The CANONFLEX - Using Canon's First SLR from 1959
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ธ.ค. 2023
- #filmphotography #filmcamera #35mm #vintagecamera #camerareview #canon #canonphotography #berrycollege #1959
Today we take a look back at Canon's very first SLR and take it on a shoot to Berry College in Rome, Georgia. Released in 1959 and only produced for one year, it features a unique film winding system that may - or may not - have been its Achilles' Heel. Still, I think it's a very clever system.
I find your TH-cam Chanel quite interesting, not too many TH-camrs take the time to produce lenghty video on camera that are not the most popular or the most well known and you go into a lot or details on those and give a good test by shooting many photos, you obviously know your camera world quite well. It makes your videos quite interesting. Please keep up the good work, I really enjoy your videos
Thanks so much! There are a lot of rather “unknown” cameras out there - many that were historically significant in the development of technologies that we enjoy in cameras today. And I enjoy giving them their day! Thanks for watching!
It's good to see camera manufacturers trying out new ideas, even if they're ultimately unsuccessful. Just copying other camera designs leads to stagnation. The hinged film back on this camera and the centered tripod socket on later cameras were great improvements over the earlier Leica designs.
The hinged back is absolutely a plus for this camera. And the placement of the shutter release is more comfortable than that on the Nikon F. I just wish there were more lens choices for it. They had a 100mm F2 that I’d love to get my hands on if I could find one I could afford, lol.
You are good at without using tripod; I can’t do that. And all vertical and horizontal lines are right on the money with no need of perspective control lens and grid focusing screen. Composition is amazing as usual. That’s a gift. 🎉
Thanks so much! I used to not pay too much attention to the verticals until I started using large format. Now I always do when it comes to architecture. It also helped on this shoot to only have the 50mm lens. Was easier to keep everything straight and plumb.
What little film I shoot these days is 120, but you make me want to acquire a Canonflex. Thanks for the history lesson.
Thanks for tuning in! It’s not a bad little camera at all.
I enjoyed the video. Killer photos!
I think you had a fantastic problem and perhaps you would consider it again. The problem? Only having a 50mm lens. How many people have an SLR and the only lens they have is a “nifty fifty”?
You demonstrated how to get great photos with only one lens. Walk around, get closer, back up, change the angle, change the light and you will have great photographs while only using one lens.
Great reminder and a better tutorial on the good ol’ 50mm.
Thanks! Yes, I did feel a bit handicapped by only the one lens. But one thing I’ve noticed over the last several years about the way I shoot (and regardless of the format) is that maybe 80% is taken with a “normal” lens. Now, I’m the first to admit that I don’t believe a system is complete without a wide and short tele. So I make sure I have those. But I’m reaching for the 50 most of the time. That being said, I’ve got a 35mm 2.5 for this camera in my current ebay watchlist. That, unfortunately, is the widest offered for this early Canon system.
But I think you’re right. Restricting yourself to one focal length is a fantastic self-assignment in “seeing”.
Lovely shots, what a campus to shoot, thankx for your video ! I am after this camera for some time but they are hard to find for a good price now. I like the fact that you don't just present the camera but take it out to shoot as well.
Thank you! Yes, I don’t think you learn anything worthwhile from a camera review if you don’t actually show it in use - with all the good and bad experiences. Because those experiences are what will really matter in the long run. As for the Canonflex, I got lucky when I found this one. It was not under-priced, but still reasonable. Lately, I see more of the R2000 versions out there, for more money of course. My biggest gripe regarding the camera is just the lack of a decent wide angle like a 28mm. I think 35mm is the widest I’ve seen, and it would’ve been good to have it on this shoot. But this is really a cool camera - and I really like the winding system. If you pick one up, you’ll enjoy it I think.
The Canonflex is pretty cool! the winder makes sense in use. Looking forward to the next one.
It is! And the winder is pretty cool, I have to admit.
I've never used a power winder or drive! But marketing is, what it is!
I used one all the time for sports/action photography. That would be a hard subject to shoot without one.
I am used to cameras with greater bodies because the ring finger and the small finger of the right hand dont like moving arount beneath the camera body. So I have bought winders, motordrives or battery grips for all my cameras, even if I dont use them for film winding. The handling of a camera especially with a bigger lens is much better. The power winder A for the AE-1 and AE1 Program for example even if not working because of sold out repair parts does a good job. For example I use the original Canon grip extension on my EOS RP, although it has no battery inside (but you can change battery and card without dismounting the grip, what you have to do if you buy a third party battery grip.)
That's an interesting camera and despite the double edged sword of that winder, it really does appeal as a walk-a-bout piece. I'm from the UK so very jealous of your ability to shoot at that campus. I was so glad that you took the shots that you did.
I think it would be great for that use. I’d probably pick up the 35mm 2.5 for that as well. And I still might :-)
Hi from the UK. I'm a new subscriber to your channel. Your videos are very well presented and knowledgeable; I look forward to seeing more in the future. Many thanks for reviewing this rare and much-maligned camera. I have the R2000 version and despite its quirks, am glad it's in my collection. It seems in those days, design choices were not standardised as we see today eg: top mounted lever wind; crank handle on rewind; top mounted shutter release etc. Yes, the Nikon F brought all that together in 1959 but prior to that, every major manufacturer had their own "solution". That's why I find pre-1960s cameras so interesting to own and use. From the video, you clearly had no problem using the pre-set aperture feature of the Canomatic R lens (the only feature I dislike) and the camera looks to be in MINT minus condition judging by the chrome finish. Anyway, thanks again for showing this; your user comments "in the field" are priceless. Keep up the excellent work.
Welcome aboard! And thanks for watching. And I agree that the pre-60s cameras are some of the most interesting out there, because - as you said - standardization hadn’t really happened yet. Other than those few quirks, using this camera is not all that different from one from the early-70s. I did get lucky to find such a clean example of this one, though. Bought it from another collector who prided himself in not having junky cameras. This may be the one I’m most proud of owning, tbh. Cheers!
Excellent review. Some superb pictures taken. As a big Canon rangefinder user, the Canonflex was for me a missed opportunity in terms of looks in comparison. The VT ( trigger advance rangefinders ) whilst interesting were never as popular as the VL ( levers) versions. Also the lack of a hot/cold shoe ! which was similar to the Canon 7 was a poor decision by the designers when signed off.
Thank you! I’m wondering if manufacturers just didn’t foresee how useful a cold shoe would be for accessories? Just about every camera I have from this period - and even up through the mid-60s only offered a cold-shoe as an add-on attachment.
Hello, since the mid 40s nearly all Canon cameras had a shoe on the top, but for mounting auxiliary viewfinders, not flashes. On later cameras, especially SLR, when the extra finder was obsolete, one used the shoe for mounting flashligths or strobes. The dimensions were the same. Canon built and used the shoe on the prism since the models FX and FP (1964) for mounting flashes, since the model FTb it was a hot shoe.
Since 1951 nearly all Canon cameras had a side rail to mount flashlights. The user of bulb flashes could mount these flashes on a connector on the left side , using the rim round the sync contact.
The same connection was used by the Canonflex cameras (1959-1963) to mount a flash shoe via an adaptor, that Canon produced since the mid 50s.
(The original Canon F-1 from 1971/1976 also lacked the hot shoe on the removable prism, but they sold three different adaptors to mount and connect flashes either on top of the rewind crank housing or on top of the prism. The New F-1 from 1981 had three finders with hot shoe and two more finders (chimney, magnifier) without shoe.) @@vintagecameradigest
Yay T-Max! Canon's 35mm tilt and shift would have been ideal! Yay Canon!!!
Alas, my last two rolls of T-Max 100… I think I’ll pick up a 100’ roll of Delta 100 next. Been a while since I’ve shot that in 35mm. A PC lens would indeed be nice for this. But none was available for these early Canons. I should’ve made it clearer in the video that these early breech-lock lenses are different than the FL-type that would come a few years later. The aperture linkages are completely different. So these lenses are Canon-R mount. And they only fit the Canonflex, Canonflex R2000, Canonflex RP, and the RM. The Canon FX was the first camera to use the more compatible FL mount.
Hi, thats a great video showing the Canonflex in action. I want to add, that it is no problem to use a shift lens with the Canonflex. Since the Canon TS 35 mm Tilt & Shift lens has no linkage or levers for actuating aperture blades (it is used manually stopped down) the TS lens shurely works with every Canon SLR camera between Canonflex and T90 (T60).
I think the Canonflex is very useful for using TS lenses because the second finder for the first two Flex models was a finder with a magnifier. Unfortunately the Canonflex screen is not as bright as those in later cameras. Of course you have to change the results of the light metering when exceeding several degrees of tilting and/or shifting. The manual for the TS lens helps.
If you ask me, how to use a shift lens, that needs most the time a tripod to fine tune the picture: The TS was sold with an adaptor tripod J (around 30 mm in heigth) that may give room beetween camera and tripod. Or you try to find the camera Holder R that was built to use the Canonflex with film winding on a tripod. But attention: There are several R models on the market, the R-4 for example is for the Canonflex RM, which has a thumb lever.@@vintagecameradigest
Thanks for introducing me to a camera I didn't even know about. The only problem with this and all your videos is it immediately gets me searching on eBay to buy another film camera!
Ha hah! I do what I can. I wish I could get some kickback from eBay lol! Thanks for your continued support of this channel!
Always nice images on your site! I love architectural subjects. Beautiful stonework structures worthy of a roll of film! And like many others here, I knew nothing about this Canon.
1. Curious about the College Campus. Did you obtain permission prior to shooting? Otherwise, did you have any encounters with Security?
2. Your shots were all at the Sunny 16 EV plus 1/3 stop darker, due to the early camera's shutter speeds. Curious how the negatives turned out. Did you brighten the images in post at all? The reason I ask is that I have always found Sunny 16 to produce darker, thinner negatives. I think I'm closer to a Sunny 11 shooter!
3. Since it was an open, bright sunny day, with stable lighting conditions, it looks like you could have taken one EV reading, or even guessed at the Sunny 16 exposure, and shot everything without re-metering. Again, curious as to any reason you had for re-metering? I guess one good reason being that if you have a meter, why not use it!
Ah yes….all good questions.
1. When you arrive at Berry College, you will be stopped at the gatehouse and they will scan your driver’s license and record you as a visitor. It is quite a well-photographed place and a huge campus - many thousands of acres. So they’re probably used to visitors with cameras. That being said, I wouldn’t barge into any of the buildings. But outdoor shots don’t seem to be an issue any time I’ve been there. I am glad they’re keeping track of visitors, though.
2. I’m definitely a Sunny-11 shooter, lol. That old rule is a good starting point, I think. But there are too many slight variations in the lighting as it changes direction for me to trust it completely. However, it did work for a good number of the shots - 1/500 at f/8 seemed to be my favorite. For these rolls, I processed in stock D-76 with no dilution. Negatives came out perfect. So, this suggests that the previous owner of this camera had it serviced at some point in the last 20 yrs. It is in fine shape.
3. I had a meter, so why not use it. :-) Really, though, I guess that’s partly true. One part being that I don’t trust Sunny-16 completely, another part is me just being compulsive. And another part is that I’m used to using my spotmeter and getting readings that I don’t expect. For example, when I’m using the Minolta Spotmeter, I usually meter two points - the brightest area, and the darkest area - and the meter will average those to give me an exposure that will keep them in their correct zones. What I’ve seen is that in some instances where you’d expect Sunny-16 to work, I’d be getting readings of maybe f/8 or even f/5.6, depending on how far the darkest and lightest areas are apart from each other. I think this suggests that Sunny-16 is great for getting the highlights correct, but depending on how deep the shadows are in the scene, maybe not so useful in retaining detail in them. I’m always willing to err toward the overexposure side if it means that I can get suitable shadow detail.
I’m going to put an episode together soon about metering. Since there are several different approaches which may or may not give you the same results.
Thanks for the questions, and many thanks for continuing to support this channel!
I am not a huge black and white fan.. I like it some instances but I would have not picked black and white for that place.. Those browns and tans and whites and the blue sky would have looked amazing with a soft Portra line.. Probably Portra 160 so I could have more control over the lens because it was quite bright in most areas.. Thanks for the great videos and I hope you go back and shoot that area in color :).
I think you are correct on the film choice. I love black & white, but this would’ve been amazing in color. And that can be my inspiration to return and hope for another perfect day!
I’m using a Canon F-1n or an A-1 SLR alternatively. Sometimes a point and shoot Canon Sure Shot film 🎞️ camera (from the 80s). 🍾🥂
Good to hear from you again! Those cameras are great, indeed. I favor my first-gen F-1 over my A-1. I’ve never gotten used to the interface of the A-1, but it’s a solid performer. I’d like to get my hands on a New F-1 😁.
What an interesting camera. I recon these days there is so much options that you might find a small arca swiss plate that would fit the camera. I have few tiny ones myself. Any change of doing dedicated videos on your lightmeters too sometime?
I have a rather small ball-head that I just tried. The winder clears the plate by about 3mm. So, yep, that would be an option. Also, I’m definitely working on an episode about metering. Probably cover all of them together and discuss how/when I use each one.
Ricoh made several bottom cocking cameras back then and there were others but they might have been Ricoh made, too.
Yes, I think I’ve seen those. Not a bad idea, as I said. And it works really well, I think. Just limits the ability to add a winder.
Yes, indeed, I've seen them too. The bottom wind on the Canonflex works well, but only if you do not want to focus at the same time. It is ok if you are using snapshot technique at for example f 8 with depht of field from 15 feet to infinity or 8 to 15 feet (reading from a 50 mm lens).
The original Canon bottom wind (called rapid wind) was introduced by Canon six or seven years earlier together with the rangefinder model IVSb2 I presume (its to late now to go downstairs into the library ;-). The winding lever moves in a slot and is pulled back by a spring, while the canonflex wind uses a kind of crank.
In those days 1952/53/54 most cameras still had a simple knob to wind the film, not a thumb lever. So the rapid winder accessory added onto the bottom of the camera instead of the original bottom plate was a good solution to take more pictures in a given time, for example at sports events. Several Canon models of the IV, V and VI series have built in or accessory bottom winding.
The accessory seems to be a copy of the Leica winding system Leicavit (2 pics per second) for the Leica IIIc-IIIg (what I do not own).
Interesting camera. I think judging tripods by today's tripods it wouldn't work well. The average prosumer tripod by Leitz had a small mounting head. It most likely worked fine.
Yes, you’re probably right about that. I actually have a tripod with a mini ball-head that works perfectly with it.
I didn't know this one yet, it seems like a very nice camera. It's a shame that some really nice cameras weren't commercially successful just because they didn't have a motor winding coupling (like the Minolta xk/xm for example)
It’s a very nice camera. I just didn’t hold up against the Nikon F. After 17000 units they came out with the R2000. Same camera as this one, but with the added 1/2000 shutter speed. And that apparently didn’t go anywhere either. I’d love to know what price point they were asking for this. That could’ve been a contributing factor also.
@@vintagecameradigest good point, money is always a dealbreaker
Exactly. And now I’m gonna have to find out what the list price was. I wanna know.
@@vintagecameradigest 🙂
Hi, after todays currency exchange the original Canonflex costs 398,65 USD if bought new in Japan, after the exchange factor of 1959 it was 160,65 USD. The Canonflex R 2000 costs 408,70 USD or 164,70 USD back in 1959.@@vintagecameradigest