Picked up a Canon Pellix

<p>I was at the Michigan Photographic Historical Society's annual show yestreday and purchased a Canon Pellix with the 50mm 1.4 FL lens for all of 10 dollars. I have always been curious about that camera, and could not believe that I found one so cheaply. The cover for the battery compartment was missing, so I temporarily used the one from my Canon FT, put in a hearing aid battery, and the meter sprang to life! The camera seems to work fine, so I will give it a tryout this week. With a little cleaning, it will look pretty good, and I'll post an image. The one thing that is initially apparent to me is the dimness of the viewfinder in low light. I can see why a 1.4 lens would be useful. Of course, the other thing - if there is any gunk on the mirror, I would imagine that it would degrade the image. The mirror looks pretty good on this camera, though.<br>

Has anyone on here shot with a Pellix, and if so, what are your thoughts on the camera? </p>

<p>I've shot with the Pellix. It was my father's first SLR. The meter did not work in mine, and I had not discovered Sunny 16 yet so I just used whatever exposure setting came to mind.<br>

You're right about the viewfinder being dim, mostly due to the fact that only a limited percentage of light is actually being reflected into the prism. Also, the silvering on the prism tends to degrade over time, so you might get some gunk on the prism. Finally, the mirror itself is very delicate, thinner than FD mirrors to allow light to pass through. So cleaning the mirror is not advisable.<br>

Mine also had a problem with the shutter - at 250 and beyond the second curtain would start to close too soon.<br>

It is an interesting camera though (no viewfinder blackout or mirror slap!) and like most Canons of that era, solidly built. I just think it was an innovative yet not very practical design. If I recall correctly one of the EOS 1 series cameras is also a fixed pellicle design, which makes sense given that it's targeted at sports photographers. Not sure why it made sense to sell a fixed-pellicle camera to the consumer market.</p>

<p>I'm not sure why my post appeared twice, but the server seemed to be timing out. Anyhow, I agree with your observations. It was an interesting experiment, made at a time when Canon seemed to be trying out a lot of departures from the old Canonflex series, and while a rather bold move on their part, it's obvious why it was a short-lived model. I know someone that had the EOS pellix model, and when it worked he enjoyed using it.</p>

<p>The Pellix was fairly expensive and many were sold with f/1.2 lenses to brighten up the finder. I wonder whether anyone has tried to remove the mirror from a non-working EOS RT and transplant it into a Pellix or Pellix QL. </p>

<p>I wonder if beam splitter glass from eg. Edmund Scientific could be used to repalce a bad pellicle mirror!</p>

<p>FYI : New replacement Pellix mirrors are available on Ebay for $54 if yours is defective.</p>

<p>A bargain and an historically significant (if not immediately successful) step in camera development.<br>

Looking forward to seeing some pictures taken with it and pictures of the camera and mirror etc. of course. ;)</p>

<p>I have 2 Pellix QLs and both of the meters still work. Solidly built and works great with the FL lenses (I use the superb f1.2 on my other FD bodies). This was Canon's top-of the-line model before the FTb was released. Interesting design but this camera was an engineering solution in search of a problem. The disadvantages of a dim prism were exacerbated with stop-down metering. All this just to avoid image black-out when shooting at speed? I would also not recommend cleaning the mirror -- it' a dust magnet and very delicate. And why buy a replacement mirror when you can pick up a replacement camera, for say, $10?</p>

<p>I would gladly pay $10 for the camera if only for hysterical porpoises. When I was in Vietnam in 1966, they were available at the PX for around $100 with maybe a 50mm f/1.8 lens. Back then I didn't know an f stop from a door stop, and based on many people's solid endorsements, I bought a Konica auto S2 for $35. I had a friend in our detachment who was planning on becoming a professional photographer, and he had bought a Topcon Super D and a Pellix. In his opinion, the Topcon was the best 35mm camera alive.</p>

<p>Still, the Pellix was a good looking camera and an admirable new concept. It would have been more effective if it didn't require stop down. Just before I left 'nam there was a sale on Canon FT-QLs at the PX, $65 for a new one with case and a 50mm f/1.8 lens. The sale was because they were all <em><strong>defective</strong></em> according to the manager. I bought one and discovered the defect to be that somehow they were all delivered with with the mirror locked up. Still have both cameras and they still work fine.</p>

<p>Hey, Steve, always nice to meet a Kennedy. Are you Irish, Scottish, or Scots-Irish? I guess I am the latter since my father was born in Scotland and his father was born in County Cork. I am married to an Irish Catholic, and I started out Presbyterian (Kirk of Scotland) but being a lover of all thing classic, I switched to Druid.</p>

Here's my Pellix page, which includes a 1968 Pop Photo review:

 

http://basepath.com/Photography/Pellix.php

 

--Marc

<p>Marc - Thanks for that link to your page. The idea of totally disassembling a camera down to the last screw is frightening and hilarious at the same time. "Dear Canon: We are returning the test camera that you lent us for the article. All parts are there, and we assume your competent factory workers can put it all back together. Signed, Pop Photo."</p>

<p>My camera is not the QL version, and the serial no. is 129548</p>

<p>From an engineering standpoint, Canon has always been more of an innovator than a copycat. Sometimes this has taken them in directions that were dead ends or which seemed strange until viewed in hindsight. Each generation of Canon cameras have what I consider to be their "technology demonstrator." For the FL generation, it's the Pellix.</p>

<p>In his Canon SLR monograph, Peter Dechert stated that, in the 1960s, Canon was in trouble financially and that the possibility of their going under as a company was real. While the Pellix had its flaws, it did give a boost to Canon's reputation, as well as to sales of the f/1.2 normal lenses and the FT-QL. Their experience with pellicle mirrors led to the high-speed F-1 introduced at the 1972 Olympics. I suspect that Canon lost money on the HS F-1, but reaped huge benefits with respect to its status among professional photographers.</p>

<p>Canon describes the pellicle mirror as a delicate "20/1000mm ultra-thin, vapor-deposited Mylar film." I have made attempts to clean the mirrors in my Pellixes without damaging any of them, but with only minimal success. Using cotton swabs, denatured alcohol, Windex, lens tissue (wrapped around the tip of a clean cotton swab) and a very delicate touch, removing dust and dirt is not a problem. However, the pellicles can sometimes become discolored, taking on a yellowish stain which I have not had any success removing. I've also cleaned the back of the pellicles by locking the shutter open at the bulb setting. If you aren't willing to assume the risk or if you're a klutz, I'd recommend that you send your Pellix to a qualified repair person for a CLA.</p>

<p>Mark, note that the Canon Booster Meter is not compatible with your non-QL Pellix, should the thought ever occur.</p>

<p>Thanks, Gordon. Yes, the mirror is a bit dirty and I may just leave it alone. First I need to repair the light seals on the back, and then I'll run some Tri-X through it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here is the camera!<br>

<a title="Canon Pellix by mfophotos, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4144/5100851595_59248eeeca_z.jpg" alt="Canon Pellix" width="640" height="426" /></a></p>

<p>Nice camera, Mark. Interestingly, this is the only Canon camera I know of from the all-manual era that featured the name of the camera on the prism rather than the Canon logo. I guess they really wanted to highlight their newest innovation. Anyway, all this talk about the Pellix has made me nostalgic -- I think I'll have to pull out my Pellix this weekend and take her for a spin...</p>