ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
"Peripheral vision" is one reason I like rangefinder cameras.
The Canon P 35mm framelines provide none.
I sold my previous Canon P because it was a PITA to use with my 35mm lens.
I expect this new body will be used exclusively with my new Canon 50/1.8 lens.
Chris
02Pilot
Malcontent
Since the VF is 1:1, you can shoot with both eyes open, which helps an awful lot with situational awareness; it's one of the reasons I like the P for street shooting. But not everyone is comfortable shooting with both eyes open - it does take a little getting used to.
Frontman
Well-known
Mechanically-speaking, there is not much difference in quality between the Canon P and Leica M cameras. The Canon's 1 to 1 viewfinder is as bright as a Leica finder, the 35mm framelines are easy to see, unless you wear glass. Diopters were made, but are hard to find. The rangefinder patch on the Canon is not so sharp as Leica's, but is more precise than those in other rangefinder cameras. The shutter mechanism is very well designed, and accurate. The Canon rangefinders are also very easy to disassemble and service, no special tools are required.
Of course the Canon P is much easier to load, and Canon's selection of lenses is great, and of very good quality.
Of course the Canon P is much easier to load, and Canon's selection of lenses is great, and of very good quality.
Red Robin
It Is What It Is
Each have strong points. My money is on the Canon P. I own and use several not having to look further as the "P" meets my needs. Wanted to try a M but that would only require my also buying another set of lenses, perhaps a CLA, as well as an increased anxiety level. My limited budget has allowed me to own and use a dependable camera body with some wonderful LTM glass gleaned from the internet and other sources. The P is, as they say, just what I needed. Red
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I think that, if you're shooting a 50, and have an LTM 50 that you love, the P is the M's equal. But they are definitely different. As people have said, the P's viewfinder isn't as good as a Leica's, but it's easier to load, has an ingenious and beautiful rewind crank, and feels great in the hand. And at the absurdly low prices you can get one for these days, especially if you don't mind waiting for it to come from Japan, there's no reason not to have one, especially if you already have an M.
zauhar
Veteran
I don't have a P, but do have the Canon 7. It broke last year and sits broken at the moment.
On the other hand my M3 broke a few weeks ago and I immediately sent it for service. So there you have it.
On the other hand my M3 broke a few weeks ago and I immediately sent it for service. So there you have it.
John E Earley
Tuol Sleng S21-0174
If I need to be quiet, I'll likely take the M since it's substantially quieter than most other cameras. If I need to quickly shoot several rolls of film, I'll likely take the P since it has a rewind crank and a back door that makes reloading film quicker. If there is a possibility of low-light work, I'll likely take the M since it has a much more crisp rangefinder. If there is a high chance of damage or loss, I'll likely take the P since it would be easier and cheaper to replace.
As for results, I don't think many would be able to tell which camera I was using.
As for results, I don't think many would be able to tell which camera I was using.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
The 7 is nice, but the P is a much more elegant and better built camera, in my view!
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
I understand exactly what you mean by the "Peripheral vision" part and that's one of the main reasons I didn't choose P.
The 7 works fine with me though, with it's nice, comfortable, once-at-a-time, projected framelines.
I've owned all of the Canon Rangefinders models after the IVSB.
By far my personal favorites are the L1 and 7s.
I would have liked the bottom wind Canons if they had offered top wind as well. I've seen such a modified camera on ebay. Trigger wind alone was just too awkward.
The L1 got it right with a 3 position viewfinder, lever wind, accessory shoe parallax, and a GOLD RF patch. The gold patch is important because the later silver RF patches of the various V and VI models usually self disintegrated over time becoming quite flare prone.
The P was OK, but often flares too much, making the L1 a better choice. The P also lost the previous Canon's unique accessory shoe parallax button for automatically controlled accessory finders.
The 7 had all the 35 to 135 framelines, but suffered from a clumsy meter that practically never works and having no accessory shoe. Worse than that, stylistically the 7 is simply an ugly camera compared to its stable mates.
The 7s overcame all the problems of the 7, but is still not as well made as the L1 when you compare the side by side. Still, it is hardly a bad choice.
Like their Nikon brothers in arms, all of the LTM Canon RF's are more reliable than Leica M3 or M2, needing both CLA's and shutter replacements about 1/4 as often as Leicas in my experience.
By far my personal favorites are the L1 and 7s.
I would have liked the bottom wind Canons if they had offered top wind as well. I've seen such a modified camera on ebay. Trigger wind alone was just too awkward.
The L1 got it right with a 3 position viewfinder, lever wind, accessory shoe parallax, and a GOLD RF patch. The gold patch is important because the later silver RF patches of the various V and VI models usually self disintegrated over time becoming quite flare prone.
The P was OK, but often flares too much, making the L1 a better choice. The P also lost the previous Canon's unique accessory shoe parallax button for automatically controlled accessory finders.
The 7 had all the 35 to 135 framelines, but suffered from a clumsy meter that practically never works and having no accessory shoe. Worse than that, stylistically the 7 is simply an ugly camera compared to its stable mates.
The 7s overcame all the problems of the 7, but is still not as well made as the L1 when you compare the side by side. Still, it is hardly a bad choice.
Like their Nikon brothers in arms, all of the LTM Canon RF's are more reliable than Leica M3 or M2, needing both CLA's and shutter replacements about 1/4 as often as Leicas in my experience.
Bingley
Veteran
I've had the L1, the P, and the 7. Although I no longer have them, I agree with the head bartender that the L1 is by far the nicest of this bunch, particularly if you regularly shoot a 35. The L1 is a joy to shoot with.
Huss
Veteran
I bought a P after this thread cooled off.. Perfect condition, wrinkle
free shutter etc. Sold it off after a couple o weeks. My Leica Ms are so much nicer to use in every way that I could not see a reason to use the P. It even didnt feel
good in my hand, guess the shape was just wrong for me.
Weirdly I enjoy using cheaper rf cameras like my Zorki 4 and Fed 2. Perhaps it’s a price point thing? They also feel better to hold!
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
Orange vs apples. Some people like orange better that apples. Build quality wise, Canon's are great. As good as Leica M3/M2? Are orange better than apples? no, they are different. For me, at least, they won't cure the Leica itch. It will be "what if I had bought the Leica instead?" so it depends on one's likes/wants/desire.
I had a Canon P and its rangefinder went realigned while that had never happened to my Leicas (at leas until now). Sold the Canon but I still have the M6.
If you are attracted to Canon P, yeah you will enjoy lots. Great cameras, just not Leica (in neither good or bad way, they just aren't).
Regards
Marcelo
I had a Canon P and its rangefinder went realigned while that had never happened to my Leicas (at leas until now). Sold the Canon but I still have the M6.
If you are attracted to Canon P, yeah you will enjoy lots. Great cameras, just not Leica (in neither good or bad way, they just aren't).
Regards
Marcelo
TenEleven
Well-known
As others have already said, are they a Leica? No.
Is the build quality comparable? No, not really.
However, do you need a Leica? Again, no.
For example most of my last show was shot with a Contax IIa and a Canon L1/VIL (which has a very similar finder to the P) and I'm perfectly happy with the shots I got. Neither of those cameras have an "amazing" finder. I don't need it - I looked at the scene before with my eyes, I know what it looks like.
Just use the camera that you enjoy and gives you results that you like. The lens, your technique, the light and a lot of other variables are way more important for the final result than the body anyway, it's just a light proof box with a composing/focusing aid.
Is the build quality comparable? No, not really.
However, do you need a Leica? Again, no.
For example most of my last show was shot with a Contax IIa and a Canon L1/VIL (which has a very similar finder to the P) and I'm perfectly happy with the shots I got. Neither of those cameras have an "amazing" finder. I don't need it - I looked at the scene before with my eyes, I know what it looks like.
Just use the camera that you enjoy and gives you results that you like. The lens, your technique, the light and a lot of other variables are way more important for the final result than the body anyway, it's just a light proof box with a composing/focusing aid.
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
It has been 4 years, I wonder if the OP has made his decision yet?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
OP? Probably using phone by now. 
.
As for quality comparison comment. Yea...
I hear how Pies just keep on working, despite wrinkled curtains and not so great VFs.
I have IId (I guess) and build is amazing, with so-so VF.
Also P and IId are bigger than M and LTM. You know.... Sometimes quality means size, for some.
.As for quality comparison comment. Yea...
I hear how Pies just keep on working, despite wrinkled curtains and not so great VFs.
I have IId (I guess) and build is amazing, with so-so VF.
Also P and IId are bigger than M and LTM. You know.... Sometimes quality means size, for some.
Huss
Veteran
You shouldnt rush these things.
leica M2 fan
Veteran
I have an M2 which I acquired in 1968. It was a dream camera from day 1.
About 1988 I bought a Canon 7s and it was wonderful in my hands, I used it
very successfully for several years and I still have both cameras. But as nice
as the Canons are there is something about the precision of the Leica M's.The
way they handle, the great viewfinder and general feel.
About 1988 I bought a Canon 7s and it was wonderful in my hands, I used it
very successfully for several years and I still have both cameras. But as nice
as the Canons are there is something about the precision of the Leica M's.The
way they handle, the great viewfinder and general feel.