simonSE15
Established
hello,
I am considering buying an M2 but I can buy a Canon 7 or P and lens (or 2) for the same money.
anyone care to give pros & cons for either Canon or Leica?
I suspect the sensible answer is to get the Canon, which I will then ignore!
tia
I am considering buying an M2 but I can buy a Canon 7 or P and lens (or 2) for the same money.
anyone care to give pros & cons for either Canon or Leica?
I suspect the sensible answer is to get the Canon, which I will then ignore!
tia
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I have used the P and the M2. The P is a great camera--it's almost as nice as the M2. It's the same size, and is easier to load. But the finder isn't nearly as good and is more prone to flare. The P is smooth, but the M2 is REALLY smooth. I ended up selling my P when I got my M2.
And, most importantly, you can use screwmount lenses on the M2, but you can't use M lenses on the Canon.
I haven't used a 7, but I've never heard anyone say it's nicer to use than the M2 or the P. I'd say M2.
And, most importantly, you can use screwmount lenses on the M2, but you can't use M lenses on the Canon.
I haven't used a 7, but I've never heard anyone say it's nicer to use than the M2 or the P. I'd say M2.
VictorM.
Well-known
I have owned a Canon P and Leica M2-the Leica finder makes the M2 the best choice because only one frame is visible at a time.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Go for the M2.
you will have the best of the best, and I am a fan and user of the Canon P and 7
you will have the best of the best, and I am a fan and user of the Canon P and 7
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
I use an M2, but that does not say that the P and the 7 are in any way inferior instruments. Let your budget and your preferences guide you.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Contrary to the prevailing wisdom here. I'd say get the Canon P.
The finder is not *that* cluttered. And the 1:1 aspect is quite pleasant - especially if you use 50mm lenses. I've also never noticed it to flare.
The "normal" loading of the P is a huge boon over the M2 - especially since you won't need a takeup spool (if you get an M2-R, this is less of an issue obviously).
The metal shutter means you don't have to worry as much about burning a pinhole in it accidentally. The modern film counter can't be accidentally forgotten.
Body build and ergonomics are every bit the equal of the Leica. Maybe not quite as smooth - but as you said, you get a lens with it for the same price. And quite honestly, as much as I am annoyed that I can't use M lenses, There are some real sleeper gems in the LTM lines to be found.
Now - if you were asking about the M4, then all bets are off. The M4 is at least as good, if not better shooter, especially if you are a big 35/28 user. But compared to the M2, i'd give the edge to the Canon P.
The finder is not *that* cluttered. And the 1:1 aspect is quite pleasant - especially if you use 50mm lenses. I've also never noticed it to flare.
The "normal" loading of the P is a huge boon over the M2 - especially since you won't need a takeup spool (if you get an M2-R, this is less of an issue obviously).
The metal shutter means you don't have to worry as much about burning a pinhole in it accidentally. The modern film counter can't be accidentally forgotten.
Body build and ergonomics are every bit the equal of the Leica. Maybe not quite as smooth - but as you said, you get a lens with it for the same price. And quite honestly, as much as I am annoyed that I can't use M lenses, There are some real sleeper gems in the LTM lines to be found.
Now - if you were asking about the M4, then all bets are off. The M4 is at least as good, if not better shooter, especially if you are a big 35/28 user. But compared to the M2, i'd give the edge to the Canon P.
newspaperguy
Well-known
With both a P and a 7 on hand, and having been a long-time M user (OK, M-3)
I would caution you to look at lens prices before you leap. Both the M and the P are great, smooth cameras - equally quiet to my ear, but M lenses $$$ are out of sight IMO.
However, as mabelsound pointed out, you can use ltm on the M with adapters. But the Canon is still much easier to load.
I would caution you to look at lens prices before you leap. Both the M and the P are great, smooth cameras - equally quiet to my ear, but M lenses $$$ are out of sight IMO.
However, as mabelsound pointed out, you can use ltm on the M with adapters. But the Canon is still much easier to load.
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
Really hard to say. For me the differences boil down to:
P) smaller, 1:1 finder, metal shutter (no holes), cheaper.
M2) nicer RF patch, M mount, more visible 35mm framelines.
All the other differences (loading, RF brightness, etc) seemed really minor.
I ended up selling my P, mostly because of the M mount lenses I couldn't use on it. But the P is a very competent camera. Like Rick said, I recommend to pick the lens(es) first. If you like 35 and M mount go for the Leica. If you like 50 and 100 screw mount, go for the P.
Roland.
P) smaller, 1:1 finder, metal shutter (no holes), cheaper.
M2) nicer RF patch, M mount, more visible 35mm framelines.
All the other differences (loading, RF brightness, etc) seemed really minor.
I ended up selling my P, mostly because of the M mount lenses I couldn't use on it. But the P is a very competent camera. Like Rick said, I recommend to pick the lens(es) first. If you like 35 and M mount go for the Leica. If you like 50 and 100 screw mount, go for the P.
Roland.
Last edited:
Bingley
Veteran
I have and use both a P and an M2, and I owned and used a Canon 7 too. I use mainly 50 and 100 on the P (it really is a poor-man's M3), and bought the M2 for use w/ 35 and 28. I agree w/ Roland's suggestion: pick your lenses first. I don't own any M-mount lenses (yet), so the decision for me had more to do w/ which body has the easier to use framelines for the focal lengths I use the most.
That said, both cameras are incredibly sturdy, well-finished, and quiet. I'm glad I have both of them to play w/.
That said, both cameras are incredibly sturdy, well-finished, and quiet. I'm glad I have both of them to play w/.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
M2. I've had 3 Canons and quite a few Leicas, and I don't use Canons any more. One of the big arguments for the M2, along with the better finder, easier reparability and general smoothness is Tom's Rapidwinder.
From approximately 1985 to 2005 I used the same Leicas (M2, M4-P) but since then I've also succumbed to MP and M8.
As others have said, the choice of lenses with M-mount AND screw-mount is vastly greater than if you are limited to screw-mount alone.
For me, there's no great argument for Leicas between M2 and MP.
Of course, as at least one member tirelessly reminds me, these are only my opinions. You may feel differently; a fact of which most people are aware.
Cheers,
R.
From approximately 1985 to 2005 I used the same Leicas (M2, M4-P) but since then I've also succumbed to MP and M8.
As others have said, the choice of lenses with M-mount AND screw-mount is vastly greater than if you are limited to screw-mount alone.
For me, there's no great argument for Leicas between M2 and MP.
Of course, as at least one member tirelessly reminds me, these are only my opinions. You may feel differently; a fact of which most people are aware.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Like Steve, I also have both. The results are going to be the same, so the decision is on what pleases you most. I now truly enjoy the process of loading the M2 from the bottom, and I like the quick M mount. But having an arsenal of all LTM lenses, I needed to spend even more $$ for adapters (something you need to consider in calculating actual cost to operate). The M2 is more finicky on the whole a negative for some maybe, but the Canon P lacks a certain mystique. The difference can maybe be likened to driving a sports car versus a family sedan. The Canon P being the sedan. For quick and simple "get you there" shooting, the Canon wins. But I'm now hooked on the sports car. As they say, "your mileage may vary" See how that worked out?
See how that worked out?simonSE15
Established
I want it primarily for 28/35 street stuff so Roland and Bingley are swinging it for the M2. I'm sure what januaryman says about reults is true but I know that if I get the Canon I will still want the Leica! Maybe I'll just have to wait a bit longer.
Loading doesnt bother me as I have a Voigtlader Vitessa that I quite enjoy.
For portrait stuff I am happy with my OMs.
Loading doesnt bother me as I have a Voigtlader Vitessa that I quite enjoy.
For portrait stuff I am happy with my OMs.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Yeah - there is more guesswork involved in the 35 framelines for the P - so if yuo're mostly using 28/35, I'd say that the M is better too.
Tho, I still think that the M4 is a better user/shooter than the M2.
Tho, I still think that the M4 is a better user/shooter than the M2.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Laughing here. I swore to myself I would be happy with the Canon P. In fact, it's such a nice camera I bought two, in case one went belly up. But after a little while, I just had a hankering for a Leica. In my mind, it was the prize after a long bunch of years shooting many other things, from fixed lens rangefinders to SLRs to a digital high end P&Sers, back to the rangefinders.
Whatever you decide, time will convince you you made the wrong choice. Here's my advice - if you're serious about it, buy the best camera you can afford. And be patient. I snagged an M2 for $460.
simonSE15
Established
ok I did a stupid thing. after researching this and deciding I wanted the M2 because of the 35mm frame lines I rashly pressed the button on an M3 on the Bay.
can anyone tell me, is the M3 a pain in the butt to use with a 35mm lens?
can anyone tell me, is the M3 a pain in the butt to use with a 35mm lens?
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
Because the M3 hasn't 35mm framelines, reporters wanted the M2 in the late fifties and sixties! I guess that explains enough about practical useability!
...and that is also why I bought recently an M2 instead of the M3 at a Dutch camerashow (with a nice 35 mm Summaron and some filters)
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Get a SEPERATE FINDER if you want to use a 35mm lens on an M3. The view through the ones with "goggles" is distorted and in some lighting conditions they tend to flare. If you're just getting your feet wet in rangefinder photography consider getting a Bessa. They're cheap, not as smooth feeling or as quiet as a Leica or Canon, but they do work.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
If you're like me, most comfortable with a 35mm lens mounted on your rangefinder, consider offering it up for sale here, get your money back and get a nice M2. I'm VERY happy with mine. External finders are okay, but if you want a CV II meter, then you'll want that shoe free to hold it in place for you. YMMV, so go with your gut.
simonSE15
Established
thanks again Ron, Al, januaryman.
of my fixed lens rangefinders the Vitessa is 50mm, 35SP is 42mm, Olumpus XA is 35mm. when I look through them 35mm is my favoured focal length.
I think a seperate finder would be a waste of money. seems like its either use the M3 with 50mm or sell it on and get the M2. not a total disaster but a little bit stupid. :-S
of my fixed lens rangefinders the Vitessa is 50mm, 35SP is 42mm, Olumpus XA is 35mm. when I look through them 35mm is my favoured focal length.
I think a seperate finder would be a waste of money. seems like its either use the M3 with 50mm or sell it on and get the M2. not a total disaster but a little bit stupid. :-S
Spider67
Well-known
I just used the Canon 7 for a while. I find it a bit of a brick (a nice one!) It has a lightmeter (with a selenium cell). It has no hotshoe so using a28mm can be very entertaining (unless u guesstimate by using the whole VF outside the 35mm framelines.