Canon LTM Canon P body alone for $690?

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
S

ScottS

Established
Local time
2:43 AM
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
174
The P inflation keeps at it. Recent ebay P body (no lens included, but recent CLA) went for $690. That's 7Sz and/or Leica M3 territory. You could almost get a V, VI, and 7 together for that price (or at least 2 of the 3)

Scott
 
Even with the CLA that also seems high to me. Perhaps real collectors :( have discovered the P?

William
 
I can understand that, but if I ever buy a LTM camera it's going to be a 7. I like the look just a bit better and I actually enjoy playing with selenium meters and learning their limits. But it's a pretty similar thing.

You will be keeping the P, I take it? :D

William
 
As long as it doesn't cost me *that* much and I have the money, yeah. I love it. It's the best camera I've owned for the type of photography I love to do. :D
 
P readily matches M4 in most respects (except for 35mm bright lines), is tougher and easier to load. Canon's F1 was much more rugged and finely built than was any Leica SLR until recently. There's no reason to consider Canon's best rangefinder inferior to any M, with the possible exception of M2...and all subsequent Leicas are inferior to M2s.
 
Yeah, I can dig that. I got my Kiev 5 (see avatar) for a stupid low amount of money. The dude had some negative feedback recently and I bid the minimum at the last minute. It remains one of the nicest cameras I've ever used despite some rather, uhm... "hefty" drawbacks...

So it goes. Some days we get lucky, some days the seller does. Wish I had more of both kinds!

William
 
The REAL shortcoming of old Canons is availability of modern lenses, which is not a problem for Leica Ms. CV lenses are good enough optically, but they're not anywhere near the mechanical quality of old Canons or Leicas.

And CV lenses are gigantic. I'm happy with my 50 Nokton, but it's too big for the purpose...I wish there had been an f2 alternative, half the size.

Leica has always kept modest size as a priority.
 
looks like a bidding war. they'll probably back out of it.

i'm not sure how much someone into classic cameras wants modern glass, anyway.
 
How much more does a P generally go for than other V/VI bodies anyway? An L-1 with 2 lenses just went for a little over $300. I almost bid on that one, but resisted the temptation.

Scott
 
And the black VT deluxe went for $798!

Crazy! Just a few weeks ago this P, looks good but badly wrinkled shutter, sold on ebay for US$153.

BTW - this one has a black plastic cap on the winder, I've never seen before. Is that unusual?
 
black always sells for more. that film advance lever looks like it came from another camera.

and just for the record, none of my p's has been come from ebay.

joe:)
 
I got an excellent (using KEH terms) P with very faintly wrinkled shutter on EBay for under $200, shipping/insurance included. Paid KEH $330 for its equal, shipping/insurance included. I think KEH could readily get $400 for Ps like this, in view of their guarantee.
 
Aizan, I like modern lenses because they're sharper at large apertures and they flare less. I dislike "classic" lenses because they're unsharp at large apertures and flare a lot. I like photographic image quality.

I'm not using a "classic camera" when I use a P or a Leica IIIC, I'm using a compact, rugged, beautiful and affordable rangefinder. Besides, since when did "postwar" equal "classic?"
 
I like photographic image quality.
Click to expand...

Well, let's just say you like sharpness wide open and more highly controlled flare.

I don't think postwar has anything to do with being classic.

So am I right? Said the other way, someone who isn't into classic cameras probably is into modern glass. :D
 
Aizan, I like less flare and more sharpness. I like sharp edges where I'm in focus more than I like the glow that comes from fungus etc.
 
not all old lenses have fungus djon.

this is a classic case of differing wants & needs and a difference of opinion on how to achieve those goals.

for me, i like the older lenses, they have lower contrast and good resolution, just how i like it.

joe
 
Of course " not all old lenses have fungus." Sheesh! But of course, many do, and many are hazy for other accidental reasons having to do with soft coatings or even soft glass.

The "vintage look" (and Leica look) are often directly due to age-damage. My 49' (?) Summaron 3.5 has no fungus (I've seen two recently that were perfect)...it's plenty sharp when stopped down. But it's VERY hard, if not impossible now, to find a 50 Sumicron without issues. My "new" Canon 35 f2 will take care of that...I doubt anybody would buy one of them (or your 50 1.4 or 85f2) for a "vintage" look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom