Canon LTM Canon P as good as Leica M2/M3?

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Yes they crinkle, but that has no effect on their operation. A more significant problem with P curtains is that they can suffer (occasionally) oil stains, however these can be cleaned off fairly easily. Compared to cloth shutter curtains, with the considerable expense and expertise necessary to replace them, metal curtains are superior. Of course titanium curtains would be more desirable, but the SP is a much more expensive camera and the Nikon F is not a rangefinder.

And yes, the viewfinder of the P can be a moderate challenge to use particularly when using the 35mm frame lines. The P is an outstanding camera for the price it now sells for, which is less than $200 for a good one. The Leica M's and the Nikon SP are several times more expensive, and one would expect some advantages for such a great price differential.

Huss said:
From the Cameraquest site:

"Above is a rare shot of a 18/1000 mm thick plastic coated stainless steel shutter curtain WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CRINKLED. Nikon decided to go with Titanium shutter curtains in the SP and Nikon F, and they proved unbelievably durable. In contrast, the stainless steel curtains in the later Canon RF's are EASILY crinkled. It is very unusual to find unwrinkled Canon steel curtains today. "
Click to expand...
 
Reading this thread - had to break out the Canon P and load it up. Mine has just a hint of a wrinkle in the curtain. Still works great. Easy to load. RF is great - almost as good as my Bessa T and IIIc with new RF mirrors. Auto film counter, smooth wind-on, sturdy, inexpensive - what's not to love? OK the frame lines are a little thin and cluttered - but they are identified in the finder....
 
lawrence said:
Personally I found the P's viewfinder unsatisfactory for 35mm lenses as I couldn't see the whole frame, however I wear glasses and no doubt if my eye had been closer it would be have been fine.
Click to expand...

Same here. I think the Canon P is incredibly rugged, so from a build quality standpoint it's on par w/ the M2/M3. But the Leica vfs are brighter, and the M2 is much easier to use w/ a 35mm lens. The winding on the Canon P is not quite as buttery smooth as on an M from the same vintage. The design of the P, however, is beautiful; very elegant.
 
I had a P year’s back, but sold it, because I didn’t like the viewfinder (mine was flary). But this thread has rekindled my interest. Maybe I’ll buy one with my tax refund.

Jim B.
 
I've had a P for years, and like it. I just got my first M3, getting CLAd now. I'll give a comparison when it returns and I use it. I'd say the P has no real faults.
 
I love the design and build of the Canon P. The 1:1 viewfinder with a 50mm lens is perfect, though 35mm framelines are difficult without glasses and almost impossible with glasses. Very quiet "snip" of the shutter. And people say "Oh is that a Leica?" and I get to say "Nope a Canon" and see their confused faces.
 
The canon P is a great, well built camera, i´ve fixed quite a few. The parts and functions are outstanding...
But the m3 and even more the m2 rangefinder can´t be matched by the canon P.

So the P is very very good but not as good as the m2.
 
Monochrom said:
The canon P is a great, well built camera, i´ve fixed quite a few. The parts and functions are outstanding...
But the m3 and even more the m2 rangefinder can´t be matched by the canon P.

So the P is very very good but not as good as the m2.
Click to expand...
I think that summarizes it pretty well. I am one (of many) who regard the early Leica M's as being in a class of their own. Their prices reflect that of course, and the only reason they aren't more expensive is that a fairly large number were made.
 
There is another option. The Canon VI-L shares everything with the P but the rangefinder mechanism. It has a 1:1 viewfinder with frame lines for 50mm and 100mm, and like the earlier generation V series it has alternate viewing modes for 35mm (not 1:1) and magnification, which can make precise focusing easier. On top of that, it has the V series pin that automatically adjusts parallax for compatible accessory shoe-mounted viewfinders. It may be a better choice than the P, but it is a lot harder to find - and thus more expensive. I have a VI-L and a P and like them both, but I haven't used them much yet.
 
Does anyone just hate the Canon P? I was discussing the P with my brother, of which he said he didn't like. He used a P in between two Leica M2's and just didn't enjoy it. I've thought about getting one myself, but didn't have the same interest when my brother expressed his disdain. But now reading the good reviews on here... I'm interested again!
 
I bought a P a few years ago as my first LTM upgrade from the FED-2 that got me into rangefinders. I liked it so much that I bought an L1 to go along with it in a two-body travel kit. FWIW, I find the L1 a little smoother than the P in pretty much every way, but I enjoy them both, and the P's 1:1 viewfinder is great for street photography. Build quality is really high on both.

I can't say whether it's better than an M, as I haven't used one, but it's plenty good enough for my needs.
 
Peter Jennings said:
There is another option. The Canon VI-L shares everything with the P but the rangefinder mechanism. It has a 1:1 viewfinder with frame lines for 50mm and 100mm, and like the earlier generation V series it has alternate viewing modes for 35mm (not 1:1) and magnification, which can make precise focusing easier. On top of that, it has the V series pin that automatically adjusts parallax for compatible accessory shoe-mounted viewfinders. It may be a better choice than the P, but it is a lot harder to find - and thus more expensive. I have a VI-L and a P and like them both, but I haven't used them much yet.
Click to expand...
Agreed on the VI-L - a superb camera in all respects - and really better frame lines (or at least easier to use) than the P.
 
I've owned several P's and though there's plenty to like about them, I ended trading them off for something else I liked better. I also liked the Canon lenses I had, 35/1.8, 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 which all rendered beautifully. Eventually I'd like to get an M2 or M3 as a replacement :D
 
I've held an M3 body once. It was pretty nice. And about three and a half times what I paid for a P with two lenses, meter, and the special humped case. And you still have to take the M3 bottom off to load film. Nope, I'll stick to my Canon with a wide choice of LTM lenses that don't cost near as much as M mount ones.

PF

ps: If I want to use something from Wetzlar, I break out the Leidolf.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom