Film dino
David Chong
kb244 said:
So... is it a Pen F or Pen FT?
- Thread starter kb244
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 61
- Views 7K
kb244
Well-known
Out of curiousity, when they went from the F to FT I know they "improved" the shutter, but did they change it to something other than a rotary type? I know the whole rotary type was advertized for the F but I don't get a clear understand of the 'type' when reading bout the FT. It looks like it basically has a sheet of metal that retracts pretty freaking fast, stays open for the shutter duration and then snaps back closed just as fast, possibly fast enough that they were still able to claim shutter sync speeds up to 1/500th of a second because I assume the entire film plane is exposued during the entire duration, or is at least uncovered and covered fast enough as not to cause a bar.
They all have the same metal rotary focal plane shutter.kb244 said:
I did some digging in old reviews and articles about the FT and found mention of shutter improvements by Jason Schneider in his Modern Photo column "the camera collector" appearing a few years after the Pen F system was discontinued.
Quoting Jason, "...they attacked one of the original F's few defects, occasionally erratic shutter operation, by redesigning the speed-governing mechanism."
Gratifying to our RF interests, he mentioned the compact size and comfortable shape, "...reminiscent of rangefinder Leicas and Canons. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that the Pen F's staunchest devotees are drawn from the ranks of rangefinder enthusiasts."
His article included the same graphic of the viewfinder light path I posted above, yet he still erroneously described a porroprism constructed of mirrors, whereas it actually has one mirror and two prisms. In a segue to mentioning the side-swinging instant return mirror, he also said the focusing screen was placed 45 degrees to the side rather than above. Of course that should be 90 degrees, but it's a fairly easy error to make. Otherwise an interesting retrospective.
A November 1967 Modern Photo Test of the new Pen FT described the new metering system, then listed a few other detail changes from the F. Visible fresnel lens rings in the focusing screen now gone, and the microprism spot added to the center of the larger circle of fine ground glass. Wind lever is longer and of course single stroke rather than double. Self timer added. "The take-up spool is now a quick-loading multiple slot and tooth type. The frame counter has slightly larger numbers..." and M flash sync has been added along with the X.
In a backwards sequence from Pentax experience, the slower normal lenses for the Pen F are better/sharper than the faster ones. Definitely a sacrifice in optimum performance when going from the 38 f1.8 to the 40 f1.4 and especially the 42mm f1.2. They really liked the 38 and 70.
I found a January 1970 Camera 35 test of nine Pen FT lenses where they get confused about angles of view, saying "... this 70mm telephoto ... would be the equivalent of q 140mm lens on a full-frame 35mm camera..." And they make the same kind of error for the 60mm f1.5 ("120mm") and 100mm f3.5 ("...equivalent of a 200mm telephoto..."). Oddly they make no mention of their incorrect 2x focal length "crop factor" with shorter lenses, and even characterize the 20mm as an "ultra-wide", when in fact its angle of view is 73 degrees, placing it about the equivalent of 30mm on a full-frame.
The test shows this 20mm f3.5 and the 25mm f2.8 as both about equally excellent optically.
kb244
Well-known
According to my co-worker who was looking at the back of the shutter, said it can't be a rotary shutter, no where for it to rotate up into the body claiming there was no space for it. Says the rotary one actually looks like a disc based on his experience with his Pen-F before he sold it.Doug said:
Doug said:
Is it really 2.0x? I've been going by 1.4x this whole time seeing as a 25mm x 1.4 = 35mm perspective, or 38mm x 1.4 = 53.2 which would coincide with their marking the 25 as a wide and 38 as a normal.
kb244
Well-known
PS: Found the exploded view of the FT's shutter design and makes more sense now, it's not like the "mercury" shutter that my co-worker described, but rather a quarter of a circle swinging down then back up.
Hi Karl -- Yes, correct, the 24x18mm half frame has a 30mm diagonal vs 43.3 for full-frame, so the "crop factor" is 1.44... And the magazine was wrong in figuring 2x, their error was what caught my attention! (Above I said: their incorrect 2x focal length "crop factor")
Actually, some sources hold that the half-frame format is 24x17mm rather than 18mm, and this makes a certain sense because there's a bit of space between frames, and half frame has not only twice as many frames, but also twice as many inter-frame spaces. And, keeping a reasonable width, these extra spaces have to come from somewhere... 🙂 Measuring my Pen frames crudely with a plastic caliper, it seems they are about 17.2mm each. That would raise the "crop factor" to about 1.47x
Actually, some sources hold that the half-frame format is 24x17mm rather than 18mm, and this makes a certain sense because there's a bit of space between frames, and half frame has not only twice as many frames, but also twice as many inter-frame spaces. And, keeping a reasonable width, these extra spaces have to come from somewhere... 🙂 Measuring my Pen frames crudely with a plastic caliper, it seems they are about 17.2mm each. That would raise the "crop factor" to about 1.47x
kb244
Well-known
LoL for simplicity sakes I guess I'll continue to refer to it as 1.4 (lil easier to assume 25 seems like 35 as opposed to 36.75) , however when it gets up into the higher lens say 250mm thats a difference of 350mm vs 367.5mm
raid
Dad Photographer
I sometimes use my Pentax SMC lenses on the Pen FT via an adapter for M42 to Olympus mount. If we take the 1.44 factor into account, a 50mm/1.4 becomes an improved 72mm/1.4 lens with higher resolution due to shooting through the center of the lens. Using a 85mm/1.8 lens would give you a 122mm/1.8 lens!
Raid
Raid
kb244
Well-known
raid said:
if I could even find the damn adapter ( either M42, or Canon FD) I would be doing just what you said since I got plenty of lens for either.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
kb244 said:
Not so fast, you need a Pen D, EED, EM, W, S, EE-S, EL, then you can start your OM... 😀
kb244
Well-known
shadowfox said:
Nawwwwwww besides I have no desire for fully automatic RFs (EE*) Pen D maybe...
raid
Dad Photographer
kb244 said:
Karl,
Nobody actually must use the half-frame cameras, but they are fun to use. Having such an adapter opens the door for using other lenses that we may not have for the Pen F.
kb244
Well-known
raid said:
This I already understand just a matter of how difficult they are to find, and if you do they're like 350$. Because you know sometimes I might just want to have a small little SLR body on me, and then pick up a nice fast 50 or 85mm prime to slap on the front cheap.
Very true, Raid; it opens up whole new worlds of lenses to get more use out of the sleek little bodies! 🙂raid said:
Four years ago I got an M42 adapter from Kevin Cameras, and it's been useful... though the lenses must be stopped down manually for exposure if you focus wide open. I've used my 28mm SMC and 50/1.4 on the Pen and it works fine.
So KevinCameras was the first place I thought of when the adapter subject arose here, and I just went to his site to have a look. He has two M42 adapters now, $145 and $165. Plus an OM adapter, a bunch for Nikon and a whole slew of Exacta adapters. These others are more expensive than the M42 ones.
http://www.kevincameras.com/index.html and then click on Pen F in the list below, then choose "Misc" category. He usually carries a lot of Pen F stuff, fun to look over...
raid
Dad Photographer
Doug:
The asking price of about $150 is not too bad.
I may have paid $35 or so for the M42 adapter; this was many years ago though. I get very sharp results with the SMC 85mm/1.8 and the Pen FT.
Raid
The asking price of about $150 is not too bad.
I may have paid $35 or so for the M42 adapter; this was many years ago though. I get very sharp results with the SMC 85mm/1.8 and the Pen FT.
Raid
Cale Arthur
---- ------
Now that i have some OM glass, one of the OM adapters would be nice to have around, but, strangely, they seem to be the toughest adapters to find..
Both Mount Magic and the hilariously-named Screw World make replacement lens mounts that adapt some pretty exotic lenses to the F's (Alpa, Robot, and a bunch of other oddities).. still just as expensive, though, and not as 'modular'.
--c--
Both Mount Magic and the hilariously-named Screw World make replacement lens mounts that adapt some pretty exotic lenses to the F's (Alpa, Robot, and a bunch of other oddities).. still just as expensive, though, and not as 'modular'.
--c--
ZeissFan
Veteran
Doug said:
Fun to look at, but not too fun for your bank account. Most of his eBay stuff is WAY WAY WAY overpriced. It's far beyond dissuading resellers.
kb244
Well-known
ZeissFan said:
Yea, I was bout to say "Hey isn't that the same guy who has the stuff waayyy overpriced on ebay?"
yet he seems to be like one of maybe two of the only people on ebay to have them.
kb244
Well-known
Just so you guys know, I did an actual live shoot today and the Pen FT performed well, I can't really complain.
Ilford FP4+ 125
Kodak Tmax 1+4 68F 8min
Ilford FP4+ 125
Kodak Tmax 1+4 68F 8min
Nice shot indeed, Karl! Smooth gradations and just a bit of texture from the grain. I like FP4 in the Pen F @250 in Diafine, partly for the grain structure.
I agree Kevin is expensive, and caters to the collector crowd. But when you want something, and he's got it, then you can opt to pay to get it. I suspect his eBay prices are even higher than his online store prices though. I noted a few months ago he was offering on eBay something I wanted, with a BIN of $650 or Best Offer. I offered $450 and he countered with $499 and I declined. He's kept renewing his 30-day auction and I think it's still up now with a dozen or so offers either declined or expired. So be it... I found the item elsewhere for about what I'd offered him.
So if one has a yen for, say, a 70mm f2 Zuiko for Pen F, one can shop at Kevin's and pick among 3 or 4 different ones at varying conditions and (highish) prices... and maybe bite the bullet. 🙂
For a while I was shopping for a good M42 SMC 55mm f1.8 just to use on the Pen adapter, figuring the equivalent ~80mm would be pretty useful. And this lens has a good reputation.
I agree Kevin is expensive, and caters to the collector crowd. But when you want something, and he's got it, then you can opt to pay to get it. I suspect his eBay prices are even higher than his online store prices though. I noted a few months ago he was offering on eBay something I wanted, with a BIN of $650 or Best Offer. I offered $450 and he countered with $499 and I declined. He's kept renewing his 30-day auction and I think it's still up now with a dozen or so offers either declined or expired. So be it... I found the item elsewhere for about what I'd offered him.
So if one has a yen for, say, a 70mm f2 Zuiko for Pen F, one can shop at Kevin's and pick among 3 or 4 different ones at varying conditions and (highish) prices... and maybe bite the bullet. 🙂
For a while I was shopping for a good M42 SMC 55mm f1.8 just to use on the Pen adapter, figuring the equivalent ~80mm would be pretty useful. And this lens has a good reputation.