Canon LTM Canon 7 - user comments?

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
dreilly said:
I was complaining about the P--and I have used a Leica IIIf, Fed 2, and a Minolta 35--all of which were horrible in the squinty department. The P is glorious by comparison, and I really enjoyed using it. It's not bad, just not 7 good. If I didn't wear glasses, the P would work totally fine for me. Though I couldn't see the 35 lines even without glasses, using the edge of the visible field for me was a close enough approximation. But without glasses, I can't see anything anyway, which made it kind of like using an FSU or a Barnack Leica!
Click to expand...

The P is so beautiful, I got contact lenses to use it with.
 
Krosya said:
Thank you everyone! I think I'll give Canon 7 a try. Seems like a very worthy camera.
Click to expand...

That it is. Here's a shot for you...

2262385470_f02362fbae_o.jpg
 
FWIW - The 7 has become my 'carry-in-the-car' camera since Eddy rebuilt it.
Admittedly, it's 'back-heavy' with the CV 35, but it's terrific with the long Nikkor. On the the other hand, the P is the beauty contest winner. Never fails to ellicit bystander comments like, "Wow, now THAT"S a CAMERA!"
 
Last edited:
I would say the eye relief of the canon 7 even beats the M7. I find all Leicas squinty (when are they going to learn from Zeiss??) . But the rangefinder patch of M7 is certainly better with clear definition. In terms of use, the canon 7 is fast, reliable and built like a tank. If you find one with an unwrinkled shutter, it whispers. But it is in the viewfinder (though less bright than a P) where it really shines.
 
I own several RF cameras. My Canon 7 is very robust and reliable camera. The rangefinder patch is not too contrasted, in respect to my Leica M2/M3 or my Leica IIIf, but is pretty usable too, and accurate. Whit CV Ultron 35/1.7 or Apo Lanthar 90/3.5, as Leitz Summitar 50/2 or Nikkor LTM 85/2, the pictures are always excellent. The Canon 7 is a very good photographic tool, very fine to use and highly reccommendable.
Ciao.
Vincenzo
 
The rangefinder of the Leica M cameras was originally unique in having a sharp edge to the rangefinder patch. But that's what makes the Leica rangefinder design so complicated and expensive. No other rangefinders put an extra internal "in focus" point in the rangefinder to put in a mask to give the RF patch a sharp edge. Of course this was protected by patents for many years.

The new Zeiss Ikon camera has the same overall RF design, and I guess the Konica Hexar RF does as well.

There's a lot less optics if you let the RF patch be fuzzy edged.
 
20 years ago I had a 7 with 1.2/50mm, now I have a 7s(Z) with 0.95/50mm + 2/100mm. There is no big difference between the 2 models. Theoretically the CDS meter should be better than the selenium one but a 1.35V battery is hard to find and expensive. Big, heavy and not so beautiful cameras in comparison with a postwar Contax (or an M Leica), but very, very good and reliable workhorses. P. Dechert (Canon RF Cameras, p. 200) doesn't like the 1.2/50mm. My estimation is that among typical circumstances (i. e. aperture 5.6) it is far better than the so-called dream lens. The last one is good wide open for soft portraiture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom