brianentz
Member
I’m looking to pick up a second rangefinder to go with my Canon 7SZ. I’m looking at the Canon VI – L as one can be had at a better price and from what I understand the internals are generally more robust on the earlier model. But I’m wondering if anyone has both bodies and finds that either is easier to focus and compose on than the other.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I don't think you really get anything by putting a Canon VI-L alongside the 7SZ; they're pretty similar cameras following a lot of the same design ideas. The only real change is the classic Canon combined RF/VF that allows you to change magnification between 0.65x, 1x, and 1.55x views on the VI-L.
In my eyes, if you're looking for a second body, you want to find something that's going to bring something else to the table.
Sticking with Canon, you could go for any of the -T models for the built-in trigger winder, or one of the earlier bottom loaders for a smaller, more solid-feeling camera (I've never liked the SLR-style flappy backs of the later models).
The obvious choice would be to consider a screwmount Leica; they're relatively cheap by Leica standards (you can get one in good shape for not much more than the average Canon), and they're noticeably smaller than later Canons and feel nicer in the hand than any Canon (I'll take rounded ends over the angular ends of a Canon, thanks). A IIIc or IIIf is the most common option (the RF and VF eyepiece being closer together on models from the IIIb onwards makes for faster use, and the IIIc and IIIf are usually easier to find than the IIIb), but there's a lot to be said about the feel of an early Leica III or IIIa. Controversially, I'd skip the Leica II as a user - the RF on those is only 1x, so they're harder to focus than the 1.5x RF of the various III models.
You could also go for a Leica Ic or If as a dedicated super-wide body that would match the Snapshot Skopar - that's (almost) the smallest possible platform for one. The Standard, especially in black paint, is a beautiful thing and a fraction smaller, but it doesn't have strap lugs, which is a deal-breaker for me.
(I'm not sure how well this translates in a photo, but the Leica Ic makes the Canon 7 feel massive.)
There's also the Bessa options: most of them have racked up in price now, but they're still worth considering. The T is interesting - no VF, only a RF, so you need accessory viewfinders - and the L doesn't have the RF or VF. The Bessa R is basically a more modern equivalent to the late Canons. All of them have built-in light meters that will be a lot more reliable than the ones in the Canon 7 or 7sZ.
Finally, there's the "off brand" choices from Nicca and Leotax. Personally, I love a late Leotax - they made genuine improvements to the Leica III design without getting weird for the sake of being weird like Canon did. You can usually find them for a decent price, too. Here's a page explaining all the models, but I don't think you can really go wrong with any of them: Leotax Rangefinder Cameras
In my eyes, if you're looking for a second body, you want to find something that's going to bring something else to the table.
Sticking with Canon, you could go for any of the -T models for the built-in trigger winder, or one of the earlier bottom loaders for a smaller, more solid-feeling camera (I've never liked the SLR-style flappy backs of the later models).
The obvious choice would be to consider a screwmount Leica; they're relatively cheap by Leica standards (you can get one in good shape for not much more than the average Canon), and they're noticeably smaller than later Canons and feel nicer in the hand than any Canon (I'll take rounded ends over the angular ends of a Canon, thanks). A IIIc or IIIf is the most common option (the RF and VF eyepiece being closer together on models from the IIIb onwards makes for faster use, and the IIIc and IIIf are usually easier to find than the IIIb), but there's a lot to be said about the feel of an early Leica III or IIIa. Controversially, I'd skip the Leica II as a user - the RF on those is only 1x, so they're harder to focus than the 1.5x RF of the various III models.
You could also go for a Leica Ic or If as a dedicated super-wide body that would match the Snapshot Skopar - that's (almost) the smallest possible platform for one. The Standard, especially in black paint, is a beautiful thing and a fraction smaller, but it doesn't have strap lugs, which is a deal-breaker for me.
(I'm not sure how well this translates in a photo, but the Leica Ic makes the Canon 7 feel massive.)
There's also the Bessa options: most of them have racked up in price now, but they're still worth considering. The T is interesting - no VF, only a RF, so you need accessory viewfinders - and the L doesn't have the RF or VF. The Bessa R is basically a more modern equivalent to the late Canons. All of them have built-in light meters that will be a lot more reliable than the ones in the Canon 7 or 7sZ.
Finally, there's the "off brand" choices from Nicca and Leotax. Personally, I love a late Leotax - they made genuine improvements to the Leica III design without getting weird for the sake of being weird like Canon did. You can usually find them for a decent price, too. Here's a page explaining all the models, but I don't think you can really go wrong with any of them: Leotax Rangefinder Cameras
Mackinaw
Think Different
I have a 7sZ and a VI-T. The biggest difference is in the viewfinder. The 7sZ uses projected framelines, like a Leica M-series, while the VI-series uses reflected viewfinder frames. The end result is the same, but the VI-series framelines, generally, haven't aged well. Many are faded and the framelines may be partially missing. The framelines in my 7sZ look the same as the day they left the factory. The larger eyepiece of the 7-series makes general use easier than that of the VI. I tend to use my VI-T more than the 7sZ mainly because I like the trigger wind. Build quality of both cameras is top-notch.
Jim B.
Last edited:
brianentz
Member
Wow. I’ve got some early leica research to do. Thanks.
8bit Barry
Member
That Leica 1C looks so good... I just had a gaze on eBay and the black brassed body versions look so good...! Must resist considering I just bought a 7s
Brian - I bught a VT Deluxe a month ago (as my intro to RF) and I can report its a great camera. Really easy to use, easy to focus. I got it specifically for the trigger winder and I really like the user experience. It's almost the same size as the 7s even though it appears smaller.
Brian - I bught a VT Deluxe a month ago (as my intro to RF) and I can report its a great camera. Really easy to use, easy to focus. I got it specifically for the trigger winder and I really like the user experience. It's almost the same size as the 7s even though it appears smaller.
brianentz
Member
Very cool. I’m momentarily torn between a ltm leica like a iiif or another canon sz. Decisions. The research is fun, though. I mostly want two camera bodies not for two different shooting experiences but because I like to keep one loaded with black and white and one with color.
I do like shooting with a variety of lenses, which is leading me towards the SZ
I do like shooting with a variety of lenses, which is leading me towards the SZ
aw614
Established
Keep your eye for other bottom loaders like ones from Canon, Nicca, etc.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Honestly, some of the best photos I've taken in the last two years were with that Ic. Paradoxically, the fact it's so stripped back means it's both more liberating and more work; I can put the 15mm Super Wide Heliar or 21mm Color Skopar on it and treat it almost like a manual exposure point-and-shoot, or I can put a 50mm Elmar on it with an accessory rangefinder and take a slower, more considered approach. I've even used it with a 135mm Hektor for landscapes, which feels all kinds of wrong.
I've also got a Visoflex to turn it into a proto-SLR, and a Focoslide to turn it into a proto-view-camera. It's a very versatile platform.
Bear in mind that there were no black Ic bodies as far as I'm aware; the Standard was available in black, but as mentioned, it was missing strap lugs. I also seem to recall the built-in 50mm finder gets in the way of some of the more bulbous external viewfinders; I used to have a friend in Kennington who removed the 50mm finder from his Standard as a result.
Almost all of the LTM bodies share enough in common that they're not too radically different in use. It's really just the extra options they give you (as I mentioned above).
My most used camera is the IIIf because there's basically nothing it can't handle (for instance, with the NOOKY adapter, you can focus with accurate framing down to 50cm handheld; Canon's equivalent, the Auto-Up, genuinely isn't as good on multiple levels). I usually pair it with either a Leica IIIg or the Ic, depending on what I want the second body for. Sometimes a Leotax T2L Elite gets subbed in as the second body if I decide I want lever wind for some reason, and an early Canon like the IIIa or IV Sb might be a third body if I just want something for an oddball film for special use (super-slow, ortho, or colour film). The benefit of these early Barnack-patterned LTM bodies is they're small enough that a third body with a collapsible Elmar is basically unnoticeable in the camera bag while the main pair are in use!
The Canon 7, however... that usually just sits on the shelf. Never gelled with it!
8bit Barry
Member
So you’re using a cold shoe viewfinder so you cannot focus on things? Do you just approximate the distance and stop down?
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Yes. But also no.
This is how the rangefinder-less Leicas were intended to be used (when they weren't mounted on a copy stand, or attached to a Visoflex, or so on):
You use an accessory rangefinder (the FOKOS attached to the camera is mounted how you would use it; the FODIS next to it is positioned so you can see the focus dial) to measure the distance to subject, then transfer that reading to the lens before composing via the accessory viewfinder.
Is this a ridiculous way to take photos when you own a bunch of cameras that have coupled rangefinders? Yes.
Does it work? Also yes. This was taken with a 50mm f/1.5 Zeiss Sonnar on this camera at f/2 (handheld on FP4+, for what it's worth):
You can always just zone focus, scale focus, or use a wider lens. But sometimes it's fun to put this combo together and take photographs the way they would have been made in the 1920s, before the Leica II came about and coupled rangefinders became the norm.
Of course, when using something like a 135mm lens for landscapes, you pretty much set it at infinity and use it as a point-and-shoot. But the longer FODIS pictured above was made specifically for using these long lenses without a coupled rangefinder - the longer baselength and larger focusing wheel increased accuracy - so there was definitely the intention and possibility of using this precise setup with long and fast lenses, too!
Mark240590
Soviet Shooter
Having shot thr V - line up. My automatic expectation is I’d prefer the VI-L because I absolutely love the rotating prism system. Rather than frame lines. I think I’d probably enjoy using either but honestly. I just like using my current L3 it’s no frills but well built
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
I'll be getting a P myself. I like the simplicity of it as well as having the reliability of the late foil shutter.
8bit Barry
Member
My first rangefinder is VT Deluxe and I bought it for exactly the reason you highlight. The prism viewfinder is a superb addition and it’s great to compose images without frame lines. Combine it with the trigger wind and you have a wonderful experience.
Then I got a 7s last week which is a superb end of line addition, with a huge viewfinder and frame switchable frame lines . Both very different shooting experiences but both have a cold shoe, which I think was an essential addition and I dismissed the P for that reason.
I’ve put a cold shoe meter onto each camera to give me some ‘modern’ features without carrying a light meter.
mtnbkr
Member
My first entry into rangefinders was with a non-Deluxe VT. Now I have a VL2 (budget version of VL but with a foil shutter).
I didn't care much for the trigger. It worked fine, I just prefer the more compact cameras with a lever or knob.
The prism finder is brilliant. I particularly like being able to switch to the RF setting to get a zoomed in view for critical focus.
Chris
8bit Barry
Member
I still don’t understand how the ‘periscope’ works - so you measure the distance looking through the little viewfinder?
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
You should try a Leica IIIc, IIIf, or a late Leotax. The RF has the same "zoomed in" 1.5x magnification as the RF setting on those Canons, but is separated from the 50mm VF by such a small amount that moving from one to the other is incredibly fast - much less hassle than changing the settings on a Canon.
The side of the FOKOS/FODIS with one eyepiece gives you pretty much the same view you get looking through the separate 1:1 RF in a Leica II or the 1x setting on a Canon. You spin the giant wheel, align the images, and then read the dial to see how far away the subject is. Very handy thing!
brianentz
Member
I’ve been doing a deep dive on the Canon 7s vs Leica iiif question and am preferring the 7s except that some say the focusing patch on the leica is clearer, sharper and brighter and easier to focus. Is this significant enough to prefer the iiif?
Mark240590
Soviet Shooter
Ugh. This reminds me of my deceased VL2 in my drawer. I loved that shutter. My L3 however is enough. And to be honest… I rarely leave my RF’s T*ts up in the sun wide open. Infact. I live in Northeast England… we rarely get sun 🤣
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
It's significant enough for me.
The Canon 7 (and 7s) is much larger than the IIIf and feels a lot less solid. The viewfinder in the Canon 7, while large, means the rangefinder is harder to focus for me than a IIIf due to the lower magnification. I wouldn't trust it with anything long and fast wide open.
Also, on my sample of the Canon 7, I can sometimes see "ghosting" where the non-selected framelines are, and due to the design of the RF patch, there's always some distracting weirdness going on around it that I can't describe:
The IIIf's rangefinder window is much smaller, but much less distracting and much easier to work with - again, for me at least.
mtnbkr
Member
I'd love to, got one to give me?
I was shopping around for a Leica for that very reason (fast switching between views) but eventually talked myself out of it because, with the same lenses, my photography wasn't going to improve, I'd need to get a viewfinder for 35mm lenses, and I'd have to deal with trimming leaders and such. I can rotate the dial for the viewfinder with my thumb while the camera is up to my eye, so it's not much more hassle than shifting my eye from one window to the other. I'm still "Leica-Curious" but I'll resist until I come across a killer deal.
Chris