Wallace Koopmans Artlog

Will you be my BF forever?  Ah 26mm it seems at times I will use almost anything that takes a wide angle shot

“The Prima BF-10 is so compact and lightweight you won’t think twice about taking it with you, whether it’s down to the beach when you’re on holiday, or on a night out in town ” 

It’s lightweight alright  it’s all plastic even the metal bit’s are really plastic in disguise.  There are a few other things to note as well, it has the sort of distortion that would make a hipster blush and despite having some sort of coating on the lens it washes out the image if any stray light reaches the lens.  I’m embracing these characteristics and spinning them into a positive because 26mm is such a unique focal length for a point and shoot.

In my ongoing persuit of small film cameras with wide angle lenses I’ve found another, the Canon Prima Mini.  While slightly larger than the Pentax UC-1 it too has a 32mm f3.5 lens, but is it up to the task of replacing the Pentax?

While the various shooting modes of the Pentax UC-1 can be selected prior to taking a picture the limited control of the Canon must be done during the exposure.  And that control is limited to overriding the automatic control of the flash either on or off by holding down one of the two flash buttons on the side of the camera.  These buttons take a fair amount of sideways pressure which isn’t a great idea for holding things steady, besides the fact that there is no feedback from the camera as to the effect they will have.  The flash on button covers both fill, slow speed sync and red eye reduction delay override, depending on the situation but you won’t know that only the camera knows and it’s not telling.

Canon gives a specification for the lens of being 3 elements in 3 groups which to me sounds not so groupish and more 3 elmentish.  That’s a pretty simple lens but most distortion can be corrected with those three elements.

  So you can probably tell from the tone of my writing that I haven’t declared this camera to be the successor to my Pentax UC-1 and you would be right.  It did do a decent job and does have that 32mm focal length lens but it’s lack of control really limit it’s use to snap shottery.

Here are some of the images from this camera, having found out though that this camera also came in white I am sure that would be a better performing and I must seek it out (not really but I’d rather have it in white).

The Canon Sure Shot Tele of 1986 was an attempt by Canon to make a fun camera.  And by fun I mean the ability to do multiple exposures and have a built in soft focus filter, what merriment.  OK that is more than just take pictures so they should be retro-plauded (Yes I just made that up, the fun is contagious).  When I think of soft focus filters I immediately think of the 1980’s so I suppose Canon was right on the money with this one. 

The camera has an interesting lens, primarily a 40mm f2.8 and rather than an actual zoom the tele function is a secondary element group that swings into place internally to provide a 70mm f4.9 arrangement.  When this happens the front of the camera extends in a manner more reminiscent of a travel trailer room expansion than a camera lens zooming (It’s also slightly noisier).   The multiple exposure is implemented by pressing the ME button beside the lens while half pressing the shutter, now when you take the picture the film will not advance. You can repeat this procedure to get multiple multiple exposures and then when you fire the shutter without pressing the ME button the film will advance after that exposure.  Did you get that, fun yes? 

Two image multiple exposure

Now for the  coup de grâce, the soft focus filter.  This requires even more dexterity as you need to fully deploy the filter against the spring who’s sole job is to swing it back on you.  Once you have fought the filter into place you are ready to permanently obscure your subject,  in that 80’s glow.  The camera also has back-light compensation and manual flash override and the images are OK but with quite a bit of vignetting.  It’s  also very noisy in all aspects, noisy like hey look out your about to be hit by a travel trailer!  However if soft focus filters and multiple exposures are your idea of fun then this camera is for you and your big hair.

Soft Focus filter

While watching a documentary on Fred Herzog  Snapshot: The art of Photography II, a Vancouver photographer best known for his Kodachrome slides of the city during the 1950’s and ’60s, I was struck by his use of the Canon WP-1 while being interviewed on the street.  It got me to wonder why he would be using a 15 year old point and shoot camera.  Never having met him I clearly have not asked why but here are my reasons that he might choose this camera despite all the other options available.  These are not in any particular order but as they come to mind.

1.  It is weather proof (this can be an important thing in Vancouver at some times of year)

2. It has an large viewfinder with a 33mm eye-point in fact you can compose pictures with out even bring it right to your eye.

3. It has a simple control dial on the front that does all the functions in a simple arrangement (Flash Off,Flash On, OFF, Auto, Macro)  the only buttons are shutter and timer

4. It is quiet,  the shutter and film advance are on the quiet side for a point and shoot film camera likely going unnoticed on the street.

5. The Lens is 32mm which is wide but not too wide

6.  Here I may be stretching things but because of its construction the lens is completely internal allowing you to put the camera right up against glass.

That seems like plenty of reasons to me.  So with some new found interest in retrying this camera I loaded it with some film (I will refer back to this in a moment) and went out and shot a roll of 24.  And the result is that despite it’s toy like and slightly ugly appearance it functions well as a wide angle street camera with little fuss.  Now as to the film, unfortunately I shot what was film in name only.  I need to find any other rolls of this stuff and do an analogue delete on it.  I think I’m cured, for now, from my pentient for shooting with anything I find or am given.

If you’ve been waiting to find out which point and shoot camera you should have bought ten years ago, your prolonged wait is over.  PreviouslyI posted about the Canon Sure Shot Classic and the Pentax 24EW and now that I have the film back and scanned I was able to make a results comparison.  Well the Pentax wins hands down from 24 to 38mm but considering the Canon starts at 38mm that isn’t praise.  In almost ever picture under the same conditions the Canon produced a better result, both through exposure and image quality.  As I used the same sensor (Kodak 400) it really did come down to the cameras.  Here are some of the shots in a side by side.  If it’s wide you want though the Pentax is the one.

Above you can see the Pentax can get a little closer for a zoomed macro and bellow the difference between 24 and 38mm is pretty clear.

 This crop shows both cameras at there maximum zoom  120mm (Canon) vs 105mm (Pentax)

 This detail crop really shows the difference.  In all these pictures I’ve made no effort to deal with the grain of the film or optimize the images beyond trying to scan them accurately.

This just in Olympus has joined the conflict with the mju III 150 (circa 2003) with it’s 8 element ED 37.5mm to 150mm lens, stunning the competition, and again causing the Pentax to faint.

What we have here are two very good compact film cameras from that awkward time when the digital megapixel race was to get to 1.2 Million.  Digital wasn’t quite there or in the mainstream and people were still wanting to take pictures of their cats.  So If you wanted a good quality camera around the turn of last century (I always wanted to say that) these were two top choices.

They are well built cameras with very good optics.  The Pentax 24EW has a 24mm to 105mm zoom which is very wide considering most others point and shoots of the time started around 35mm.  The Canon on the other hand has a 38mm to 120mm zoom which gives a bit more reach while giving up the wide end.

One interesting feature that both cameras posses is the ability to automatically zoom to frame a portrait.  If you select this mode on either camera and then give the shutter a half press they will change the zoom setting to take a head and shoulder shot of your subject.  That may not be amazing for a digital camera but don’t forget these are film point and shoots, from the turn of the last century.

The Canon is considerably heavier than the Pentax which may be a detriment in some cases but allows it to remain standing even when fully zoomed.

You can also see in this picture that the Canon flash has popped out of it’s side bay door.  It does that when ever the camera is turned on whether needed or not.  Pentax you are now forgiven for drooping.

I recently shot a roll of Kodak 400 through each of them and should get the negatives back this week, at which time I will post the comparison results.  See isn’t film fun, the suspense is harming me severely.

Samples  –  Here are some sample images shot with the two cameras as well as with the Pentax K-7.  With the K-7 I used the FA 28-70 f4 lens at the 28mm focal length which equates to about 42mm in terms of 35mm film.  I could have used the SMC A 28mm but I wanted to have other focal lengths available when I wasn’t taking test shots. 

So what did I find.  Well they are very close in output, so much so that more difference occurs during scanning and editing than from the actual image capture.  However the Yashica did seem to get the exposure better in more cases resulting in cleaner negatives with less grain after processing.  This could simply be down to the specific cameras and batteries I have though as the cameras are now undeniably old.  So which one would I pick?  Well I do really like the ability to shoot manually with the Canon and I do like the flexibility of the shutter on the Yashica, so I have to give them both a place on the shelf.  I will definitely be trying some better film in the Yashica and it’s rarity makes it a conversation piece.  I have to say that even though I used cheap Kodak 200 I was pleased with the look of the images.  It takes some work to get the digital files to have a similar look because not all the differences between colours are equal.  I didn’t in this case make any changes to the digital files just for the comparisons.

Part Two        Part One

Operation and handling

While  these cameras where state of the art in their day, compared to a modern digital camera they are extremely simple devices.  The Canon uses a electro mechanical system to set the aperture.  It is a simple galvanometer needle that’s position is trapped when the shutter is pressed, this is then translated into an aperture through a linkage.  I found that the metering is very susceptible to underexposure due to back lighting.  With the Yashica you set the aperture and the camera sets the timing of the shutter, where one of the variables in the circuit is how much light is falling on the silicon sensor.  Beyond that they really are a lens and a system of moving the film forward.    A small but noticeable difference is in the film advance lever.  The Canon requires a longer throw of the lever while the Yashica advance is just a small flick of the thumb.  I much prefer the Yashica in this respect.  On the other hand the focus control on the Canon is superior, it includes a knob off to the left that makes focus adjustments effortless.  The Yashica’s focus however is adjusted with rubber patches around the lens barrel near to the camera body and I find that I almost have to reach around the camera to change it making it difficult to focus and shoot without a slight hand position change.  Update: A change in how I hold the camera, with my left hand underneath, has made them about equal for focusing.

  Both camera’s are rangefinders with focus patches but they appear very different in operation.  The Canon is more subtle with it’s square focus patch not impinging on the scene through the viewfinder.  The Yashica has a very contrasty diamond shaped patch that I find too intrusive but slightly easier to confirm focus with.  The Canon viewfinder is much brighter than the Yashica’s but they both have frame lines that adjust for parallax error.  They also have the exact same magnification, I verified this by holding them to my eyes at the same time,  An interesting effect of doing this is that you can see in 3D despite looking through them, a not interesting effect is that this can make you feel queasy.

So all that remains is to get my negatives back and do a comparison.  I do have a sense that the Canon metering was off in some circumstances as it seemed to be selecting too small an aperture for the conditions.  This isn’t normally a large problem though as under other conditions I would use this camera in full manual mode, which is not an option for the Yashica.

Part one

Finally the answer everyone has been waiting  35 years to have. Which is better the Canon Ql17 GIII or the Yashica Electro 35 GX?  Really no one, just me?

So you can see that they are very similarly specified with the greatest difference being that the Canon is Shutter priority and the Yashica is aperture priority.  The next phase of testing will be to run some film through each of them.  As I can’t determine precisely the shutter speed or aperature for each of them I may not record any info but just take matching pictures.

I guess this was someones idea of golden lions.  Taken with the Canon Ql17.