skip_williams

October 4, 2021

All the Pen bodies operate exactly the same with the same lenses. I have had all, and to me, the FV is the best user with the brighter finder and single-stroke operation.

Do you have some reason to need to know the exact measurements? Is there something we don’t know?

October 4, 2021

They were on the Sunny16 podcast interviewed at the Photography Show in Birmingham on last week’s episode.

November 22, 2016

Well I heard from Leica USA today. That was after I got a delivery failure to the Leica USA repair address and then sent a message to Leica AG with the same query.

A guy answered me that, as I suspected, the base unscrews. He said the mechanism is a simple wedge design. Now the challenge is how to get it unscrewed. There's only about a 1mm lip exposed to grab onto to, which probably isn't enough.

I asked him for suggestions, but I'd ask the group too.

Skip

http://www.skipwilliams.com/upload/QB220135e.jpg

http://www.skipwilliams.com/upload/QB220136e.jpg

November 21, 2016

Well I still haven't figured out how to maintain this thing and nobody yet has told me how to take it apart.

I suspect that you have to unscrew the steel base from the housing, but there's no easy way to grab hold of it.

I'm also hesitant to spray WD40 into it, because if it makes it too slippery, there's no way to clean the lubricant out.

I emailed repair@LeicaUSA and the email came back as undeliverable.

Maybe I'll try emailing Leica AG

November 15, 2016

I'm pretty sure that there is crap inside that's preventing the screw from engaging the ball properly. I'd really like to clean the thing out rather than spraying more gunk inside.

So nobody knows how to get it open?

Skip

November 14, 2016

I have one of the old, small black/chrome E.Leitz ball heads like the one below. I purchased it new in the mid-late 1970's, so it's around 35 years old.

It's gotten so stiff that it's very hard to get it to tighten up.

Does anyone know how to open them up for maintenance? And when I get it apart, what do I do?

Thanks in advance,

Skip Williams skipwilliams at pobox dot com

http://www.cccamera.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Leitz-Small-Ball-Head-Black.jpg

January 22, 2012

I agree with Ariel; it's a m43 body.

Some zealots have recently (and longingly) tried to argue that the new camera will be a full-frame digital recreation of the beloved OM-System. But where is the evidence that Olympus would try to release something of the sort? What lenses would they use on the camera? Olympus doesn't have any lenses that cover the image circle of a FF sensor. There is ZERO chance that will happen. And O also won't introduce an OM-styled body to use the 4/3 lenses. There's no market for such a beast. The 4/3 system is pretty much at an end for new, innovative products.

So the new OM-D body will almost certainly be a high-end m43 camera. It all makes sense. Capitalize on the recent success of the m43 system. The Pen bodies have been selling like hotcakes. The Fuji X Pro 1 was the darling of CES...albeit at $1600 plus lens costs. Fuji is going after the Leica wannabes who don't have $10-15k to drop on a body and two lenses. It will be a good camera, but I predict it to be another in the line of niche, high quality Fuji cameras like the XPan or Zeiss Ikon ZM from Cosina. High quality, small production.

Hopefully the OM-D, or whatever it'll be called, will really produce a pro-level body at a modest $1100 price that will grab the m43 market by the horns and run with it. I want the fast AF and in-body EVF for my uses....my E-P1 is a great camera and takes great photos....but holding that body out at arms length as my only option is really getting old.

Skip

January 18, 2012

I would expect to pay $250-350, depending on demand and condition. That's especially since 38/1.8's on FT bodies are bringing $2-300 in general.

Skip

January 17, 2012

Try this link: <a href="http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/10/02/15-useful-batch-image-processors/">15-useful-batch-image-processors</a>

September 28, 2010

AF choices are few for a fast telephoto at a reasonable price and size.

As for MF choices, I use a 40/1.4 Pen Zuiko 1/2 frame lens, which is a wonderful sharp lens for portraits. I've also tried the 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 OM-Zuikos, which are pretty good too. The 50/1.8 is supremely cheap also. Add the appropriate adapter cost, of course.

I've also put my 50/1.5 Nokton and 28/1.9 Ultron Voigtlander RF lenses on the camera to good measure.

Skip

June 29, 2010

Rear caps for Pen's have been very hard to find for many years. I once bought a couple of them off Ebay for a few dollars and found one in a bin at a camera parts show many years ago. Otherwise they're very hard to find. I guess most people just threw them away along with the harder-to-find body caps when they got their new Pen F/FT/FV camera?

Skip

March 31, 2010

John,

How can you tell it's not an F or FV?

March 29, 2010

Definitely a Pen F/FT/FV body. Besides the distinctive profile, look at the vertical film orientation...

But I'm stumped as to which actual model it is. The FT and FV were the same except for the in-finder meter. The F had no meter at all.

Skip

March 17, 2010

They work very well. These two are from an EP-1 using the 40/1.4 Pen F/FT Zuiko lens. I think the flower was around f/2 and the portrait was at f/4.

<img src="http://www.skipwilliams.com/upload/P8200181_resize.JPG" alt="" /> 1/800sec, ISO 100, no IS

<img src="http://www.skipwilliams.com/upload/P8220390_resize.JPG" alt="" /> 1/400, ISo 200, no IS

--> 100% crop <img src="http://www.skipwilliams.com/upload/P8220390-100percent.jpg" alt="" />

January 28, 2010

I had a 17mm Tamron SP Adaptall II lens for a while and it's actually very good. It has a HUGE 82mm filter size, IIRR, so it's a beast, but the lens was pretty sharp stopped down a couple of stops before diffraction becomes an issue. The advantage with the Tamron lenses is that you can buy any one you find and fit the OM adapter, which makes them easier to find. If the Tokina is an ATX lens, I'd expect it be good, but hard to find. I wouldn't touch the Spiratone. Sigma? Usually middle-of-the-road vs. the others.

The Zuiko 21/3.5 is really my first choice UWA. How can you not love that little jewel, sharp, bright, tiny. Not that much wider than a 24, though. It's not quite the equal of the 21/2, but also nowhere near as expensive or hard to find.

Skip

December 4, 2009

Your biggest issue will be the $250 budget, IMO.

For software, I can not recommend PTGui highly enough. It will do everything you want, either with a fisheye or a rectilinear lens.

Regarding the lens, you can easily use a standard wide angle that came with your camera, but you will have to take a bunch of photos, perhaps in two rows, plus a zenith shot to cover the area. Nodal point alignment may be a problem, especially for interiors. This becomes more of an issue as the subject gets closer.

You can use either a fisheye or a rectilinear lens with almost identical results. The advantage of a fisheye is less shots for each panorama. You'll probably need 6-7 shots for a fisheye, 5-6 horizontal with overlap, plus a zenith shot. One more for the nadir, if you want to deal with that. I used to do it with 5 with a circular fisheye and got very good results. More overlap is better, BTW. Don't consider the add-on fisheye adapters unless your expectations are VERY modest. You'll have to deal with a lot of distortion, but it is doable.

I'm thinking that your only real lens option anywhere close to $250 is a Peleng or similar MF 8mm fisheye. Such a lens will certainly work, but will be closer to $300 or $350, plus the cost of an adapter. The Zuiko 9-18 would also be a great choice, but is around $500. The Zuiko 8mm is a great lens, but out of that price range at around $800.

Skip

October 22, 2009

I have the wonderful UniGrip, which used to be made by www.photoequip.net. It fits the OM series very nicely, along with many other classic SLRs. They have a Nikon FM grip, which may fit the OM's, I don't know about that. I'd write to them and ask about the UniGrip, which they may be able to re-make for you. It's essentially an FM grip that has a two-way slot for the mounting screw to allow the vertical grip to match up with the body.

It's a LOT less bulky than a dead Winder 1/2, and highly recommended.

Skip

October 8, 2009

Unfortunately, it's a pretty simple answer, and one that hasn't changed since I began shooting sports in the early 1970's.

If you don't have a fast-enough shutter speed, the photos will be blurry from subject movement! THAT'S IT!

Typically for sports, the slowest viable speed is 1/60 to 1/125. If you pan with your subjects and they're moving parallel to you, it might extend down to 1/8 or 1/15, but that's a whole different type of shot and will have blurry backgrounds, if you are successful. If the action is fast, you might have to use 1/250 or 1/500 for sharp photos.

The variables you have to work with are in a DSLR, assuming a fixed shutter speed: 1. Light, 2. ISO, 3. Aperture.

1. Light - Usually ambient light at night time events stinks. At high school stadiums, it's usually very bad; each venue is different. Flash looks horrible, can be dangerous to participants, and isn't viable unless you're on the field.

2. ISO - crank it up as high as possible, understanding that the noise will get worse. It's better to have a sharp, noisy photo vs. a blurry one that is noise free.

3. Aperture - Buy more expensive lenses

In the end, most night-time sports is an exercise in frustration. I get the best stuff panning the players and being close. Otherwise it's better to just enjoy the game.

Skip

September 3, 2009

That's really an Imacon Flextight, which was merged in with Hassy a while back. VERY nice units, probably the best thing short of a drum scan They are high-end CCD scanners that work by bending the negatives into a predictable, curved path with a flexible film holder. The scanner then scans the media on it's curved path to virtually eliminate the biggest problem with scanners, film that isn't flat. The only real sure-fire way to get flat negatives is via fluid mounting or similar glass process.

IIRR, they were basically made in two versions, one which was $5-6k and one $15k. The prices have moved around over the years.

Used, I see them for $3-7k.

Skip

September 2, 2009

<< I've settled on the following 49mm filter thread lenses. 49: 21/3.5, 24/2.8, 28/2, 35/2.8, 50/1.8,, 85/2, 100/2.8, 135/3.5, 200/5 + 16/3.5>>

:-) I'd like to see how you screw in those 49mm filters on a 16/3.5! (the answer is NOT, as the bulbous front element prevents external filter use on the 16mm fisheye.)

<<The 50/1.2, unlike the 55/1.2, uses 49 mm filters.>>

Yes, you're right.....I have long since sold mine and was mistaken.

Thanks for pointing out that boo-boo

Skip

September 1, 2009

Olympus produced a lens in almost every focal length in both 49 and 55mm filter sizes. You can see that if you look at the whole lens line. That way you could assemble a set of lenses with common filter sizes, something that was a real concern back in the 70's.

49: 21/3.5, 24/2.8, 28/2.8 or 3.5, 35/2.8, 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 or 40/2, 85/2, 100/2.8, 135/3.5, 200/5

55: 21/2, 24/2, 28/2, 35/2, 50 or 55/1.2, 90 or 100/2. 135/2.8. 200/4

The 24/2.8 you already have is a superb lens, but a nice pair would be the 35/2 and a 21/3.5. I always find that you need to skip at least one step between 21/24/28/35/50/85 to get useful differences in perspective....and many schools of thought advocate a ~ doubling of focal length, which would be 21/35 or 24/50 or 21/35/85 as better sets to carry. Otherwise, I often found myself uncertain which lens to pick and swapping too much. IMO,the 21/2 is just too much money to justify, especially with the superb quality of the 21/3.5. Similarly, the 18 is just too much money for the small difference vs. the 21. Remember, ultra wide angle lenses were quite exotic back in the 70's when that lens was introduced and were very expensive. The small production numbers have kept the price high.

I too have the 90/2 and if you can deal with it's size and weight, it's the best, most versatile short telephoto that Olympus ever made, and I've had most of them. Longer, I LOVE the 135/2.8....small, light, sharp, nice bokeh. The 180/2.8 is also a nice lens, but the old, non ED design resulted in noticeable chromatic aberration and always turned me off when I had mine. I sold it for a 180/2.5 Tamron SP, which is a better performer, internal focusing, and has ED glass

Also, the 90/2 is a strange beast from all the other Zuiko lenses. The aperture ring is at the back, unlike almost all the other primes. It also feels different and the aperture ring sounds different. Surely it's a tank, but it's also very durable. Consider finding the clamp-on rubber hood, which it shares with the 135/4.5. It's also a nice lens when paired with the 65-116 Auto Tube for high magnification.

Skip

August 31, 2009

I had a 2nd Gen 85/2 for many years and I probably should have kept it. Very nice portrait lens, pretty sharp wide open, nice bokeh, small size/weight. There's nothing not to like. You could use tubes for macro, but this is not where it excels. I think it has some coma or some other aberrations on the outsides of the field, but they don't mean much in practical applications, esp for portraits.

I've still got my 90/2, and it's the only high-end Zuiko that I will probably not sell. I found it at a flea market for $450 many years ago. Heavy, with an uncharacteristic rear-mounted aperture ring. I guess they had to do that for optical reasons, but it feels very different from almost all other single focal length Zuiko lenses, as most have the aperture ring out front. It's bite-ingly sharp, much more so that the 85/2. Rendering is 3-D, almost as good as my long-gone Leica Elmarit-M 90/2.8. The macro quality is superb. I used it on the 65-116 Auto Tube for a long time to good results. Highly recommended. The hood is hard to find, but recommended, as the big front element is pretty "out there". It's the same clamp-on rubber hood as spec'd for the 135/4.5 bellows lens.

The 100/2 is more like a 90/2 that's had the macro ability cut out and made to look more like a typical Zuiko with the aperture ring out front. ED glass design, like the 90/2 makes the quality and rendering superb. I never had this one, but have NEVER heard of anybody who didn't think it was great. MUCH larger than the 85/2.

Skip

July 31, 2009

I just got an email from John Foster of Biofos informing me that Yoshihisa Maitani, the esteemed creator of the Olympus Pen and OM series of cameras had died at the age of 76.

I remember fondly reading the interviews of Y. Maitani, as he was known back in the early 1970's, when I was researching the purchase of my first OM-1 in 1974. The idea of the renegade engineer who fostered the creation of the extremely successful Pen line and then the super-small, yet durable OM line really appealed to me and was part of the reason that I bought into the system. And here I am 35 years later still an Olympus fan with my E-1, E-3 E-520, and EP-1, having stayed throughout the late 80's and 90's while Olympus screwed up the AF years and bucked the Canikon juggernaut.

Read the full notice here: http://www.biofos.com/tribute.html

Skip

July 7, 2009

I have both the 14-54 I and the 12-60 and the 14-54 has pretty much been relegated to backup duty on my IR E520.

The 12-60 focuses faster and quieter, it's got the direct-connect manual focus, it's wider (2mm is significant) and longer (not much difference there). But it's a bigger lens too and at 12mm, I have to make sure to remove the hood if the E-3's popup flash is used, otherwise it casts a pretty bad foreground shadow. The 12-60 is significantly bigger than the 14-54. You also lose 1/2 a stop at the long-end (f/3.5 vs. f/4.0)

For me the biggest advantage are the fast, quiet, direct-connect focusing and wide angle coverage.

Skip

June 24, 2009

1. Create a blank document in Photoshop of the desired size. Select background color at that time.

2. Open the 2-3 photos you want to place

3. For each photo: Ctrl-A to Select All, Ctrl-C to Copy

4. Navigate to blank document: Ctrl-V to Paste, which will create one new layer per Paste action

5. Repeat 3-4 for each.

6. Move each photo around as you like. Ctrl-T to transform each to fit (Ctrl constrains proportions). If you only want part of each, use Marquee to select what you want, Cut, then Pastel delete the unwanted parts. If you want overlaps, use the Layer pallete to reorder top/bottom ordering.

Skip

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by skip_williams