nongfuspring
Well-known
Recently I've been getting a bit sick of my AF film and digital cameras failing on me, missing focus, breaking, or simply being too large. It makes me wonder if I'm best off grabbing a simple, solid LTM camera and running with it. That way at least I'll know if anything goes wrong with it I can either fix it myself or have it done by someone without giving up an arm or a leg, and not worry about things like failing electronics or lack of parts.
So anyway, let me know if my idea is unrealistic.
I've always loved the IVSB cameras, and was thinking about picking up a clean body and probably a collapsible industar 22, that way I'd have a bulletproof camera and a very compact setup for when I'm travelling (which seems to be most of the time) for cheap. But there's a couple of few I'm concerned about:
1. Just how reliable/usable is a properly serviced IVSB? Is a IIIf a better bet in this regard?
2. Does an I-22 need to be shimmed to be used on an IVSB for accurate focussing?
3. Just how hard is it to load a bottom loader?
4. How would one calibrate the rangefinder on a camera that doesn't have a back that opens since you wouldn't be able to use ground glass?
Thanks!
So anyway, let me know if my idea is unrealistic.
I've always loved the IVSB cameras, and was thinking about picking up a clean body and probably a collapsible industar 22, that way I'd have a bulletproof camera and a very compact setup for when I'm travelling (which seems to be most of the time) for cheap. But there's a couple of few I'm concerned about:
1. Just how reliable/usable is a properly serviced IVSB? Is a IIIf a better bet in this regard?
2. Does an I-22 need to be shimmed to be used on an IVSB for accurate focussing?
3. Just how hard is it to load a bottom loader?
4. How would one calibrate the rangefinder on a camera that doesn't have a back that opens since you wouldn't be able to use ground glass?
Thanks!
thegman
Veteran
Never used an IVSB, but I had a IIIf for a bit, personally I found film loading a real PITA, and if I was to get another Leica, it would be an M of some kind.
Also, I'm not sure if 'bulletproof' is a word I'd use to describe a Leica IIIf. Obviously it's lasted this long, but I couldn't honestly say it inspired confidence in me.
Disclaimer: Yes, yes, I know they're old cameras, well built etc. All I am saying is that the Leica M3 felt much more solid than the IIIf did to me.
Also, I'm not sure if 'bulletproof' is a word I'd use to describe a Leica IIIf. Obviously it's lasted this long, but I couldn't honestly say it inspired confidence in me.
Disclaimer: Yes, yes, I know they're old cameras, well built etc. All I am saying is that the Leica M3 felt much more solid than the IIIf did to me.
peterm1
Veteran
EDITED
Canon cameras in LTM mount are superb little cameras. Built even more strongly, if possible, than Leica equivalents. I have owned two IVSBs at various times and both were lovely little cameras that I enjoyed using. In both cases the lens I used was the 50mm f1.8 Canon or Serenar lens in chrome and if your budget stretches to this I strongly advise getting one. Its a superb shooter.
I had and have very few grumbles about this set up. However, one grumble (small or large depending on your viewpoint) is that the IVSB finder is small and hard to use unless your eyes are in very good condition. If anything the finder is harder to use than the Leica LTM viewfinders notwithstanding its ability to magnify the image with the flip of a lever (I think I recall this model having that feature). But its so damn tiny. An alternative is to use an accessory finder in the accessory mount of the camera for actual framing of the image. Incidentally the IVSB 2 is a better camera in this regard with an improved and redesigned finder (still no where near M mount finders though).
The other issue with Canons (not limited I think to the IVSB) is that it's very easy for something in the timing chain to get out of whack and then disable the slow speeds. My camera guy was familiar with the issue and was able to fix it with nothing more than a screwdriver and some tweaking of the camera's innards. He tried to explain the source of the problem to me but I am sad to say I had no idea what he was talking about other than that the camera's innards are a bit different to Leica's and hence they have this problem that the Leicas do not share. But its easy to fix apparently. That's something. Does this make it unreliable? Well the answer is yes it does a little I guess - but its still a damn nice camera to use and I do not think I would discount it for this reason.
Bottom loaders are a bit of a PITA to load till you get used to them. The best thing to remember is to ALWAYS trim the leader to a longer length than is standard for 35mm film. Then read up on the loading process if possible using a guide with photos and then practice, practice, practice. I have on occasion misloaded a film which then tore and jammed inside the body. It took a huge amount of effort, care and patience to get it out without damaging anything and to make sure it was all out. Once you get the hang of loading, its OK but you do have to be prepared to accept that its not as easy as you would like. After all, a whole generation of photographers made do with this system and thought themselves very fortunate indeed to be owning such a modern and lovely piece of camera technology as a Leica or a Canon.
I do not use Industars so I am afraid I cannot help you much on that front other than that I have read that optically there are great unless you get on that came out of the factory on a Monday or Friday :bang:
I should state that I once owned a late black, 50mm f1.5 of Russian build which I think was a Jupiter and there is also a similar lens in f2 that is a good deal cheaper. Either might also be worth considering as they have a reputation for performing well.
Canon cameras in LTM mount are superb little cameras. Built even more strongly, if possible, than Leica equivalents. I have owned two IVSBs at various times and both were lovely little cameras that I enjoyed using. In both cases the lens I used was the 50mm f1.8 Canon or Serenar lens in chrome and if your budget stretches to this I strongly advise getting one. Its a superb shooter.
I had and have very few grumbles about this set up. However, one grumble (small or large depending on your viewpoint) is that the IVSB finder is small and hard to use unless your eyes are in very good condition. If anything the finder is harder to use than the Leica LTM viewfinders notwithstanding its ability to magnify the image with the flip of a lever (I think I recall this model having that feature). But its so damn tiny. An alternative is to use an accessory finder in the accessory mount of the camera for actual framing of the image. Incidentally the IVSB 2 is a better camera in this regard with an improved and redesigned finder (still no where near M mount finders though).
The other issue with Canons (not limited I think to the IVSB) is that it's very easy for something in the timing chain to get out of whack and then disable the slow speeds. My camera guy was familiar with the issue and was able to fix it with nothing more than a screwdriver and some tweaking of the camera's innards. He tried to explain the source of the problem to me but I am sad to say I had no idea what he was talking about other than that the camera's innards are a bit different to Leica's and hence they have this problem that the Leicas do not share. But its easy to fix apparently. That's something. Does this make it unreliable? Well the answer is yes it does a little I guess - but its still a damn nice camera to use and I do not think I would discount it for this reason.
Bottom loaders are a bit of a PITA to load till you get used to them. The best thing to remember is to ALWAYS trim the leader to a longer length than is standard for 35mm film. Then read up on the loading process if possible using a guide with photos and then practice, practice, practice. I have on occasion misloaded a film which then tore and jammed inside the body. It took a huge amount of effort, care and patience to get it out without damaging anything and to make sure it was all out. Once you get the hang of loading, its OK but you do have to be prepared to accept that its not as easy as you would like. After all, a whole generation of photographers made do with this system and thought themselves very fortunate indeed to be owning such a modern and lovely piece of camera technology as a Leica or a Canon.
I do not use Industars so I am afraid I cannot help you much on that front other than that I have read that optically there are great unless you get on that came out of the factory on a Monday or Friday :bang:
I should state that I once owned a late black, 50mm f1.5 of Russian build which I think was a Jupiter and there is also a similar lens in f2 that is a good deal cheaper. Either might also be worth considering as they have a reputation for performing well.
Bingley
Veteran
I have a IVSB2 and a IIIc. I really enjoy using them both. The Canon is a terrific shooter. The single rf/vf has adjustable magnification which allows for fine focusing, and the shutter is really quiet. I would recomnend a Leica Elmar 50/3.5 with these cameras. It's a superb lens and makes a compact kit. I also use a CV Skopar 50/2.5 with the Canon. The Canon is very robust - I agree with Peter M on that score. And loading, while slow and fussy, is not that bad after you've done iit a few times. You don't need to trim the film leader if you follow the procedure I learned from famed Leica repairman Youxin Ye: set the shutter to T; remove the lens and fire the shutter; slide the film and take-up spool into the camera, and carefully guide the film so that it seats properly (using your finger with the shutter open); close and reset the shutter, put the lens back on, and you're good to go. Alternatively, you can trim the leader, but I've found the other method works well for me.
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
I'd not want to use my now gone IVSB for any sort of serious work. I would, however, gladly use any of the Canons that came after (now have a VT, 7 and an M3) or M Leica.
Not that much bigger, especially if you stick with collapsible lenses. My VT + Summitar is easily thrown in a backpack.
Not that much bigger, especially if you stick with collapsible lenses. My VT + Summitar is easily thrown in a backpack.
Scrambler
Well-known
And the factory method of trimming the leader works better and faster. Trim ALL your film for the day/trip. If you can, get a spare take up spool or two and have a film and spool ready to drop in. Then practice. The factory manual recommends practicing until you can do it with your eyes shut. I don't think you can remove a baseplate and lens and then stuff your fingers into the guts of the camera while blindfolded. Trimming is a mild nuisance but the time is time before you go out not time wasted between each roll. And the second or third spool saves a lot of time.
Barnack Leicas can use FED takeup spools which are cheaper. I don't know if bottom load Canon's can but I would not be surprised.
farlymac
PF McFarland
Another option is the Canon P, with it's swing open back for more conventional loading without having to trim leaders. And it will also give you access to the film plane to check your I-22 focus.
PF
PF
ruby.monkey
Veteran
You didn't get to the 'remove lens' step and think, "You have got to be sh*tting me!"? Wow.
nongfuspring
Well-known
Thanks all. Thats a lot of really good advice, I really appreciate it.
Regarding the Canon P, that was another option, but I was thinking it would be quite a bit larger and less convenient to pack. I do like the camera though, along with the other similar Canon RFs it's incredibly good looking and I like the 1:1 finder, though I'm willing to sacrifice the larger finder for the sake of smaller size. The P seems to be nearing an SLR in terms of size which I'd like to avoid (though I could be wrong here). I have pretty good eyesight and I'm pretty used to using the finders on point and shoot cameras, which are by and large really bad. So, I think I'll probably stick with the IVSB and buy one of the larger canons one day when shaving in airport bathrooms isn't the norm.
I'll be in HK in a couple of weeks so perhaps best I go into a store and test them both out.
Regarding the Canon P, that was another option, but I was thinking it would be quite a bit larger and less convenient to pack. I do like the camera though, along with the other similar Canon RFs it's incredibly good looking and I like the 1:1 finder, though I'm willing to sacrifice the larger finder for the sake of smaller size. The P seems to be nearing an SLR in terms of size which I'd like to avoid (though I could be wrong here). I have pretty good eyesight and I'm pretty used to using the finders on point and shoot cameras, which are by and large really bad. So, I think I'll probably stick with the IVSB and buy one of the larger canons one day when shaving in airport bathrooms isn't the norm.
I'll be in HK in a couple of weeks so perhaps best I go into a store and test them both out.
Bingley
Veteran
After having to send the camera back for repair of the shutter mechanism b/c of shortcuts in loading that went awry, no I didn't think that. And when your camera repair guy recommends a foolproof way of loading without having to trim leaders, you listen.
GaryLH
Veteran
Plus one.. Of the canon rf's I am also a fan of the P..
For normal m clones, my favorite is the Leica/Minolta CL w/ Minolta 40f2 from the CLE. Followed by the Konica RF w/ a 50f2.
Gary
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
Anything like an Olympus Stylus (Epic, if you prefer) will kill an IVSB for finder size/clarity, never mind a Canonet GIII or something along those lines. My IVSB (it actually was a IVSB2), was as bad as a FED 3b minus the instantaneous glasses-scratches from the FED.
Remember, an IVSB was produced in the mid-1950s. VF tech advanced quite a bit in the subsequent years. Is 1/4" on height/width really going to prevent you from bringing the camera along?
Sorry to be such a sourpuss about this but I really can't recommend anybody who wants to actually use the thing for making pictures vs. just having it on the shelf and occasionally throwing a roll through it to remind oneself about how far cameras have come, to go look at the IVSB and earlier RFs. But...obviously people do use them daily along with all the Barnack Leicas which still have a big following, so what do I know?
Here's a thread from APUG that has some more input.
Remember, an IVSB was produced in the mid-1950s. VF tech advanced quite a bit in the subsequent years. Is 1/4" on height/width really going to prevent you from bringing the camera along?
Sorry to be such a sourpuss about this but I really can't recommend anybody who wants to actually use the thing for making pictures vs. just having it on the shelf and occasionally throwing a roll through it to remind oneself about how far cameras have come, to go look at the IVSB and earlier RFs. But...obviously people do use them daily along with all the Barnack Leicas which still have a big following, so what do I know?
Here's a thread from APUG that has some more input.
Bingley
Veteran
peterm1
Veteran
Yes, the IVSB is quite useless for making pictures...
ruby.monkey
Veteran
Sure; but didn't you then continue with 'and trimming leaders is still quicker and easier', especially when it was so-called short-cuts that caused the problem in the first place?
nongfuspring
Well-known
Hm, ok, I didn't realise the IVSB VF was that bad. I'm used to comfortably using a fed 2 VF and I'm fine with a stylus/epic, but if it's significantly worse than I'll probably go for the P.
Scrambler
Well-known
I don't blame anyone for trying any of the methods recommended by users. In my experience there are three recommended methods and a fourth that works, and of these trimming is (a) what the cameras were designed for (b) what the factory manuals tell you to do and (c) faster and easier than all but the 4th (not really recommended) method.
The methods are:
1) long leader
2) remove lens, use "T" and fingers
3) put business card into film gate and slot film between card and pressure plate.
4) Use a square-cut end and wriggle the film past the sprocket wheel.
Firstly, what are the problems with using a short leader?
The obvious one is that the bottom loaders are not designed for film to get in and out past the sprocket wheel. A long leader avoids this issue - no other method does.
The second, usually unmentioned, issue is that short-leader film has the short leader out of the film cannister, causing a kink just in the full-width section.
It is this kink that "recommended" methods 2 and 3 (and not recommended but used method 4) get around. Using your fingers through the open shutter allows you to get the kink past shutter assembly, while manipulating the film over the sprocket wheel. Putting a credit card into the film gate also avoids the kink catching on the shutter opening.
The final method is a square cut: cut the leader and the kink off square and wriggle the film past the sprocket wheel. No trouble with the shutter because there is no kink but you can tear the edge of the film getting it in and out around the sprocket wheel (which can also occur with methods 2 and 3).
If you have a film with a leader, it's easy to extend it further.
The other thing I recommend is pulling a long "leader" out of the cannister and storing the film that way. It reduces the kink, or in the case of self-loaded film it avoids it being created (in an awkward location).
farlymac
PF McFarland
Of course, you could always buy some bricks of 60 year old film that already has the long leader. Just give it a few more stops of exposure.
The Canon P is the same size of a FED-2, which is slightly larger than an original Barnack body Leica or FSU clone (about a quarter inch longer). The squared off lines of the P just make it look larger since there is so much more flat area to see.
PF
Just give it a few more stops of exposure.The Canon P is the same size of a FED-2, which is slightly larger than an original Barnack body Leica or FSU clone (about a quarter inch longer). The squared off lines of the P just make it look larger since there is so much more flat area to see.
PF
Chucknova
Member
Canon 7
Canon 7
I love my Canon 7 with an 35 Elmar. It's so compact that I can fit 2 extra rolls of film in the front part of the Canon leather case where the rest of a bigger lens would be.
I switched to Canon from a IIIa because I could not deal with the loading procedure or the viewfinder. I'll get a 7s if I ever come across a super wide (19-21mm) lens that I can afford. The 7 doesn't have a shoe for an aux viewfinder.
Canon 7
I love my Canon 7 with an 35 Elmar. It's so compact that I can fit 2 extra rolls of film in the front part of the Canon leather case where the rest of a bigger lens would be.
I switched to Canon from a IIIa because I could not deal with the loading procedure or the viewfinder. I'll get a 7s if I ever come across a super wide (19-21mm) lens that I can afford. The 7 doesn't have a shoe for an aux viewfinder.
Last edited:
Chucknova
Member
Canon 7
Canon 7
I love my Canon 7 with a 35 Elmar. It's so compact that I can fit 2 extra rolls of film in the front part of the Canon leather case where the rest of a bigger lens would be.
I switched to Canon from a IIIa because I could not deal with the loading procedure or the viewfinder. I'll get a 7s if I ever come across a super wide (19-21mm) lens that I can afford. The 7 doesn't have a shoe for an aux viewfinder.
I don't get how a Stylus made into this discussion.
Canon 7
I love my Canon 7 with a 35 Elmar. It's so compact that I can fit 2 extra rolls of film in the front part of the Canon leather case where the rest of a bigger lens would be.
I switched to Canon from a IIIa because I could not deal with the loading procedure or the viewfinder. I'll get a 7s if I ever come across a super wide (19-21mm) lens that I can afford. The 7 doesn't have a shoe for an aux viewfinder.
I don't get how a Stylus made into this discussion.