nongfuspring
Well-known
Ah yeah you're right farlymac, I just saw this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/puqing/2327389157/in/photostream/ which isn't bad at all. I'm pretty used to the size of the Fed 2 so I'm sure the Canon should do the trick nicely.
The stylus came up in discussion in comparison to the IVSB viewfinder.
The stylus came up in discussion in comparison to the IVSB viewfinder.
Bingley
Veteran
On the ultimate question, I think whether the IVSB makes a good travel camera depends on whether you can accept the idiosyncracies of Barnack-type bottom loaders (including finicky loading and squinty viewfinders). I can and happily use Barnack-type cameras for travel when I want something sturdy that's also compact and can take different lenses. I almost always use an accessory viewfinder with the IVSB2 (or IIIc), so in the end the squinty vf isn't much of an issue for me, and I appreciate the compact size of the IVSB2.
IMO, the Canon P is a fine camera if you shoot mainly 50 or 90/100 focal length lenses. But if you're primarily a 35 user, and you wear glasses, you will find the framelines on the P hard to see: they're pushed out to the very edge of the viewfinder. In that regard, the Canon 7 viewfinder is a better bet; it's got a lower magnification than the P so the 35mm framelines are easier to see and frame with. The Canon P is noticeably larger than the IVSB (the Canon 7 is bigger still). However, the P is currently very affordable on the used market, so if cost is a concern it may be a very attractive option for you as a travel camera and to get back into rf shooting.
I sold my P after I acquired a Leica M2 and found the latter much easier to shoot a 35 lens with. But I missed the sleek design of the P, so last year on a whim I picked up a Canon L1 from a member here, and have been happily shooting it since. Unlike the P, the L1 uses variable vf magnification for 35, 50 and 135 focal lengths, so no framelines. The L1 also has a cloth shutter, compared to the steel foil shutter used on the P. The shutter is as quiet as that on my M2 (which is to say very quiet). Otherwise, the two cameras share the same sleek design, easy loading, and rugged build quality. I think the L1 represents a better alternative to the P if you're primarily a 35 user; if you primarily use 50, then it's a wash between the two Canon rf bodies, IMO.
IMO, the Canon P is a fine camera if you shoot mainly 50 or 90/100 focal length lenses. But if you're primarily a 35 user, and you wear glasses, you will find the framelines on the P hard to see: they're pushed out to the very edge of the viewfinder. In that regard, the Canon 7 viewfinder is a better bet; it's got a lower magnification than the P so the 35mm framelines are easier to see and frame with. The Canon P is noticeably larger than the IVSB (the Canon 7 is bigger still). However, the P is currently very affordable on the used market, so if cost is a concern it may be a very attractive option for you as a travel camera and to get back into rf shooting.
I sold my P after I acquired a Leica M2 and found the latter much easier to shoot a 35 lens with. But I missed the sleek design of the P, so last year on a whim I picked up a Canon L1 from a member here, and have been happily shooting it since. Unlike the P, the L1 uses variable vf magnification for 35, 50 and 135 focal lengths, so no framelines. The L1 also has a cloth shutter, compared to the steel foil shutter used on the P. The shutter is as quiet as that on my M2 (which is to say very quiet). Otherwise, the two cameras share the same sleek design, easy loading, and rugged build quality. I think the L1 represents a better alternative to the P if you're primarily a 35 user; if you primarily use 50, then it's a wash between the two Canon rf bodies, IMO.
nongfuspring
Well-known
I'm definitely going to primarily shoot 50mm, but I would be open to toying with 35mm lenses if I found one at the right price, so the L1 is interesting. So far I've read the L1's VF is a bit darker but RF patch is better than the P? I think perhaps the metal shutter is a bit more attractive to me than the cloth since I tend to hear quite a bit about burn holes and cloth having a more limited lifespan, but feel free to say otherwise.
The M2 is a very nice camera and I tried a friend's a while ago. I was very impressed but I feel that with an LTM system I'll be able to expand my lens collection for a lot less money (my budget is around 200 - 250 for lens and body). I realise the M lenses are often fantastic, but I'm mostly interested in more idiosyncratic glass and the ability to experiment with different lens designs without blowing the bank.
peterm1
Veteran
If you are into 35mm lenses for Canon, the tiny little Canon/Serenar 35mm f3.5 is quite good for this purpose. I have one (largely unused now) that I used to shoot regularly and thought it gave a nice "old world" look to images, especially ones shot in black and white. Quite similar in fact to the Leica Summaron 35mm f3.5 in terms of results. I have not checked prices but they were quite inexpensive to buy back when I bought mine. The 35 mm accessory finder that usually is used with it is a joy. Small, well made and nice looking it really makes a wonderful kit when matched with the lens.
goamules
Well-known
Don't listen to the naysayers. The Canon IVSB is a fine travel camera. Folks, this is a rangefinder forum! People shoot rangefinders of all eras. I used a IVSB in Europe several times, and enjoyed shooting a roll each and every day for weeks.
The finder is big enough (bigger than Soviet copies, bigger than my Leica IID), it magnifies 3 different ways, has a bright patch. Oh yeah, and is combined into the same viewport as the framing finder. Unlike Leicas of the era. I've never had a Canon RF break, but have had several Leicas break.
If your shooting goal is to "be serious" as some above imply, then you should just trash every camera you own, and get a giant DSLR. If you want something small, fun to shoot, and quite capabable, whay NOT try a IVSB? Sheeze, they cost less than a filter, strap, and hood for a DSLR or a Leica M....
Canon IVSB with 35/1.8
The finder is big enough (bigger than Soviet copies, bigger than my Leica IID), it magnifies 3 different ways, has a bright patch. Oh yeah, and is combined into the same viewport as the framing finder. Unlike Leicas of the era. I've never had a Canon RF break, but have had several Leicas break.
If your shooting goal is to "be serious" as some above imply, then you should just trash every camera you own, and get a giant DSLR. If you want something small, fun to shoot, and quite capabable, whay NOT try a IVSB? Sheeze, they cost less than a filter, strap, and hood for a DSLR or a Leica M....
Canon IVSB with 35/1.8
Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
Peter Dechert, in his book on the Canon RF cameras, offered the opinion that the Canon IVSB2 (same as the IVSB except for a less-squinty finder, and a different shutter setting knob) was the best ever bottom-loading 35mm camera. I believe he's right. It is exceedingly solid, with a build quality I consider better than 50's screwmount Leicas.While the viewfinder is still on the small and inconvenient side, it is still far better than that of any screwmount Leica, but definitely not in the same league as the M's.
I was using one of these cameras to hammer nails in a home improvement project recently, but had to stop. It kept bending the nails.
Cheers,
Dez
I was using one of these cameras to hammer nails in a home improvement project recently, but had to stop. It kept bending the nails.
Cheers,
Dez
Mackinaw
Think Different
Back in the mid-1980’s, we spent three weeks traveling through the American west. I took along my Hasselblad and a few lenses for “serious” pictures, and a Canon III-A rangefinder for casual shots. I shot Kodachrome 25 and 64 exclusively in the old Canon. A few weeks back, I looked at these old Kodachrome slides, which I hadn’t seen in many years, and was astonished at the quality. Just some beautiful pictures. So to answer your question, yes, old Canon rangefinders do make great travel cameras.
Jim B.
Jim B.