Talk:Canon Pellix

Re. Cannon Pellix edit 18 September 2009:

There is surprisingly little difference with respect to noise and vibration between firing for example Cannon Pellix and Cannon Ftb, and the shutter vibration would in any case be much the same. Certainly, the Pellix has no mirror vibration. The fact that the shutter employs metal curtains is relevant, and removing it is degrading the content of the article.

The pellicle mirror is the key factor enabling Canon to accomplish the TTL feature, this fact should not be suppressed. The Canon Pellix may be a clever construction, but hardly elegant, the mirror being in the light pass during exposure and degrading the resultant image, and even more so as it is degraded over time. There is hardly any Pellix in usable condition around with its original pellicle mirror. This is much more serious fault than the mirror vibration in any comparable Canon SLR.

The light loss is in the region one third stop, which hardly qualify for a major disadvantage description.

This article is written in British English, an acceptable alternative language at Camerapedia.

With respect, Jan

I owned a Pellix along with with an FTb and F-1. Although I no longer have the Pellix, I recall (as Jan states) that there was very little difference in noise between the Pellix and the FT series. Most of the noise involved is a result of the shutter mechanism. I suppose the article should point out that the pellicle in this camera was not made of glass, though I don;t recall Canon ever mentioning what material they used in the membrane (as they referred to it.) Whatever it was, it deteriorated relatively quickly. They learned this lesson well: the other Canon pellicle equipped cameras (various F-1s, and the EOS RT) all used very thin glass for the pellicle.

Huffy