Canon LTM Canon RF quest.

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
David, that one went for $400 with no bids last week and seeing some other deals looked like a weak week, was there any special event like a superbowl final or something ?

Seems the bay has its own pulses.
 
JLW is the one that got me hooked on the Canon 7 and 50mm F0.95 lens in the first place! Posted a few shots on Stephen Gandy's RF mail list.

The Canon 7 is not as expensive as the lens. A good Canon 7 can be had for $200, the lens is closer to $600. Still about a $1,000 less than a Noctilux, and you get a great LTM body with metal foil shutter curtains. If you are good at modifying lenses, you may as well go with the "TV" version of the lens. They can be had for $200 or so. I have seen site's on the web that have shown how this was done; they built up a ridge on the rear element for RF coupling, essentially epoxied a ring onto the rear element and filed it down to calibrate, and put an M-Mout from an adapter ring onto the lens.

I got lucky and found an RF version with a C-Mount adapter on a BIN as if it were the TV version.

Jim: Are you looking at making a Canon Breech Mount to M-Mount adapter?
 
Last edited:
0.95/50 lens

0.95/50 lens

I had to buy a Canon-7 in order to get a the desired 2/35 "japanese summicron".. turns out that the Canon-7 isn't so ugly and heavy like many people believe... (though not so elegant like my Canon-P :)

So right after I discovered that the 7 is a fine, usable camera the next step was "now you must have the 0.95-monster that only fits to that camera", just for showing and the "I don't know that Canon makes such a lens"-effect... ;-)

I found a true mint example (with later caps, no hood) for ~750 USD - worth the try in times with strong Euro - first, RF coupling worked precise, and 2nd: Again, this is a *good* lens, it has a place-of-honor on my desk. If you use it at f/0.95 at the poorest light you can imagine with 400ASA film (everybody asking where the strobe is) the results are contrasty, sharp in the small area of focus in the center, somewhat like an impressionistic painting, magical... at f/2-2.8 - which I know nobody will use this heap of glass for, just in case you want to know - I mean, everybody has another 1.8, 1.4 or 1.5 50mm lens with "normal" weight and handling? - again, at f/2 the results are sharp like a new lens... closed to f/5.6-8? Never did, stop kidding here...
Anyway, I seriously doubt a Noctilux will do any better wide open..and, sorry, the Canon 0.95 looks better than the Noctilux :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've got a near mint, and I mean really near mint, VI-T Canon, which is basically the P with a bottom built in rapid wind trigger instead of the thumb lever wind and a self timer, if anyone is interested.

Don
 
d30gaijin said:
I've got a near mint, and I mean really near mint, VI-T Canon, which is basically the P with a bottom built in rapid wind trigger instead of the thumb lever wind and a self timer, if anyone is interested.
Click to expand...

Finder of the VI-T also is quite a bit different from the P's. I'll go into lurid detail if anyone wants...
 
Jim: Are you looking at making a Canon Breech Mount to M-Mount adapter?
Click to expand...

I wanted to -- and in fact I did some initial experimentation -- but it doesn't look as if this can be done.

The problem is that the inward-reaching "lands" on the back of the lens' breech-lock ring interfere with the seating of the lens on the body flange. I had hoped their inner diameter was large enough to fall outside the body flange... but it isn't.

So, it looks as if the only way to get a 50/0.95 onto an M-mount body is the same way people have been doing it since 1961: make a custom adaptation that removes the breech-lock ring entirely. I didn't want to do this sort of non-reversible adaptation to my lens, since that would preclude using it on my Canon 7s... so I gave up on the idea.

Another thing to note: The original reason I got involved in this mad experiment was the wild idea of using the 50/0.95 on my Epson R-D1. But it looks as if that wouldn't have worked even if I had been able to make the adapter -- the prongs on the lens' rear-element protector foul on the lower inside edge of the R-D1's body. So, any successful adaptation of the lens to an R-D1 would also require removing these prongs.



PS -- In the unlikely event that anyone other than I is interested in these blatherings and finds them unclear, let me know and I will attach some pix illustrating the problem.
 
backalley photo said:
jl, i'm interested in the lurid details.
joe
Click to expand...

Here's the short but still lurid version:

Both have finders with reflected bright framelines, rather than the projected framelines used on (for example) the Bessa R2 or a Leica M.

In a projected-frame finder, the framelines are actually a mask that's illuminated by a separate frosted window on the front of the camera, and projected into the field of view by a separate optical system. This gives sharp, clear framelines that can be moved to compensate for parallax.

In a reflected-frame finder, there's no frosted window. Instead, the framelines are made of reflective material, etched into a clear plate just inside the eyepiece. Light entering from the front of the viewfinder reflects off these lines forward to a semi-transparent mirror, which bounces it back to the user's eye.

The frames can still be made parallax-compensating (as they are on the P and VI) by moving the eyepiece plate. But it's nearly impossible to make them as sharp and clear as on a projected-frame system. And because the finder needs an extra semi-reflecting surface, it also isn't as clear and contrasty as a good projected-frame finder (although both the P and VI are pretty good as long as all the internal surfaces are clean.)

So, both the P and VI have reflected-frame finders, and both display a life-size (1:1) image in their normal-lens view. But how do they differ?

Well, the P has framelines for 35, 50 and 100mm lenses, all parallax-compensated and all visible simultaneously. Since it's a 1:1 finder, the 35mm frameline has to be pretty far out to the edges; most eyeglasses wearers can barely see it, if at all, and even non-bespectacled types have a hard time viewing it at one glance. (So for all you Bessa R3a users struggling to see that 40mm frameline, welcome to the club!)

The VI, meanwhile, has a more complex finder system, one of Canon's then-traditional switchable magnification types. Set it to the 50mm view and you see a life-size image with 50mm and 100mm framelines, which move to compensate for parallax.

To see the 35mm frame, you switch the magnification control to the 35 position; this shrinks the image size so it's no longer 1:1 but shows the 35mm field of view. This view does NOT have a frameline, and it is not parallax-compensated. It's just a plain, unframed view with the rangefinder spot in the middle.

The third position on the VI's magnification dial magnifies the field so only the center part is visible. It doesn't correspond to any lens; it's intended for critical focusing when you need extra accuracy (a nice feature considering that the VI/P rangefinder's base length is kinda short.)

So, to summarize the strong point of the P's finder, it shows lines for all three lenses, all parallax compensated. The weak point is that the 35mm line is hard to see.

The strong points of the VI finder are that the 35mm view field is easily visible, and there's the extra advantage of the magnified position. The weak point is that the 35mm field has no frameline or parallax compensation.

That's the whole story if your eyes are young and healthy. If you wear glasses, though, there's another important issue that may prove to be the decisive one: in my observation, the P's viewfinder is much more eyeglasses-friendly than the VI's.

For one thing, the VI finder has a fairly strong minus diopter; the P is more nearly neutral. What this means if you've reached the bifocal/reading glasses age is that the VI's minus diopter is working against the plus diopter of your eyeglasses' close-range correction. With the camera cancelling out the assistance of your glasses, your eye may not be able to adjust enough to see clearly through the finder. You're less likely to have this problem with the P.

Another, smaller but significant factor for spec wearers is the eyepiece. The VI has a round metal eyepiece that protrudes from the camera back; you need to get your eye close to it, so it may scratch plastic spectacle lenses. The P has a rectangular, flush-fitting eyepiece; it's easier to get the eye close to it, and it's less likely to scratch.

I have to say that the VI is a beautiful, luxuriously finished camera that operates superbly, and it was my all-time favorite shooter until I got old enough that I had to start wearing progressive bifocals. (Laugh all you want, punk, it'll happen to you too eventually.) Now, I hardly ever get a chance to use it, because it's very difficult for me to see through. The distance half of my glasses (minus diopter) plus the camera's minus diopter adds up to too much minus, and my glasses' close-range half (plus diopter) isn't strong enough to neutralize the camera's finder optics. I keep hoping that eventually my eyes will get bad enough for me to use it without glasses!

Meanwhile, though, I get more use out of the P, simply because it's more comfortable for viewing. I don't shoot with a 35mm lens much, so the relative invisibility of the 35mm frameline isn't an issue for me.

Note that with all this eyeglasses-correction stuff, your mileage DEFINITELY may vary depending on your individual eyesight! So, don't give up on being able to use a VI just because of what I said; it could be that your particular vision and eyeglasses prescription will get along fine with it. For that matter, you might find your eyes go great with a VI and not so well with a P.

So, my fellow four-eyes: try before you buy, or at least make sure you have a return privilege before you commit. You won't get any enjoyment out of using a camera that's uncomfortable to view through, so it pays to check your comfort level.

(Okay, so this didn't turn out to be as short as I had intended!)
 
many thanks jl!

i am a tri-focal user but have not had problems focussing with any camera so far.
yes, the 35 frame lines on my p are useless but i'm a sloppy shooter and now i have a 7 for that pesky 35 i'm waiting on.

i think i would have more problems with the trigger wind because i'm kinda klutzy.

joe
 
Joe,

>>i think i would have more problems with the trigger wind because i'm kinda klutzy.<<

Actually the trigger wind works great even for klutzy people like me and you if you also have the original Canon round grip attachment that screws into the tripod socket on the left bottom side of the camera. And I just happen to have one of those too, also in near mint condition.:p

Happy Holidays,
Don
 
there is a round grip?
really?

i have searched for a grip and found no information that one even existed.
do you have a pic?
is it for sale?
can you get more, do you have a source in idaho??;)

joe
 
It is just like the round CV grip you can see at Cameraquest Joe. A round ball that screws into the tripod socket. It gives you a little leverage when using the trigger.
 
Joe,

I can post a photo later tonight (it's at home and I'm at work). It is a round rod, about 2 1/2" in length, about 5/8" in diameter, knurled and very well made. But as long as I've got the VI-T I'll be keeping the grip.

Don
 
rover said:
It is just like the round CV grip you can see at Cameraquest. It gives you a little leverage when using the trigger.
Click to expand...

The Canon grip isn't a ball -- it's cylindrical. It's visible on my VI-T in the very small picture I've attached.

I concur that this grip is a huge advantage in using a trigger-wind Canon. Without the grip, operating the trigger torques the camera against your hand, causing it to twist off-target. With the grip, the force you apply to the trigger is reacted directly into your palm, so the camera stays straight.

If you can't find a Canon grip, the cylindrical Voigtlander grip is a good substitute (and brings the exact same advantage to the Bessa trigger winder.) But the Canon grip is nicer for a couple of reasons: (a) rather than being a solid piece that screws in, it has a stationary handle with a separate tightening knob on the bottom. This makes it much less unlikely that you'll unscrew the grip in normal camera handling. (b) There's a little chrome L-shaped extension that hooks over the baseplate and keeps the handgrip from rotating as you tighten the knob.

In short, it's the typical 1950s Canon accessory, in which people obviously lavished huge amounts of thought on how to improve and add elegance to a seemingly simple gadget.

Note for grip-hunters: There was a very similar grip made for the accessory rapid-wind baseplate offered for earlier bottom-load Canons, but it will not fit the V and VI models. The grip for the rapid-wind baseplate had two anti-rotation pins that fit into holes on the winder baseplate; the V/VI camera does not have these holes, so the grip won't fit. If you stumble across a grip at a camera sale, make sure it's the right one! For the V/VI grip, look for the little chrome L-shaped baseplate hook (which has a tiny Canon logo engraved on it!)

Here's the little picture of the VI-T with grip:
 
sorry, i have seen these.
i was hoping for a side grip. something to help hang onto the camera when walking around.

joe
 
You can carry it around by the baseplate grip. It even has a convenient wrist strap (which has a steel reinforcement inside so the leather doesn't wear out prematurely -- another of those '50s Canon "how can we make this perfect?" details.)

Simply wrap the fingers of your left hand around the grip and carry the camera at your side. When you're ready, flip the camera up to eye level and let the grip drop down into your palm, kinda like John Wayne drawing his six-shooter. Curl your middle and fourth fingers around the trigger and you're ready for action!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom