Canon Bottom Loader - advice requested

[Leif Shuttyr]

Hi everyone,

I've been toying with the idea of getting one of the Canon bottom loaders for a while now. What appeals to me - as well as having something small enough to be pocketable with a collapsable 50 - is the thought of having a camera that's still fairly compact when used with my old 9cm Elmar, which is dwarfed by my Canon 7! The fact that the bottom loaders have a 100mm viewfinder setting - thus avoiding the need for an aux viewfinder - is an added bonus...in theory.

However, I've never handled one these cameras, so I've got a couple of questions for those of you who have:

1. I've often seen the v/f's on these camera's refered to as squinty - but what does that mean in practice? Apart from my 7, the only rangefinders I've used are a Zorki 3m and a Kiev 2 and 4. How would the vi/f on one of these older Canon's compare to them?

2. How usable is the 100mm v/f setting? Are the lack of framelines or parrallax correction any more of a nuisance than on the 50mm setting?

3. What are the build quality/mechanics like? Closer to a screw mount Leica than the rather industrial FSU's I'd guess?

Any advice or comments gratefully recieved!

Cheers

Gavin

 

[back alley]

gavin,

1- squinty means it's not like a canon p/bessa r/m2-3 vf.
it is a smaller opening to look through.
i'm thinking a canon would be a bit better than fsu but...others may know better on that one.

2 - the fov actually changes so framelines are not needed. with the small lever the finder is changed. it's a rf, so not totally accurate.

3 - quality of build is much better.
many see the canon screwmounts as better than the leica screwmounts, from what i have read.

 

[rover]

The viewfinder is comparable to the Kiev 4. As Joe says, it is not a big window like the Leica M or similar cameras.

I will also concur with Joe's other statements, the Canons are nice cameras. I love my IV. I in fact just received an Industar 50, 3.5 Elmar copy, talk about a small package. The camera is tiny, and the lens collapse practically entirely inside it. I see this combo spending a lot of time with me as a pocket camera.

 

[kiev4a]

The Canon, with a collapsible lens isn't as "pocketable" as a Leica LTM camera or a FED or Zorki 1.

 

[rover]

kiev4a, a Canon IV bottom loader? Sure it is. It is much smaller than the V and later series. It is infact about the same size as the Leica LTM cameras. Very small package.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The Canon bottom-loaders are not bigger than the Leica IIIc and later, but look bigger. Instead of rounded sides, Canon went with edges that stayed with Japanese cameras through the Nikon F. additionally, Canon used side-rails for its flash, which makes the camera less comfortable to hold outside of its ever-ready case than the Leica IIIf.

I use mine in the case, which is beautifully finished. I have no problems with the viewfinder, and the variable magnification allows for very accurate focus.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5136
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5137
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5138