Canon Pellix

[photax]

Hi !

I found this one during the last weeks, offered at a local auction site: a Conon Pellix QL, 1:1.8/50 from ca.1966. It came with a Canon FD 135/1:3.5 and two extension tubes. The 1965 Pellix was Canon`s first TTL camera and had a fixed partly transparent mirror ( pellicle reflex mirror ). I think they are more common in the US, but they are absolute rare here…

MIK

[Deleted]

As I remember the Pellix was a horse to carry around. Very heavy and rather large. One of the more unique SLRs.

[nikonbob]

MIK

Good catch, I have never seen a Canon Pellix in my neck of the woods. IIRC Canon has re introduced this idea in one of their newer DSLRs. Sort of everything old is new again type thing.

Bob

[mickeyobe]

I just checked my Canon Pellix and Canon FTb QL on my highly unscientific kitchen scale.
They both weigh 750 grams.
I used the FTb QL for years and was never bothered by the weight.

I have heard people complain that the Pellix's viewfinder is dim.
Checked once again against the FTb there is no great discernible difference.

The Pellix is superior to the FTb for macro and long telephoto photography. No mirror shake.
Also it is not necessary to block the viewfinder when it is not against the eye. There is a dial that blocks it with a quick turn.

The through the lens metering is a slower operation but not a great drawback.

The Pellix is an exceptional camera that has received some bad press.

Mickey

[PeterW]

Mickey,

The Pellix actually received some very good press when it was first launched and Canon's press-test models were handed out. Contrary to some ideas, press-test models aren't hand built, they come off the normal production line but they're individually checked, very thoroughly.

But, in a few months, letters from owners started to come into the magazines complaining about unreliable metering and delays in putting it right.

Added to this, a few owners started to comment on the vulnerability of the pellicle. It was said that, unlike a mirror from which dust could be brushed with a soft lens brush, the same treatment scratched the surface of the pellicle. The cost of replacing it was said to be "frightening" compared to the cost of replacing a mirror and, of course, scratches weren't covered by the warranty.

Canon got the meter problem sorted out but it took time. Some owners wrote to say that light scratches on the pellicle surface made no discernable difference, but by and large the Pellix got a poor reputation. Buyers began to get very wary.

Within a year, Canon launched Pellix QL with, I believe, very reliable metering as well as the quick-load feature.

But, at the same time, Canon also launched the FT QL with a conventional mirror.

The FT also had TTL metering, albeit stopped-down, and buyers had more faith in it. It was regarded, at least in the UK, as an improved FX with the same rugged reliability. It was also cheaper than the Pellix and IMHO played a large part in killing it.

I agree that the Pellix was a very good camera with some excellent features, but I don't think a bad press killed it, unless you regard complaints in the corespondence columns as a bad press.

It was one of those cameras, and very expensive one too, in which buyers lost faith, even without trying one. They went for the FT QL instead.

Perhaps Canon should have delayed the FT until the Pellix re-established itself.

PeterW

[Just Plain Curt]

I like mine but have the Pellix QL.

[photax]

I also think that the viewfinder is not dim at all and the shutter release mechanism is almost completely vibration-free. The man who sold me the camera said, he paid more than 1.000.- USD for this outfit in the 1960`s. He was instructed then by the salesman, never to touch the mirror-foil, otherwise it would be very expensive to replace it. Now I am looking for a battery and a roll of film

MIK

[mickeyobe]

PeterW,

"I agree that the Pellix was a very good camera with some excellent features, but I don't think a bad press killed it, unless you regard complaints in the corespondence columns as a bad press."
I do.

Fortunately for me my Pellix's mirror is free of any marks and even of dust particles.
The Meter is ........ indicates time passing ........ right on when compared with my Brockway. No "bad press" from me.

MIK,

The battery is a PX625A. They are plentiful here at a chain called "The Dollar Store". If you can't find any I will be glad to mail you one. They also go under the pseudonyms of "V625U" and "PX625A-C5" and "LR9".

Butkus has the manual.

Mickey

[photax]

Mickey,

Have many thanks for the advice with the battery. We have a large electronic store here in Vienna where you can find all kind of batteries if you bring some time along. Recently I was looking for a battery fitting a 1980`s Agfa, it took me almost one hour, because there have been over 40 different designations for one type of battery...

MIK

[alanegreen]

I can confirm that there was bad press at the time concerning contamination of the pellicle affecting the iamges. This happens particularly if you are using small apertures (high f/numbers) - in this situation any particle on the pellicle casts a sharper shadow on the film. At large apertures the shadow just blurs out,