The MX is 1mm smaller in all dimensions then the OM1 so you can see the Pen is more slender around the mirror box . . .
Is that alone worth sacrificing half the frame?
You guys have done it now. NOW I want one. I hesitate, because I already shoot too many formats and I know my tendency to nerd out over gear and such probably takes away from the results I'd get if I'd settle into one to at most three formats and just concentrate on shooting.
I'm not even sure WHY I want one. Most of my photographic life has been spent trying to minimize grain. I knew about the tendency of some to seek it and celebrate it more than avoid it, but I never caught that particular bug, until now. Some of it is driven by wanting to carry a small simple mechanical camera in my motorcycle saddle bags and shoot when I see something I feel like photographing while out riding. Sure I can do that digitally with my phone but I mean a REAL (aka film and also, for this purpose, manual or mostly manual) camera. I just can't for the life of me figure out why I'd get a half frame Pen to do it instead of my Pentax MX which is a great camera, with a vast selection of lenses, and probably similar sized or even smaller, or even just buy a second MX body. (I have an MX and LX as my main 35mm bodies. I love the LX but somehow the MX just appeals more for this. Heck, as excellent as the LX is, and it's a great camera, I actually think I like the MX better overall too.)
I really don't want to go down the path of buying a body and immediately have someone CLA it. I'd rather find one that's already "been done" fairly recently by someone reputable and if I felt confident about that Id' be willing to spend the same as if I bought a body and had it done myself. I know from reading here and other research that I don't really want an unmodified FT. I use a hand held meter for much of my shooting anyway and I'd rather just use a small separate meter and have a brighter focusing screen. I don't mind the double stroke wind of the F either, though an FT that's been effectively converted to an FV with a regular mirror and no meter would be fine, maybe even better..
I've tried range finders and I just never really got along with them. I thought about one of the zone focusing models and a separate rangefinder, quite accurate and available these days and just transfer the distance to the lens, but combined with a handheld meter that's getting TOO slow and manual, not to mention another thing to carry.
I'm pondering this, but the excellent images posted in this thread have certainly piqued my interest!
No, of course it isn't. Especially since I used to own OM system and was happy with it. Right now I also have 35RC which is only slightly bigger than Pen D, but it's not really about sacrificing anything, it's more about seeing what I can (or cannot) do with half-frame camera. By the way, thank you for the poster, I liked it. Olympus had a nice way of advertising their products.The MX is 1mm smaller in all dimensions then the OM1 so you can see the Pen is more slender around the mirror box . . .
Is that alone worth sacrificing half the frame?
That's odd indeed. Pen D/D2/D3 has double-gauss lens with six elements, so Biotar or something? My full frame Tessar (and its clones) fares far better than my double-gauss lenses both in terms of sharpness and contrast. Can't wait to get my hands on D3.I've shot the Pen EE-family, and the Pen D. The lens in the D is noticeably sharper than the 4-element f/3.5 lenses in the EE-series. That surprised me, because the EE's lenses are Tessar-clones, so I would expect them to be quite sharp at f/8 and smaller. Their sharpness is adequate; they are not Coke bottles. But the Pen D is sharper in my experience.
Mark Overton
This thread has prompted me to drag out my half frame camera... but it's not an Olympus.
No, of course it isn't. Especially since I used to own OM system and was happy with it. Right now I also have 35RC which is only slightly bigger than Pen D, but it's not really about sacrificing anything, it's more about seeing what I can (or cannot) do with half-frame camera. By the way, thank you for the poster, I liked it. Olympus had a nice way of advertising their products.
As a side note, I would never go for half-frame SLR. Even if I ignore the fact that there's no one here who can service it, I simply see no need in it. If I want an interchangeable lens camera, I'd much rather go full frame.
That's odd indeed. Pen D/D2/D3 has double-gauss lens with six elements, so Biotar or something? My full frame Tessar (and its clones) fares far better than my double-gauss lenses both in terms of sharpness and contrast. Can't wait to get my hands on D3.
Argh, the suspense is killing me! Is it a half frame of 8x10 camera? Or a half frame of 6x9 medium format?
In the US, John Hermanson - Camtech Photo Services services the Olympus Pen F / FV / FT bodies and lenses and original XA. He serviced my Pen FT many years ago and totally happy with it.
Ah, the elusive, original Auto-Reflex (non-T/T2/T3)! I always wanted to get one, but it seems as rare as hen's teeth. Or too expensive.35mm, actually. Konica Auto-Reflex.
35mm, actually. Konica Auto-Reflex.
The one you can switch from half to full at random . . .
Konica Auto-Reflex by Les DMess, on Flickr
Bet that used to drive the labs crazy back then! Of course it can still drive you crazy today even scanning!
Scanning each shot at 7000 dpi, which gives a 4700x6500 frame size.
Shot 3 rolls in my Pen FT now. Its really a fun slick camera to use. The results show its a little harder to get the shot done well, then with my 35mm full frame cameras. Focus being off or when zoomed in, looking soft.
Matt. Im trying to get it at a higher rez to post on an 8K video. I really should be rezzing it even higher, but it takes way too long at 10000 dpi.I'm curious why you would do this - to make 15" x 21" prints?
So Im in the process of scanning my first roll of B&W Bergger Pancro 400. I shot it at 200 as was recommended. I used my Sekonic light meter for the first time and I obviously need to learn using it more. Quite a few of my shots were quite dense, hence overexposed. This exaggerated the grain on some shots. Some shots were more normal. I'll need to get a proper meter reading if using the Pen FT. Needless to say using half frame gave some hard crunchy grain for some shots. Wasn't expecting this much grain, but it is the reason why I got this camera. Im putting a roll of Panatomic X through it today for the Air Show. I'll see how those scan up. Im not doing the common dual scan of two images in 1 file. Im scanning each image separately at 7000 dpi. This is a very long process to get through the roll.
Here are some shots off Bergger 400.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?