Canon LTM Contemplating Canon 7 purchase

[Peter Jennings]

As you can see, people’s opinions vary widely. You should probably just go ahead and get one to find out for yourself on which side of the fence you stand. As for me, I had one for a while and then sold it and have not missed it or ever considered getting another. It was a nice camera and was easy to load and shoot, but I didn’t find anything enjoyable about it. It was too big, felt too hollow, and the shutter was too loud. Replaced it with an M2 that I plan to keep as long as there’s film to put in it, but that’s just my two cents.

 

[xayraa33]

"My thought exactly. Value for the money and perhaps worth a try.

Opinion appears to be equally divided, however, on whether the "mushy" finder patch makes the 7 series significantly harder to focus than a Leica. There is a pretty close division of opinion also on whether to bother buying the Canon 7 or 7s."


The Canon 7 finder and RF patch is virtually the same on the 7s, both kind of near-sighted but a big improvement over other earlier Canon RF cameras.

Only on the last series of Canon 7s referred to as the Canon 7sz ( I don't think that was an official designation ) was the finder corrected.

The problem with the 7s or the rarer 7sz is that they sell for a much higher price than the 160 to 200 dollars US that you can easily snag a Canon 7 these days.

 

[randy stewart]

Canon RF body for use

Canon RF body for use

Without intent, over the years I have become something of a Canon RF collector. I have and in the past used both a 7 and a 7s. They are heavy, much more so than previous Canon bodies. I would not recommend either as a "user", regardless of the pros and cons mentioned regarding the viewfinders, rangefinders, hot shoe issue, etc. My concern is the shutter. It is a metal foil shutter with a complex drive system. Over the years, the springs tend to weaken and go out of speed adjustment. There are no parts and very few repair persons will work on them. I had my 7 overhauled by Ken Ruth when I bought it about 25 years ago. Ken was a recognized expert of Canon RF, but he was unable to get the speeds over 1/125 into spec. And that was considered a good result. So, when I use my Canon RF system, I use my VI-T instead. In conclusion, if you want to actually use your LTM lenses on a Canon body, get a P if the reduced mag viewfinder is workable for you, or an earlier VI-T or VI-L. Their shutters are basically the same as a Leica and can be maintained anywhere.

 

[Robert Lai]

The Canon FX and the Canon 7s

The Canon FX and the Canon 7s

The Canon FX was my very first camera. Actually, my father bought it for himself when he had an interest in photography, and he bought it from my uncle, who had studied engineering in Japan. The camera was from 1964, and it came with the FL 58mm f/1.2 lens. Unfortunately, I learned the hard way that the FX shutter easily jams if you wind on prematurely during a long exposure. Also, that the grease from the helicals can migrate into the FL lens diaphragm and freeze up the diaphragm blades.

The meter of the FX is coupled to the shutter speed dial by a silken cord. If that cord finally snaps, then your meter is defunct. I learned that the Nikon F and it's F mount lenses were superior to the Canon SLRs of that time.


With respect to your question about the battery for the 7s meter, I use a silver oxide 645 battery (1.5V), and a pratedthai adapter. The latter is sold on ebay, and is manufactured in Thailand. Gold plated for excellent electrical contact, and far cheaper than the other battery voltage adapters out there. The pratedthai adapter lowers the voltage to 1.35V, and the silver cells have the same flat discharge curve as the mercury batteries originally.


For ease of use, I find the Leica M7 the easiest of my 35mm rangefinders to use, due to its auto exposure. Having said that, I would say for the LTM cameras, the Bessa R, then the Canon 7s, and the Leica IIIG rank in the order of descending ease of use. I had the Leica IIIF also (red dial), but the flash synchronizer setting was too much of a pain for me. I use electronic flash as well as flash bulbs, and although you can get perfect synchronization for any type of flash, I had to carry a data index card with me for the synchronizer settings.


P.S. I do still own a Canon SLR - a FTbn. But I own Nikon F, F2A, and F3HP, F3T also.

 

[traveler_101]

Great kit - you have good taste! I especially like the Leica II - of course 🙂

I have the Canon 7, a Bessa R2, and a Leica II. I've at various times had the IIF, IIIF, M3 and M4-P as well...
they are all the BEST and all are my favorite....🙄

Not very helpful, but seriously, the Canon 7 is cool! Big and heavy i suppose but I dig the holder "L" and a Black Rapid sling with that camera.

The Screwmount Leicas are seriously amazing, compact and solid (as you know) Somehow, the II is better than the IIf and the IIIf 😕 for me.

Never bonded with the M3 and the M4-P - probably like you said, the mega-expensive native lenses 😱

The R2 is my latest and combines a lot that I like about rangefinders without feeling as flimsy as the R.

I'm partial to black cameras.....

 

[rbiemer]

I've owned and used Canon 7, P, Vt, and IVsb. And Leica II and M4. And Bessae R and R2a.

What I still have and use is the Bessa R.

I liked the 7 well enough and the viewfinder was fine for my vision and my eyeglasses--I'm pretty farsighted and lots of astigmatism so I can't just take my specs off to shoot.
What led me to sell the 7 was the lack of a cold shoe. I like the 21mm CV lens quite a lot and rely on the vf for framing. The included framelines on the 7 were good for their respective focal lengths.

I have settled on the Bessa R in large part because its vf is so good. That plus the meter.

Not sure what prices for the 7 are like locally to you, traveler_101, but on line they seem to fairly easy to find in decent condition--apart from the meter which is always going to be a bit of a gamble given the age of them--for pretty reasonable money. Around $100 US or so. More for better visual condition. Which is equivalent to a really nice meal for two where I'm from.

So, you could consider it this way: if you are willing or interested in spending about that much on a much more ephemeral evening's entertainment, it might be worthwhile to spend that much on a camera that you may like quite well and have the use of for several years at least.

Not that much of "risky proposition" I think. I don't know how your health is but if you like the 7 and have 10 years left to use it, you'll have the use of a nice camera for about $10 a year. Or, again using prices from my local area, the equivalent of two good beers per year.

Rob

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Huge might be good, as a change of pace (all my cameras film and digital are quite small). Who knows how it would feel in my hands?

By the way Ko-Fe, I think your struggles with the Leica M made me think twice about buying one. You replaced your M4-2 with a Bessa R3M and your M3 with a IIIg? Was it the M4 that had an incurable light leak+

Knock on wood, but my little IIIf has given zero troubles since I got her.

🙂 I never owned IIIg, it is waste of money, IMO. I never owned M4.
I never replaced M4-2 with R2M or anything else, yet. M4-2 is my everyday camera. Where light leak comes and goes at its own 🙂

 

[GulfCoastPhotog]

First bought a P and used it for several years and loved it. But also wondered about a 7, bought one with working meter, have never checked accuracy. Sunny 16 or hand held since my Argus C-3 days long ago. But just have not been able to love it like the P. Good luck with your search for the right one.

David

 

[Darinwc]

If there were a perfect Canon, it would sell at Leica M prices. Whatever you pick, it will be a compromise. The 7 had a nice bright and clear viewfinder. Selectible frame lines which are paralax corrected. Great in daylight. The rangefinder patch on mine was a little faded so not as easy to focus in dim light. I had no problems with the shutter.. spot on at all speeds. Also consider easy back door loading. Way easier than a Leica. No accessory shoe.

The P is also a big cameras.. about the same size as the 7, but without the bulge for the light meter. The P rangefinder also suffers from age. So find one with a good image. P viewfinder is better for 50mm and 7 is better for 35mm. P has a shoe. P has no meter.

As an alternative, just get some nice accessory viewfinders for your lenses and use the Leica you already have.

 

[retinax]

Focusing a 7 works great with or without glasses. The RF patch may not be as sharp-edged as on a Bessa, but also doesn't disappear if your eye isn't exactly centered as on the Bessa R. The incidence does however move about a bit, so focus is perfect only when the eye is centered.

The 35mm frame line is not visible in its entirety with glasses on, the 50mm one is just so for me.

The 35 Ultron does intrude a bit into the frame line IIRC, but not too much.

 

[DavidC]

it's the rangefinder patch

it's the rangefinder patch

The 7 is a durable camera with a problem in its viewfinder. The area around the fuzzy rangefinder patch is often plagued by a halo of light resulting from internal reflections (lack of condenser?). This problem is found in the 7s as well and sadly even the 7sZ. I have reached the conclusion that Leica Ms and Zeiss ZM still have the best patches in the 35 mm arena.

 

[traveler_101]

Reviving this thread for anyone who might be thinking of acquiring a Canon 7.

I have been looking for a camera to match up with my 35mm Ultron LTM. I have a Leica IIIf and a Bessa R. For a larger lens I wanted something bigger than the IIIf and nicer than the Bessa. So I thought perhaps the Canon 7. Opinion in this thread was divided on my plan and frankly I came away thinking, I'll follow this advice:

"If I were in your shoes, I'd slap an M-mount adapter on your 35mm Ultron and save for a user M2 to pair it with."

Easier said than done. Prices have exploded. E-bay sellers won't take returns. Decent M2 cameras selling at $1300. Not available at used dealers. Even E-bay has had very few listings. When this damned epidemic is over, I may go hunt a M2 down in Germany. But in the meantime I went back to my original plan.

Bought a Canon 7 in good condition from Japan, shipped to USA for $100. So far I am very pleased - though I haven't run a roll through it yet.

Here are some reactions in response to comments in this thread

Size - "It is huge": no, it isn't.

Build quality - 'not that good or not as good as the earlier Canons'. Well perhaps, but it feels like a really solid camera in hand. The advance is really smooth.

Viewfinder -Not as good as Leica M. I guess not, but framelines are very clear, though hard to see 35mm lines with glasses on; it is nice that the FL is identified; the RF patch is not as good as the Bessa-R but so far no trouble focusing it. It has less glare than the Bessa finder, by the way.

Shutter - is much quieter than I had imagined and specifically lacks the tinny sound the Bessa-R makes

Meter - works! - and I noticed that there are many examples advertised on E-bay with working meters. Meter seems accurate to me (will test against phone app soon). Also the meter function is really neat: if you want to use it, it is there; if not it is easy to ignore

Appearance - looks cool

So far so good. I am very happy with this camera. We'll see about all the things that could be wrong with an old camera . . .

 

[GulfCoastPhotog]

When I was shooting a lot more loved my Canon P but was always curious about the 7. Picked one up several years ago and just can not seem to use. The P just seems to work prefect for me.

David

 

[retinax]

I started with a 7 and later got a P, I prefer the 7. I can't agree with the often repeated statement that the P or earlier Canon RFs were better built, either. I also agree that it looks cool. It took a while for my hands to get used to how relatively tall it is, and a soft release really helps with it. Great camera, not perfect, but great. The Ultron 35 goes great with it. Mine sports the somewhat larger Ultron 28 1.9 most of the time.

 

[Pentode]

I have the 7 and the P and I like both. They both operate well and they’re both pleasant cameras to shoot with.

The viewfinder on the 7 is a little nicer than on the P but they’re both good. Neither is as good as my Leica M. The 7 is big, yes, but it’s not unwieldy. The meter on mine sort of works but it’s far from accurate.

All in all the Canons of that era are good, solid cameras.

 

[newst]

I have an excellent Canon P, a very fine Canon V L2 that is a great user after a CLA (filthy and gritty inside and out before). And a beater Canon 7 that I received attached to a Canon 1.4/50 that is excellent condition.

Everything on the 7 works fine except for the metering. The meter doesn't function and you cannot set the film ISO. It is relegated to the same photographic routine as the P and the V 2.

Personal user experience relegates it to my fourth choice rangefinder after the P, the V L2, and a FED-2.