Canonet 28 & Kodak Elite Chrome 200

[schrackman]

These are the first pictures from this newly acquired camera, and are not quite what I had hoped for. I am certainly disappointed; however, I need to figure out just why they did not turn out as good as they should if I decide to use it again.

It could be that the Canonet 28 and its lens, being the cheaper version of the Canonet series, does not put out the kind of quality that my GIII produces. Of this I'm pretty sure, but to what extent....? It seems to lack quite a bit of depth that I normally get from the GIII.

It could be that the film was expired, as quite a few photos did appear to have that degraded look when I scanned them. I did a quick buy at a CVS in San Clemente and didn't bother to check the expiry date. My bad. To boot, I've never liked 200 speed film but this appeared to be the only "decent" film at the store.

Also, the meter does not work on this camera. Or at least not with the new replacement wein air cell battery that I bought. Consequently, I had to meter using my XTi.

Whichever the case, I'm not in a hurry to put another roll of film through it. I'd rather just keep shooting through my trusty GIII. Anyhow, here's a few pics from the roll. Will post a few more later tonight.

[Greg McCary]

Nice pictures Ray. I always had pretty good luck with 200 in my Rebel 2000.

[schrackman]

Thanks, Greg.

However, I've noticed that even with my GIII 200 speed film doesn't give me satisfactory results. 100 or 400 has worked well. Haven't tried 800 yet.

Anyhoo, here's a few more from the roll. The first one I think is my favorite because of the lighting.

[another view]

Could be a problem with the film or the processing, but I'll bet not. I've shot that film a few times although it's been years, and it wasn't anywhere near as good as Elite Chrome 100. Kodak shouldn't even have called it the same thing! FWIW, their Ektachrome 200 is horrible (pro film) and Elite 200 is probably a little better.