Louisianaman
Member
I have a Canon 7 with three nice lenses and have an opportunity to buy a Leica IIIf Red Dial that is in excellent condition. My question is what will I give up as far as viewfinder focusing? Will focusing be as easy as the Canon 7? I owned a IIIf back in the day so I know there are more steps and some hassle loading film but will I be giving up ease of focusing and why? Any help you can give is appreciated.
Shac
Well-known
Well 1) the IIIf has a fixed approx 50mm view in its finder. Whereas, the 7 has "Five projected parallax corrected framelines in a large rangefinder / viewfinder for 35/50/85/100/135 lenses)" See the head bartenders site https://www.cameraquest.com/canon7sz.htm
2) The rangefinder window of the IIIf is separate from the viewfinder, but it's not in the 7
As to other differences - again look at Stephen's site
2) The rangefinder window of the IIIf is separate from the viewfinder, but it's not in the 7
As to other differences - again look at Stephen's site
Louisianaman
Member
Thank you. That reason right there negates me buying a IIIF. I appreciate your advice.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Also the RF double image could be weak on the IIIf if the 50/50 mirror in the rangefinder geometry has not been replaced recently as they are notorious for fading after nearly 70 years has passed. I seen many IIIc and IIIf cameras with this problem.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Honestly? I own both, and use the IIIf regularly... but the Canon 7 has sat on the shelf for years.
The major benefit of the separate RF in the IIIf is it's much higher magnification - 1.5x life size. Focusing accuracy (and certainty) is greater as a result. In comparison, not only is the Canon 7's combined RF/VF something like .8x, but the rangefinder patch is small and vague in comparison to the IIIf's rangefinder for me. I just don't trust the Canon for a wide open Summicron when close up, for instance. And the two windows in the IIIf so close together that bouncing my eye from one to the other is just as fast as looking at the RF patch and then taking in the whole frame on a combined window, so I feel like I'm gaining a lot more than I lose.
To be honest, I like the Canon 7 for 35mm. That's where it shines. It's a great body for one of the faster Canon 35mm lenses, but for anything else, I'll always take the IIIf. Fast 50s are easier to focus, collapsible 50s make it a smaller overall package and easier to carry, I prefer external VFs for longer focal lengths, and the Canon 7 can't do any focal lengths other than the 35/50/85/100/135 set due to the lack of an accessory shoe.
Even if you only use the IIIf for a collapsible 50 and a Voigtlander 21 or 28, it's already justified its place alongside the Canon 7, as far as I'm concerned.
The major benefit of the separate RF in the IIIf is it's much higher magnification - 1.5x life size. Focusing accuracy (and certainty) is greater as a result. In comparison, not only is the Canon 7's combined RF/VF something like .8x, but the rangefinder patch is small and vague in comparison to the IIIf's rangefinder for me. I just don't trust the Canon for a wide open Summicron when close up, for instance. And the two windows in the IIIf so close together that bouncing my eye from one to the other is just as fast as looking at the RF patch and then taking in the whole frame on a combined window, so I feel like I'm gaining a lot more than I lose.
To be honest, I like the Canon 7 for 35mm. That's where it shines. It's a great body for one of the faster Canon 35mm lenses, but for anything else, I'll always take the IIIf. Fast 50s are easier to focus, collapsible 50s make it a smaller overall package and easier to carry, I prefer external VFs for longer focal lengths, and the Canon 7 can't do any focal lengths other than the 35/50/85/100/135 set due to the lack of an accessory shoe.
Even if you only use the IIIf for a collapsible 50 and a Voigtlander 21 or 28, it's already justified its place alongside the Canon 7, as far as I'm concerned.
It's an interesting design. I cleaned the viewfinder and rangefinder assembly of a IIIf recently. Optical magnification is not the best way to achieve a long base length, but I have to concede, the Leitz installation is very well made, and effective. After careful cleaning, the beam splitter was still good and it renders a bright, contrasty patch.
tennis-joe
Well-known
I have both nd the Canon is so much heavier that I prefer the Leica.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
The Barnack Leicas and the Canon 7 are different era concepts and the evolution of what a 35mm film RF camera with interchangeable lenses and a focal plane shutter should be.
Both have their strengths and weakness and both have their own convenience and both have their own charm.
I own and like both.
Both have their strengths and weakness and both have their own convenience and both have their own charm.
I own and like both.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Agreed; the Barnack is going to be much more problematic if it's slightly out of calibration... but it's also a lot easier to check and calibrate because of the high magnification, so swings and roundabouts, really.
The "best of both worlds" would probably be a Contax baselength, a Barnack split RF/VF with the late Barnack RF magnification, and a 35mm viewfinder. It'd be a bloody ugly and unwieldy thing, though!
The Kodak Extra fits most of your criteria above, it's a fascinating design.
You are correct that magnifying a rangefinder image helps to improve the standard of calibration. My 55yo old eyes are not as good at resolving distance subjects as they used to be. But I have been able to achieve more accurate focus and rangefinder calibrations than ever, with the aid of my Seibert Emoskop. More about that here.
In its telescope configuration its 2-2.5 x magnification of a rangefinder patch enables a degree of precision beyond that possible with the naked eye. I have a ridge line 1 kilometre plus from home with numerous trees and a high voltage transmission tower. I'm practiced in adjusting a rangefinder accurately, and patient, spending half an hour plus if needed. Initially, I'll get trunks of dead trees merging well with the patch. When I can no longer discern a merge with their six inch thick branches from that distance, I'm satisfied.
Prior to that I use the Emoskop in its 30x microscope configuration to assess the sharpness of a ground glass image through the film gate. Only after the camera register (back focus) has been verified accurate, will I proceed to calibrating its rangefinder (or reflex finder, if an SLR) to match.
Here are some images under the hood of a IIIf showing viewfinder prism, rangefinder telescope, etc.
Dralowid
Michael
Ah Ha! The Wizard of Wetzlar comes up in discussion again!
Doug A
Well-known
On the subject of separate vs combined rangefinder/viewfinder I tend to keep the object I focus on centered in the image when I use an SLR with a centered microprism/split image screen. When the rangefinder and viewfinder are separated as with a Barnack Leica I find I ofter get compositions that I prefer.
awilder
Alan Wilder
Quite frankly, there isn't much to gain in focusing accuracy since you've already conceded that your Canon 7 is easy to focus. As it's been pointed out, the Barnack's RF have a shorter base length but almost twice the magnification as the Canon. The Canon 7 should certainly be accurate enough for any lens since the 50/0.95 was made for this camera. The main advantage of the IIIf is obviously the size and probably aesthetics. From an operational standpoint of loading, single dial shutter speed setting, multiple focal lengths and parallax compensation, the Canon wins. If your ultimate goal is RF accuracy, nothing beats using your LTM lenses on M body as the RF is way ahead of the others by allowing both coincidence and vernier alignment. I also find the lines and aesthetics of the M most pleasing.