Canon LTM Should I buy a 7?

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
M

merciful

Guest
Well, my recent experience with the M3 being of for repair was pretty unpleasant: not the repair work or service, Kindermann Canada are great. But not having something to hang the lenses om was high-stress. I've been considering an M2, but perhaps I should buy a 7 or 7s instead? Any of you serious Canon guys want to comment?
 
are you going to rid yourself of the m3 and go canon? or add a canon to the stable?

not to knock the 7 series...but i would go for a vi (6) series or a p based on size alone. the p and before cams are a bit less bulky, the 7/7s have the built in meters that rarely seem to work but add a bulky look to them.

however, if you like the leica m series stick with the m3 and maybe add an m2 later on.
if i were to pick an m series cam it would be the 2 with the 3 a close second.
joe
 
Thanks, Joe. The M3 isn't going anywhere: I just need a backup. My mention of the 7 was based on ignorance: I just figured latest was best.

I need something that'll allow framing with 35 (possibly) and definitely 50 and 90mm lenses.
 
I may be missing something in my ignorance - if so, please forgive me. But the M series Leica cameras use M-mount lenses, the Canon 7 is 39mm thread mount (LTM). If your lenses are thread-mount with M-series adapters, then cool - you can just take the adapter off and use the lenses as thread-mount. But if they are more modern M-series lenses altogether, then they won't mount on a Canon 7, yes?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Thanks, Bill. I've got one M-mount lens, and two LTM lenses: and I'll likely move toward more older lenses, rather than new. So I'll be OK.
 
Hi Merciful !

I was going to say the same about the M lenses you already had but see that's now solved.

My two choices are 7 and P.

7: Usually cheaper, not so beautiful but very nice finder with 35-50-85/100-135 parallax corrected framelines. If you ever have a 0.95 lens you'll be able to use it on it :)

P: I'm in love with the lines of that camera, and in fact I guess there will be one in my future. Not probably soon but not too late either. Problems? None, only that they use to be more expensive than 7's and the finder 'only' has framelines for 35-50-100.

Also remember that the 7 has no acc. shoe ! :rolleyes:

AND: If you have a Jupiter-12 or some other 'big-bottom' lens, it's not really very safe to try to screw them. That's the same for 7 and P I'm afraid.

BTW my review of the Canon 7 is here:
http://www.upcnet.es/~org/htm/main_canon7.htm

Feel free to take a look and let me know if it's useful for you ;)

Good luck !

Oscar

PS: as for the trigger winder models... if possible try to test one before deciding. I like to have my right thumb on the lever/shutter dial zone and my left thumb/finger on the bottom plate/focus ring, so I'd need a third hand with a trigger... Or however I could even like it, never tried. Does anybody have a spare Canon VI model for me to try ? :D
 
Last edited:
Terrific review, Oscar, thanks. While I like the elegant look of the P, the framelines seal the deal, I think. I'll have to start looking.
 
Yes the 7 is reliable - even the Selenium meter is (even it says "too dark" close to sunset you can guestimate...)
Compared to the classy Canon P, for the same function, you have to add a "Canon-Meter" ( I have one). Then the Canon-P is higher than a 7 and have exactly the same weight. Without the meter the P looks smaller but it isn't. The finder-eyestick overhang more. The depression near the rangefinder window makes it looks elegant, but the only thing smaller than the 7 is the speed dial. Its not a small camera - its much longer than a Bessa-R, but has the same height, then came across not so "knobby" but more elegant.
Next thing is, if you wear glasses, the 35mm-frame on a P is next to worthless for fast shooting. IMHO the finder of the 7 is much better, and better to focus (longer RF base too).
You can find the 7 for a bargain price, not the 7s. I would not buy a 7S to. old CDS-cells aren't absolutely better than selenium. And beware of the trouble with the old 1.35V-batteries... compared to this, one can live with the limits of old seleniums meters (always put black tape on it when not in use)

regards
Frank
 
Review your stats. The P has baselength 41mm (like the V, VI). the 7/7S/7Sz has 59mm with 0,8 magnification which makes the effective length 47,2mm. And at least for me, I see this difference (both cameras and viefinders in similar good condition).
As far as the weight is concerned, I put both on a scale. The Canon-P with the meter is equal to the 7 (say more or less 10g)
 
i think the stats i saw were on one of stella brother's sites. i'll have to check when i get home from work. right now i'm working from memory and that's not one of my stron points.

joe
 
Joe, the Canon Museum states a 47,2 mm of effective baselength and a .8 magnification, giving a physical length of 59mm, or 6 cm measuring with the plastic ruler :)
 
backalley photo said:
canon p/7 stats
Click to expand...

Joe, I know he's a Stella and I'm just... er just a taffer :p but this is directly taken from the Canon Camera Museum at http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/1955-1969/data/1961_7_s.html

Viewfinder: Coincidence rangefinder integrated with universal mark finder featuring four manually-switchable projected frames for 35mm (fixed at 0.8x), 50mm, 85mm/100mm, and 135mm lenses for automatic parallax correction. Effective base line of 47.2 mm.
* Accessory shoe omitted due to internal exposure meter position.

In fact, if you take measuring tape, the physical length from center of the RF window to the VF center is ~6cm, (really 59mm), applying the 0.8x magnification that gives the resulting 47.2mm.

I'm sorry buddy, but this time mine is bigger :cool:
 
i'm not looking to arm wrestle, just to show i'm not totally lost in space. i remembered reading several of these charts and of course the only one i remembered was this one. the apparantly incorrect one.
peace out!
joe
 
now that makes sense.

i've never really been into very fast lenses, i usually just load some faster film. it seems silly to spend big bucks for an extra stop or even less sometimes.

if someone wants a slower film for less grain and better 'quality' shots and uses a fast lens to make that happen - i just think they could head on over to medium format and get great quality.

different strokes...

joe
 
i've never really been into very fast lenses, i usually just load some faster film. it seems silly to spend big bucks for an extra stop or even less sometimes.
Click to expand...

When you're working with ISO 6400 and exposure like 1/8 at f2, the faster lenses start seeming pretty neat. I'm digging my 50/1.2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom