urban_alchemist
Well-known
I just posted this on my deviantArt Journal and thought I'd put it up here for you guys. Forgive all the detail as I'm sure it is all obvious to everyone here already. The main thing is the last few paragraphs:
"Those of you bored enough to read my musings on my photographic journey will know that I'm not really getting on with digital. More that I can't...
So, after much thinking, I decided to look at the problem laterally. If the problem with film was the cost (more specifically of the development), then I had two choices:
1. Move exclusively to black-and-white and home develop, or
2. Shoot less film.
As 1. wasn't an option thanks to the girlfriend's thorough objections to any chemical smells in our (tiny) apartment, I had to look at option 2.
Which is what bought me to buy a rather tatty Pen FT that was sitting in a local second-hand camera store. For those of you unaware of the Olympus Pen FT, it was a fully-functioning SLR, but, crucially, imprinted the image on exactly 1/2 a regular 35mm frame. The result was a camera of tiny size (about the same size as a Leica Barnack camera of the 1930s), but with all the bells-and-whistles of a full-size SLR. That means SLR flexibility and accuracy, but with 72 images per 36 exposure film!
It is not without its ideosyncracies - a meter that isn't lense coupled, noisy shutter and grating gearing; and my own one comes with a 40/f1.4 lense so dented that I can't fit either a lense-cap or UV filter on it, ignoring the fact that it doesn't lock onto the body properly. Nevertheless, I have fallen absolutely, helplessly in love with the little beast. They say you fall in love once a decade, and I guess that's true of cameras too...
Which sends my mind racing. I'm not against digital per-se, its just that I have yet to find a digital camera that combines simplicity, size, ruggedness, build-quality and control with images that are anywhere near a match for 35mm, let alone 120 film. But...
Olympus and Panasonic have just released the Micro-4/3 system; a system which allows the lenses to be much closer to the sensor than in traditional SLRs. This shrinks the lenses, and the camera. Why could they not release a digital successor to the Pen FT? The Pen FD maybe? M4/3 doesn't need a prism, and all I would want would be a meter, shutter-speed, ISO setting and aperture control. No screens, no histograms, no AF, no programs, just the absolute basics, wrapped up in a lovely, solid, metal body - just like in the good old days.
And, while we're wishing, why not take it a step further. Of course the camera would have to shoot RAW, but why not include internal processing settings for the films we used to love? One-click shifting between shooting Tri-X, Kodachrome, Velvia and Portra would blow the photographer's mind (Olympus, how about giving AlienSkin a call?!?) and of course, the RAW file would still be there if you weren't happy with the straight-from-the-camera result...
Anyway, enough. I think I'm about to dribble onto my keyboard.
But to anybody trying to cut down on costs without jumping ship from film, I have only one piece of advice: Olympus Pen F."
And I thought I should put up a few images from my first test-roll...
(PS - The guy above isn't me!)
"Those of you bored enough to read my musings on my photographic journey will know that I'm not really getting on with digital. More that I can't...
So, after much thinking, I decided to look at the problem laterally. If the problem with film was the cost (more specifically of the development), then I had two choices:
1. Move exclusively to black-and-white and home develop, or
2. Shoot less film.
As 1. wasn't an option thanks to the girlfriend's thorough objections to any chemical smells in our (tiny) apartment, I had to look at option 2.
Which is what bought me to buy a rather tatty Pen FT that was sitting in a local second-hand camera store. For those of you unaware of the Olympus Pen FT, it was a fully-functioning SLR, but, crucially, imprinted the image on exactly 1/2 a regular 35mm frame. The result was a camera of tiny size (about the same size as a Leica Barnack camera of the 1930s), but with all the bells-and-whistles of a full-size SLR. That means SLR flexibility and accuracy, but with 72 images per 36 exposure film!
It is not without its ideosyncracies - a meter that isn't lense coupled, noisy shutter and grating gearing; and my own one comes with a 40/f1.4 lense so dented that I can't fit either a lense-cap or UV filter on it, ignoring the fact that it doesn't lock onto the body properly. Nevertheless, I have fallen absolutely, helplessly in love with the little beast. They say you fall in love once a decade, and I guess that's true of cameras too...
Which sends my mind racing. I'm not against digital per-se, its just that I have yet to find a digital camera that combines simplicity, size, ruggedness, build-quality and control with images that are anywhere near a match for 35mm, let alone 120 film. But...
Olympus and Panasonic have just released the Micro-4/3 system; a system which allows the lenses to be much closer to the sensor than in traditional SLRs. This shrinks the lenses, and the camera. Why could they not release a digital successor to the Pen FT? The Pen FD maybe? M4/3 doesn't need a prism, and all I would want would be a meter, shutter-speed, ISO setting and aperture control. No screens, no histograms, no AF, no programs, just the absolute basics, wrapped up in a lovely, solid, metal body - just like in the good old days.
And, while we're wishing, why not take it a step further. Of course the camera would have to shoot RAW, but why not include internal processing settings for the films we used to love? One-click shifting between shooting Tri-X, Kodachrome, Velvia and Portra would blow the photographer's mind (Olympus, how about giving AlienSkin a call?!?) and of course, the RAW file would still be there if you weren't happy with the straight-from-the-camera result...
Anyway, enough. I think I'm about to dribble onto my keyboard.
But to anybody trying to cut down on costs without jumping ship from film, I have only one piece of advice: Olympus Pen F."
And I thought I should put up a few images from my first test-roll...
(PS - The guy above isn't me!)
Last edited:
navilluspm
Well-known
In an interview, Pen designer Maitani said that today it would be practically impossible to build a sellable Pen Ft, due to complexity and cost.
BTW - the film real estate of a half frame is greater than that of an APS-C sensor, I believe. I wish they could make a half frame sensor pen FT, but I doubt it will ever be a reality.
BTW - the film real estate of a half frame is greater than that of an APS-C sensor, I believe. I wish they could make a half frame sensor pen FT, but I doubt it will ever be a reality.
Last edited:
urban_alchemist
Well-known
I'm holding onto that one word...
Honestly, though, this camera has exceeded even my wildest expectations. So much fun to use...
f6andBthere
Well-known
I've resisted the urge to buy a Pen FT for a long time ... I'm begining to suspect after reading this that resistance is futile!
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I did have an original Pen F (unmetered first version of the SLR Pens) at one time along with a few lenses, plus a few varieties of the teensy little scale focus viewfinder Pens. Fantastic lenses on all of them! When Ilford was making thin base 72 exposure rolls...them wuz the days! 144 shots on a roll. Today's B&W and color neg films are so much sharper and less grainy than the films of the sixties and seventies also, but those old single frame negatives make respectable 11X14 prints.
Of course if we keep touting the advantages of Olympus Pens and their optics, pretty soon it'll be cheaper to buy one of those big klutzy Leicas that nobody will want anymore.
Of course if we keep touting the advantages of Olympus Pens and their optics, pretty soon it'll be cheaper to buy one of those big klutzy Leicas that nobody will want anymore.
navilluspm
Well-known
I am still waiting for mine to come back from overhaul (it seems like it is taking forever!) My Dad gave me his old Pen FT with 3 lenses. Due to my financial situation, I only am getting two overhauled: the 20mm f/3.5 and the 38mm f/1.8. The 150mm f/4 was the most expensive to fix, and it probably would be my least used (plus they are easy to find on the used market ). My Dad's kit has extension tubes for macro and also a generic teleconverter.
I have been itching to use the thing ever since I got it, but 15 years in an Arizona attic made that an impossibility until the overhaul is complete.
I have been itching to use the thing ever since I got it, but 15 years in an Arizona attic made that an impossibility until the overhaul is complete.
navilluspm
Well-known
Al, I have a couple of questionsfor you: 1) Do you still use your Pen F much, or have you gone pretty much completely over to rangefinders for the ultrawides that you use so well? 2) Did you ever use a Pen for paying work? I am just curious.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I only had the Pen F for a couple of years and used it as a "fun camera" but compared to my Pen S with a 30/2.8 lens and Pen W with it's neat black paint finish and 25/2.8 lens it didn't get much use. The normal lens for the F was 38mm, about equal to a 55 or 60 on full frame. The wides were slow. I like W-I-D-E. After a couple of years I sold the F. The others I kept until a couple of years ago when I noticed that they were worth a LOT more than I bought them for, plus the hoods and filters? Damn! I couldn't resist selling them. I got over $400 for the W and it looked well used, missing some of that precious black paint here and there. That was about ten times what I paid for it used. I got about $200 for the S.
When I'd just use a few shots of film in a "real" camera I'd cut the film and develop what needed developing. The casssette would get marked "Short Roll" with a Sharpy and I'd finish it up in a Pen. The roll had already been billed to a client so the film was free.
I don't recall ever going out to shoot a job with a Pen but there were plenty of times that one was in my pocket and I'd be asked if I could shoot some pictures. I obliged and got paid for the pictures. For the most part they were those boring pix of two guuys in suits shaking one another's hand at a luncheon. The photos were used in newspapers, trade journals, or newsletters and seldom reproduced very large, or printed 8 X 10 to hang on the office wall.
When I'd just use a few shots of film in a "real" camera I'd cut the film and develop what needed developing. The casssette would get marked "Short Roll" with a Sharpy and I'd finish it up in a Pen. The roll had already been billed to a client so the film was free.
I don't recall ever going out to shoot a job with a Pen but there were plenty of times that one was in my pocket and I'd be asked if I could shoot some pictures. I obliged and got paid for the pictures. For the most part they were those boring pix of two guuys in suits shaking one another's hand at a luncheon. The photos were used in newspapers, trade journals, or newsletters and seldom reproduced very large, or printed 8 X 10 to hang on the office wall.
Last edited:
kuzano
Veteran
Three formats that are virtually identical for size
Three formats that are virtually identical for size
1) Half frame of 35mm
2) 110 cartridge film, and I have three of the Pentax Auto 110's which are SLR interchangable lens, with 4 lenses available. And Ferriani in Italy is still producing NEW 110 film cartridges, plus FrugalPhotographer still sells Fuji 110 plus others.
3) The Four Thirds sensor in both the Micro four thirds and the regular Four Thirds.
The APS-C sensor is larger than the three of these.
All three of these formats are within a millimeter in either direction of each other, or close.
There are lots of half frame selections from various manufacturers in the 60's up to the late Samurai from Yashica, which had a zoom lens and autofocus/autowind.
I include here a picture of the Auto110 Pentax three lens kit, which I have on eBay right now for a couple more hours.
And, lest ye not be fully informed, The Panasonic M43rds camera is not representative of the upcoming Olympus, which will resemble something more like a Pen (not the F or Ft) than the pseudo SLR styling of the Panasonic G1. That's the one I am waiting for. Have been a dedicated Four Thirds user since the E300 came out, and absolutely looking forward to the Oly M43.
The Oly Micro Four Thirds will use all the Four Thirds lenses, both standard with adaptor, or Micro, not to mention adaptors for many legacy film lenses including Leica LTM As I understand it.
Three formats that are virtually identical for size
1) Half frame of 35mm
2) 110 cartridge film, and I have three of the Pentax Auto 110's which are SLR interchangable lens, with 4 lenses available. And Ferriani in Italy is still producing NEW 110 film cartridges, plus FrugalPhotographer still sells Fuji 110 plus others.
3) The Four Thirds sensor in both the Micro four thirds and the regular Four Thirds.
The APS-C sensor is larger than the three of these.
All three of these formats are within a millimeter in either direction of each other, or close.
There are lots of half frame selections from various manufacturers in the 60's up to the late Samurai from Yashica, which had a zoom lens and autofocus/autowind.
I include here a picture of the Auto110 Pentax three lens kit, which I have on eBay right now for a couple more hours.
And, lest ye not be fully informed, The Panasonic M43rds camera is not representative of the upcoming Olympus, which will resemble something more like a Pen (not the F or Ft) than the pseudo SLR styling of the Panasonic G1. That's the one I am waiting for. Have been a dedicated Four Thirds user since the E300 came out, and absolutely looking forward to the Oly M43.
The Oly Micro Four Thirds will use all the Four Thirds lenses, both standard with adaptor, or Micro, not to mention adaptors for many legacy film lenses including Leica LTM As I understand it.
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Veteran
The 110 frame was about 12x17mm, or the size of the old 16mm subminiatures like the Gami, Minolta 16, Ricoh 16, etc. that came out shortly after WW-II. 110 film was paper backed 16mm wide film just like 126 was paper backed 35mm wide film. The 110 negatives were less than half the size of an Olympus Pen negative.
navilluspm
Well-known
I don't understand how the APS-C can be larger than a half frame. The crop factor is 1.6 on APS-C and 1.43 on a Half frame - or is my math funky?
Thanks Al for the info. I was just curious. How pro photogs view the Pen FT? Is it more a novelty for them, or something that they would use for serious work. I know about the Eugene Smith ad, but did he an others really use it for PJ work?
Thanks Al for the info. I was just curious. How pro photogs view the Pen FT? Is it more a novelty for them, or something that they would use for serious work. I know about the Eugene Smith ad, but did he an others really use it for PJ work?
navilluspm
Well-known
I just check, and sure enough: a half frame is larger than a digital APS-C sensor (not that it really matters)
APS-C = 22.7 x 15.1
Half Frame - 18 x 24
APS-H is slighty larger though (1.3 crop) = 30.2 x 16.7
APS-C = 22.7 x 15.1
Half Frame - 18 x 24
APS-H is slighty larger though (1.3 crop) = 30.2 x 16.7
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Those Zuiko lenses were (are) superb and I used to know a few pros who used the small fixed lens Pens like the W, S, and D models on occasion. They were pocket size, looked almost like a toy to most people, about silent in wind and really silent when fired. You could scale focus them and operate them in one hand. If you had a few Nikons and/or Leicas hanging on your shoulders to distract people they wouldn't notice when you grabbed a shot or two with the Pen.
Of course putting price into perspective, the $150 original meterless Pen F with a 38/1.8 lens would be about $750 today and a $50 black Pen W with a 25/2.8, also meterless, would be around $250 in today's dollars. I'd probably be willing to buy a new Pen W for $250. It would pay for itself in film savings in a few months time.
Of course putting price into perspective, the $150 original meterless Pen F with a 38/1.8 lens would be about $750 today and a $50 black Pen W with a 25/2.8, also meterless, would be around $250 in today's dollars. I'd probably be willing to buy a new Pen W for $250. It would pay for itself in film savings in a few months time.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Hmm. . . I was going to say, "half frame digital?" What do you think the G1 is?
maddoc
... likes film again.
I had the Pen F with the 38/1.8 for some time and while it was a good camera and a joy to use, my problem focusing a SLR made me selling it to a friend (who was looking for a second one !).
The Pen F became very popular amongst young students here in Sapporo last year ! The owner of a small photo shop, near the university where I work, told me that he has a waiting list of 40 (!!) persons for the Pen F. He is still busy overhauling Pen F cameras to sell them to the people on the waiting list.
The Pen F became very popular amongst young students here in Sapporo last year ! The owner of a small photo shop, near the university where I work, told me that he has a waiting list of 40 (!!) persons for the Pen F. He is still busy overhauling Pen F cameras to sell them to the people on the waiting list.
The Olympus µ4/3 looks like a machined block with a logo on it.
I don't think it is real. But if they do actually make one like that, and it has VR in the body... Al Kaplan
Veteran
I'd be thrilled if Olympus would bring back the Pen W. I still have the negative carrier for my Omega B-22XL although I never bought a 28mm Componon lens and the recessed lens board. The XL column allows me to print the negatives a little bigger than 11 X 14 with a 50mm lens.
Last edited:
kuzano
Veteran
I stand corrected and my apologies....
I stand corrected and my apologies....
The 110 cartridge is 13x17mm
The 4/3rd sensor is 13x17mm
The APS C is 15X22mm
Half frame is 18X24mm
Again, I must remember to check my figures before posting.
I stand corrected and my apologies....
The 110 cartridge is 13x17mm
The 4/3rd sensor is 13x17mm
The APS C is 15X22mm
Half frame is 18X24mm
Again, I must remember to check my figures before posting.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
...so that means that in the 21st century APS C is medium format and half frame 35mm is large format! I feel like Edward Weston with this giant full frame Leica M2.
urban_alchemist
Well-known
You're right... resistance is futile!