colyn
ישו משיח
zoom2zoom said:
I don't see any reason why it won't work. You will have to zone focus since it isn't rangefinder coupled.
Help me find a Canon 7s or 7z
- Thread starter zoom2zoom
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 39
- Views 3K
I don't see any reason why it won't work. You will have to zone focus since it isn't rangefinder coupled.
Why buy a Canon .95 and 7 or 7s to SHOOT ?
Why buy a Canon .95 and 7 or 7s to SHOOT ?
These are great collectibles, but as shooters, there are far better choices.
The Canon 50/.95 usually SUCKS wide open. The Voigtander 35/1.2 or Leica 50/1 Noctilux ar far wiser low light lens choices.
the Canon 50/.95 TV lens (strangely enough, for TV cameras) does not have factory RF coupling, but some have been converted by inventive repairmen. The standard 50/.95 does have RF coupling.
As far as the bodies, both the 7 and the 7s are a bit FAT with not so great advance levers. the V-L's including the L-1 to L-3 are far more interesting classic Canon cameras, to me anyway. Or a user Leica M2. From a convenience standpoint, the Voigtlander R2M/R3M have all the above easily beat. I own the Vt Deluxe, L-2, VI-L, and 7sZ. I made a point of not owning any of the knob wind Canons. I don't find them interesting, except the rare pre-war models. A very early such Canon sold on Ebay this year. A hand made non working Kwanon prototype. For less than I was expecting, $175,000 or so.
Stephen
Why buy a Canon .95 and 7 or 7s to SHOOT ?
These are great collectibles, but as shooters, there are far better choices.
The Canon 50/.95 usually SUCKS wide open. The Voigtander 35/1.2 or Leica 50/1 Noctilux ar far wiser low light lens choices.
the Canon 50/.95 TV lens (strangely enough, for TV cameras) does not have factory RF coupling, but some have been converted by inventive repairmen. The standard 50/.95 does have RF coupling.
As far as the bodies, both the 7 and the 7s are a bit FAT with not so great advance levers. the V-L's including the L-1 to L-3 are far more interesting classic Canon cameras, to me anyway. Or a user Leica M2. From a convenience standpoint, the Voigtlander R2M/R3M have all the above easily beat. I own the Vt Deluxe, L-2, VI-L, and 7sZ. I made a point of not owning any of the knob wind Canons. I don't find them interesting, except the rare pre-war models. A very early such Canon sold on Ebay this year. A hand made non working Kwanon prototype. For less than I was expecting, $175,000 or so.
Stephen
dexdog
Veteran
With regard to the Canon 50/0.95 that in the words of CameraQuest SUCKS, you should check out a test that RFF member Raid recently conducted with this lens. Looks pretty good to me, shot wide open by candlelight. Follow the following link, and judge for yourself.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=674636
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=674636
Lonely Driver
Established
CameraQuest said:
I know what Stephen means about the FAT part of the Canon 7 - it's about the size of a 1970's SLR. I have a pic comparing it to my Nikon F2 and it's comparable in size. As far as the "not so great advance levers," I kind of see what Stephen means. Mine is really silky and dampered feeling - I personally like it, but it is different than all the other winding levers out there. As far as the shape - it does kind of suck.
AFAIK (please please correct me if I'm wrong), the Canon 7 series are the only ones than can actually mount the .95 lens. Also, I'm sure Stephen will disagree with me, but I find the Canon 7 superior to my Nikon SP - the window is SUPER bright & contrasty and everything just feels so much more modern. In terms of features, it's like taking all the goods from a SLR & a rangefinder. But that's just how I feel,
colyn
ישו משיח
What is the difference between the 7s and 7sz?
The 7sz usually goes for considerably more than the 7s on ebay.
The 7sz usually goes for considerably more than the 7s on ebay.
Lonely Driver
Established
colyn said:
Ahh, this is why I respect most everything Stephen says: http://www.cameraquest.com/canon7sz.htm
To quote: "The 7s and 7sZ are almost the same camera. The Z is the rarer and improved version of the 7s, most easily noticeable by its larger rewind knob (compare pics of the 7sZ top, and the 7s to the left). Production is only about 4,000."
Lonely Driver
Established
dexdog said:
I don't mean to be nasty, but at that resolution you really can't tell anything about how sharp a lens is. Here's a shot from my Canon 7 w/ 50mm f1.4. Now this is a sharp setup (terrible photo I know, but I never post my best stuff):
http://takeuchi.bol.ucla.edu/BW31.jpg
disagree, not at all !
choosing a favorite camera is much like choosing a mate
it is what works for you
and like spouses, our camera choices sometime change over time...
at least we don't have to fight over film rights with our ex favorite camera
hmm. And selling un-wanted wives is an idea that might once again catch on.
I agree the Canon 7/7s have a better RF/VF system than the Nikon SP. But to me the SP was much more technically advanced and innovative for its time. To this day the SP and S3 are still the only 35mm RF with a rugged professional quality motor drive. The SP also has better workmanship to me, but admittedly not up the level of the Leica M's or postwar Contax IIa/IIIa. It's the overall package, and our perception thereof. right or wrong, it's the way we see it.
Stephen
dexdog
Veteran
colyn said:
The 7sz is basically the same as the 7s, with a slightly modified rangefinder adjustment mechanism. The RF adjustment port is located on the top of the camera, under the Canon engraving, instead of on the front by the rangefinder window as on the 7s. The 7sz was the last rangefinder that Canon made, numbering about 4000 in all, and sells for a higher price due to collector interest. I believe that the "sz" nomenclature comes from Peter Dechert's book on Canon RF cameras.
zoom2zoom
Established
since i dont have a canon body at the moment... i thought i try and mount this lens to my R-D1s for a try.
i use the M adaptor plus the lens and held the lens with my left hand, and shot with my right.
it seems like it might work, the lens is a bit too far out from the camera, so the focusing is not correct, but i think i can remove the metal plate for mounting the canon 7s, then attach the M adaptor to the lens, it may just work.
and looks like RF coupling will work also.. just need to adjust the spacing between the lens and camera to get the accurate focusing.
here is a test shot with the only lights is from the christmas lighting on the tree, ISO800 f.95
i use the M adaptor plus the lens and held the lens with my left hand, and shot with my right.
it seems like it might work, the lens is a bit too far out from the camera, so the focusing is not correct, but i think i can remove the metal plate for mounting the canon 7s, then attach the M adaptor to the lens, it may just work.
and looks like RF coupling will work also.. just need to adjust the spacing between the lens and camera to get the accurate focusing.
here is a test shot with the only lights is from the christmas lighting on the tree, ISO800 f.95
Attachments
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Whoa, things are getting out of hand here! Let's clear the air:
-- First of all, Zoom2zoom's TV version of the 50/0.95 has the correct external breech mount to attach to a 7-series Canon, but I wouldn't try mounting it because that extended baffle tube sticking out of the back might hit the RF coupling arm. As previously noted, the TV version won't couple to the camera rangefinder.
For reference, I'm attaching a photo of the back end of the RF-coupled version (mine, before I had it converted to M mount.) Note how the rear element of the lens has a flat ground into one edge to make room for the rangefinder coupling tab to stick through. Also note how the surrounding chrome guard has been pared down to a short tube with tabs sticking out, to avoid interference with the guts of the camera. The tabs extend just far enough to let you set the lens back-end-down on a flat surface without the rear element touching.
-- As to the quality of the 50/0.95: While I don't want to get into an argument with Stephen, I still feel this lens is very usable for low-light shooting if you don't object to its distinctive "look."
One thing of which you do need to be aware is the exotic flare spots it can produce if bright light sources are included in the picture; there are some lurid examples in my late-night-drag-racing photo essay (click here if you haven't seen it one of the dozens of times I've linked it previously; if you have, sorry, here it is again!)
While I'd have to agree with Stephen that the 50/1.5 Nokton produces images of more conventionally high technical quality, I still feel you can get usably good images with the 50/0.95, and you can get them in light that's one full stop dimmer than you can with the 50/1.5. If you want to do some comparisons, see this thread (click here), in which I did some simple comparison shots of the 50/0.95, Canon 50/1.2, Canon 50/1.4, and the Nokton.
(Yes, Stephen, I suppose the Noctilux might give better f/1 results than the Canon... but how are you going to mount a Noctilux on a Canon 7s?!?)
As to the 35/1.2... well, I'm planning to order one from Stephen next week, so once I've got that maybe I can do some more comparisons!
-- As to this business of 7/7s-bashing, I take umbrage! Yes, it looks big and blocky, but in terms of actual measurements it's only a few mm larger in every dimension than the Canon P, which is widely considered an epitome of svelte elegance. I personally find the shape of the wind lever very comfortable. And the wind stroke is smoother than a Leica M's (shocking but true!)
-- As to the differences between the 7s and 7sZ, the rewind crank and whatnot are just cosmetic (and not sure clues; I'm told that rewind crank was shared with Canon SLRs of the same era, and since it'll screw right onto a non-Z 7s, you don't want to rely on it as an identification point!) The real difference is the design of the rangefinder optics, which required moving the little round vertical adjustment port on the top cover from its original position over near the shutter-speed dial (7, 7s) to just over the nameplate engraving (7sZ.)
My second attached photo (supplied courtesy of another RFF member and his repair technician) shows a stripped-down 7sZ undergoing an overhaul. The key difference between this camera and the earlier 7 and 7s is the location of the rangefinder's vertical alignment adjustment. On the 7 and 7s, the rangefinder's secondary mirror (see arrow at right) was mounted on a flat stainless-steel spring, equipped with a tiny jackscrew that pivoted the mirror up and down when it was turned. This is how the vertical alignment was adjusted; it worked, and it was very stable, but the adjustment was touchy and you couldn't do it by sighting through the camera, because the RF image would jiggle frantically with the slightest touch of the screw.
The 7sZ (pictured) used an improved vertical adjustment, via a prism mounted in a rotating barrel next to the finder's beamsplitter block (see arrow at left.) The technician would reach a screwdriver down through the adjustment port and rotate this barrel via its toothed rim. This was a much less touchy adjustment and could be done by eye while looking through the finder.
7sZ owners (I've never found one I could afford to buy myself) have told me the finder is perhaps a bit more resistant to internal reflections than that of the 7/7s, but other than that there aren't any huge differences in use. In other words, the main improvement in the 7sZ benefits the service technician more than it does the user. I'd love to have a 7sZ, but as a camera to shoot with, it doesn't seem worth paying the price premium over a plain 7s.
So, zoom2zoom, don't let anybody put you off a 7s if that's what you want! No, the finder isn't as bright as a modern Bessa's, but the RF base is longer and it's still bright enough to be very usable. As to buying a "user" Leica M2 instead... well, if you don't mind juggling a removable baseplate and takeup spool every time you have to load, fine, but some of us feel that the 7-series' conventional hinged back and fixed spool are a big improvement in usability!
Attachments
Last edited:
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
zoom2zoom said:
Good-looking shot! Looks as if your 50/0.95 is a good specimen.
I actually had my 50/0.95 professionally adapted to an M mount so I could use it on my R-D 1; you might enjoy reading this old thread (click here) about that.
I suppose you could do this conversion yourself, if you're talented with small machine tools. The technician who adapted mine used a Leitz screw-to-bayonet adapter I supplied; he removed the lens' rear breech-lock ring and "wing" tabs, then drilled and countersunk holes in the adapter and screwed it into matching holes he drilled in the rear surface of the lens flange with small flat-headed screws.
If I were going to try this myself, I'd want to remove the lens' optical section before I started drilling, to avoid the risk of damage, but that's easy: remove the wing tabs, unscrew the big multi-slotted retaining ring visible through the two arc-shaped cutouts in the back, and the whole optical unit comes out in one piece.
Getting the rangefinder to couple once the lens is mounted at the correct distance would take some trial and error. Mine was easy since it was already the RF-coupled version with the coupling tab; I've read about people converting the TV version by sticking a blob of epoxy (!) on the rear element and filing it to the correct thickness to actuate the coupling arm in the camera, but I'd hate to do that! The technician who converted my lens said he can add a coupling tab to a TV lens (this costs extra) but didn't tell me how he does it.
Anyway, you'll be in for some interesting experiences with this lens! If nothing else, using it will qualify you to jump into online arguments with people who brand it as crappy without ever having tried it!
dexdog
Veteran
jlw, thank you for the very detailed descriptions on the differences between the Canon 7s and 7sz. I have a couple of 7sz cameras in excellent condition- very pretty, but far from mint. The camera is my favorite Canon RF user, mostly because of the bright finder and 5 switchable framelines. I bought one of the cameras here on RFF for $450. A few bright marks on the bottom and top, but perfect shutter curtains (no wrinkles).
Last edited:
Will
Well-known
It's pretty pointless compare to a Noctilux, you can have 3 lenses with 3 camera bodies for the price of a new Noctilux.
Zoom, if the lens been modified, by all means get the Canon 7 (just get a user and forget the meter). If not, you might want to know the cost/trouble for converting one before any further commitment.
Zoom, if the lens been modified, by all means get the Canon 7 (just get a user and forget the meter). If not, you might want to know the cost/trouble for converting one before any further commitment.
Last edited:
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
So to summarize on zoom2zoom's problem -- the way it looks to me is that if he simply wants to try out the imaging qualities of the 50/0.95, his least expensive alternative would be to have the TV version he has converted to M mount.
The conversion should be possible for under $250, and will let him use it on his R-D 1s -- which is a fun way to use the lens, since it lets you see immediately what kinds of exotic effects you're getting!
If he wants to use it on a Canon 7/7s, he'll not only need to buy a camera body, but add an RF coupling tab to the lens, or find someone who can do this for him.
Good luck, zoom2zoom, and let us know how you come out on this...
The conversion should be possible for under $250, and will let him use it on his R-D 1s -- which is a fun way to use the lens, since it lets you see immediately what kinds of exotic effects you're getting!
If he wants to use it on a Canon 7/7s, he'll not only need to buy a camera body, but add an RF coupling tab to the lens, or find someone who can do this for him.
Good luck, zoom2zoom, and let us know how you come out on this...
zoom2zoom
Established
thaks JLW for all your informative advises, i have contacted Mike to see if he can convert the lens to M-mount, as i believe from the test shots taken with the R-D1, this lens seem to be sharp (or sharper than what i have read on the web) and i would like the capability to shoot wide open at f.95 with the R-D1s.
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
BTW, as an added point: Canon sold a lot of the 0.95's to the TV industries over a period of years. It must have performed well enough for that purpose, and that would certainly make it fine for 4x6 prints 🙂 Maybe even 8x10....
AFAIK, the basic design of the lens didn't change over the production period. There is a site (in Italian) which has 2 designs shown, but I know of no documentation to verify that position. If you need the speed, it's one of the few players in the game, and certainly one of the most affordable.
If you have a nice example, it's definitely worth the money to put it in usable form, whichever you decide.
Harry
AFAIK, the basic design of the lens didn't change over the production period. There is a site (in Italian) which has 2 designs shown, but I know of no documentation to verify that position. If you need the speed, it's one of the few players in the game, and certainly one of the most affordable.
If you have a nice example, it's definitely worth the money to put it in usable form, whichever you decide.
Harry
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
KevinCameras.com
NIKON KIU
Did you say Nippon Kogaku?
You guys are really BAD, all you can do is create GAS😱
Look what you guys made me do:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...MEBI:IT&viewitem=&item=300062777611&rd=1&rd=1
YOU people MADE me bid on this:angel:
Just Kidding, great info. in this thread thanks to Zoom,JLW,Stephen,Dexdog....
Happy Holidays,
Kiu
Look what you guys made me do:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...MEBI:IT&viewitem=&item=300062777611&rd=1&rd=1
YOU people MADE me bid on this:angel:
Just Kidding, great info. in this thread thanks to Zoom,JLW,Stephen,Dexdog....
Happy Holidays,
Kiu
Last edited:
zoom2zoom
Established
jlw said:
I have taken lots of advises and info from JLW and have decided to do the conversion to M mount myself.
so far i have taken the lens apart where i needed to 'trim' down the current rear element tubing that is surrounding the rear glass element. It was about 1/8" too long when mounted to the R-D1. After i removed the tubing from the main glass elements, i used a Dremel and grinded the tubing down.
So far so good, i used a Voigtlander M adaptor to test the lens and seems pretty accurate from looking at the distance scale on the barrel. (i cant use the couplingas this is the TV version, but i will try and convert that next).
right now, I need to mount the M-adaptor to the lens. Looks like the best solution is to drill holes ready to put screws in, and i need to countersink the screws.. But I have no idea where i can get drill bits that small... or does anyone konw where i can go to have it done?
or does anyone know if i can use a 'metal glue' or some sort that i can use??
hopefully someone can help, as once i have the M adaptor and lens mounted together, i can fabricate a tab that will engage the focus coupling to the camera.
