flipflop
Well-known
Hi,
I am in the market for an old school rangefinder Canon or Nikon. I have about 550.00 spend including a lens. Just wondering what the benefits of each brand would be. I really like the lines of the canon P.
Thanks for your input.
I am in the market for an old school rangefinder Canon or Nikon. I have about 550.00 spend including a lens. Just wondering what the benefits of each brand would be. I really like the lines of the canon P.
Thanks for your input.
Nikons usually command more for the equivalent setup. There are almost as many Canon P's as there are Nikon RF's, all models.
$550 will get you a good user Nikon S2 with 5cm F1.4 or F2 lens. It will get you a near mint Canon P with 50mm F1.2 lens. The Nikon takes S-mount, somewhat more limited selection than LTM lenses. Both have 1x viewfinders, the Canon P has framelines for the 35 and 100. In that regard, it is closer to an S3 in features, but at about 1/2 the cost.
But if you want the Nikkor lenses, they tend to go for about 25%~35% less in S-Mount than in LTM. The price difference on that S2 gets made up quickly with a few lenses.
$550 will get you a good user Nikon S2 with 5cm F1.4 or F2 lens. It will get you a near mint Canon P with 50mm F1.2 lens. The Nikon takes S-mount, somewhat more limited selection than LTM lenses. Both have 1x viewfinders, the Canon P has framelines for the 35 and 100. In that regard, it is closer to an S3 in features, but at about 1/2 the cost.
But if you want the Nikkor lenses, they tend to go for about 25%~35% less in S-Mount than in LTM. The price difference on that S2 gets made up quickly with a few lenses.
flipflop
Well-known
Which finder is better, brighter?
Bump! Thanks
Bump! Thanks
R
RML
Guest
You can get a cheap Canonet 28 already for a handful of $5 bills whereas any Nikon rf will set you back several thousands. You'll have to make up your mind about what you want and sit on your money until you have enough if you want a Nikon. Just my thoughts.
Canon cameras are much more plentiful and as mentioned above, more affordable. Quality wise both Nikon and Canon produced excellent cameras. A Canon will be more flexible as it will accept all LTM lenses made by Canon, Leitz, Nikon...... most of the FSU lenses..... new CV stuff. A Nikon will require you to use Nikon RF lenses.
VinceC
Veteran
You can also use FSU wide-angle lenses for Nikon if they take the Kiev mount. In practice, that means the 35mm f/2.8 Jupiter, as the 28mm f/6 Orion is nearly impossible to find. A 50mm Jupiter f/2 lens will also fit, thought focus won't be perfect and it will be redundant with whatever Nikkor llkely comes with the camera.
The viewfinder on a Nikon S2 is very bright, with what most consider to be Nikon's best RF patch. Plenty of contrast and easy to focus. BUT it only has a frameline for 50mm lenses and no parallax correction. The S3 has framelines for 35/50/105, but this camera costs about $1,000 in good condition, give or take a few hundred dollars.
I have not used a Canon P but they have a fine reputation and a much wider assortment of available screwmount lenses by various manufacturers in various price ranges, including lots of LTM-compatible former-Soviet lenses. (Unlike with the S2 or the S3, the Canon P also has parallax-corrected framelines).
I'm a huge Nikon RF fan, but I purchased my Nikon RF system largely because I used to make a living as a photojournalista and the controls are compatible with Nikon SLR equipment. For someone building a small user system today, on a reasonable budget, Canon is a very compelling choice.
The viewfinder on a Nikon S2 is very bright, with what most consider to be Nikon's best RF patch. Plenty of contrast and easy to focus. BUT it only has a frameline for 50mm lenses and no parallax correction. The S3 has framelines for 35/50/105, but this camera costs about $1,000 in good condition, give or take a few hundred dollars.
I have not used a Canon P but they have a fine reputation and a much wider assortment of available screwmount lenses by various manufacturers in various price ranges, including lots of LTM-compatible former-Soviet lenses. (Unlike with the S2 or the S3, the Canon P also has parallax-corrected framelines).
I'm a huge Nikon RF fan, but I purchased my Nikon RF system largely because I used to make a living as a photojournalista and the controls are compatible with Nikon SLR equipment. For someone building a small user system today, on a reasonable budget, Canon is a very compelling choice.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
I'll advise you to do what I did 
get a Canon 7. It's by far the single most common model of any of them, Canon or Nikon, and as a result they tend to be cheaper. Get one that spent most of it's life in a neverready case or in the dark and you can get a good meter as well. The advantages in lenses are as Vince mentions above me. The finder is wonderful. Personally, I like it the best of all the ones I have used up to this point in time. There are parallax compensating bright lines for 35, 50, 85/100, & 135 that are labeled in the finder. It's bright, clear and very easy to use.
The biggest negative, and it can be significant, is that they did not put an accessory shoe into the top deck of the 7 instead providing a somewhat rare and expensive addon shoe. Kevincamera has one, IIRC, for $150. The Canon 7s, a slightly newer version that was made in far smaller numbers, has a shoe and a mercury 625 battery powered CdS meter. Unless you plan to use wider than 28/35mm lenses (largest finder line & outside edge of finder) then those advantages aren't worth the extra cost in my eyes; YMWillV.
I got my Canon 7 for $190 from KEH in Bargain cosmetic condition and perfect mechanically & added to it a $100 Canon 50/1.8 from a fellow RFFer for about as low priced an entry to the golden age rangefinders as you can find. With a little patience, you could do likewise leaving a nice pile of money for a second lens or lots of film.
Good luck in your decision,
William
get a Canon 7. It's by far the single most common model of any of them, Canon or Nikon, and as a result they tend to be cheaper. Get one that spent most of it's life in a neverready case or in the dark and you can get a good meter as well. The advantages in lenses are as Vince mentions above me. The finder is wonderful. Personally, I like it the best of all the ones I have used up to this point in time. There are parallax compensating bright lines for 35, 50, 85/100, & 135 that are labeled in the finder. It's bright, clear and very easy to use. The biggest negative, and it can be significant, is that they did not put an accessory shoe into the top deck of the 7 instead providing a somewhat rare and expensive addon shoe. Kevincamera has one, IIRC, for $150. The Canon 7s, a slightly newer version that was made in far smaller numbers, has a shoe and a mercury 625 battery powered CdS meter. Unless you plan to use wider than 28/35mm lenses (largest finder line & outside edge of finder) then those advantages aren't worth the extra cost in my eyes; YMWillV.
I got my Canon 7 for $190 from KEH in Bargain cosmetic condition and perfect mechanically & added to it a $100 Canon 50/1.8 from a fellow RFFer for about as low priced an entry to the golden age rangefinders as you can find. With a little patience, you could do likewise leaving a nice pile of money for a second lens or lots of film.
Good luck in your decision,
William
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
Williams advice is very well thought out. The 7 is an excellent camera, though not the glamour queen, as is the P. If you can check one out in person, it would help to decide.
The paucity of affordable lenses would lead me away from Nikon, excellent though they may be. A set of LTM lenses can be assembled for a relatively small outlay, if brands are mixed. For example, the old black 90/4 Elmar can be a lovely, atmospheric lens for portraits and landscapes. It can be found at low cost. There are many options for 35's, and several are small, light, and reasonable.
Add the ability to have a second body available, again, at affordable price, and the scales shift to Canon rather fast. There really is little difference in overall quality, either lenses or bodies. They both can be excellent to superb, and can be kept in good condition for many years of shooting.
Harry
The paucity of affordable lenses would lead me away from Nikon, excellent though they may be. A set of LTM lenses can be assembled for a relatively small outlay, if brands are mixed. For example, the old black 90/4 Elmar can be a lovely, atmospheric lens for portraits and landscapes. It can be found at low cost. There are many options for 35's, and several are small, light, and reasonable.
Add the ability to have a second body available, again, at affordable price, and the scales shift to Canon rather fast. There really is little difference in overall quality, either lenses or bodies. They both can be excellent to superb, and can be kept in good condition for many years of shooting.
Harry
Uncle Bill
Well-known
I am going to add my two cents as I own neither camera. To my knowledge both Canon and Nikon made killer Rangefinders. At some point I would love a Canon 7 and a Nikon SP or S2. The main downside with the nikon is lens choice and the fact it is becoming a fetish object for collectors and being a user I well...like to use my cameras so the Canon will win for me.
Bill
Bill
NIKON KIU
Did you say Nippon Kogaku
Now wait a minute....
Now wait a minute....
....hold your horses you canon lovers.... You all are forgetting something.
If you buy a canon you are buying a leica wanna-be....NO such myths with Nikon
On the other hand Buying a Nikon Assures that you CAN NOT use those inferior lenses
Kiu
Now wait a minute....
....hold your horses you canon lovers.... You all are forgetting something.
If you buy a canon you are buying a leica wanna-be....NO such myths with Nikon
On the other hand Buying a Nikon Assures that you CAN NOT use those inferior lenses
Kiu
back alley
IMAGES
with nikon, it's a contax wannbe, isn't it?
I own many of both Canon and Nikon. Also Leica. And a Contax, Voigtlander, Prominent.
The Canon 7 is the best camera going for the money. I use Canon, Leica, Nikon, Jupiter, and other lenses on them.
I'm going to get an adapter to use the Nokton (1950's Prominent mount) on the Nikon RF's. I see no reason to limit my selection of lenses.
And Nikon also made two cameras that took LTM lenses. Plus LOTS of lenses in LTM. More than the two people that bought the Nikon LTM cameras required...
The Canon 7 is the best camera going for the money. I use Canon, Leica, Nikon, Jupiter, and other lenses on them.
I'm going to get an adapter to use the Nokton (1950's Prominent mount) on the Nikon RF's. I see no reason to limit my selection of lenses.
And Nikon also made two cameras that took LTM lenses. Plus LOTS of lenses in LTM. More than the two people that bought the Nikon LTM cameras required...
Last edited:
Here are three different lenses used on my Canon 7.
Try to guess which one was the J-3. The other two are the Nikkor 5cm/1.4 and Canon 50/1.4.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16568
Try to guess which one was the J-3. The other two are the Nikkor 5cm/1.4 and Canon 50/1.4.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16568
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Just one other bit, it was Brians experiances described here on RFF (along with other members experiances, but mostly his) and this article from Mr. Gandy's Cameraquest web site: http://www.cameraquest.com/canon7sz.htm that made me decide to wait for a 7 I could afford.
William
William
VinceC
Veteran
>>with nikon, it's a contax wannbe, isn't it?<<
Not really. In the 1950s, Nikon made the cameras that Contax should have made but didn't. The Nikon SP is a modern rangefinder camera that, except for its lack of light-meter and AE mode, holds its own with any M-series Leica. The Contax IIa and IIIa were good cameras with magnificent lenses, but no Nikon SP user ever dreams of one day stepping up to a Contax. In fact, from the usability point of view, even the Nikon S2 is a big step up from the Contax II/IIa. And I'm not going to dredge up the 1950s controversy about whether or not Nikkor lenses were better than Zeiss or merely just as good (suffice to say that range and variety of focal lengths and maximum apertures all surpassed Zeiss).
Not really. In the 1950s, Nikon made the cameras that Contax should have made but didn't. The Nikon SP is a modern rangefinder camera that, except for its lack of light-meter and AE mode, holds its own with any M-series Leica. The Contax IIa and IIIa were good cameras with magnificent lenses, but no Nikon SP user ever dreams of one day stepping up to a Contax. In fact, from the usability point of view, even the Nikon S2 is a big step up from the Contax II/IIa. And I'm not going to dredge up the 1950s controversy about whether or not Nikkor lenses were better than Zeiss or merely just as good (suffice to say that range and variety of focal lengths and maximum apertures all surpassed Zeiss).
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
All I know is that the Zeiss-Opton 50mm f/1.5 (which I bought from Rover) is a very very nice lens. The Contax IIIa is beautiful, the accuracy is great (mine's calibrated), but the ergonomics, imho are...lacking. I have absolutely no experience with the Nikon Sx RFs.
The Bessa-R's viewfinder clarity wins hands down, feet tied, mouth duct-taped vs. the Contax. The accuracy? The other way around.
Canon or Leica M as far as bodies are concerned.
The Bessa-R's viewfinder clarity wins hands down, feet tied, mouth duct-taped vs. the Contax. The accuracy? The other way around.
Canon or Leica M as far as bodies are concerned.
awilder
Alan Wilder
By all means get the Canon P. If you can find a clean one with a good shutter you won't regret it. The Canon 7 or 7S are slightly better but ony because of their additional frame lines and meters. I don't think the added bulk justifys this unless their meters are still accurate. You'd be better with a Canon P and a clip on meter like the VC II. Forget the Nikon if you're on a budget. For that kind of money you might as well go used Leica or new Cosina.
T_om
Well-known
awilder said:
... and their ability to take the Canon 50mm/f0.95 lens, which none of the others will do.
Everyone seems to forget that little tidbit.
Tom
VinceC
Veteran
The 0.95 lens is one of the majestic achievements of humanity. But not everyone wants or needs one. (On the other hand, a Canon 7 always leaves that option open for sometime in the future).
I was wondering when Kiu would see this thread.