Canon Pellix

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I've long been curious about this camera, which I see as kind of the precursor to the new crop of mirrorless live-view "SLRs." It has a mirror of course, but a stationary one, and I've always wanted to give it a try.

But the idea that not all of the light is getting through to the film really bothers me...it's as if you've always got on a filter, one that can get quite dusty, except close enough to the film plane so that the dust actually matters.

Or perhaps I'm mistaken. Is dust a problem on the Pellix? Does the pellicle mirror reduce contrast or cause other IQ problems? Is there anyone here who uses this camera regularly and can comment on its quirks?

 

[Pickett Wilson]

The problem with the Pellix (I've owned two) is that the mirrors on most of them are no good anymore. Dust wasn't really a problem, but there is a lot of light loss through the mirror. In my opinion they are more a curiosity than a really usable camera now.

 

[pagpow]

Googling Canon Pellix Known Problems provides many hits.

Here's one:

http://photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Lg1v

Achilles' heel seems to be the mirror itself,particularly at hands of possibly uninformed prior user.

Loss of light to viewfinder can likely be addressed with faster lens -- if you want to go that way.

I had one, but on inspection, found it was water damaged -- thus can't provide user experience.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Some sports photographers liked the fact that there was no delay for a mirror to flip up, and they were more quiet than other SLR's. On the downside you lost some light both to the film and to the eyepiece. The viewing image was darker than you'd expect and you'd need to use a slower shutter speed to get enough light to the film. The Pellix was a trial baloon but there wasn't enough market for what was really a specialty camera.

 

[raid]

I have such a camera, but I have never used it. Mine is in user condition and is not a "collectible". I can see its usefulness for slow exposure shots, similar to a rangefinder camera. There is no mirror slap. Use it like a Bessa L.

 

[FA Limited]

there's also the EOS 1N RS and the EOS RT

 

[Mackinaw]

As other folks have pointed out, the weak spot of the Pellix is the mirror. After 40+ years, most mirrors are either badly scratched, yellowed or faded. If you do find one with a good mirror, a Pellix can be a fine picture taker. The viewfinder is pretty dim compared to a normal SLR (which is why a lot were sold with f1.2 lenses), but is useable outdoors in good light. They are fairly noisy though. The shutter in these things wasn't well dampened and mine has a definite metallic "twang" when fired. No doubt it's a "gee-whiz" camera, taking a picture while still seeing the subject in the SLR viewfinder is quite a hoot.

Jim B.

 

[Prosaic]

I can only speak for the EOS 1N RS which was a great camera really. I assume the Pellix is fine if you find one with a clean mirror. Otherwise any of the older Canons (FT, F1) will do.

 

[BillBingham2]

Nikon used the same technology for their high speed F/F2s motors. I held one once and loved it. Using a fast lens really did make it livable and I think it would have rocked for an event camera with flash, no mirror blackout.

Not sure if Canon used the same mirror technology as Nikon but I remember when the Pellix was for sale and have to say, it and the EF were the only to Canon bodies I though were cool.

B2 (;->