- Joined
- Oct 11, 2006
- Messages
- 2,185
- Format
- Multi Format
Don't have F/FT, but did have Pen EE3 and Pen D3. Both, ISO 100 and ISO 400 black and white films print very well with an enlarger. They are plenty sharp, difference in grain is not noticeable on 5x7 prints and barely noticeable on 8x10. So since I don't print larger than 8x10, I'd gladly stick to half frame.So, if the above calculations and conjecture are right then if someone is satisfied with images using conventional film acquired with a full frame camera then they would probably be satisfied with images acquired using fine grain film on a half frame camera.
Whad'ya think?
Whad'ya think?
ended up with a Nikkormat FTn
Anybody know what's the original lens hood for the Zuiko Auto-W 20/3.5 lens?
S-45?
With S-45 hood 20/3.5 vignettes a little bit. You can't notice it through the viewfinder, but it's evident on film. Quite funny, I can't find any info on OEM hood for that lens. Maybe Olympus never made one.
I think a half frame photo on fine grain film like Tmax-100/Acros/Delta would probably compare favorably with a full frame image on a conventional film of nearly the same iso, such as FP4+, at least in terms of grain. Resolution might also be more or less comparable (when using fine grain film on half frame vs. conventional film on full frame), given the fine reputation of lenses for the Pen F/FT cameras. This assumes that the resolution of fine grain film like Delta is somewhat higher than conventional film like FP4+.
Whad'ya think?
Is it possible that there is a typo in the half frame dimensions? I just measured a piece of 35mm film with a vernier caliper, and I get just a smidge more than 24mm between the sprocket holes, so the figure of 27.7mm seems a bit too much to me. Could you double check?I posted a side-by-side comparison two days ago. HF on a slower 100 ISO film with finest grain, FT on faster (800 ISO). Drum scanned with borders included so you can get exact physical dimensions for both. I get (17.1x27.7mm for HF and 24.2x36.5mm for FF).
Is it possible that there is a typo in the half frame dimensions? I just measured a piece of 35mm film with a vernier caliper, and I get just a smidge more than 24mm between the sprocket holes, so the figure of 27.7mm seems a bit too much to me. Could you double check?
I'm thrilled to see such interest in - and such wonderful images from - half-frame cameras! I've always loved the challenge of small negatives: despite having been raised in a nearly-everything-shot-on-4x5 atmosphere in my parents' commercial studio... I had a Minox B when I was just 12 years old, and then more Minoxes later in life.
Back in the late 90s, a friend from the Submini Mailing List (where before web forums, we had daily mass-emailed discussions) sent me a Pen EES-2. (Aside: the EES-2 doesn't get enough credit as the Pen model that was upsized to full-frame to create the spectacularly successful Trip 35!) I found it to be a shockingly good shooter, and when it died, I got myself a Pen F and 38mm lens from eBay.
A gorgeous machine... but it tended to overexpose, so I put it aside since I had a pile of other cameras fighting for my attention at that point. Three years ago, I sent the camera/lens to John Hermanson, and he fixed the sluggish auto-diaphragm that wasn't closing fast enough. Since then, I've shot a lot with the Pen F on Tri-X, FP4 Plus, and Double-X (Eastman 5222), all developed in good old D-76 1:1. Though I have everything for a print darkroom, I'm not doing wet printing these days, just 2400 dpi scans.
All three emulsions produced nice results, but the Double-X is the standout. A little more grain than TX, but oh, those deep blacks! (And similar exposure latitude to the other films, I'm just estimating exposure most of the time. Hey, when in doubt, I bracket - I'm getting 52 frames on 24-exp rolls!)
View attachment 333322View attachment 333323View attachment 333324View attachment 333325View attachment 333326View attachment 333327View attachment 333328View attachment 333329
Anyway, it's really nice to see so many other Pen F fans here. These are such fun, elegant, unusual cameras. When I run into young film-shooters on weekends, most haven't even heard of half-frame cameras, and they're astonished by the look and feel of the Pen F.
All three emulsions produced nice results, but the Double-X is the standout. A little more grain than TX, but oh, those deep blacks! (And similar exposure latitude to the other films, I'm just estimating exposure most of the time. Hey, when in doubt, I bracket - I'm getting 52 frames on 24-exp rolls!)
Anyway, it's really nice to see so many other Pen F fans here. These are such fun, elegant, unusual cameras. When I run into young film-shooters on weekends, most haven't even heard of half-frame cameras, and they're astonished by the look and feel of the Pen F.
Pen F, Vision 3 500T @iso50
3+ stop overexposure deliberately or by mistake? Either way, there's no grain! Not to mention this is half-frame...
I usually shoot my Vision3 5219 at iso 1000 and push process ECN-2 to get more contrast and "grain" is not too bad, but definitely not as fine on my scanner (which admittedly accentuates the grain). Then again, my 500T is almost 10 years old now...
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?