Pen f/ft q's

[jett]

1. How is the Pen F/FT viewfinder? I hear that it is not too great, it is worse than a Barnack (which isn't THAT bad in my opinion). I believe that the Pen F has the better viewfinder but is the difference that noticeable? The only reason why I prefer the FT because it is available in black.

2. Any pics illustrating the size difference between the Pen F/Ft and a barnack with a collapsible lens, or a compact SLR (e.g. Oly OM1n) with a 40/50? I'm mostly concerned about the depth of the camera with the lens attached. I know that the body itself is compact, but the size of the lens makes a difference. The lenses that interest me are the 38/1.8 and the 38/2.8. From what I can tell, the Pen F/Ft doesn't look to be THAT much smaller than a compact 35mm, full-frame, SLR with the 38/1.8, however, it looks real petite with the 38/2.8.

Thanks!

 

[rhl-oregon]

Pen F is brighter, lacking the FT's compromise for the sake of the meter. Both are far less squinty than a Barnack, in no small part because of the portrait orientation, and the size in the hand is Barnack-like. The lenses are very good--I have the 25 2.8 and 40 1.4--but they don't make it a jeans-pocket camera. The 38 pancake might come close but is $$$ compared to the standard 38 1.8.

If you like squinting and bottom loading and film trimming, Barnack is the compact for you! Of course there are good reasons to cherish Barnacks, but for me, Pen F wins on ease of use. And I'd rather shoot LTM lenses on a backloading Canon with a nice viewfinder.

 

[Mike is hungry]

I have limited experience with Barnacks but the couple I've handled definitely had brighter viewfinders then any of my FTs and were only slightly brighter then my recently CLA'd Pen F.

The Oly OM1 is definitely longer than a Pen F/FT/FV but only slightly. With standard lenses, the OM is the bigger camera. I think the Barnacks are longer, but again my experience with them is limited. Depth wise I suspect a Barnack with a 40mm would be similar to a Pen SLR with a 38mm. With the pancake 38 the Pen SLR would definitely have a very low profile but it is a fairly rare lens and commands a premium which I think outweighs its actual performance. In my experience the 38mm f1.8 and the 40mm f1.4 are the superior lenses.

Is your goal to have a very compact half frame SLR? You can't go wrong with the Pen series. However, I'm very biased. I LOVE the Pen series and have owned 8 of the SLRs and many of the viewfinder variants. I think they are very beautiful cameras and they pack a lot fun and versatility in a small, affordable package. However, if you're willing to give up a degree of control, you could consider the fixed lens Pen series - the EED is a particularly nice camera with some of the style of the Pen SLRs. Very svelte and pocket-able in shirt pocket. I've gotten decent results from my small Pen EE2 viewfinder camera which is also very small.

 

[RichL]

The FT exactly fits a Leica II case though the FT is app. 2mm higher than the II. The FT with pancake lens is about the same depth as the II with the 50/2 collapsible lens. The other lenses are of course considerably longer but still normally less than a LTM.

 

[goamules]

I think the Pen-FV is the brightest. It may be a tad dimmer than a Barnack (which afterall is mostly just a straight through hole in the camera with two pieces of glass. But the PEN viewfinder entrance pupil is bigger, and therefore easier to see and use. It looks huge looking through one, not like the little door "peephole" you get with Barnacks.

 

[jett]

thanks for all the input.

I actually bought the Pen F + 38/1.8 this past week but I have not compared it to my Leica IIIc + Summitar in size or weight. (I've been busy all week).

Size-wise, they are close enough for me not to care about the difference. The Pen F is compact and sturdy.

I much prefer the viewfinder on the Pen F. It is larger. I haven't compared the two viewfinders side by side but I think that my Leica is brighter but much more squinty. I much prefer the Pen F viewfinder.

I hope to post some pics comparing the size of the two outfits incase anyone is interested.

 

[Dwig]

1. How is the Pen F/FT viewfinder? ...

As others have stated, the FT is dimmer. The F and FV are very similar to each others. The FT's metering required that one of the mirrors in the VF be semi-silvered passing some of the light to the meter cells thus reducing the light passing to the eye. I've read of users having their FT gelded, in a sense, by replacing the semi-silvered mirror with one out of an FV. All of the Pen F family do have somewhat low VF magnification making the image seem a bit "far away". The odd poroflex VF arrangement is the cause.

2. Any pics illustrating the size difference between the Pen F/Ft and a barnack with a collapsible lens, or a compact SLR (e.g. Oly OM1n) with a 40/50? ...

I've never read it anywhere, but there seems to have been a Leica fixation going on during the design of both the Pen F series and the later OM series. The Pen F/FT/FV are very similar in size to a Barnak with an extended Summar. The original OM-1, sans hot shoe, with the original 50mm f/1.8 is exactly the same size as an M-3 with a rigid 50mm Summicron with the exception of the OM's strap lugs, hinge for the back, and the peak of the pentaprism. Having an SLR the size of an M Leica was the Holy Grail in the mind of many of the writers in the photo mags in the '60s.

 

[jett]

I've never read it anywhere, but their seems to have been a Leica fixation going on during the design of both the Pen F series and the later OM series.

Yep, I've read many times that Maitani's designs were Leica-influenced.

 

[zuiko85]

I like the Pen F viewfinder because it has a plain matte screen. The FT and FV have a micro prism center. I have always found matte screens much better to compose on. It's dimmer than a more modern film SLR but I find that when it gets too dim to focus I just estimate the distance and focus by scale.