Canon LTM First roll through Canon P

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Dpingr1 said:
If you take off the lens and shine a flashlight through it, you’ll probably see a lot of haze and/or fungus and/or dirt. Those old lenses are notorious for haze (see the Bartender’s Cameraquest vintage lens pages for info on this). LTM lenses are easy to find at good prices, but haze is common in lots of the older ones. The Canon 50mm 1.8 is a very good lens that can be had for not much money, but expect haze there too. It’s just a problem with old lenses that can usually be addressed with a cleaning. Frankly, I don’t think the pictures look that bad for an untested camera and a trashed lens. Youxin Ye works on these cameras, and will be frank about whether a different camera or repair is the best path. I love my Canon P— there aren’t many cameras as gorgeous and usable.
Click to expand...

You're right. I put my phone light up through the lens and it's definitely dusty/hazy. Not terrible terrible, but certainly not helping things.

And thanks for the context. I was sad when I saw the pics, but you're right. I got a good deal on it even considering the cost of a CLA. Plus I'll have a body I know is working for a while.
 
Using old cameras 60 years old. is usually fraught with problems.
Shutter needs service and possibly has pin holes..
I purchased a 90mm Elmar, that had minimal haze but was a "dog".
I gifted it to a collector..It never once gave anything but hazy out of focus images.
Lens elements may be installed incorrectly.
A CLR for Canon P and a clean lens ought to give images you will be happy with..
 
leicapixie said:
Using old cameras 60 years old. is usually fraught with problems.
Shutter needs service and possibly has pin holes..
I purchased a 90mm Elmar, that had minimal haze but was a "dog".
I gifted it to a collector..It never once gave anything but hazy out of focus images.
Lens elements may be installed incorrectly.
A CLR for Canon P and a clean lens ought to give images you will be happy with..
Click to expand...

Compared to what I've seen on the market this body/shutter are pretty clean. So I'm hoping CLA gets shutter issue worked out.

And yeah the Elmar is an odd lens. Hoping I can get something out of it AS IS to offset a 50 or 35.
 
I think it's not related to the shutter curtains as the artifact is round and located in the center. Most shutter problems manifest in the left or right (assuming horizontal orientation) periphery of the frame.

I have a different bet: I think the round mark is parasitic light reflections bouncing off the inner lens barrel of the Elmar. I had very similar artifacts (I'll attach some samples later when I get home.) on a 85/2 lens, where the internal blacking of the barrel (not the lens glass itself) had deteriorated and stray light was bouncing off it and onto the film plane.

Luckily with some flat black paint (the flatter the better obviously) this is a relatively easy fix.

Edit: A hood would of course help as well - less stray light in less stray light out.
 
Lots of replies already.
The soft images and light areas in the center are definitely die to the lens.
The light line on the side is due to the shutter bouncing or slowing at the last moment.

Good choice on the Canon P. Excellent camera. A class will fix the problems and it will be reliable for years.

For lenses, the 1.4 Canon is perhaps the best vintage lens available. And within your budget. And it balances nice on the P.

I would pick the 1.8 Canon as a close second.
 
Second roll through Canon P!

At the advice I got in this thread, I found a new lens and had the body inspected. After a CLA (I think mostly it was the light seals) things are working good as new. Really enjoying this camera. Wanted to post a few photos from the second roll and give my thanks to those who shared their opinions. Canon 35mm f2 and Portra 400.

Canon P by twvancamp, on Flickr

Canon P by twvancamp, on Flickr

Canon P by twvancamp, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom