitted expressed doubts about the camera with No 6358 and suggested in this page that it could be a composite. It is possible that the Semi Olympus with Koho shutter never existed, except for this composite camera.

I am not completely satisfied with the wording, and would like to have your opinion first: is it clear enough and do I take enough precautions? --Rebollo fr 08:52, 25 May 2006 (EDT)

First, I'm sorry for my late reply. I suddenly got busy in the so-called "real world", an irritating situation which will continue for at least 24 hours. And right now I'm busy too, which is why I'm not going to take the effort to work out carefully the implications of what you're saying in this and other actual and suggested changes. As for the clarity, it's very clear indeed. (For wording, not "emitted doubts" but "expressed doubts"; and "preserved" sounds very slightly odd for a camera -- which, unlike for example a nitrate film, takes some time to disintegrate -- and I think I'd use "held" instead.)

You're the expert on Olympus, not me. (Or so I now lazily say, after trampling all over your good work here and elsewhere!) No, really: while I already know a moderate amount about, say, the later Canon LTM rangefinder equipment (not least because I possess and use it), I know very little about any Olympus equipment. This means that in order to check anything I have to reread about what's referred to. If we pooled all our materials, then one time in fifty I might notice something that you wouldn't notice, but one time in three you'd notice something that I wouldn't notice. And that's why I want to pool it (get my stuff to you) as soon as possible. Unless some other "real-world" disaster prevents this, I hope to do the scanning on Saturday and the mailing on Monday. Then I think you'll find it easier to edit. Of course I'll continue to help, in my small way, after that. -- Hoary 19:25, 25 May 2006 (EDT)

I am no expert, not in the sense of John Foster who has written two books about the Olympus Pen series, has collected Olympus cameras for many years, and is editing a magazine about Olympus. But while working at this page, we have both dug up things that went unnoticed, the main reason being some ability to read Japanese sources directly and to crawl efficiently through Japanese web pages. --Rebollo fr 07:54, 26 May 2006 (EDT)

I finally reworked the paragraph and inserted it. It is always very difficult to prove that something did not exist, and maybe someone will come and show a genuine model, but for the moment the theory seems plausible. --Rebollo fr 12:45, 30 May 2006 (EDT)

Semi Olympus I (again)

Re: Semi Olympus 1

Hello guys, this is John Foster. Please forgive me if I've not got this system right; I've not contributed to one of these before. Please put me right on the process/protocols.

I see several references to my opinion about Semi 1 so it may help if I explain how it was reached. But first a brief background. As with most students my principal reference book was/is Jean-Paul's work. I know he went to Olympus headquarters and was seen by Maitani and Sakurai; I do not know if he was allowed access to the Olympus archives at Hanchoi (?). By inference the vast majority of information in his book would come directly from his interviews with these two persons (M&S). The reference to the Laurel shutter also comes from JP's book but it is not particularly clear. I have found no any other references to the existence of this shutter or an early association with Olympus, but this does not prove/disprove anything. I have met collectors who say they have seen Laurel shutters (not on Olympus), but as a long term collector I take these anecdotes with large amounts of salt.

I know that olympus archives do not have a Semi 1 with Compur. When I told them I had obtained one I have never seen the company move so quickly! They wanted HQ photographs, any provenance, history of ownership, details of how I obtained it and finally my opinion as to its probity. Please bear in mind that as a collector of olympus it had been my dream to find an example of the first camera they made for many, many years. And as a naturally skeptical person it takes a lot to convince me something is real. To demonstrate genuiness to Olympus I had to be sure.

Many HQ images were sent. I also sent them my personal notes - part of my writing process - about the Semi 1 and the way I believe the early numbering system worked. Every scrap of information went and nothing was queried. The only confirmation I received was via Pursuit which had a page on my Pen F book that showed the Semi 1 with their note about 5 or 6 remaining. If you have ever dealt with Olympus you will know this is how it works.

I sent them a translation of the relevant page from JP's book. (I cannot give you everything as this forms a substantial part of a future book).

DETAILS OF SEMI MODEL 1 OWNED BY FOSTER-SAN

The camera was bought in June 2002 from an American. The camera is complete and in reasonable condition. Everything appears to be original, showing signs of use, wear and tear and some brassing to the nickel-plating, conducive with its 66 years. Judging from the marks on the left of the shutter rim the camera has been extensively, but carefully used. It came complete in a leather case marked “Semi-Proud.” The Semi-Proud camera was also manufactured in 1936 and has a similar style body so the case would (and does) fit the Olympus. Enquiries from the seller revealed some history; “I got the camera from a person whose brother was in Japan before World War II. He bought it during the time that he was there. That's all I know.” There are no further details.

Lens: number 1142 Takatiho TÔykÔ ZuikÔ 1:4.5, f = 75mm

Body Type: Praud (Proud) type 169 – this is stamped into the metal near the viewfinder under the leatherette cover. There is no body number.

Shutter: [Auto] Compur made by Friedrich Deckel, Munich (Munchen), three blades, speeded 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 250, T and B number 341905

Distance scale: in meters, less than 1m to infinity, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 20 ∞

Notes: The lens is in extremely good condition with only slight surface marks and a light fogging internally from oil vapour, which has been cleaned. No sign of fungal attack. The front element has a tiny imperfection, a small round hole approximately 0.1mm in diameter and about 0.2mm deep. It appears to have been an air bubble in the glass that was cut open during the grinding and polishing process.

All body covers are totally original and have been re-glued at least once. The cover branded OLYMPUS is riveted through by the metal strap bar and door release mechanism where this is fixed to the body. This cover cannot be removed without destroying the camera. The cover has not been cut - it is in one piece and held in place by the strap bar.

T and B settings on the shutter do not work, but all remaining speeds work and appear accurate. The shutter release does not “stand off” when cocked, as it should, though during the cocking procedure the release moves outwards as if to “stand off” but fails to lock. The internal mechanism of the shutter requires adjustment to achieve this.

There are only two known examples of the first camera model from Olympus. These are 1048 and 1142. If the statement in JPF’s book about numbers made (approx. 1000) is correct and the camera is so rare that perhaps only a handful remain it strikes me as odd that the only known examples have a number in excess of 1000. Having given the matter of lens numbering sequence a great deal of thought and based on my other research into production runs by the company I am tempted to conclude that the earliest Zuiko 75mm x 4.5’s were numbered from 1000. Rationale: It makes little sense to have lens-numbering starting from 1. If so the stamping or engraving machine operating on the bezel might require 3 format changes to achieve the first number past 999; at 9, 99 and 999 whereas the format 4 digit format of 1000~9999 gives a worthwhile numerical counter capable of recording production without stopping. It explains why the only 2 known examples are in the 1000+ range.

END QUOTE.

From this and my continuing research I can demonstrate that many fewer than 1000 Semi-Olympus 1 – Compur’s were made. I base this on study of the later cameras fitted with the same Zuiko 4.5 lens with the same distinctive engravings and the fact that some of these engravings stopped some 700 examples later and were completely deleted around 3500 examples later. On this evidence I can build a strong numbering regime that stands aggressive critique.

What we have is a simple progression of lens numbers from the first Zuiko ever made, number 1000, to an unknown point after Olympus 6 number 6584 [in 1940] during which the 75mm x 4.5 Zuiko is in constant production. If this is true and the lens number is correct from my earliest example of Semi-Olympus 2 (1790) – I believe it to be genuine – then only a maximum of 789 Semi-Olympus 1 Compur AND Koho were manufactured. This puts the use of the supposed acquisition of around 1000 Compur shutters from Deckel in serious doubt and also bears out your suspicion that the Koho version might not have existed, or is grossly overstated. By inference this also means that the example owned by Olympus, Japan numbered 6358, cannot be totally original and must be a composite.

I hope this shows that my logic circuits are working though it is easy to tie yourself in knots! I am 99% sure that the above is an accurate reflection of what happened all those years ago. Looking at my collected data nothing else fits.

As for the release date I have no reason to disbelieve JP and most other commentators that the Semi 1 was released in 1936; I go further in stating my belief of around September/October 1936.

No doubt you will respond. If you have any queries please email me.

john.

Added at 00:11, 7 June 2006 by Biofos

Hello,

It was my intention to invite you to participate when we would have finished our work on the original ads, but I am happy that you found the page yourself before.

As for me, the first basis of this article was the book by Francesch too. The reference to the Laurel shutter is confirmed in a brochure for the first version of the Semi Olympus II, available at the Olympus corporate site (direct link here, in pdf format). Actually, the picture on your site displaying the first Semi Olympus II version probably comes from this brochure (or another ad using the same picture). In the brochure, the name "Laurel" is written in katakana writing (ローレル), and in the pictures it is faintly possible to read LAUREL on the shutter rim. There is a Japanese site mentioning the transitional name "Daured" or "Dauled" (see this page).

I am comparing my copy of the book by Francesch with the extract that you translated. Actually the book does not mention the company "Proud", only the Plaubel Roll-Op. That is a probable confusion because Plaubel was already buying its own bodies to Balda, and it would not make sense for Takachiho to buy the bodies "second hand" to Plaubel. There is a possibility that Francesch confused the katakana name プラウド (the Proud company) with the quite similar プラウベル (the Plaubel company). This confusion was facilitated by the fact that the Semi Proud was a copy of the Baldax and the Roll-Op was using the Baldax body too. I mentioned Proud because this is what appeard in the Olympus corporate page, and this is now confirmed by the description of your example.

The book also says that all the archives of the company were kept in the Hatagaya plant that was destroyed on 26 Apr 1945. Even if the author visited the Olympus headquarters and had access to the remaining archives, for the prewar period we are basically on our own.

"There are only two known examples of the first camera model from Olympus." -> I think we can add a third example with Rulex shutter, that was sold in an eBay auction but escaped our attention (see this post in a forum). It could be interesting to contact the seller, whose at the email address mentioned in the link, to see if he has kept pictures of the cameras, or if he can put us in contact with the buyer. If you decide to do this first, please keep us informed.

"Lens: number 1142 Takatiho TÔykÔ ZuikÔ 1:4.5, f = 75mm" -> This is interesting, I was unable to read the macrons over "Tōkyō" and "Zuikō".

"Body Type: Praud (Proud) type 169 – this is stamped into the metal near the viewfinder under the leatherette cover." -> Could you please confirm that it was stamped "Praud", not "Proud"? This would be a typo, not unusual in the Japanese cameras of the time.

About the serial numbers, I was drawn to the same conclusion of a lens serial number sequence starting at 1000.

The early engravings had already changed on the lens No 2001, pictured on a late model Semi Olympus II on the cover of the book by Francesch. The engraving was modified from Takatiho Tōkyō Zuikō 1:4.5 f=75mm No.xxxx to Takatiho Tokyo No.xxxx Zuiko 1:4.5 f=7.5cm. I have only observed these two types of engravings, could you please explain what changed after 700 examples and what changed after 3500 examples? And is your older Semi Olympus II No 1790 of the early model (offcentered finder) or late model (centered finder)?

As for the last f:4.5 lens and first f:3.5 lens, I can read No 697x (last number unreadable) on an f:4.5 lens in an original brochure for the Olympus Six, also available at the Olympus corporate site (direct link in pdf format). In my opinion, the serial number sequence continued with the f:3.5 lens, as the earliest f:3.5 lens I have observed is No 7242, appearing in the same brochure.

Here are the first comments that are coming to my mind while reading your interesting post. Of course you are warmly welcome to contribute about the later Olympus folders too. I also invite you to read the Koho, Zuiko and Olympus Flex articles, that will probably interest you.

--Rebollo fr 08:12, 7 June 2006 (EDT)

::re: 'a third example with Rulex shutter'

Hello, my name is Henk. I just recently found this great discussion board.

I am the buyer of the Olympus Rulex mentioned above. (Ebay 3813380045 May-08-04)

The lens is Takatiho Tôkyô Zuikô 1:4.5 f=75mm. No.1137, the Rulex NH shutter has an "Olympus" plate screwed on, same as on the Compur type. Apart from the shutter the camera is identical to the Compur type.

I am open for all investigations, to find out whether this camera is a composite or a missing link in history.

Hello Henk,

This is very interesting! I would be happy to see pictures of your example. I will send you a scan of the advertisement by private mail. --Rebollo fr 05:59, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Page split

I wanted to work on the Chrome Six models, and found that the page was too long and had become hard to manage. So I took the radical decision to split the page into a number of individual articles. This split is further justified by the profound design differences between the various models:

• Semi Olympus
• Semi Olympus II
• Olympus Six
• Olympus Chrome Six

I will only alter the links after the four new articles are smoothed out, and I'll change the current page into a disambig. I'll also copy and paste the various discussion threads to the respective pages. --Rebollo fr 14:46, 24 November 2007 (EST)