Pen F or something

[john341]

I have bagged half-frames in the past for poor quality negatives but looking at some pix here recently I may be bitten by the bug again. How noisy is the Pen F? but maybe I should look at another brand/model. Who would recommend which half-frame as his/her favourite? I am currently testing a чайка II but am not expecting good results as the Industar lens is scratched...😡

 

[navilluspm]

My Pen FT has been giving me surprisingly good results. The shutter with mirror is obivously noisier than a rangefinder, but quieter than probably most SLR's of that era (mine has been recently serviced so the mirror dampener has been replaced).

I really like the 38mm lens - the inexpensive one that came with the camera. I made some portraits with my Kids and I love its signature. Obivously the pictures will be a little grainier than full frame, but I do not find pictures horribly grainy. To be honest, it doesn't bother me at all. However, I have only shot Kodak Gold 100 at the moment (since I have so much of the stuff). I have not tested higher ISO film.

 

[ZeissFan]

I like the Pen F for the reasons that navilluspm states. The shutter release requires a light touch.

The other half frame that I really like is the Agfa Optima-Parat with the Solinar lens. I have a writeup about it on my own site. I've shot a lot of color and b/w with this camera and have always been pleased with the results.

The only downside is that range of the meter is limited to ASA15-200. So there's no easy way to use Tri-X 400 or TMax 3200. You probably could get away with Tri-X by adjusting the processing, but forget TMax 3200.

There also is the Parat-I and the Paramat, but I feel the Parat is a better made camera. Agfa also made a Telepar accessory telephoto lens that screwed into the front of the Solinar. I'm still searching for the close-up set for this camera.

 

[Al Kaplan]

The Pen F and its variants were introduced over four decades ago. Going to 8x10 inches (paper size, printed full width of the negative) means that you're using 18mm instead of the 24 on a full frame. That's an increase in magnification of only 1.33 times. If you print full negative, because of the different aspect ratio of the frame, the difference is even less.

Tri-X today is not Grandpa's Tri-X. It (and most all other films)
have gone through multiple generations of "New Improved" over the years. Thinner emulsions, finer grain, improved tonality, and better color. ISO 64 Kodacolor-X was as grainy, if not more so, than today's Gold 400, and the first Kodacolor 400 was a joke unless you were shooting 120. Tri-X today compares with the Plus-X of 1960's.

 

[shadowfox]

I find the best b&w film for the Pen-FT to be the C-41 kind.

Below is a frame from expired Ilford XP2 if I remember correctly:

Sorry if I posted this image before...

 

[furcafe]

I would recommend just going for a Pen F or FV. Other than the portrait orientation of the frame, the only reason I don't use mine more often is that it takes forever to finish a roll!

It is definitely noisier than a RF, but no worse than other SLRs of its era, as navilluspm pointed out.

 

[newspaperguy]

Ahah - I've always loved the Pen F's because of the frame orientation. But that's me. I've found over the years, that I work much closer with the Pen than with a conventional (full-frame) SLR.
My FT is noisier than my Canon P, but quieter than my Bessas and much quieter than my SLRs.
BTW - forget the meter* and use a good handheld.

*It's a PITA.

 

[Al Kaplan]

When I had some Olympus Pens whenever I'd shoot a partial roll in my "real" cameras and needed to process it I'd cut the film, develop the exposed part, cut a new leader, then I'd write "short roll" on the newly cut leader and use it in a Pen.

If you think that 72 shots on a roll is too much you should have tried some of Ilford's 72 exposure film loads on thin base film. They'd give you 144 half frames on a roll. I miss those rolls.

 

[kramynot2000]

I really like my FT and held out buying a Pen until I could find an FT with a working meter, which I did. However I now find that I don't even use the meter and if I had to do it over again I'd get the first Pen that I liked that came along, whether an F, FT, or FV.

The only thing I don't like about the Pen system is the cost of a lens adapter. I have a 40mm lens I think as well as a zoom (50-90mm?) and wanted to use some of my M42 lenses but the price of the adapter seems incredibly high.

 

[splitimageview]

The Pens are about as noisy as my old Nikon F2, but of course much smaller. 🙂 And the lenses are great, my favorite is the 38/3.5 Macro.

I've got an FT with a dead meter, I've pulled it out and am going to replace the semi-silvered mirror with a first surface mirror to brighten up the view.

 

[Doug]

Agree that the FT meter is a pain, and of course so is the mercury-cell battery it takes. I figure most of the reason for an internal meter is to run AE anyway, and lacking that it generally makes more sense to go with a handheld incident meter.

I like the portrait orientation too, and the Pen F is a handy rig to use. I like Ilford FP4 exposed at EI 250 and souped in Diafine. With this smaller negative size the sharp modest grain of this film is accentuated slightly giving a nice texture. Ilford XP2 is more convenient, given lab processing and scanning, but doesn't provide the same crisp look.

The half-frame has about the same area as an APS-C digital sensor, so the "crop factor" is similar. I have the Olympus adapter for M42, the 3.5/20mm, 2.8/25mm, 1.8/38mm, 1.4/40mm, 2.0/70mm and the 50-90mm zoom. This faster 25mm is much harder to find than the f/4. The 70mm is a recent find. I got the adapter from Kevin Cameras five years ago for $120. The 20mm and 38mm seem to me to be the champs in the line, but I've yet to give the 70 a good try.

The original Pen F has the nice script F on the front panel, a double-stroke film advance, and no meter; introduced in 1963. There was an external meter offered. The single-stroke FT was offered from 1966 to 1970, featuring TTL metering that required matching exposure numbers in the finder with similar numbering on the opposite side of the lens f-ring. There was a drop in viewfinder brightness due to diverting some light to the meter cell. On the later lenses, the aperture ring can be switched between displaying the exposure numbers on top and displaying the f-stops on top. The body says FT on the top deck and there's no fancy script F on the front.

The FV was introduced after the F was discontinued. It was the same as the FT but without the meter, and had therefore a brighter viewfinder. Says FV on the top. This is a less-commonly seen model. Throughout production there were special Pen F cameras made for use with Olympus's medical & scientific equipment. My FV is one such variant, missing the self-timer lever but otherwise normal.

But watch out for microscope models that have no proper focusing screen and show a circular aerial image; from what I've learned their viewfinders cannot be modified to general photographic use.

 

[splitimageview]

Nice synopsis. 🙂 Here is more info including a list of the lenses:

http://biofos.com/coll/subcoll/slrpen.html

 

[urban_alchemist]

Love my FT(s). One piece of advice, though, get the best you can find and afford as though both of mine are working, the smoothness, quietness and of course meter function very differently.

The one I sourced from the Collectible Cameras has probably only had a few rolls through it and is an absolute delight to use. Quiet and smooth, I don't notice too much difference between it and my Nikon F3 apart from the size.

My 40mm/f1.4 lense (60mm equivalent) is great too, giving great contrast and, especially with modern emulsions, the half-frame format isn't too grainy.

The only downside is that completely useless meter. If it was lense-coupled, it would be vaguely useful, but as it is it only serves to dim the viewfinder, making available-light shooting quite difficult... If I was doing it again, I'd probably find a good Pen F and save a few bucks...

Anyway, here's some examples:
Fuji Superia 400

And a dodgy self-portrait with Neopan 400 (such a great film!)

 

[john341]

Thanks for those opinions, comrades. I remember the Pen F coming out and the criticism it received on account of the gothic F! Although I have used a few brands over the years the Pen D3 seemed to deliver the best..I still have a 10x12 enlargement of my kids taken in 1964 on my desk which is as good as it gets (Pan F in Microdol if I remember correctly) Might have a look for one of the reflex models...

 

[splitimageview]

Shot with a 38/3.5 Macro Pen F on a Panasonic G1:

 

[urban_alchemist]

Shot with a 38/3.5 Macro Pen F on a Panasonic G1:

I thought they didn't make the Pen F in black? Is that a repaint (cos it looks drop-dead gorgeous!)

 

[Todd.Hanz]

I love my Pen FT with 40/1.4.

Todd

 

[splitimageview]

I thought they didn't make the Pen F in black? Is that a repaint (cos it looks drop-dead gorgeous!)

They only made FTs in black. I painted that F a week or two ago, pretty pleased with how it came out. Thanks for the compliment. 😉

 

[john341]

Those pix look so good, maybe I should toss the Contax and go for a Pen F

 

[john341]

Love my FT(s). One piece of advice, though, get the best you can find and afford as though both of mine are working, the smoothness, quietness and of course meter function very differently.

The one I sourced from the Collectible Cameras has probably only had a few rolls through it and is an absolute delight to use. Quiet and smooth, I don't notice too much difference between it and my Nikon F3 apart from the size.

My 40mm/f1.4 lense (60mm equivalent) is great too, giving great contrast and, especially with modern emulsions, the half-frame format isn't too grainy.

The only downside is that completely useless meter. If it was lense-coupled, it would be vaguely useful, but as it is it only serves to dim the viewfinder, making available-light shooting quite difficult... If I was doing it again, I'd probably find a good Pen F and save a few bucks...

Anyway, here's some examples:
Fuji Superia 400

And a dodgy self-portrait with Neopan 400 (such a great film!)

lovely pix - I must check out this neopan film..tell me why you like it somuch