|
Post by barbarian on Feb 27, 2020 20:48:31 GMT -5
I found this today at a flea market. I guess it's an F, no self-timer. Shutter speeds seem fine. No lens, though. There's a tube on the front with a connection to the PC socket, which terminates inside the tube. First question is: "what is that tube?" Second question is: "where's the best place to find a lens for this?" My wife loves her Olympus digital cameras, and she fell in love with this one. She's never really used film, and it might be interesting to see how she does with this one. Any information would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by barbarian on Feb 27, 2020 21:58:20 GMT -5
Just realized this one cocks the shutter and advances film with a single stroke, not two strokes. I thought the F used one stroke to cock the shutter, and another to advance the film.
|
|
|
Post by belgiumreporter on Feb 28, 2020 4:50:10 GMT -5
Looks a lot like the fiberscope adapter...My pen F both arms the shutter and advances the film in one stroke. Lenses can be found on the usual Ebay and second hand sites (not cheap though!)
|
|
|
Post by barbarian on Feb 29, 2020 1:10:21 GMT -5
Thanks for your help. It's apparently not one made by Olympus, so probably not of much value. I'm looking for a reasonably priced lens.
I do appreciate your input.
|
|
|
Post by belgiumreporter on Feb 29, 2020 5:09:08 GMT -5
Thanks for your help. It's apparently not one made by Olympus, so probably not of much value. I'm looking for a reasonably priced lens. I do appreciate your input. The fiberoptic adapter isn't worth much indeed (price range +-25$ for an original olympus) It would have been a lot more interesting if the endoscope or fiber optics would have come along in the deal but these are mostly kept in a seperate case. You're lucky though as the F youv'e got isn't the "medical" F wich hasn't got the self timer and metering, making it less usable for everyday shooting.The lens situation is a bit of a problem as they are scavenged from the "old" bodies to start a new life on digital (wich tends to get the prices up).
|
|
|
Post by barbarian on Feb 29, 2020 19:43:34 GMT -5
This doesn't have a self-timer, and it doesn't have a meter. So maybe it is the medical version? McKeown's doesn't seem to agree with what I'm seeing on this camera. Apparently the meter for the F was a clip-on device that fit over the shutter speed dial.
|
|
|
Post by barbarian on Mar 1, 2020 19:16:19 GMT -5
Yep. Medical Pen F. Round view in the finder, with crosshair reticle. Might be challenging. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by John Farrell on Mar 2, 2020 0:29:26 GMT -5
You might find this interesting - part of an Amateur Photographer article by Ivor Matanle, from 2003
|
|
|
Post by barbarian on Mar 13, 2020 19:35:22 GMT -5
Yes, that helps. Thank you. I just got a lens for it, and while the focusing is a bit difficult, it does work. I know a place that could replace the screen, if one is available. I'm buying some film next week and having a go at it. Garland Camera in Garland Tx, now develops film and digitizes it as part of the service. So I'll post some shots when I get that done. The lens is a very nice 40mm 1.4 that cost me more than the camera did, but I can't find a flaw on it.
|
|
|
Post by barbarian on May 1, 2020 16:35:18 GMT -5
Turned in my film today. Garland Camera promptly developed and digitized the pictures. Here's one I just got finished: I'm going to have to relearn how to use a totally manual camera. I might get the viewing screen replaced; the microscope reticle is not very easy to get focus on.
|
|
|
Post by barbarian on May 1, 2020 19:59:29 GMT -5
These are rather low-resolution scans; anyone know a convenient way to get better scans for half-frame negatives?
|
|
|
Post by belgiumreporter on May 2, 2020 7:51:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by barbarian on May 2, 2020 11:09:17 GMT -5
I think your idea is the best way to go. I'm going to put something together and try it.
|
|
|
Post by lesdmess on May 16, 2020 12:35:08 GMT -5
These are rather low-resolution scans; anyone know a convenient way to get better scans for half-frame negatives? I use the nikon PB4 bellows in combination with the PS-4 slide copy attachement and an old micro nikkor on the D800, but i guess any make of bellows with slide copy attachement will work. I don't bother anymore with my minolta slide scanner nor the epson film scanner (though this can be used for large format film). The resolution of the D800 is higher than the resolution of 35mm film, the setup allows for fast working, a lot faster than any scanner with equal or better results.The set is very verstatile and allows for copying the full frame or enlarged parts of the frame. I believe these days there's even a much simpeker solution with the Nikon ES-2 Digitizer attachement. haven't tried it but as my set up works fine i don't think i need it. Below some slides from a 1977 performance my friends and i did (those where the days ) copied with this set up. As i focussed on the grain of the film, it becomes clear the shots aren't that sharp. I used my Coolscan 5000 to scan my half frame shots from my FT. It will scan two frames at a time. That the resolution of D800 (36MP) is higher then film probably is too broad a generalization. I can understand this opinion as I recall when the 3MP Canon D30 was introduced some pro said that it outresolves Imacon scanned 35mm Fuji Provia. Below I used my Pentax K20D(14MP) a D800 compared to my 4000dpi Coolscan on 35mm Kodak Techpan shot @ ISO25 and processed in Technidol of 12233 resolutionn chart taken with my manual focus Pentax LX and SMC Pentax M 50mm f4 macro under ideal conditions. Full res version -> Kodak Techpan 04-27 scan compareCrops on th left shows the full test target shot and 100% crops of the center from each scan. The large image on the right is a 100% of the center area using optical magnification with my K20D + autobellows. In this optical magnification, you can clearly see there is much more real detail unresolved using the D800 or Coolscan 4000dpi. Clearly the D800 cannot fully resolve this 35mm film therefore it's resolution is not higher then film. Interesting is that although the D800 creates more pixels then the Coolscan's 4000dpi, you can see that they are very similar in actual resolution achieved. BTW those are really cool vintage shots of slides! It is too bad that DSLR scanning does not have ICE - dust and scratch removal. Of course with higher res the dust and scratches become more evident leaving you with much post work. Below is a particularly dusty Kodachrome from the 60s that show D800 scanning compared to Coolscan's ICE - dust removal. This post work will easily exceed the Coolscan's scan time of about 50 seconds per frame. I know what you mean about poor focus because this Kodachrome slide was one of many I scanned on my Coolscan for a customer and all of his shots were out of focus. I had to prove to him it wasn't my Coolscan but that his slides were all out of focus using a 40X loupe. He couldn't believe it as he had previously projected them and thought they were all critically focused. Also, converting DSLR scans of color negatives is another problem altogether. Post work converting these to positives will be far more then the scan time. And even then it will not match the Coolscan+Nikonscan's quality. I've seen other's workflow and they are many minutes long per frame. I've tried a few myself and even with the Coolscan results as reference, I just can't see spending the time to work on each and every frame. And then you have to cleanup dust and scratches. This one of Kodak 160VC. BTW, the Olympus F series had adapters to use practically all brands of lenses long before todays digitals were even concieved. This is helpful as their native lenses are pretty pricey. I use a Nikon adapter on mine so I could use all my Nikon lens and accessories.
|
|