Just one MORE reason to get the D3.
So does D2, which I am also considering. Only difference between D2 and D3 I could find was that D2 has f/1.9 lens whereas D3 has f/1.7
Just one MORE reason to get the D3.
Some people say half frame is abysmal if enlarged anywhere above 5x7 so your input is greatly appreciated. Oh and I didn't know Olympus made lenses for enlargers too. Prices are pretty high though. For what it's worth, I use a 35 mm m39 lens when I want to print 8x10, exactly for the same reason as you.
Very true. I suppose I'll find out how D3 performs sooner or later. I'm planning to put Kentmere 100 and pull it to EI50 for a start, cause that's what I have readily available.Some people say the Earth is flat, too.
Hmm. There's indeed plenty of options. Surprisingly Olympus has just one lens, while others have several. Pretty strange for company who promoted half frame more than anyone else did.
The original F has the gothic F on it. It was the only way to go for me.
If you like a plain matte focusing screen, and never use a self-timer, the F is the way to go.
My D3 has finally arrived. Some Japanese sellers on ePrey actually have shipping via DHL which is pretty fast even to this side of the world. A light meter was "dead", shutter was "slow" and the lens had "fungus". All in all, one day's work of repairs. The shutter was easy to service, so was the lens, half of which comes off from the front side and half - from the back side. Light meter gave me a headache before I realized that it draws "+" current from the body itself. I'm impressed by overall build quality, except the top cover which leaves a lot to wish for, it's thin, flimsy and was deformed on my sample. Other than that, black paint is peeling off, but I'll repaint it one of these days.
The seller was quite specific that the camera was in junk condition, unlike those who describe cameras with entire ecosystem of fungus on the lens as "Mint-". But I just got lucky, two of my friends had bad luck with Japanese sellers.I'm curious if these flaws with the camera were reported by the seller. I've thought about buying a Pen-F or FV from Japan but I don't want to have to fix it or have it fixed nor send it back to Japan. If I buy one I want it right from the start, unpack, load film, and shoot, and I'd be willing to pay accordingly.
The seller was quite specific that the camera was in junk condition, unlike those who describe cameras with entire ecosystem of fungus on the lens as "Mint-". But I just got lucky, two of my friends had bad luck with Japanese sellers.
Tried Fuji C200 in D3. Bokeh looks pretty neat, although contrast seems to suffer wherever there's a bright spot in the picture. It's a pity I'm giving up on colour film.
View attachment 319896
View attachment 319897
I looked everywhere, couldn't find where I said it's film's issue.Contrast suffers w bright spots = issue w lens (haze) not film.
I looked everywhere, couldn't find where I said it's film's issue.
I was always well-disposed towards Olympus. My first proper camera was a Trip 35, and I was dreadfully jealous of my brother's OM-1. For reasons now forgotten, my wife bought a used Pen FT from Fox Talbot on the Tottenham Court Road in 1977, and travelled quite a bit with it. She was probably impressed with the idea of film costing only half as much as usual. She had an ever ready case, the 38mm/f1.8 and a 150mm/f4, which was far from the most useful second lens, but we were young and knew no better. Years later I resurrected the camera, with a battery adapter and some zinc-air hearing aid batteries, along with a 25mm/f4 lens (roughly like a 35mm on normal 135 film). I didn't find the meter very accurate, and I read how the viewfinder was darker because of the light being diverted to the meter. So I obtained a Pen F (it has a ground glass focusing screen but it is still easier to focus than the dark microprisms of the FT's screen), and used the same handheld meter I'd got used to using with medium and large format cameras. It's smaller and lighter than a Leica M, and you would need a microscope to see the differences in the results from the lenses.
In the last few years, I have had the chance to explore something that dates me dreadfully - avoiding grain. When I was young, wide aperture lenses were beyond my means, so faster film was the answer, and that meant grain. No one liked it then, rather than today's attitude that grain shows you're a real photographer using real film. We did what we could with so-called fine grain developers, but the answer to all this finally came by accident, when C-41 process B&W films were sold. You may have seen the story behind the triptych I made in another thread.
This one was FP4, before I discovered XP2, and she is the original purchaser of the FT:
Of course, none of us are permanently sober:
And this was Kodachrome 64:
View attachment 289317
So what am I to do with this now? There is a meterless Pen F with a bright viewfinder and a microprism focusing screen, and it's the Pen FV. One is coming. There is also a shockingly expensive portrait lens of 60mm/f1.5. One is coming. Madness is a real thing, and maybe some of that is coming too. We shall see. Maybe the madness has been a long time coming: here is a 4x5 photo of some of the Olympus cameras I owned:
View attachment 289315
In the meantime, do please, post some half-frame photos here.
Still don't know if I can start treating it as a full serious format and only carry HF camera without FF backup.
Half frame was originally aimed at the "4x6 prints and never enlargements, save money on film" consumer level photographer (same target market as 126 and 110), but film has improved so much since the 1960s that you can make pretty nice large prints from half frame, if the lens is good (the Zuiko on an Olympus Pen meets this criterion, in my experience, what I've heard/read suggests the Canon Demi was of similar quality). While the shutter/aperture mechanism in my Pen EE-S2 has gotten sticky again, fifteen years after cleaning, that camera produced very good negatives. I may have to research and shop for the manual version of the Olympus fixed-lens half frame...
Oh that looks so unique! What did you do?
The reply I've heard for that is "It's called grain. It's supposed to be there." None the less, the lenses of many of these old half-frame cameras are perfectly capable of big enlargements. If you don't like seeing grain, look for Pan F+ or Adox CMS20 II or Copex Rapid (Copex Rapid can yield an 8x10 from the 10x14 mm Minolta 16 frame that shows no grain at comfortable viewing distance).
Both Adox CMS 20 (the original, don't know for sure about the II version) and Copex Rapid are or are derived from document films, much as Tech Pan was. I've used both the Adox (original) and Agfa stocks, and found it easily possible to get pictorial contrast and good tonality, even at good speed, using no developer magic other than low concentration Caffenol with ascorbate. I've also used other brands of microfilm (Kodak Imagelink and Fuji HR) with similar results, though they're slower. All are available in 35 mm perfed, though you probably have a buy a case (24 100 foot rolls?) to get the micofilms other than Copex Rapid fresh.
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?