kevin m
Veteran
OK, I missed my rangefinders. 
On a whim, I bid on a "mint" Canon 50/1.2 on ebay and won, and, lo, the damned thing is actually pretty close to mint. Not a mark on the chrome, no finger cheese in the knurled focus ring, and outside of a few dust specks, the glass is gloriously clean. Man, they really DON'T make 'em like this anymore. Even Leica.
Now I need a body to mount it to. Suggestions? This is a camera/lens combo for my own pleasure, so flash considerations and even meters are not necessary. I'm leaning towards an M2, or maybe an M4-2 or M4-P because that's what I'm familiar with. (I've owned an M2, an M4-2 and four M6TTL's) I'm a little leery of the M3 and its de-cementing finder, and I know nothing of the Canon RF bodies, of which the P and the VI-T seem most attractive to me.
I'd like to spend well under a grand, (the closer to $500, the better) so that eliminates the M6's and the M4's, but I don't mind a 'project' camera that needs a CLA... Am I missing anything? Are my M3 finder fears overblown? Do the Canon RF's rival the Leica finders? Are the later Bessas better than the early ones with their 'cheese-grater' shutters?
On a whim, I bid on a "mint" Canon 50/1.2 on ebay and won, and, lo, the damned thing is actually pretty close to mint. Not a mark on the chrome, no finger cheese in the knurled focus ring, and outside of a few dust specks, the glass is gloriously clean. Man, they really DON'T make 'em like this anymore. Even Leica.
Now I need a body to mount it to. Suggestions? This is a camera/lens combo for my own pleasure, so flash considerations and even meters are not necessary. I'm leaning towards an M2, or maybe an M4-2 or M4-P because that's what I'm familiar with. (I've owned an M2, an M4-2 and four M6TTL's) I'm a little leery of the M3 and its de-cementing finder, and I know nothing of the Canon RF bodies, of which the P and the VI-T seem most attractive to me.
I'd like to spend well under a grand, (the closer to $500, the better) so that eliminates the M6's and the M4's, but I don't mind a 'project' camera that needs a CLA... Am I missing anything? Are my M3 finder fears overblown? Do the Canon RF's rival the Leica finders? Are the later Bessas better than the early ones with their 'cheese-grater' shutters?
Well, that Canon is no Noctilux....
Ok, now that I have said that, the 1.2 was introduced with the VT. It has a smaller vf though and no frame lines, but with adjustable magnifications. The P is a natural with a viewfinder which is the rival of the Leicas. A 7 is said to be good too, I have not had one of those.
Ok, now that I have said that, the 1.2 was introduced with the VT. It has a smaller vf though and no frame lines, but with adjustable magnifications. The P is a natural with a viewfinder which is the rival of the Leicas. A 7 is said to be good too, I have not had one of those.
ferider
Veteran
Congrats, Kevin. IMO, the M3 is the best match for that lens ....
Best,
Roland.
Best,
Roland.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
The canon P with its 1:1 viewfinder is perfect for LTM 50mm lenses.
Easier to load film in too.
Otherwise I'd go with an M3 or a .85 mag M6
Easier to load film in too.
Otherwise I'd go with an M3 or a .85 mag M6
Joerg
Dilettant
Clearly you needan M3!!
Ciao
joerg
Ciao
joerg
venchka
Veteran
I have a VI-T that I keep thinking I should sell. PM me if you're interested.
kevin m
Veteran
Ha! I was expecting that!
Actually, Ned's thread got me thinking about superspeed lenses and I realized I'd never owned anything faster than f1.4. The price of the Canon seems right, and I've seen some good results here, so what the heck.kevin m
Veteran
Are the Canon RF's reliable shooters? Meaning, is there a repair person who can keep them running well like Sherry Krauter or DAG can the M's?
It is a very unique lens. I will replace the one I sold some day.
kevin m said:Are the Canon RF's reliable shooters? Meaning, is there a repair person who can keep them running well like Sherry Krauter or DAG can the M's?
Yes, Essex camera, I a believe DAG works on them, KEH.
They are every bit the same quality of the Leica cameras. The P viewfinder will remind you of the M3's, though I think the others are not as like Leica. Again, I have not had a 7 which I suspsect is also very good.
vrgard
Well-known
If you aren't going to go with a matching Canon camera, then I would second Roland's and others' recommendation of an M3. Other than being careful to buy one in good condition, I wouldn't worry about the finder de-cementing. The reason why the M3 is so perfect is because of the greater viewfinder magnification that is just made for a 50mm lens plus the benefit of a slightly longer rangefinder baselength which, in combination, will make accurate focusing of your 50/1.2 that much easier. By the way, if you want to see how great that lens looks on a Leica camera you should check out the pic Keith just posted on the "show your leica M" thread.
-Randy
-Randy
kevin m
Veteran
ferider
Veteran
The Canon P is great. I liked it with the M3 better though since the
lens is pretty big and the Leica has a bit more heft to it.
Achtung, Kamera Porno !
(sold mine to Andy a few weeks back).
lens is pretty big and the Leica has a bit more heft to it.
Achtung, Kamera Porno !
(sold mine to Andy a few weeks back).
vrgard
Well-known
Yep, that's the one Kevin. As I commented on that thread, it's amazing how well all those different parts from different makers and times, and even of stylistic differences, somehow look so good together.
-Randy
-Randy
kevin m
Veteran
Man, I'm trying to stay on a budget and that ain't helpin'!
It's almost as bad as those pics I saw of Frank's M2 with the brown lizard skin! Just because the Leica has those smooth, sexy, round body corners doesn't mean it's a better shooting camera than the boxy, angular Canon, right?
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
right!
(do I have to mention the easier film loading again?)
(do I have to mention the easier film loading again?)
kevin m
Veteran
True. The Canon has a much higher quality fit and finish than I was expecting, and I think it'd look great on an early M body. I loved my VC lenses, but they never looked quite right on the early bodies...it was obvious, somehow, that they were of a different era.
Bingley
Veteran
Canon Ps and 7s are reputedly as well built as Leicas, and will cost you much less $$$ than an M3 or M2. I've had my P serviced by DAG, with excellent results, and I believe that Sherry Krauter works on Canons too. In other words, not a problem to get them serviced.
The viewfinder on the Canon 7 has a .85 magnification, with projected framelines. It has selectable framelines for 35, 50, 85/100, and 135. The 50 framelines are easy to use, and the viewfinder, if cleaned, is bright. It's a very solid camera body that would probably balance well w/ your 50/1.2. True, it doesn't have the mystique of an M3, but it's a very robust and well made camera body. The head bartender has called the 7/7s the most advanced LTM bodies ever made, FWIW.
Terao
Kiloran
The P is very robust, you really could bang nails in with it.
And simple too, not much to go wrong. Out of my two copies one has a better finder than the other (in terms of the RF patch) so I guess that's one area of concern but other than that thats it.
And simple too, not much to go wrong. Out of my two copies one has a better finder than the other (in terms of the RF patch) so I guess that's one area of concern but other than that thats it.
John Shriver
Well-known
The metal shutter in the P, 7, and 7s is rock solid. Much less finnicky than the Leica M shutter.
I'm sure the viewfinders aren't quite as nice as a Leica M, but I'm sure happy with my 7s.
I'm sure the viewfinders aren't quite as nice as a Leica M, but I'm sure happy with my 7s.