Canon LTM So, esteemed moderator...

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Just so you guys know, I just pulled the first roll out of the soup. None of the shots seem incredibly underexposed, or overexposed, for that matter. Some of them may be, but we'll see. I think I did good. :D
 
backalley photo said:
use the 1.8 young lady!

now it's time to concentrate on photos not more gear!
/QUOTE]

That is very very true, but one must feel comfortable with the gear first. It's like playing music; first you learn the notes, and then you forget the notes so you can think about the music. If there are things about the gear that bother you, then you really can't concentrate that well on the photos, imo.

The Canon P is a really nice camera. I doubt that many, if any, have a meter that is accurate, and of those if many of them work in low light. I had one in my possession for about a week. I liked it a lot, but I decided to get the M6 instead, besides that it was not quite what was described to me, but that's another story.

The finder of the Canon P is just about as good (not quite, but in principle just about), just as good as the Leica M3's. Some people would faint and cry "lies!", but the Canon P finder has the same blue/gold principle as the nice M3 and M2 finders have. It is the cheapest rangefinder you'll ever have that will be as good to use besides an M3 or M2, when it comes to focusing and framing.

I also liked how it felt in my hands, much better than the Leicas, actually, which was very surprising. I had to get the neverready case for my M6 in order for it to feel as comfortable as the Canon P did.

Of course, you must renounce (almost) ever wanting to use a flash (you know why). Also about wanting to collapse any collapsible lenses, or any "special" lenses such as the Leica 21 Super Angulon or the famous Jupiter 35mm.

For $300, you got a really nice deal...but for an extra $400, you could get an M2 (muaaaaahahahahaha, you cannot resist the power of the dark side). ;)
Click to expand...
 
I'm not a big flash person anyway (the lighting thing or the program, to be honest), so I prefer fast lenses. I'd be in heaven if CV would make the 35/1.2 in LSM. I'd also like to find the Canon 50/1.2 eventually if I decide this is the camera for me. So far it's looking like a winner. I love it. The feel is great, it's easy to use, and I'm getting really nice results...at least based on what I have hanging beside me right now. :)
 
Man...all this talk about what a sweet camera it is and I'm beginning to feel the urge to buy one...must resist....time to turn off computer....not allowed to buy more gear...aaacccckkkk
 
Stephanie Brim said:
The Canon, in good shape, should go for less than the CV lens...though that Pancake would be nice.
Click to expand...


Hmmm. I think the 35/2.5 pancake is M-mount only. Never mind - there's all those lovely Canon lenses to lust after. ;)
 
the first version pancake is screwmount. i'd skip the slower lenses and go straight for a faster one. the canon 35/1.5 has a lever, the 35/2 leaves it off. it'd take longer to get one, but you can spend some time alone with the 50/1.8.
 
The Canon 50mm F1.8 is the sharpest of the Canon 50's. The 1/2 stop advantage of the F1.4 isn't that much, it's just a mental thing that has been drummed into our heads since Nikon came out with the F1.4 lens in 1950. "Oh! the F1.4 is so much faster than an F1.5! I have to have it." Yup, all the makers moved to F1.4, even if the actual measured F-stop was still F1.5.

On an RF the difference between F1.4 and F1.8 is even less important, as you can use slower shutter speeds and still hold the camera steady as compared to using the FE.

If you have some money to spend, go for the wide-angle lens and then a portrait telephoto. You can get the Canon 35mm F2.8 and a Steinheil Culminar 85mm F2.8 for less than the Canon 50mm F1.4. Those will make a much bigger difference in your choices for a shot than the 1/2 stop that F1.4 will get you.

M2 for $400 more? When I was a Student, $400 was the cost of an entire semester's Tuition and it took me about that long to save it up. But it was well spent money, and has paid off in the long-run.
 
Last edited:
Stephanie Brim said:
Just so you guys know, I just pulled the first roll out of the soup. None of the shots seem incredibly underexposed, or overexposed, for that matter. Some of them may be, but we'll see. I think I did good. :D
Click to expand...

I'm sure you did, but I still think you need SOME kind of exposure meter! Even if you prefer to estimate exposures, it's kind of educational to have something against which to compare your guesses.

When you're poking around eBay, you might want to watch out for a selenium-cell incident meter, such as a Norwood Director or the almost-identical Sekonic L-398. This would be in keeping with your 'traditionalist' nature and in period with your cameras. You might also like a Weston Master V if you can find one with the Invercone attachment; this would let you make either reflected or incident readings.

Just a thought...
 
I'm going to try to find *something*, but I'm actually okay with not having one so far. I'm going to wait until I have a job again before I go about getting a meter because I may as well get a decent one if I'm going to get one.
 
Also, out of curiosity, what filter size does the 50/1.8 take? I'd like to get a yellow filter and a polarizer, but I don't know what size to get. :p
 
oh they are out there but hard to get from japan, they do not like to sell out of country.

and if found are expensive.

on p.net last week there was one for sale, a heliopan uv for 45 bucks!!
i have found them also on a few sites, new, for 43 bucks.

crazy!!

joe
 
What's your budget like steph? I'll be heading down to a shop that's pretty well stocked with filters. Might be able to get it for you.
 
I'm not sure what my budget is yet...

The polariser is more important than the color filters I'd want, but I'd say around 40 bucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom