ricpr
Rich
I would blame people here for my problem, but I had it before I ever discovered this site....you call it GAS. I'm sure many people here are the same way. I am pretty new to photography, but have been buying cameras here and there for a while. My favorite camera,a Canon 7 with a black 35mm 2.0 lens, was apparently a steal at $35. The camera looks very well cared for. I didn't realize the deal it was at the time of purchase. It sat around a while, then I started using the various cameras I had acquired. When I got the film back from this camera, I was shocked. The pictures were awesome (relatively speaking). The digital camera now sits on a shelf like a collectible. I now would like to expand on that experience and that's where you come in. I pretty much don't have a focus on the types of pictures I take, but I am looking for experiences using this camera and the types of lenses most preferred by someone who uses a Canon 7 frequently. If this keeps up, I'll be talking to the Canon P, L, and VT owners out there at some point. Any user tips would be greatly appreciated.
Hi, ricpr! One suggestion is to search our forum gallery for "Canon", though a lot of this tech info got stripped off in a couple of gallery software "migrations".
John Robertson
Well-known
Perhaps some Canon7 owner knows the answer to this. The 7, I notice has no accessory shoe, unlike the 7s. How do you use very wide angle lenses with it, is there an add on shoe for the V/Finders???
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
Wait wait wait. You got a Canon 7 with 35mm lens for $35? Where do you buy your cameras? 
W
wlewisiii
Guest
$35???? That's not quite in the same league as Brian's Nikon, but pretty darn close.
I'm not able to help too much with your questions as I don't own a 7. However it is the only LTM camera that I actually really want to have someday. My only suggestion would be to find one of the various very nice Canon 50mm lenses to go with it, especially if you are new to film photography. The "normal" lens is an important tool to be comfortable with.
Have fun!
William
I'm not able to help too much with your questions as I don't own a 7. However it is the only LTM camera that I actually really want to have someday. My only suggestion would be to find one of the various very nice Canon 50mm lenses to go with it, especially if you are new to film photography. The "normal" lens is an important tool to be comfortable with.
Have fun!
William
ricpr
Rich
Another estate sale find. I arrived late to this particular estate sale. Funny thing is that someone put the camera back???!!! I guess $35 was too much to ask. In the same estate sale, the 50mm 0.95 lens sold for $10. Too bad for me. I paid more for the accessory shoe @ $60.
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
Seriously...if you get any more deals like that, let the people here know. I could use a second body and a Canon 7 is actually exactly what I'm looking for.
ScottS
Established
John Robertson said:
Canon did make an add-on shoe, but good luck finding one. I"m guessing the price of a Canon 7 + the price of the accessory coupler would be about what you could get a 7s for with build-in shoe.
Scott
John Robertson
Well-known
Thanks Scott, just curious thats all. I had a 7s Dream in the 1970's, but sold it as I didn't like the f0.95 lens.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
ScottS said:
Yeah, but we're talking about someone who obviously has extremely good luck when it comes to finding Canon RF stuff! (Cripes, the 35mm f/2 lens alone is worth probably 10 times what you paid.)
Anyway, next time you're at a Canon-rich estate sale, be on the lookout for a gizmo called a "Canon Accessory Coupler." It connects over the bayonet fitting on the flash terminal, and provides an accessory shoe.
Other than this accessory, there's no convenient way to use an accessory finder on a 7 unless you have the camera custom-modified to add a shoe to the top cover; we've seen pictures of a few of those here.
What else would you like to know about your 7 and/or lens? Lots of Canon RF fans here.
ricpr
Rich
I have the accessory shoe, but why would I need an accessory finder? The rangefinder seems to indicate the use for 4 lenses from 35 -135.
John Robertson
Well-known
jlw said:
W
wlewisiii
Guest
IIUC he _has_ the accessory shoe and _only_ paid $60 for it...
That bit of luck is probably bigger than the origional $35 for a 7.
As for ricpr's later question, it comes into play if you like really wide angle lenses - 28, 25, 21, & etc down the food chain - I can barely see 35mm so for me it's not a big deal.
William
That bit of luck is probably bigger than the origional $35 for a 7.
As for ricpr's later question, it comes into play if you like really wide angle lenses - 28, 25, 21, & etc down the food chain
- I can barely see 35mm so for me it's not a big deal. William
ricpr
Rich
I purchased the accessory shoe with flash photography in mind. I didn't consider lenses wider than 35mm. How does the shoe mounting on the side of the camera affect rangefinding ability? When using lenses wider than 35mm, do you focus through the rangefinder and frame though the viewfinder?
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
ricpr said:
Right, you continue to use the rangefinder built into the camera body for focusing. For viewing you transfer your eye to the accessory viewfinder.
It sounds like a moderately big pain, and in some ways it is. The good thing is that for most lenses wider than 35mm, there's so much depth of field that you don't need to focus continuously -- you can just set the focus to the approximately correct distance, then transfer your eye to the accessory finder and watch the subject until you see the moment of which you want to take a picture.
In fact, with VERY wide lenses -- 21mm or wider -- you barely need to use the rangefinder at all. Just take a good guess as to the correct distance, set it on the focusing scale of the lens, and Doctor Depth o' Field will take care of you.
The issue about viewing accuracy is similar. In theory, having the viewfinder 'way off to one side will reduce your framing accuracy because of parallax -- the difference between what the finder sees and what the lens sees. In practice, when shooting with wide-angle lenses, you'll be getting plenty more in the frame than you see through the accessory finder, so it's not really a problem. After the film is processed, you just crop out the part you don't want when you print or scan.
Obviously, if you want to do critically exact framing with a super-wide lens, this won't be acceptable. But if you wanted that, you'd be using an SLR. When doing super-wide photography with an RF camera, it's best to cultivate a relaxed attitude about exact framing, and instead concentrate on the relationships of objects within the picture area and on choosing the best moment to make the picture.
I don't even own a viewfinder for my 21mm lens, and I've taken a lot of pretty good pictures with it just by pointing it in the right direction and making sure the camera is level. The attached picture (interior of a designer show house) was taken just this way. The diagonal angle of view of a 21mm lens on 35mm film is 92 degrees, so you can estimate what will be in the picture just by forming a right angle with your thumb and forefinger, like a little kid going "bang, bang" with a finger gun, and noting where the fingers point.
Last edited:
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Yes, you focus with the view through the rangefinder and then have to frame the image with an accessory viewfinder that is mounted in the shoe. At best, it's a PITA...
YMMV,
William
YMMV,
William
ricpr
Rich
jlw....funny that you bring up "relaxed attitude". When I first used the camera, I hap-hazardly used the camera talking pictures of whatever I ran accross. Even though I really wasn't concentrating on what I was doing as far as picture content, the results were the best I have produced. The picture quality was better than any camera I have or have used. That's why I have decided to look into expanding my lens / camera body collection of Canon RF's of this era. Usability is the primary focus versus collecting.
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
Setting the lens at hyperfocal (or another set distance) and shooting from the hip can also give interesting results. I've done it with various point and shoots. When I went through my digital phase I did this a lot.
ricpr
Rich
Stephanie.....your pics are nice. If I can produce the same quality of pics with the wife and kid in them I would be lucky. I'll keep working at it.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Hyperfocal distance is your friend. I can not say this strongly enough - use your dof scale on the lens and make it do the hard work.
Any camera that can be set for a fixed focal distance can be set for a hyperfocal distance. I probably couldn't shoot my Speed Graphic without it, because I use it in the old press camera manner - plug in a distance on the scale, set the shutter and diaphraghm and just start shooting. Some will work, many won't. After a bit of practice you'll bring home _usable_ shots every time (I still don't, but I also still need massive amounts of practice... and I only have 126 sheets of film in the fridge right now (20 in my ready.bag too, but they don't really count) if I include my 8 remaining sheets of Velvia 50.)
William
Any camera that can be set for a fixed focal distance can be set for a hyperfocal distance. I probably couldn't shoot my Speed Graphic without it, because I use it in the old press camera manner - plug in a distance on the scale, set the shutter and diaphraghm and just start shooting. Some will work, many won't. After a bit of practice you'll bring home _usable_ shots every time (I still don't, but I also still need massive amounts of practice... and I only have 126 sheets of film in the fridge right now (20 in my ready.bag too, but they don't really count) if I include my 8 remaining sheets of Velvia 50.)
William