SLR's for Luddites (OR How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Both of My Cameras Equ

Nikon RF <-> Nikon SLR
Leica RF <-> Leica SLR
Canon RF <-> Canon SLR
Retina RF <-> Retina SLR
Konica RF <-> Konica SLR
Cosina (made) RF <-> Argus/Cosina SLR
Polaroid RF <-> Polaroid SLR (whew. Nikki's favorite camera)
Contax RF <-> Sold the Contaflex.
Minolta RF <-> Sold the SRT201. Can't win them all.
Voigtlander Vitessa T <-> Would not mind a Bessaflex.
Yashica Electro RF <-> The Right Yashica TL Electro-X has not come along yet.

Instamatic RF <-> Instamatic Reflex.

I think that is all. The Retina RF's and SLR's are the most compatible. The SLR lenses RF couple on the IIIS.
 
Last edited:
Not much dogma here, from what I see. I like my RF because I can slip it in to my overcoat pocket (with lens collapsed) and not look like a hunch-something. My M series Pentax with the 40/2.8 pancake can only come sort of close, so the RF is whaat I have with me.

Still, I shoot about a roll a week per camera.
 
I've always wondered about the Pellix. If it has a fixed, semi-transparent mirror, the marked shutter speeds cannot be the real ones because that would lead to under-exposure. It follows that the Pellix will give more shake and blur than other cameras at the same marked shutter speeds.

"Miniscule" does not exist: "minuscule" does.
 
An interesting thread. One of the things that I have enjoyed about the forum is the lack of dogmatism; the belief, or perhaps more correctly the lack thereof, that that the only way to nirvana or the great CPE2 processor in the sky is through fervently clutching a Leica look alike. Most of my own rangefinders purport to come from a distinctly atheistic pedigree, and I therefore really wonder if "halide" is the death of the computer in Arthur C Clark's "2001"; or perhaps it is just a question of one's viewpoint rather than belief which is where this thread started.
 
> I've always wondered about the Pellix

I'll double-check the Pellix meter against my other cameras. I suspect that it is the Pellix meter that accounts for the 30% light loss through the beamsplitter. That would explain why the readings it gives seem so "over-exposed" to me, but the exposure is correct on the film. What I typically do is open up the lens a bit more, not decrease the shutter speed.

Overall, the moise level and shake is about the same as the Canon 7. As their is no VF blackout, it is easier to hold steady during long exposures- similar to an RF.

I do not have the manual, but the operator could have been instructed to use a compensation factor when using an external meter, as would be done using filters.

The down-side of the Pellix is separation on the Pellicle mirror. Unlike other cameras, it shows up on the film. I looked for a good Pellix for 15 years before stumbling across one with a perfect mirror. Same antique store case as the Nikon M.
 
Last edited:
payasam said:
I've always wondered about the Pellix. If it has a fixed, semi-transparent mirror, the marked shutter speeds cannot be the real ones because that would lead to under-exposure. It follows that the Pellix will give more shake and blur than other cameras at the same marked shutter speeds.

"Miniscule" does not exist: "minuscule" does.
Click to expand...

Would the give less camera shake as the mirror do not move, like the effect of MLU?
 
Less shake, great take.

That was the point of the Canon Pellix. Later cameras using Pellicle mirrors did so to increase firing rate with motor drives. The original Nikon F high speed camera used a Pellicle mirror, as did the F2 High-Speed and F3 High-speed.

The Canon Pellix never took a motor, and the fixed mirror was to reduce shake/prevent blackout. Canon was the last major Japanese manufacturer to stop making high-end interchangeable-lens RF's. Maybe the Pellix was made to satisfy the last of the Canon RF die-hards.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
The down-side of the Pellix is separation on the Pellicle mirror. Unlike other cameras, it shows up on the film. I looked for a good Pellix for 15 years before stumbling across one with a perfect mirror. Same antique store case as the Nikon M.
Click to expand...

Brian Sweeney said:
The Canon Pellix never took a motor, and the fixed mirror was to reduce shake/prevent blackout. Canon was the last major Japanese manufacturer to stop making high-end interchangeable-lens RF's. Maybe the Pellix was made to satisfy the last of the Canon RF die-hards.
Click to expand...

Everything ages, including us, if the pellicle mirror was made as a consumable (expensive consumable?), it would solve the problems of marking the film due to the aging of the mirror.

Brain, how do the Pellix goes like?
 
Last edited:
Brian Sweeney said:
Less shake, great take.

That was the point of the Canon Pellix. Later cameras using Pellicle mirrors did so to increase firing rate with motor drives. The original Nikon F high speed camera used a Pellicle mirror, as did the F2 High-Speed and F3 High-speed.

The Canon Pellix never took a motor, and the fixed mirror was to reduce shake/prevent blackout. Canon was the last major Japanese manufacturer to stop making high-end interchangeable-lens RF's. Maybe the Pellix was made to satisfy the last of the Canon RF die-hards.
Click to expand...


This Pellicle mirror with 20/1000mm ultra-thin, vapor-deposited Mylar film left one question unanswered for me, up 'til today and I never got any information about it : In which way did it alter the result itself compared to a shot with the same lens in a swing mirror camera ? I mean the "mirror" ate 30% of the light, and what else did eat ? Contrast, resolution too?
I suppose it to be a compromise, justified by the possibility to get up to 9 frames per second but was it acceptable for an amateur camera too? Just to avoid the blackout ? The fact that it did not survive let's me assume there have been strong disadvantages ?
The high speed Canon machines were sold to some professionals in Germany, but
AFAIK the Pellix camera wasn't sold ever in Germany, I never had one in my hands.

regards,
Bertram
 
The results that I got with the Pellix appeared crisp and sharp; I used it with the 50mm F1.4 and 58mm F1.2 that I also use on the Canon F1. Nothing jumped out of the 5x7's at me to say "OOOhhh Nooo. Pellicle mirror", seemed perfectly sharp. I've handled at least 5 pellix's before this one, looking for one with a clean mirror. I saw some pretty ugly ones, lousy view through the VF means lousy pictures.

With only 30% of the light going to the viewfinder, it is darker than the Canon F1 with the same lens. Stick that F1.2 lens on it, and it's as bright as a Nikkormat with an F1.4.

Sound-wise, the Pellix is about like my Canon 7. Of course the lens is auto-aperture, closes down only for the picture. When you fire the shot, the VF darkens during the exposure. Over in a fraction of a second, but still confuses the brain used to EITHER an RF with unimpaired view OR a mirror flipping up- and usually back down, unless I am using a Retina Reflex.


SOOOO.... Any Luddite's going to get their Big Brothers PELLIX FIXED!!!
 
Last edited:
Yay, I'm glad to have seemingly started a small-scale mental revival of the Pellix's attributes. It was the first camera I worked with, so I just assumed (when I was 14) that ALL cameras were as easy and fun to use.

BTW, as for everyone's sharpness/contrast/brightness questions, I took my Pellix all over LA and Europe and got great results in medium to bright light, sometimes very sharp, which tells me now I had a nicer lens than I thought. In low light, it was a much different story - kinda weird extra grainy/splotchy regardless of the speed of film I used - though it seemed to do fine with images that included both bright and low light in adjacent areas.

I agree with whoever in the thread said that the Pellix wasn't a true SLR in the traditional sense, just like my Rollei B35 and Contax G1 aren't "pure" rangefinders in the traditional sense. I think it just comes down to which ever cameras fits a person's idiosyncratic needs (which, of course, for some of us, change daily!).
 
There are modern SLRs with pellicle mirrors, so I hear... Canon EOS RT and EOS 1n RS, and Nikon F3H... I thought I'd heard one of the recent dSLRs had a pellicle mirror too...
 
That's correct, Doug, about those pellicle SLRs. Anybody know how much they typically cost? I didn't find any on KEH or eBay this week when I checked. Did find a few not-really-operating Pellix's...
 
The Canon EOS RT can be found for a reasonable amount. My (late) next door neighbor used one with a 1000mm lens for nature photography. He would have preferred the original. He told me that the modern one still had some moving mirror for the AF mechanism.

The Nikon High Speed cameras go for many thousands of dollars. I was lucky to find my Canon Pellix in an antique shop for $90 with the F1.4 lens and case, EX+ condition. Did not find a Nikon H.S. camera, but did find two Nikon M's and a few Nikkor RF lenses with it.
 
msakamoto said:
That's correct, Doug, about those pellicle SLRs. Anybody know how much they typically cost? I didn't find any on KEH or eBay this week when I checked. Did find a few not-really-operating Pellix's...
Click to expand...

EOS 1 RS, saw a used one in Hong Kong, about $8.5k, that's about $1.1k USD...

Cheers






Will
 
Brian, what you say about the meter compensating for the light which does not reach the film makes sense. The shutter noise of the Pellix and the 7 would be the same, assuming that the same shutter -- or the same type of shutter -- is used in both. I have found, though, that RF Leicas, screw or M, are no safer than Canon SLRs (FTb and EF) down to 1/8 or 1/4 sec. with normal or wide lenses. Will report back after trying a few 20-minute hand-held exposures.

Msakamoto, any camera which has a single lens to carry light to both eye and film is a true reflex: traditional, contemporary or futuristic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom