Pen F Confusion [Archive] - Rangefinderforum.com

cbphoto

12-01-2008, 17:32

I have a dead Pen F with a nice 38mm f1.8. I want to get an FT to replace the body, but keep the same lens. Will the F version of the lens work on an FT body (I don't care about the metering). I read somewhere that there is a compatibility issue, but I can't find that source again. If it's just the metering, I'm ok.

I know it's a cheap lens, but I want to save every bit of money can to get a 20mm.

cbphoto

12-01-2008, 17:57

Thanks! That's good news.

Al Kaplan

12-01-2008, 18:34

You're going to love the lens. The Zuiko lenses for the Olympus Pen cameras were right up there with the best!

jagarch

12-01-2008, 18:36

Yes, but if you don't care about the metering, don't get the FT. Get an F or an FV, with their brighter viewfinders and no meter.

cbphoto

12-01-2008, 19:09

After one F that lasted a whopping 6 months, I think I'll try either the FT or FV. Isn't the shutter less volatile in the later versions (I think a repair shop told me that, or maybe I read it online). The FT has the advantage of being easy to find for little money, like $100 or less. I think I can live with the 1/2 stop darker finder.

Rayt

12-01-2008, 19:21

cbphoto

12-02-2008, 04:31

OK I have held a Pen F and played with the shutter a few times and really liked its super smoothness. But it is a half frame. You are using less film real estate. Why would you want to shoot with a half frame? The camera is not that small. This is a serious question not meant to offend. Please tell me what is so appealing about this camera that you are willing to sacrifice film format size.

Some projects benefit from the grittier look of a smaller neg. I started out shooting 6x6 and 6x7 and have gradually gone smaller as my tastes have developed. A friend suggested I start shooting Super 8 and scan the individual frames, but I'm too lazy. ;) My main camera is still the Leica.

BrunoK

12-02-2008, 05:23

Rayt,

Take a look at these scans of old Kodachromes taken by my dad in 1974 with his Bell & Howell [nee Canon ] Dial 35.

keep in mind that flickr doesn't allow me to post them at full scanned resolution.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28954780@N07/sets/72157608398447275/

BrunoK

12-02-2008, 05:30

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3272/2964203268_0cb4830b6a.jpgFrom the link above...

navilluspm

12-02-2008, 05:36

In answer to rayt.

I have a Pen Ft that is being overhauled right now by John Hermanson. It was expensive to get fixed but here are my reasonings for doing so.

1) The camera was my Dad's, bought by my Uncle in Saigon during the Vietman war. Most of my childhood was infront of that camera, so it's sentimenal.

2) It is less than the size of an "M" and I can't afrord a Leica at the moment. I can carry it around better than my other cameras.

3) The lenses are supposedly very good.

4) It's native position is portrait - which I shoot in the most.

5) If you enlarge in an 8x10, you don't loose a real estate - only 25% less. And I rarely print anything larger.

Don't let the half frame thing fool you: it is has a crop factor of 1.43 (less than APS-C vs. FF digital). The Pen FT supposedly keeps the film negative very flat, and it really is a mechanical marvel - every bit as much as a Leica.

Anyway, those are my reasonings.

Cheers,
Michael

Al Kaplan

12-02-2008, 05:49

Films like Tri-X have gone through so many generations of "New Improved!" over the last 40 years that today you can likely produce a less grainy image with an Olympus Pen than you could with a Leica back then. The lenses for the Pen F series are tiny compared to full frame cameras and you can easily stick a couple of them in the pockets of a suit jacket along with a couple of extra rolls of film. Three rolls would give you over 200 pictures, a good day's shoot for most of us.

Just because it's "half frame" doesn't mean that it needs to be blown up twice as much. On the short side the difference in negative size is 18mm vs. 24mm so you only need to increase magnification by one third.

Now if Ilford would only re-introduce their thin base 72 exposure rolls of film you could get 144 frames on a roll. Carrying two spare rolls in your pocket would give you nearly 450 shots to play with. That could get me through the weekend and save time in the darkroom

Al Kaplan

12-02-2008, 06:06

One of the reasons that the Pen F series is so light weight and compact is it doesn't use a pentaprism. It uses a complicated little construct of mirrors usually referred to as a porroflex. This is the main reason for the darker viewfinder image. If you ever get the opportunity to compare the image on a Rolleiflex TLR with the Rollei prism finder and the porroflex finder that Mamiya made to fit the Rollei you'll see the difference in brightness.

Rayt

12-02-2008, 06:28

Thanks. I just ordered an FV as an early Xmas present for myself from KEH. Maybe the lenses can be used on the new 4/3 Micro system in the future as well.

Sonnar2

12-02-2008, 15:34

OK I have held a Pen F and played with the shutter a few times and really liked its super smoothness. But it is a half frame. You are using less film real estate. Why would you want to shoot with a half frame? The camera is not that small. This is a serious question not meant to offend. Please tell me what is so appealing about this camera that you are willing to sacrifice film format size.

It's easy. The Pen F camera series is one of the cutest, smallest professional cameras ever made. It has a 100% finder just like the Nikon F/F2/F3 (and weights half of it) and is the only SLR in the size of a Leica II/III.
The 3/4 format can be used to 100% nearly all the time where mostly the 2/3 format of 24mmx36mm can be used just for 70% and you need to crop. And if you crop you aren't far away of 18mmx24mm.

digitalintrigue

02-07-2009, 15:06

Thanks. I just ordered an FV as an early Xmas present for myself from KEH. Maybe the lenses can be used on the new 4/3 Micro system in the future as well.

You might want to check this out.

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5209