Critique Welcomed Going to FTL

[Bill Watts]

A photograph taken with Olympus' forgotten 35mm SLR.

In the late 1960's Olympus decided that they needed a full frame 35mm SLR in their range. Famously, Mr Maitani was tasked with the development of such a camera after his success with the critically acclaimed and very popular PEN series of cameras.

However, things were not going quite to plan and corporate judgement, being somewhat equivocal, decided to back a second horse. A camera design was "bought in" and a camera system was built about this new body comprising a range of 6 lenses, slide copier, bellows, viewfinder attachments, an electronic flash unit and a reversing ring. Not a large system but a system nonetheless.

This camera, the Olympus FTL was launched in 1971 and was a quality, well built camera manufactured by Olympus, as were the lenses, with an additional selling point. The lenses, although M42 mount, featured a locating and locking pin which ensured the lens was always mounted in exactly the same position allowing a mechanical actuator attached to the aperture ring to engage with a slot in the camera which was connected to the built in light meter allowing open aperture light metering for the first time in a 35mm camera.

The 6 lenses in the FTL system are the only M42 mount lenses made by Olympus.

In February 1972, whatever production issues that had delayed the release of the Olympus M-1 (Later to be called OM-1) had been cleared and the M-1 was marketed with a larger range of accessories and lenses. The camera was less bulky than the FTL, which was not that much bigger than the M-1 but noticeably so. On release of the M-1 Olympus ceased marketing the FTL and all its system components and they were sold off at marked down prices on the instruction of Olympus. At this point the FTL had been marketed for only 7 months, possibly the shortest model run of any camera!

Photo below taken with my FTL.

Camera: Olympus FTL
Lens: Zuiko 50mm, f1.8
Exposure details: f11, 1/125s
Film: Ilford FP4+, ISO125. Dev Ilford Ilfotec DD-X
Scanner: Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV @ 3200DPI 24bit colour
Software: VueScan 9 Pro.






Sharpness and contrast pretty much as I would expect from a Zuiko lens.

 

[Gianluca Drago]

Well chosen subject and well composed. Textural. Wanting to edit it in post, I probably would have cropped it to the left eliminating the sky and contrasted it more. But I think digitally, I apologize.

 

[Brian Moore]

Interesting history.

 

[Bill Watts]

Well chosen subject and well composed. Textural. Wanting to edit it in post, I probably would have cropped it to the left eliminating the sky and contrasted it more. But I think digitally, I apologize.

Thank you for your comment. Digital or analogue doesn't matter it's all about composition.

 

[Tony Warren]

The history and detail are interesting. I believe Olympus were quite pragmatic business wise, I believe the Trip was contracted out. And the FTL design was bought in then. I saw the M-1 when it first came out and in fact I once had a brochure from before Leica spoiled things for them. The FTL certainly took the M42 screw mount to a more advanced level like the Pentacan Super did even more so.

 

[Bill Watts]

The history and detail are interesting. I believe Olympus were quite pragmatic business wise, I believe the Trip was contracted out. And the FTL design was bought in then. I saw the M-1 when it first came out and in fact I once had a brochure from before Leica spoiled things for them. The FTL certainly took the M42 screw mount to a more advanced level like the Pentacan Super did even more so.

Actually the Pentacon "Electric" series of lenses was probably a better solution, the contact pads on the Pentacon lens that connect the internal resistance to the camera meter are fairly large and guaranteed to line up with the contacts in the camera irrespective of the final screwed on position of the lens, the Olympus system relied on exact location of the lens relative to the mechanical connection on the body.

It always surprised me how the Leica rangefinders with screw mounts did not suffer from misalignment of the cam and follower as it relies on the lens being screwed in to exactly the same place every time. Screw threads are notoriously bad at location! As an engineer, some form of positive location is a must where accurate transfer of position is required.

 

[Tony Warren]

Actually the Pentacon "Electric" series of lenses was probably a better solution, the contact pads on the Pentacon lens that connect the internal resistance to the camera meter are fairly large and guaranteed to line up with the contacts in the camera irrespective of the final screwed on position of the lens, the Olympus system relied on exact location of the lens relative to the mechanical connection on the body.

It always surprised me how the Leica rangefinders with screw mounts did not suffer from misalignment of the cam and follower as it relies on the lens being screwed in to exactly the same place every time. Screw threads are notoriously bad at location! As an engineer, some form of positive location is a must where accurate transfer of position is required.

The Pentacon Electric was a more foolproof system but surely could have produced less than exact registration. Possibly didn't matter too much and relied on dof even at full aperture. That clearly bothered Leitz though - their screw alignment takes precision to a new level to ensure accurate positioning of the cam follower and precise registration.

 

[Bill Watts]

The Pentacon Electric was a more foolproof system but surely could have produced less than exact registration. Possibly didn't matter too much and relied on dof even at full aperture. That clearly bothered Leitz though - their screw alignment takes precision to a new level to ensure accurate positioning of the cam follower and precise registration.

The sizing of the contact pads on the "electric" lenses is so large in comparison to the contact area on the camera that they are guaranteed to line up and connect, remember they are transferring an electrical signal not a mechanical movement.

WRT the Leica screw mount lenses, even if they are finely adjusted, the final position of the lens is going to vary depending on how much torque was applied when the lens was screwed on and the ambient temperature. I have a Leica IIIf and it amazes me how the rangefinder remains stable using this connection - of course the DOF does contribute to negating the error, but there will be a small error every time.