III-A and P

[gtramctram]

If Canon made about 8000 III-As and 87000 P's, why doesn't the III-A demand higher value than a P? At least from a collector standpoint.

I realize there are differences in the cameras themselves and the P is probably a more desireable camera to use, but from the standpoint of rarity it seems the III-A has the edge.

There has got to be more to this than I am seeing.

 

[David Murphy]

The IIIA and most of the bottom loading Canon's are pretty much variations of the same basic model -- they are not so distinct except perhaps to experts (nor are they radically distinct from Leica IIIx's and their many clones). The back loading Canon's such as the P were a big departure technology-wise.

I think the P is accelerating in price partly because 1) It is a very good camera, 2) The incessant hype generated about it on this Web site

I own a Canon VI-L which is said to be (originally) a more expensive version of the P, and it is certainly unique in some regards for a rangefinder. It combines the convenience features of a modern camera: back loading, internal film counter, extra frame lines, flash sync, metal shutter, etc, with rugged all-metal build quality seen only on much more (originally) expensive cameras like the M2, M3 or the Contax IIa. This is terribly appealing to someone who actually takes pictures with their rangefinders.