Who Likes Olympus Half-Frame SLRs?

[alanrockwood]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone measured the width and length of the Pen F/FT half frame image? I mean measured accurately with a caliper? I measured the full frame dimensions on one of my Canon Rebel film cameras, and it came out 23.9 x 35.9 mm, give or take a few hundredths of a mm. It would be interesting to know the accurate numbers for a good half frame camera.

Just for fun, I calculated the diagonal dimension for full frame and half frame if one were to crop to an 8x10 aspect ratio with minimal cropping loss. I assumed that full frame was 24x36mm and half frame was 18x24mm. The diagonal for cropped full frame came out to be 38.419mm and the half frame came out 28.814. The half frame diagonal came out to be 75.0% that of the full frame diagonal. For the uncropped diagonals the ratio came out to be a little less at 69.3%.

75% linear scaling going to half frame (for an 8x10 print) compared to full frame doesn't sound too bad to me. 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+.

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?

 

[M-88]

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?

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.

As for colour film, I don't print that with enlarger and there are no drum scanners in my country, so difference in quality between full frame and half frame becomes obvious. I'm pretty sure that the bottleneck is actually a scanner, not a film and not a lens. As Donald has pointed out on previous page, film has come a long way since 1960s, its quality is higher and grain is smoother than what it used to be.

 

[brbo]

Whad'ya think?

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).

I only did one side-by-side shot, but my take is that even with 3 stops faster film FF is comfortably better than HF. Of course, there could be manny other things in play (focusing wide angle lens on a HF SLR, no tripod...). Also, scans were not done at optimal aperture for highest sharpness at that resolution (4000dpi), but with one step larger aperture to get grain in check on my scanner.

Scans on a decent 4000dpi desktop CCD scanner with light sharpening shows much less difference.

HF:


FF:


(click on image for full resolution)

 

[Dan Fromm]

Responding to the discussion's title, rather than to recent posts.

In early 1970 I was looking into 35 mm SLRs, found the Pen FT appealing. Until I read the users' manual. The camera has an uncoupled light meter. Using it is too convoluted for words. I ran away screaming, ended up with a Nikkormat FTn. Heavier, not as pretty, but much faster working and easier to use.

 

[brbo]

And nowadays we replace the semi-mirror of the FT with regular mirror for brighter viewfinder so the FT is transformed into a more expensive FV.

 

[Donald Qualls]

ended up with a Nikkormat FTn

I've got an FT2 and I love it. I never thought I needed a Nikon until I found out they had wide-open TTL metering while everyone else was still doing stop-down. Glass isn't cheap like M42, but still not as bad as Leitz or Zeiss rangefinder lenses because Nikon sold cameras with compatible mounts for decades.

 

[brbo]

Anybody know what's the original lens hood for the Zuiko Auto-W 20/3.5 lens?

S-45?

 

[Cholentpot]

EE-3, V3 250D

Pen F, Kodak 200

 

[brbo]

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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

Isn't that lens designed for use with a bellows only? If so, there probably wasn't a hood for it.

 

[brbo]

No.

 

[MattKing]

Oops - that is the OM version - not the half frame version - sorry.

 

[xkaes]

But you can use it on a Pen F.

 

[xkaes]

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?

Thrown in a more modern lens (designs & coatings), and I'd say it's a winner.

 

[alanrockwood]

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?

 

[brbo]

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?

A typo, of course. It should be (rounded to nearest tenth) 17.1x23.8mm. Sorry.

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

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!)



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.

 

[Cholentpot]

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 333322 View attachment 333323 View attachment 333324 View attachment 333325 View attachment 333326 View attachment 333327 View attachment 333328 View 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.

I've also found Double-X to be very good through my half-frames.

 

[xkaes]

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.

I had never thought of the half-frame as being a "winner" because of its inherent bracketing ability, but that's a good point. And the pictures above show that half-frame can produce great results. But the main reason for my Pen Ft cameras is because I can use all my other lenses on it with an adapter. I can get super high resolution results with Agfapan 25, or more atmospheric results with Kodak 2485.

If I were to get a fixed lens version, it would be the EE-3

 

[r_a_feldman]

This post is in regards to the OP of this thread, Dr. Chris Moss. I haven’t seen any posts from him recently. Anyone know if he is OK?

 

[Neil Morgan]

Pen FT with Kodak vision 250D

 

[quilts]

I've owned an Olympus Pen FT for the last sixth or so months now and I love it. I mainly shoot Sunny 16 with it, but mine still has a working meter and I use it with an MR-9 battery adapter to double check my exposures here and there. I haven't found it too difficult to use at all, but I understand how it may not be some people's cup of tea. I mainly pair it with the 38mm pancake lens and it really makes this almost a "pocket camera" that I can take anywhere.

I'll have to post some pictures I've taken soon soon!

 

[Cholentpot]

Pen F, Vision 3 500T @iso50

 

[brbo]

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...

 

[Cholentpot]

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...

Mistake. I mislabeled a batch as 50D and then over exposed it a stop. So I really shot this stuff around ISO25. I'd say it's pretty amazing stuff. I have no clue how old my 500T is at this point. But I consider it ISO neutral until about ISO2000. Just shoot the roll and something will come out.