leica M2 fan
Veteran
I know there are threads in the past about the canon rangefinders and i have read those. What I am asking, is there a big,big difference between the 7 and the P version rangefinders? This would be used for street and general photography. Also, do LTM and FSU screw mount lenses fit the 7 or is there an adapter? If so which one? I'm sure there are more questions but I'd be happy for answers to these questions.I have an adapter for the FSU screw mounts to the M Leica. Thanks in advance.
David Murphy
Veteran
I've owned a 7 and a VI-L (similar to the P). The VI-L was a better built camera - simply rock solid. The 7 might have been a little more useful as a pure shooter since it has more framelines. They are both great cameras in my view.
Bingley
Veteran
There are a number of differences of significance between the two cameras; whether they are big, big differences I think is more a matter of personal taste. The biggest difference between the P and the 7 is that the 7 has a built-in meter and the P has none. A second major difference between the P and the 7 is in the viewfinder: the 7's viewfinder has separate, switchable framelines for 35, 50, 85/100, and 135 mm lenses. The P's framelines -- for 35, 50, and 100 mm -- are always visible. Some folks prefer the former, and as a glasses wearer I find the 35 mm framelines on the 7 somewhat easier to see. For 50 mm, however, I think it's a toss-up. The third difference of note is size: the 7 is a larger camera (taller and slightly heavier) than the P, although not by a significant margin. Beyond these are some differences which may or may not be minor depending on how you intend to use the camera. The 7 has a shutter lock, the P has none. The P, however, has an accessory shoe for flash, lightmeter, or auxiliary finders; the 7 has none (although the 7s has an accessory shoe).
I have both and think they're great cameras. They have a solid feel and quality of construction that is first rate. I've never owned a Leica, so I can't make that comparison, but there are threads here and over at photo.net indicating that the Canons were not inferior to Leica in that department. Of course, individual models may vary depending on condition. My P, which has had a CLA, has a very, very quiet shutter, quietier than the shutter on my 7 (which in any event is still pretty quiet). Both cameras use the LTM mount and can accept nearly all LTM lenses (the exception appears to be some of the Jupiter lenses -- other threads address this issue). The 7, however, has an additional mount that allows the camera to take the f.95 lens.
If you think you might use a 28 or wider lens, and will need an accessory finder, get the P. If you think you might use the 50/.95 lens, get the 7. If you want a built-in meter, there are many 7's out there with meters that still work. Beyond that, the choice between the two comes down to aesthetics and price.
I have both and think they're great cameras. They have a solid feel and quality of construction that is first rate. I've never owned a Leica, so I can't make that comparison, but there are threads here and over at photo.net indicating that the Canons were not inferior to Leica in that department. Of course, individual models may vary depending on condition. My P, which has had a CLA, has a very, very quiet shutter, quietier than the shutter on my 7 (which in any event is still pretty quiet). Both cameras use the LTM mount and can accept nearly all LTM lenses (the exception appears to be some of the Jupiter lenses -- other threads address this issue). The 7, however, has an additional mount that allows the camera to take the f.95 lens.
If you think you might use a 28 or wider lens, and will need an accessory finder, get the P. If you think you might use the 50/.95 lens, get the 7. If you want a built-in meter, there are many 7's out there with meters that still work. Beyond that, the choice between the two comes down to aesthetics and price.
I own an M3 and Canon P, L1, VT. Let me assure you the Canon cameras of the 1950s are every bit on par with their German friend. There are some design differences, back door loading being the biggest, which effect the feel and handling of the cameras, but the Canons are excellently made.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
A very significant difference is that the 7-series viewfinder uses projected framelines -- the frames are formed by a separate mask that's illuminated by the frosted window between the viewfinder and rangefinder windows, and then projected optically into the sight path.
The P uses the older system of reflected finder frames, in which the framelines are silvered lines on a mask just inside the eyepiece. These lines are supposed to reflect light from the scene forward to a semi-transparent mirror, which then bounces them back to the eye.
The projected frameline system (as used on the 7-series) provides framelines that are clearer, and which stay visible under a wider range of lighting conditions. The reflected framelines on the P often are harder to see, or become partially invisible, if the eye isn't perfectly centered, or under sidelight or backlight conditions.
That's why all modern "serious" RF cameras, such as Leica Ms, Zeiss Ikons, and C-V Bessas, use projected frameline systems. Reflected framelines still are used in some less-expensive viewfinder cameras such as point-and-shoots.
The P uses the older system of reflected finder frames, in which the framelines are silvered lines on a mask just inside the eyepiece. These lines are supposed to reflect light from the scene forward to a semi-transparent mirror, which then bounces them back to the eye.
The projected frameline system (as used on the 7-series) provides framelines that are clearer, and which stay visible under a wider range of lighting conditions. The reflected framelines on the P often are harder to see, or become partially invisible, if the eye isn't perfectly centered, or under sidelight or backlight conditions.
That's why all modern "serious" RF cameras, such as Leica Ms, Zeiss Ikons, and C-V Bessas, use projected frameline systems. Reflected framelines still are used in some less-expensive viewfinder cameras such as point-and-shoots.
leica M2 fan
Veteran
Thanking the Big Bats
Thanking the Big Bats
who came up to the plate to answer this question for me. Thanks to all. The canon P and 7 are very appealing. My thinking right now is that I would probably try to get a canon lens to go with it. When I decide I'll post here.i'm reallly tempted by the 7.
Thanking the Big Bats
who came up to the plate to answer this question for me. Thanks to all. The canon P and 7 are very appealing. My thinking right now is that I would probably try to get a canon lens to go with it. When I decide I'll post here.i'm reallly tempted by the 7.
back alley
IMAGES
i founf that the biggest difference in use was the feel of the cameras.
the 7 just feels bigger and more cumbersome than the p.
i don't think the actual differences are that great though.
the p is a race car in looks while the 7 is a station wagon.
joe
the 7 just feels bigger and more cumbersome than the p.
i don't think the actual differences are that great though.
the p is a race car in looks while the 7 is a station wagon.
joe
ferider
Veteran
Forgive the question of the ignorant, Joe: which one has what framelines, in particular 100mm ? Also, are the P/7* viewfinders outside the 35mm framelines big enough to cover 28 ?
Thanks,
Roland.
Thanks,
Roland.
back alley
IMAGES
the p has 35/50/100 framelines.
the 35 seem to be hard for some folks to see.
i didn't have much problem though but i did use a finder for the 28.
i can't remmeber the 7 that well, i had one for a brief time and never got all that comfy with it. i do have small hands and that might have been part of the problem.
the p was just sleek and sized perfectly for me.
joe
the 35 seem to be hard for some folks to see.
i didn't have much problem though but i did use a finder for the 28.
i can't remmeber the 7 that well, i had one for a brief time and never got all that comfy with it. i do have small hands and that might have been part of the problem.
the p was just sleek and sized perfectly for me.
joe
ferider
Veteran
Thanks, Joe.
Roland.
Roland.
ferider
Veteran
So I understand the P has a 1:1 finder ? Could anybody please post a picture of the P with the 100/2 attached ? Mark, do you read this ?
Thanks guys,
Roland.
PS: Joe, you see where my GAS is driving me ....
Thanks guys,
Roland.
PS: Joe, you see where my GAS is driving me ....
back alley
IMAGES
i never had the 100/2 but i did have the 85/2 which is much cheaper and very sharp in it's own right.
canon p has 1:1 finder, yes.
you cannot go wrong with a p.
joe
canon p has 1:1 finder, yes.
you cannot go wrong with a p.
joe
Bingley
Veteran
Roland -- The 7 also has framelines for 100mm; they're combined w/ the framelines for 85mm. See my earlier post in this thread. As for the 35mm framelines, there is virtually nothing outside them on the P. On the 7, however, you can see outside the 35mm framelines (the finder magnification is .8 on the 7). Whether this is wide enough to use w/ a 28 is harder to say, but I'd be v. interested in the experience of others on this subject. I think Frank (Sonnar2) suggested it was possible in a thread on the 7 some time ago.
venchka
Veteran
VI-T vs. P/7
VI-T vs. P/7
I own VI-T bodies. I've never held/used either the P or 7. However, one feature of the VI-T which may/may not have moved forward to the P & 7 is the rangefinder magnifier. This feature aids with focusing longer (85-100-135) lenses. The VI-T also has a system for automatic parallax correction with the correct viewfinders. I have one of these viewfinders for my 135mm lens and it works! I'm not sure if thissystem made it into the P or 7.
Canon's have metal shutter curtains. These may account for the slightly different sound compared to Leica. Not exactly louder, just different. It does account for improved durability vs. Leica.
Last, but certainly not least, is film loading. Sorry folks, but I doubt that I'll ever get used to loading a Leica. I guess my old, tired brain & fingers will always be more accustomed to opening a camera's back and being able to get at everything.
Bottom line: From V-T Deluxe onward all Canon bodies are good. I happen to prefer the VI-T. YMMV.
VI-T vs. P/7
I own VI-T bodies. I've never held/used either the P or 7. However, one feature of the VI-T which may/may not have moved forward to the P & 7 is the rangefinder magnifier. This feature aids with focusing longer (85-100-135) lenses. The VI-T also has a system for automatic parallax correction with the correct viewfinders. I have one of these viewfinders for my 135mm lens and it works! I'm not sure if thissystem made it into the P or 7.
Canon's have metal shutter curtains. These may account for the slightly different sound compared to Leica. Not exactly louder, just different. It does account for improved durability vs. Leica.
Last, but certainly not least, is film loading. Sorry folks, but I doubt that I'll ever get used to loading a Leica. I guess my old, tired brain & fingers will always be more accustomed to opening a camera's back and being able to get at everything.
Bottom line: From V-T Deluxe onward all Canon bodies are good. I happen to prefer the VI-T. YMMV.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Both are highly specified 35mm cameras. Here are my main gripes.
The Canon 7 does not have an accessory shoe and as Joe said, looks like a Fairlane station wagon.
The Canon P does not have a set of 85mm frame lines.
I can live with the P's reflected frame lines, especially when shooting with a 35mm focal length lens. It's RF patch on the dim side when compared to a Leica M.
The Canon 7 does not have an accessory shoe and as Joe said, looks like a Fairlane station wagon.
The Canon P does not have a set of 85mm frame lines.
I can live with the P's reflected frame lines, especially when shooting with a 35mm focal length lens. It's RF patch on the dim side when compared to a Leica M.
> The Canon 7 does not have an accessory shoe and as Joe said, looks like a Fairlane station wagon.
No wonder I like it so much. We had a Fairlane Station Wagon when I was in Kindergarten.
No wonder I like it so much. We had a Fairlane Station Wagon when I was in Kindergarten.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
I prefer the P - less complicated, fewer things to go wrong or break, good looking and built like a tank.
But then I pretty much only shoot 35 and 50mm, and don't need a meter.
But then I pretty much only shoot 35 and 50mm, and don't need a meter.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
venchka said:
Neither the three-position viewfinder (including the RF magnifier) nor the auto parallax correcting accessory shoe appears on either the P or the 7 series.
One could argue that the 7-series didn't need them, since its RF base length is longer (providing better focusing accuracy without the magnifier) and it has built-in framelines for every lens that really needs parallax compensation (35, 50, 85/100, and 135.) With anything longer than a 135, you're using the "Mirror Box 2" reflex housing, so no parallax compensation required... and with anything wider than 35, the accessory viewfinders aren't super-accurate to begin with, so parallax compensation is of dubious use.
The P was basically a stripped-down econo version of the VI-L, the VI-T's near-twin which differed mainly in having a thumb lever rather than trigger wind. To hold down the P's cost, they omitted the three-position finder: it's strictly a non-adjustable 1:1 view like the VI's 50/100mm view, with an additional, barely-visible 35mm line squeezed in around the outside. They also deleted the parallax compensation pin in the accessory shoe. Most people don't miss the pin, and either make do with the hard-to-see 35mm frame or ignore it entirely. The omission of these two features does give the P a spare, uncluttered quality that's very appealling -- but if you want them, you can get them by hunting around for a VI-L, which is very similar in appearance and operation but has the switchable finder and pin. And of course the VI-T is just the same except for winding via the trigger rather than thumb lever.
One quirk about all this finder-swapping is that the VI cameras do NOT offer parallax compensation for the 35mm lens -- when you switch the finder to the 35mm position, you get a less-magnified image with no frameline. It's easier to see to the edges than the P's 35mm frame, but you lose both the 1:1 finder view and the parallax-compensated frameline. The P's 35mm frameline is hard to see, but at least you've got one, and it does move to compensate for parallax.
On the other hand, the other thing you give up with the P is the "Mg" magnifying position, which really does enhance the focusing accuracy of the short-base rangefinder. Switch a VI-T or VI-L to the "Mg" position, slip the appropriate Lumi-field accessory finder into the auto-parallax-compensating shoe, and you've got a rig that has no problems with accurate focusing of the 85/1.5, 100/2, or 135/3.5 lenses (although you can't follow-focus action subjects because you have to switch your eye between the rangefinder eyepiece and the viewfinder eyepiece.)
All this cleverly-engineered semi-inconvenience was pretty darn sophisticated by early-1950s standards, but after the Leica M3 came out in 1954, it was obvious the playing field had changed and that photographers were going to expect future Canons to let them focus accurately with a wide range of lenses while offering the convenience of parallax compensation and avoiding the INconvenience of using accessory viewfinders! Hence the 7, which solved the focusing-accuracy issue by lengthening the RF base, while solving the parallax-compensation and follow-focus issues by providing a very comprehensive set of framelines.
(Canon evidently was so convinced that photographers were sick of accessory viewfinders that they didn't even provide a shoe for them on the 7... an omission they later corrected on the 7s.)
Solinar
Analog Preferred
That's quite a write up. My guess on the lack of an accessory shoe on the 7, was the space was needed for the meter display.
Like it, dislike it or not give a hoot, it was the first highly specified, 35mm rangefinder in a Leica mount with a built-in meter. It was one less item to carry, and made the camera more compact than either a Leica or a Canon VI series with a selenium meter mount to the accessory shoe.
Brian, on the Summarit thread, I don't care which lens was used, but that photo showing the grabbing of the next ring is awesome.
Like it, dislike it or not give a hoot, it was the first highly specified, 35mm rangefinder in a Leica mount with a built-in meter. It was one less item to carry, and made the camera more compact than either a Leica or a Canon VI series with a selenium meter mount to the accessory shoe.
Brian, on the Summarit thread, I don't care which lens was used, but that photo showing the grabbing of the next ring is awesome.