First roll through Canon P

[twvancamp]

I just scanned the first roll I've put through my new Canon P. I've been shooting with fixed lens rangefinders for a while, but this is my first proper RF and I wasn't super happy with the results.

There are several variables, and I am hoping to get others' opinions to see how I can get the most out of this camera.

I got a few good shots, but most came out like these.

Possible issues I can think of are:
- my own exposure. This is my first time shooting without a dedicated meter and I may have just been way off.
- the lens. Body came with a pretty beat up Elmar 9cm f3.5 that might have some issues. Could this lead to the haze in the center of some of these?
- issue with camera. Mechanics seem good but maybe there is something off with the shutter. Or light seals?
- some combination of the above, or something else entirely.

Appreciate any thoughts. I've seen great images come from this camera so I am hoping it is something I can learn to work with!

 

[lukx]

I think there is either light leaking into your camera or the shutter curtains are not synchronized very well. My bet is on the body.

 

[DHK]

Tape up the whole thing then shoot a few shots, remove some tape, shoot more, etc.

 

[twvancamp]

Thanks for the replies. I did the rough shutter test with that app that checks the speed. Not sure how accurate that is, but it suggested all the speeds were at least a few stops off.

If it is light leak, where would it be coming in? The door hinge? Doesn't seem like it has seals (like a modern SLR or something would).

 

[wwfloyd]

That consistently hazy center reminds me of something I've seen a few times on digital SLRs. Some lenses that were developed before digital, paired with early sensors, could pick up reflection off the sensor, reflected back to the rear element, and back to the sensor. This came up when I would occasionally get that effect with 70-200mm f4L on the Canon D2000 (Kodak DCS520), at some zoom and aperture combo.

With that in mind maybe it's a coating issue on the rear element, or, the lens, generally. Or... some funky film stock that's highly reflective?

 

[DHK]

That consistently hazy center reminds me of something I've seen a few times on digital SLRs. Some lenses that were developed before digital, paired with early sensors, could pick up reflection off the sensor, reflected back to the rear element, and back to the sensor. This came up when I would occasionally get that effect with 70-200mm f4L on the Canon D2000 (Kodak DCS520), at some zoom and aperture combo.

With that in mind maybe it's a coating issue on the rear element, or, the lens, generally. Or... some funky film stock that's highly reflective?

The “round” artifact in the center is one thing- there’s also a vertical line on the right side of some. Probably all the same problem but maybe two unrelated issues?

 

[retinax]

The “round” artifact in the center is one thing- there’s also a vertical line on the right side of some. Probably all the same problem but maybe two unrelated issues?

Yes, the line on the edge looks like a "normal" light leak, something to be expected in old cameras, you'll need to renew the door light seals.

The flare in the center looks like it is caused by the lens. Does it have haze? If yes, return it if you weren't told, unless you got a very good price and want to risk it. It can be clean-able or not.

anyway, how were they scanned? Might the scanning method have induced the flare? Please post pictures of the negatives taken with a digital camera/phone.

 

[twvancamp]

Yes, the line on the edge looks like a "normal" light leak, something to be expected in old cameras, you'll need to renew the door light seals.

The flare in the center looks like it is caused by the lens. Does it have haze? If yes, return it if you weren't told, unless you got a very good price and want to risk it. It can be clean-able or not.

anyway, how were they scanned? Might the scanning method have induced the flare? Please post pictures of the negatives taken with a digital camera/phone.

I'm starting to feel like it's a combo of a lens issue and shutter/light seals on the body.

I got a good enough deal I'm not worried about the lens, as I wasn't planning to keep it anyway. But it's made me more wary of the lenses I'm looking at online. This one looks fine to the eye, but it must have some issues.

I scan on an epson v600. I'm no genius at it but have scanned this same film stock countless times and never had issues like this.

Sending body off for CLA and asking them to check shutter speed, light seals, etc. Hoping that and a new lens gets me on the right track.

All that said, if anyone has a 35 or 50mm LTM lens they aren't using let me know! Aiming for something in good shape under $250. Has been harder to find than I'd anticipated. And thanks again for the thoughts. Have learned so much in this forum.

 

[DHK]

For the lens check out sheuido on eBay. I got a “light cleaning marks” canon 50 1.8 for around $120. I can’t see any marks.

Also could it be partially development? I found I was rushing fixer and wash and I’d get whitish artifacts not exactly but someways similar to what you have.

 

[nzeeman]

both leaks are from the front-they would be orange is from back side.. vertical one is on the right side so probably second curtain jams for a moment before fully finishing its trip and lead to overexposure... and center one -could be some internal reflection maybe -is anything scratched inside camera chamber or some scratches on lens barel inside?

 

[nzeeman]

All that said, if anyone has a 35 or 50mm LTM lens they aren't using let me know! Aiming for something in good shape under $250. Has been harder to find than I'd anticipated. And thanks again for the thoughts. Have learned so much in this forum.

i have many russian lenses if you need-industar 22, industar 61, jupiter 8 and jupiter 12 but silver version-i dont know if it fits canon p-i can try on mine ...

 

[twvancamp]

For the lens check out sheuido on eBay. I got a “light cleaning marks” canon 50 1.8 for around $120. I can’t see any marks.

Thanks for the tip, they've got a lot of clean looking options!

 

[twvancamp]

both leaks are from the front-they would be orange is from back side.. vertical one is on the right side so probably second curtain jams for a moment before fully finishing its trip and lead to overexposure... and center one -could be some internal reflection maybe -is anything scratched inside camera chamber or some scratches on lens barel inside?

Wow I never knew that about the different colors. I think it must be a curtain issue. There's a bad sound when you advance the film so maybe the whole system needs cleaned out. Inside of chamber looks clean.

The lens, I'm not sure. It looks relatively clean to my eye but I might be missing something.

 

[twvancamp]

i have many russian lenses if you need-industar 22, industar 61, jupiter 8 and jupiter 12 but silver version-i dont know if it fits canon p-i can try on mine ...

Thanks for the offer. I had been looking at Jupiter 8's but got mixed feedback on whether the older version would work on the P. Plus how do you feel they stack up to a Canon 1.4?

My goal was to get one really strong lens and just make this my everyday camera. So I'm happy to pay more for the Canon if the results are noticeably above the Jupiter.

 

[Dan Daniel]

The bright edge on the right side is probably shutter curtain hanging up, as mentioned already. The hinge area that needs foam is on the opposite side from this bright area.

The glow in the center reminds me of a Jupiter 12. I assume that it is from the lens- nothing in a focal plane shutter camera to lead to this effect?

Other unevenness makes me think that the shutter travel is erratic. Probably either bone dry or gummed up and hanging in variable ways.

 

[twvancamp]

The bright edge on the right side is probably shutter curtain hanging up, as mentioned already. The hinge area that needs foam is on the opposite side from this bright area.

The glow in the center reminds me of a Jupiter 12. I assume that it is from the lens- nothing in a focal plane shutter camera to lead to this effect?

Other unevenness makes me think that the shutter travel is erratic. Probably either bone dry or gummed up and hanging in variable ways.

That's useful--the lens is a Elmar 9cm 3.5 and pretty rough for wear. Plan is to move the lens out and CLA the body. Really hoping that gets things right because I love the design and feel of this camera.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Thanks for the offer. I had been looking at Jupiter 8's but got mixed feedback on whether the older version would work on the P. Plus how do you feel they stack up to a Canon 1.4?

My goal was to get one really strong lens and just make this my everyday camera. So I'm happy to pay more for the Canon if the results are noticeably above the Jupiter.

The Jupiter 8 fits the P. It is the Jupiter 12 that has the bulbous rear element. I have a black 1987 Jupiter 12 that fits my P.

I started with a Jupiter 8 and 12. Went to Canon 35mm f/1.8 and Canon 50mm f/1.8 black. Both are excellent lenses. But low contrast all in all. I like this and wanted this, but if you want more pop the 35mm f/2 or the 50mm f/1.4 are probably better choices. The Jupiter 8 is an excellent lens, by the way.

See how the 35mm frame lines work for you. I wear glasses and have somewhat deep set eyes so it takes effort to see the 35mm lines. I'm comfortable with this, but if you want breathing room around the lines you might stick with a 50.


And agreed, the P has a nice feel. I never thought about one until I had a chance to play with one for a few days. Sweet solid compact camera. Just does what it is supposed to do, nothing more (well, it isn't supposed to have erratic and uneven exposures all the time).

 

[Dpingr1]

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.

 

[twvancamp]

The Jupiter 8 fits the P. It is the Jupiter 12 that has the bulbous rear element. I have a black 1987 Jupiter 12 that fits my P.

I started with a Jupiter 8 and 12. Went to Canon 35mm f/1.8 and Canon 50mm f/1.8 black. Both are excellent lenses. But low contrast all in all. I like this and wanted this, but if you want more pop the 35mm f/2 or the 50mm f/1.4 are probably better choices. The Jupiter 8 is an excellent lens, by the way.

See how the 35mm frame lines work for you. I wear glasses and have somewhat deep set eyes so it takes effort to see the 35mm lines. I'm comfortable with this, but if you want breathing room around the lines you might stick with a 50.


And agreed, the P has a nice feel. I never thought about one until I had a chance to play with one for a few days. Sweet solid compact camera. Just does what it is supposed to do, nothing more (well, it isn't supposed to have erratic and uneven exposures all the time).

Great points. I aim for heavy contrast and the Jupiter shots I've seen, while plenty sharp for me, are as you say on the flatter side.

No glasses so I like the 35 lines, but all the Canon 35's I've seen have been ~$75-100 more than comparable condition 50's. I'm already at the end of my budget with the 1.4 so I think that's where I'll land.

 

[Dpingr1]

Oh, and another rangefinder thing: the longer the lens, the harder it is to nail focus, especially handheld and at large apertures. One of the many fine reasons that so many RF shooters like 35mm lenses!