Who Likes Olympus Half-Frame SLRs?

[Donald Qualls]

Fomapan R100 is unusual (though many color films use colloidal silver for the yellow filter layer between color layers) -- but yes, colloidal silver will "wash out" in the bleach step of B&W reversal, so could be considered a "wash out" antihalation.

 

[Huss]

Pen FT, 40mm 1.4, Acros II, DF96 Monobath

 

[Huss]

Pen FT, 40 1.4, Acros II.

 

[Huss]

Pen FT, 40 1.4, Acros II, Cinestill DF96

 

[Huss]

Pen FT

 

[Cholentpot]

Keep them coming Huss

 

[Timmyjoe]

Great images Huss.

Finally got my Pen F sorted. The camera seems to be working well, and I've now acquired a 20mm, a 40mm, & a 100mm lens and dug out an old roll of original AgfaPan APX-100 from about 20 years ago, and ran it thru. So fun getting 76 images on one roll of 35mm film. Processed them and starting to scan (76 images take a while to scan). But was such a good time shooting all kinds of different things over the last two days, all on one roll of film. The camera is a joy to work with.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Timmyjoe]

Fun camera. Walking around the neighborhood, squeezing off shots.

Olympus Pen F w/20mm f3.5 & 100mm f3.5 lenses, Expired AgfaPan APX-100, Rodinal

Best,
-Tim

 

[Timmyjoe]

Typical US suburbia:

Olympus Pen F w/40mm f1.4 lens, Expired AgfaPan APX-100, Rodinal

Best,
-Tim

 

[Timmyjoe]

Industrial:

Olympus Pen F w/20mm f3.5 lens, Expired AgfaPan APX-100, Rodinal

Best,
-Tim

 

[Cholentpot]

Industrial:

Olympus Pen F w/20mm f3.5 lens, Expired AgfaPan APX-100, Rodinal

Best,
-Tim

That's some crunchy grain in this set. Good look.

 

[LaurenSmith]

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.

MY GOD! These pictures remind me so much of Jane Birkin on this shoot! Terrific work!

 

[Huss]

 

[Huss]

 

[Huss]

 

[cedge]

Just bought an Olympus Pen F, so here is one of my first attempts at a diptych, Olympus 38mm f1.8. Jessops Pan 100s film (Obsolete and expired), developed in HC-110B (Lab Box). The digitisation process is a little challenging I feel, these two were taken side by side but so far I've found dealing with them individually yields better results but then I don't like the 'digital' join.

 

[M-88]

What's this forum's users' general opinion regarding Pen D/D2? How does the lens fare?

I used to own Pen EE-3 but neglected it most of the time because of full automation. Pen D seems to be a better option with metered manual mode and all. But sharing some first-hand experience would be appreciated. For a moment I also considered Pen/Pen S but dropped it due to the lack of light meter.

Edit: if it matters, photos from the negatives will be printed in the darkroom, no scanning and computer magic involved.

 

[xkaes]

Get a D3 instead. It has a CDS meter.

 

[M-88]

Get a D3 instead. It has a CDS meter.

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

 

[ciniframe]

What's this forum's users' general opinion regarding Pen D/D2? How does the lens fare?

I used to own Pen EE-3 but neglected it most of the time because of full automation. Pen D seems to be a better option with metered manual mode and all. But sharing some first-hand experience would be appreciated. For a moment I also considered Pen/Pen S but dropped it due to the lack of light meter.

Edit: if it matters, photos from the negatives will be printed in the darkroom, no scanning and computer magic involved.

The metering on the D models is pretty anemic. I’ve had a Pen D and the meter was dead. No loss, it was no slower to use my hand held meter, if needed.
The lens on my Pen D was excellent at 5.6 or so. Since there is no rangefinder you need to estimate distance and set focus via a scale, stopping down a bit for more DoF is your friend, especially closer than 10-12 feet. Personal preference is for the original Pen with all manual control and the 28mm f3.5 lens because the camera is so flat. That and it’s the Pen that I started out with in 1971, purchased used from Altman‘s in Chicago. Became a fan of 35mm half frame and have never been without one (or three or four) since.

edit; Speaking of darkroom and half frame, I have a 38mm f2.8 Zuiko-E enlarging lens, makes getting a fair size print a little easier than a 50mm and cranking the head through the ceiling. But, truth be told, with a postage stamp neg I generally kept prints to 6x8 on 8x10 paper. That is still a little over 8x enlargement.

 

[M-88]

The metering on the D models is pretty anemic. I’ve had a Pen D and the meter was dead. No loss, it was no slower to use my hand held meter, if needed.
The lens on my Pen D was excellent at 5.6 or so. Since there is no rangefinder you need to estimate distance and set focus via a scale, stopping down a bit for more DoF is your friend, especially closer than 10-12 feet. Personal preference is for the original Pen with all manual control and the 28mm f3.5 lens because the camera is so flat. That and it’s the Pen that I started out with in 1971, purchased used from Altman‘s in Chicago. Became a fan of 35mm half frame and have never been without one (or three or four) since.

I had EE3 in the past and its meter was performing adequate. Selenium meters always require service anywya, but I'll definitely try to get D2 instead of ordinary D, if I go down the "D" way. I am aware that D/D2/D3 is almost as big as 35RC which is a full frame rangefinder camera and so it won't be pocketable. I might consider Pen S too. Original Pens are pretty rare and expensive.

edit; Speaking of darkroom and half frame, I have a 38mm f2.8 Zuiko-E enlarging lens, makes getting a fair size print a little easier than a 50mm and cranking the head through the ceiling. But, truth be told, with a postage stamp neg I generally kept prints to 6x8 on 8x10 paper. That is still a little over 8x enlargement.

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.

 

[Roger Cole]

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!

 

[Cholentpot]

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!

The original F has the gothic F on it. It was the only way to go for me.

 

[albada]

What's this forum's users' general opinion regarding Pen D/D2? How does the lens fare?

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

 

[Les Sarile]

I had EE3 in the past and its meter was performing adequate. Selenium meters always require service anywya, but I'll definitely try to get D2 instead of ordinary D, if I go down the "D" way. I am aware that D/D2/D3 is almost as big as 35RC which is a full frame rangefinder camera and so it won't be pocketable. I might consider Pen S too. Original Pens are pretty rare and expensive.


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.

Well Olympus states that you can't tell the difference between optical prints from the hal format vs the full format printed at 3.5 X 5 . . .

PP196803057 by Les DMess, on Flickr

Of course depending on your use, you would know if you shoot 35mm full frame how big a print you would consider still good by simply cropping half the frame and printing it.