markbrennan
Established
Hi everyone -
I'm new to the forum; but I've been enjoying all the great information and the great community spirit here.
I'm also new to rangefinders. I now use a Nikon FM2 but have lately been feeling constrained by the SLR way of seeing, and I dislike the mirror slap of my camera. I prefer informal street shooting and informal portraits of family and friends, so a rangefinder seems like the ideal way to work.
After I looked at a Bessa R3a and was so taken w/ its 1:1 (100%) viewfinder, someone suggested I look into getting a Canon P. I hope none of my questions repeat any of the previous posts here....
I currently have the opportunity to buy a P w/ 50 1.8 lens for $575. Body and lens are supposedly in excellent condition (shutter is crinkled, though I hear that's common; otherwise body LOOKS excellent). I'm less concerned whether people think this is a good price (cosmetics can have a dramatic effect on price, it seems) than whether I should buy into the "P" system.
I don't want this post to be about comparing the Bessa R3a with the Canon P; they're very different beasts. But I do have some specific questions.
I've wondered what P users do for a meter? I use sunny 16 to estimate now, and confirm my readings against the FM2's internal meter, making small adjustments. I like the idea of NOT having a meter. But I know that I'll need to carry one. And given that a good meter can run $200-300, I'm wondering if a Bessa R w/ its internal meter, along w/ a lens like the CV Nokton 40mm 1.4 for about $1,000 doesn't make more sense? Do people prefer spot or incident? I know there's a small inexpensive CV meter; do people use it? I would NOT want to use this meter on the camera, but would consider using it off camera.
How quiet is the shutter on the P? The Bessa R seemed louder than I thought it would against the Leica M. Is the P's shutter bearable?
Anyone use the 50 1.8? Are the optics any good? Again, the CV 40 is supposed to be quite good.
What's the form factor of the P with this lens? My current kit (FM2 w/ 50 1.8) is NOT that big, but one reason I'm pursuing rangefinder photography is to go even smaller.
In general, the P seems like a good introduction to rangefinder photography. Decisions about camera gear, of course, are always very personal. I want optics as good as my Nikon; I want a bright viewfinder w/ clear 50mm framelines; I want a reasonably smooth shutter; I want a decent sized form factor for the body and lens.
Sorry if my post has gotten too long. I suspect there are number of experienced P users and I'd love to hear any feedback. Many thanks!
regards,
-Mark
I'm new to the forum; but I've been enjoying all the great information and the great community spirit here.
I'm also new to rangefinders. I now use a Nikon FM2 but have lately been feeling constrained by the SLR way of seeing, and I dislike the mirror slap of my camera. I prefer informal street shooting and informal portraits of family and friends, so a rangefinder seems like the ideal way to work.
After I looked at a Bessa R3a and was so taken w/ its 1:1 (100%) viewfinder, someone suggested I look into getting a Canon P. I hope none of my questions repeat any of the previous posts here....
I currently have the opportunity to buy a P w/ 50 1.8 lens for $575. Body and lens are supposedly in excellent condition (shutter is crinkled, though I hear that's common; otherwise body LOOKS excellent). I'm less concerned whether people think this is a good price (cosmetics can have a dramatic effect on price, it seems) than whether I should buy into the "P" system.
I don't want this post to be about comparing the Bessa R3a with the Canon P; they're very different beasts. But I do have some specific questions.
I've wondered what P users do for a meter? I use sunny 16 to estimate now, and confirm my readings against the FM2's internal meter, making small adjustments. I like the idea of NOT having a meter. But I know that I'll need to carry one. And given that a good meter can run $200-300, I'm wondering if a Bessa R w/ its internal meter, along w/ a lens like the CV Nokton 40mm 1.4 for about $1,000 doesn't make more sense? Do people prefer spot or incident? I know there's a small inexpensive CV meter; do people use it? I would NOT want to use this meter on the camera, but would consider using it off camera.
How quiet is the shutter on the P? The Bessa R seemed louder than I thought it would against the Leica M. Is the P's shutter bearable?
Anyone use the 50 1.8? Are the optics any good? Again, the CV 40 is supposed to be quite good.
What's the form factor of the P with this lens? My current kit (FM2 w/ 50 1.8) is NOT that big, but one reason I'm pursuing rangefinder photography is to go even smaller.
In general, the P seems like a good introduction to rangefinder photography. Decisions about camera gear, of course, are always very personal. I want optics as good as my Nikon; I want a bright viewfinder w/ clear 50mm framelines; I want a reasonably smooth shutter; I want a decent sized form factor for the body and lens.
Sorry if my post has gotten too long. I suspect there are number of experienced P users and I'd love to hear any feedback. Many thanks!
regards,
-Mark
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
If you like the viewfinder and framelines (some people think they're great; others feel they're a bit lacking in contrast and/or harder to see than those of a modern camera such as the Bessa) it's hard to go wrong with the P. It's very solid, the controls are superbly placed and operate with luxurious smoothness, and it quickly becomes completely intuitive to operate.
Some specific thoughts on your questions:
Meters -- There's a clip-on selenium Canon meter that couples to the shutter speed dial, but it's hard to find a working one, and if you don't want an on-camera meter (I concur) it wouldn't be of interest to you. (If you do want an on-camera meter, the C-V meter is a better choice; you also can use it off the camera if you prefer.)
For off-camera meters, you can get a very good one for much less than $300. The most expensive meters have features such as flash metering and spot reading, which you probably don't need for the types of photography that you'd want to do with a Canon P. A feature that IS very useful is the ability to take incident as well as reflected readings; one meter some of us use that has this feature is the Gossen Digisix, which is extremely light and compact and costs about $150. Sekonic has some meters with the incident/reflected feature in this same price range or even less. The C-V meter doesn't read incident directly, but is a good choice if you want a meter you can use on or off a camera.
Shutter noise -- To my ears, the P's stainless-steel shutter is considerably quieter than that of a Bessa, although not quite as quiet as the fabric shutter in a Leica M. I don't think you'd have many problems in this department.
50/1.8 -- The optical quality of this lens is sensational, probably as good as or better than a Leica Summicron of the same era, and it's very compact. I'd say any differences between it and the C-V 40/1.4 would be more a matter of aesthetic preference for the "look" of the images they create, rather than strictly qualitative; both of these are extremely good lenses. A lot of the decision would come down to whether you get more value out of the C-V lens' slightly larger maximum aperture, or the Canon lens' more standard focal length.
(Don't forget that very few RF cameras have a 40mm frame line, so if you eventually add another camera body you'd be hard pressed to make good use of the C-V lens. Almost every RF camera has a 50mm frame, and the Canon lens can be used either on screwmount or M-mount cameras, so the Canon lens should be pretty much a lifetime investment.)
Form factor -- Only you can answer this for yourself, but most Canon fans seem to find the form factor of a P and a 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 lens to be almost ideal. It's compact, but not so small that the controls are hard to operate; everything is well-placed, and it just feels right in the hand. Get hold of one and try it for yourself; you may never want to let go.
Summary -- Both the Canon P and the Bessa are fine cameras and you'll be able to take excellent pictures with either. The Bessa's advantage of a built-in meter is somewhat negated by the fact that in RF photography it's often faster and more efficient to use a separate hand-held meter; eventually you'll want a hand-held meter anyway, and either one will work equally well with that. The Bessa has a clearer, more modern viewfinder; the P has a quieter shutter and a more solid, more premium quality feel to the controls. Both lenses will provide excellent results; the C-V 40 is a bit faster, and the Canon 50/1.8 is a bit more versatile in terms of the ability to use it on other cameras.
In this case it's really going to come down to your own preferences, and you owe it to yourself to try both of them and see which feels right.
Some specific thoughts on your questions:
Meters -- There's a clip-on selenium Canon meter that couples to the shutter speed dial, but it's hard to find a working one, and if you don't want an on-camera meter (I concur) it wouldn't be of interest to you. (If you do want an on-camera meter, the C-V meter is a better choice; you also can use it off the camera if you prefer.)
For off-camera meters, you can get a very good one for much less than $300. The most expensive meters have features such as flash metering and spot reading, which you probably don't need for the types of photography that you'd want to do with a Canon P. A feature that IS very useful is the ability to take incident as well as reflected readings; one meter some of us use that has this feature is the Gossen Digisix, which is extremely light and compact and costs about $150. Sekonic has some meters with the incident/reflected feature in this same price range or even less. The C-V meter doesn't read incident directly, but is a good choice if you want a meter you can use on or off a camera.
Shutter noise -- To my ears, the P's stainless-steel shutter is considerably quieter than that of a Bessa, although not quite as quiet as the fabric shutter in a Leica M. I don't think you'd have many problems in this department.
50/1.8 -- The optical quality of this lens is sensational, probably as good as or better than a Leica Summicron of the same era, and it's very compact. I'd say any differences between it and the C-V 40/1.4 would be more a matter of aesthetic preference for the "look" of the images they create, rather than strictly qualitative; both of these are extremely good lenses. A lot of the decision would come down to whether you get more value out of the C-V lens' slightly larger maximum aperture, or the Canon lens' more standard focal length.
(Don't forget that very few RF cameras have a 40mm frame line, so if you eventually add another camera body you'd be hard pressed to make good use of the C-V lens. Almost every RF camera has a 50mm frame, and the Canon lens can be used either on screwmount or M-mount cameras, so the Canon lens should be pretty much a lifetime investment.)
Form factor -- Only you can answer this for yourself, but most Canon fans seem to find the form factor of a P and a 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 lens to be almost ideal. It's compact, but not so small that the controls are hard to operate; everything is well-placed, and it just feels right in the hand. Get hold of one and try it for yourself; you may never want to let go.
Summary -- Both the Canon P and the Bessa are fine cameras and you'll be able to take excellent pictures with either. The Bessa's advantage of a built-in meter is somewhat negated by the fact that in RF photography it's often faster and more efficient to use a separate hand-held meter; eventually you'll want a hand-held meter anyway, and either one will work equally well with that. The Bessa has a clearer, more modern viewfinder; the P has a quieter shutter and a more solid, more premium quality feel to the controls. Both lenses will provide excellent results; the C-V 40 is a bit faster, and the Canon 50/1.8 is a bit more versatile in terms of the ability to use it on other cameras.
In this case it's really going to come down to your own preferences, and you owe it to yourself to try both of them and see which feels right.
markbrennan
Established
jlw -
Many thanks for your extensive reply; this is just the kind of thoughtful advice I was looking for.
One big disadvantage is my not being able to preview the camera before purchase; it's a private sale through another forum and I'm not sure the seller will agree to a full refund return (although if I carry all shipping he might agree). So my one concern is how I'll like the finder. When I looked at the Bessa R3a alongside a Leica M3 in a local shop here in NYC I was struck that I liked the Bessa's finder more than the Leica's, though the M3's 92% finder was a close second. The Bessa just had this bright, open field of view and I realized that I could frame and shoot w/ both eyes open (after a bit of adjustment).
Thanks for the tip on the Gossen - that seems like the way to go. And I think you're right about working w/ a meter off the camera as being faster, and ultimately more intuitive. Of course it'll take a bit of practice. But I like the flexibility and control. I've heard people say that even a simple in-camera meter such as the LED diodes that something like the FM2 has are actually a distraction from the organic process of framing and shooting.
I'm delighted to hear you think the optics of the 50 1.8 are good. And yes, you're right about the CV 40 not being easily portable to another body; I guess I was conveniently ignoring this fact because I was so taken w/ the whole kit itself.
It sounds like the P is a great way to go and given your praise, 575 seems like a decent price to buy into a great rangefinder.
Many thanks. And by the way, I love the B&W ballet photos in your gallery; your use of light and shadow is superb and as an old ballet fan I love the subject.
Best,
-Mark
Many thanks for your extensive reply; this is just the kind of thoughtful advice I was looking for.
One big disadvantage is my not being able to preview the camera before purchase; it's a private sale through another forum and I'm not sure the seller will agree to a full refund return (although if I carry all shipping he might agree). So my one concern is how I'll like the finder. When I looked at the Bessa R3a alongside a Leica M3 in a local shop here in NYC I was struck that I liked the Bessa's finder more than the Leica's, though the M3's 92% finder was a close second. The Bessa just had this bright, open field of view and I realized that I could frame and shoot w/ both eyes open (after a bit of adjustment).
Thanks for the tip on the Gossen - that seems like the way to go. And I think you're right about working w/ a meter off the camera as being faster, and ultimately more intuitive. Of course it'll take a bit of practice. But I like the flexibility and control. I've heard people say that even a simple in-camera meter such as the LED diodes that something like the FM2 has are actually a distraction from the organic process of framing and shooting.
I'm delighted to hear you think the optics of the 50 1.8 are good. And yes, you're right about the CV 40 not being easily portable to another body; I guess I was conveniently ignoring this fact because I was so taken w/ the whole kit itself.
It sounds like the P is a great way to go and given your praise, 575 seems like a decent price to buy into a great rangefinder.
Many thanks. And by the way, I love the B&W ballet photos in your gallery; your use of light and shadow is superb and as an old ballet fan I love the subject.
Best,
-Mark
ChrisN
Striving
Hi Mark,
JLW has given good advice; the only thing I would add would be to say that if you like to shoot with both eyes open, you'll love the Canon P. With the P viewfinder you will find that comes naturally, immediately, with no need to adjust.
P viewfinders do vary between samples as to the brightness of the viewfinder itself and the contrast of the rangefinder patch. I'm not sure to what extent a dim example can be improved by servicing - any comments from other users? I'm waiting on the return of one undergoing servicing at the moment, and I'll be interested to see how it compares.
JLW has given good advice; the only thing I would add would be to say that if you like to shoot with both eyes open, you'll love the Canon P. With the P viewfinder you will find that comes naturally, immediately, with no need to adjust.
P viewfinders do vary between samples as to the brightness of the viewfinder itself and the contrast of the rangefinder patch. I'm not sure to what extent a dim example can be improved by servicing - any comments from other users? I'm waiting on the return of one undergoing servicing at the moment, and I'll be interested to see how it compares.
markbrennan
Established
Thanks for the reply, Chris! That sounds great. Now I only need to ascertain the quality of the finder brightness, as well as the patch, in the body offered to me for sale. Again, it would be nice to see it before purchase, but not sure the seller will offer a return policy. (This is the usual tension between buying used and looking at a brand new unit in the store, as I did w/ the Bessa R3a).
Thanks again. Nice B&W work in your gallery.
-Mark
Thanks again. Nice B&W work in your gallery.
-Mark
mjm6
Established
Mark,
One thing about the 50/1.8 lens; it was made in several models over the years, and the all chrome version may not be as well corrected as the chrome and black version, which is a later model. If you do go for the kit, I recommend you make sure it has the later lens. I sometimes see 'P' bodies listed with older chrome lenses that were not contemporary to the body, so you need to check to be sure.
I use a digisix meter with my meterless 35mm cameras because it is so small, and it has worked out for me well so far, so I can second that recommendation.
If you do get a 'P', be prepared to spend about $100 having a CLA done, to get the shutter operating to spec. Most of these cameras have sat around for the last 20 or so years, and the shutters didn't get enough exercise. The rangefinder may need calibration too, but that is a relatively easy thing to do on your own.
If you don't pay too much, you can sell the P for about what you paid for it, so it is a relatively easy way to try and then move on if it is not to your liking.
---Michael
One thing about the 50/1.8 lens; it was made in several models over the years, and the all chrome version may not be as well corrected as the chrome and black version, which is a later model. If you do go for the kit, I recommend you make sure it has the later lens. I sometimes see 'P' bodies listed with older chrome lenses that were not contemporary to the body, so you need to check to be sure.
I use a digisix meter with my meterless 35mm cameras because it is so small, and it has worked out for me well so far, so I can second that recommendation.
If you do get a 'P', be prepared to spend about $100 having a CLA done, to get the shutter operating to spec. Most of these cameras have sat around for the last 20 or so years, and the shutters didn't get enough exercise. The rangefinder may need calibration too, but that is a relatively easy thing to do on your own.
If you don't pay too much, you can sell the P for about what you paid for it, so it is a relatively easy way to try and then move on if it is not to your liking.
---Michael
markbrennan
Established
Michael - appreciate the feedback.
It had occurred to me that a CLA might be in order; do you think it's mandatory? Without one do you think I risk inconsistency in my exposures?
$100 for a CLA seems cheap, but then again I've never had one done. When I add on a CLA and a lightmeter, it's looking like I'll be adding roughly $250-300 to the $575 price of the P + lens. Again, not to compare solely on price point, but a new Bessa R3a + 40mm 1.4 Nokton should run me about $1000. I can't help but think it might be a more feasible alternative.
Or do people think the 100% manual root (and all the efficiency and style that implies) carries a premium? I certainly see the appeal.
I have seen photos of the 1.8 and it's chrome and black.
I agree w/ you that it's nevertheless a good entry to rangefinder photography.
BTW, where do people recommend getting a CLA for something like the P?
thanks and regards,
-Mark
It had occurred to me that a CLA might be in order; do you think it's mandatory? Without one do you think I risk inconsistency in my exposures?
$100 for a CLA seems cheap, but then again I've never had one done. When I add on a CLA and a lightmeter, it's looking like I'll be adding roughly $250-300 to the $575 price of the P + lens. Again, not to compare solely on price point, but a new Bessa R3a + 40mm 1.4 Nokton should run me about $1000. I can't help but think it might be a more feasible alternative.
Or do people think the 100% manual root (and all the efficiency and style that implies) carries a premium? I certainly see the appeal.
I have seen photos of the 1.8 and it's chrome and black.
I agree w/ you that it's nevertheless a good entry to rangefinder photography.
BTW, where do people recommend getting a CLA for something like the P?
thanks and regards,
-Mark
mjm6
Established
Mark,
I'm no expert on these issues, so if someone disagrees with me, then you may want to listen to them instead. That said, I don't think the CLA will be mandatory as long as the camera shutter is functioning consistently. However, you may find that the higher speeds are capping, or the longer speeds are running long, and without haveing a CLA, you may not have the full useable range of shutter speeds that you are supposed to have.
If the seller is reputable, and says the speeds are working well, you may not need to spend the money.
I happen to think the P is possibly the pinnacle in camera design, and it's all been downhill from there. I also think the P is probably a more rugged camera than the Bessa, based on the thickness of the metal body parts on the P, and the mostly plastic body on the Bessa R that I have. Remember, these were 'high end' cameras when they were produced, and the Bessa cameras are nothing of the sort today.
I'm not trashing the Bessa cameras, so please don't take it that way, but it doesn't take much comparison between the two to see some clear differences. The Bessas have on-board metering, possibly a higher top shutter speed, possibly a better viewfinder (but maybe not compared to the P) and their wide angle lenses they make will beat any 60's vintage WA lens, but I think the Canon otherwise is a very capable, well buit camera that will probably give you years of great service if you take care of it properly.
I have not commented on the asking price of the camera because you indicated that you didn't necessarily want feedback on that, but I suspect that with careful shopping and some restraint, you could get a camera and lens (maybe even the 50/1.4 lens, which is a GREAT lens) for a bit less than the asking price you listed in the original post. As the cost of the camera comes down, the difference between it an the Bessa becomes more substantial.
There is a P or two listed on the auction site at the moment, and there are often auctions for both a P and a 50mm lens. It seems that there are about 6 or so P auctions on there every month.
I'm about to send my first P to a repair house for a CLA, so at this moment I don't have a first-hand experience with any to be able to make a recommendation.
---Michael
I'm no expert on these issues, so if someone disagrees with me, then you may want to listen to them instead. That said, I don't think the CLA will be mandatory as long as the camera shutter is functioning consistently. However, you may find that the higher speeds are capping, or the longer speeds are running long, and without haveing a CLA, you may not have the full useable range of shutter speeds that you are supposed to have.
If the seller is reputable, and says the speeds are working well, you may not need to spend the money.
I happen to think the P is possibly the pinnacle in camera design, and it's all been downhill from there. I also think the P is probably a more rugged camera than the Bessa, based on the thickness of the metal body parts on the P, and the mostly plastic body on the Bessa R that I have. Remember, these were 'high end' cameras when they were produced, and the Bessa cameras are nothing of the sort today.
I'm not trashing the Bessa cameras, so please don't take it that way, but it doesn't take much comparison between the two to see some clear differences. The Bessas have on-board metering, possibly a higher top shutter speed, possibly a better viewfinder (but maybe not compared to the P) and their wide angle lenses they make will beat any 60's vintage WA lens, but I think the Canon otherwise is a very capable, well buit camera that will probably give you years of great service if you take care of it properly.
I have not commented on the asking price of the camera because you indicated that you didn't necessarily want feedback on that, but I suspect that with careful shopping and some restraint, you could get a camera and lens (maybe even the 50/1.4 lens, which is a GREAT lens) for a bit less than the asking price you listed in the original post. As the cost of the camera comes down, the difference between it an the Bessa becomes more substantial.
There is a P or two listed on the auction site at the moment, and there are often auctions for both a P and a 50mm lens. It seems that there are about 6 or so P auctions on there every month.
I'm about to send my first P to a repair house for a CLA, so at this moment I don't have a first-hand experience with any to be able to make a recommendation.
---Michael
back alley
IMAGES
i bought 3 p' over the past couple of years.
not one needed a cla.
the finders just kept getting better, the last one i bought glows it is so bright and clear.
there is a world of difference between a bessa and a p. both are great cameras but i dropped a p and had it repaired and i'm thinking the bessa would have been in pieces.
the p is a great piece of art, looks, feels and handles great. most of the lenses are better than most shooters are.
i would not pay that much for it unless it and the lens were mint or i was just in a hurry to get one and could afford it.
i'd offer 50 bucks less at least.
with a good handheld meter and a couple of lenses the p will get you most places you might want to go, photographically...
joe
not one needed a cla.
the finders just kept getting better, the last one i bought glows it is so bright and clear.
there is a world of difference between a bessa and a p. both are great cameras but i dropped a p and had it repaired and i'm thinking the bessa would have been in pieces.
the p is a great piece of art, looks, feels and handles great. most of the lenses are better than most shooters are.
i would not pay that much for it unless it and the lens were mint or i was just in a hurry to get one and could afford it.
i'd offer 50 bucks less at least.
with a good handheld meter and a couple of lenses the p will get you most places you might want to go, photographically...
joe
djon
Well-known
You didn't want to talk about price, but...
That's way too much for a camera and lens without dealer warrenty. I'd pay that to KEH.com because of their warrenty.
It's a $200-300 body from a reliable dealer. Mine were. Hard to get much cheaper than that. From reports on this Forum, it sounds like need for CLA might be one in five. Mine were perfect mechanically (including flash synch), but I did remove the front viewfinder glass and clean it to good effect...all it takes is a small jewelers's screwdriver and some lens tissue.
I wouldn't pay more than $250 for that lens unless it was a black version and in mint condition, considering what's available from Voigtlander (my Nokton 50 1.5 cost $300) . $575 means you're considering $200- $300 for the body, so $275-$375 for the lens. Incidentally, if I could have found an excellent-condition 50 1.8 Canon for under $250, I'd probably have preferred that to the Nokton for size reasons, but I doubt it would equal the Nokton optically. Yes, it's likely better than old screw mount Summicrons, but that's only because old Summicrons are mostly dying from fungus or coating abrasion, whereas Canon lenses are aging much better...I doubt very much that Canon 1.8 would have rivaled a new-condition screw mount Summicron. Whereas...a Canon 1.4 probably WOULD rival that Summicron and would be the jewel I'd look for.
It's OK to pay too much IMO, after all you use a camera, not a bargain. $100 either way shouldn't make much difference, since you're comparing to a $500 Voigtlander. But IMO you'd be happier paying liberally to a reliable source, such as KEH, where you're assured of a good camera without need of repairs (unless they mention the need when you buy).
I use a Gossen Digisix. It has annoying quirks but it's extremely accurate in low light and high and it's tiny. A hand held meter leads you toward estimating light visually, whereas a built in meter tends to enslave
That's way too much for a camera and lens without dealer warrenty. I'd pay that to KEH.com because of their warrenty.
It's a $200-300 body from a reliable dealer. Mine were. Hard to get much cheaper than that. From reports on this Forum, it sounds like need for CLA might be one in five. Mine were perfect mechanically (including flash synch), but I did remove the front viewfinder glass and clean it to good effect...all it takes is a small jewelers's screwdriver and some lens tissue.
I wouldn't pay more than $250 for that lens unless it was a black version and in mint condition, considering what's available from Voigtlander (my Nokton 50 1.5 cost $300) . $575 means you're considering $200- $300 for the body, so $275-$375 for the lens. Incidentally, if I could have found an excellent-condition 50 1.8 Canon for under $250, I'd probably have preferred that to the Nokton for size reasons, but I doubt it would equal the Nokton optically. Yes, it's likely better than old screw mount Summicrons, but that's only because old Summicrons are mostly dying from fungus or coating abrasion, whereas Canon lenses are aging much better...I doubt very much that Canon 1.8 would have rivaled a new-condition screw mount Summicron. Whereas...a Canon 1.4 probably WOULD rival that Summicron and would be the jewel I'd look for.
It's OK to pay too much IMO, after all you use a camera, not a bargain. $100 either way shouldn't make much difference, since you're comparing to a $500 Voigtlander. But IMO you'd be happier paying liberally to a reliable source, such as KEH, where you're assured of a good camera without need of repairs (unless they mention the need when you buy).
I use a Gossen Digisix. It has annoying quirks but it's extremely accurate in low light and high and it's tiny. A hand held meter leads you toward estimating light visually, whereas a built in meter tends to enslave
Last edited:
markbrennan
Established
Michael, Joe, Djon -
Really appreciate your feedback and thoughts. I did not expect such extensive replies and it has been a real pleasure and immensely helpful.
Good to know about the relative market value and price position of this camera. I will consider asking the seller if he will consider lowering his asking price.
Unfortunately, the more I hear about this camera from the forum members the more I realize it is probably the best camera for me!
Nice to hear about the Gossen digisix. I certainly hope for some kind of exposure liberation by taking my meter off camera!
I'm not sure I fully understand how the Canon 50 1.8 stacks up against the 1.4. Is there THAT much difference? Some posters have suggested the 1.8 is very good; is the 1.4 even better?
regards,
-Marki
Really appreciate your feedback and thoughts. I did not expect such extensive replies and it has been a real pleasure and immensely helpful.
Good to know about the relative market value and price position of this camera. I will consider asking the seller if he will consider lowering his asking price.
Unfortunately, the more I hear about this camera from the forum members the more I realize it is probably the best camera for me!
Nice to hear about the Gossen digisix. I certainly hope for some kind of exposure liberation by taking my meter off camera!
I'm not sure I fully understand how the Canon 50 1.8 stacks up against the 1.4. Is there THAT much difference? Some posters have suggested the 1.8 is very good; is the 1.4 even better?
regards,
-Marki
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
markbrennan said:
I own both of them. (At the moment my 50/1.8 is visiting another RFFer, so I can't shoot any side-by-side comparison photos for you, but I have plenty of experience with both.)
My opinion is that BOTH of them are very good. And yes, I do think a good Canon 50/1.8 would stack up well against an original-series Summicron in overall performance, even if the Summicron were in prime condition. Comparing them in a "blind taste test," you might find that you preferred pictures from one or the other, but it would be a question of personal values rather than obvious quantitative differences.
When Sean Reid did his test of both Canon lenses on the Epson R-D 1 digital camera (you can find it on luminouslandscape.com) his opinion was that the f/1.4 was slightly better. (And I know his test corresponded to my own experience because I lent him the lenses he tested!) But that was talking about the R-D 1 specifically, and the differences were slight. In my own photography on film, I can't see significant differences among most pictures taken with the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.8... and again, the differences that ARE there are qualitative rather than quantitative. (E.g. -- Both are sharp; the 1.4 might be a bit sharper in the center; the 1.8 seems to me to have a bit more "microcontrast"; etc.)
At any rate, they're close enough that you need superb photographic technique and a really good magnifier to distinguish between them in normal picture-taking!
djon
Well-known
JLW, well expressed. My recently renewed love affair with a long-ignored 50 1.4 FD SSC (Canon F1) may have colored my thinking about the ten-ear-older rangefinder version. The FD version may be my most impressive lens...I've just printed some of its Velvia 100f to 12X18 and wouldn't expect better from medium format.
markbrennan
Established
JLW - thanks, belatedly, for the info on lenses. Finally made it through Sean Reid's article on lenses on LL - wonderful.
How do you enjoy using the Voigtlander 50 1.5? Does it block any of the finder? How is the form factor? It seems a bit bigger than either the Canon 1.8 or 1.4 but I can't tell for sure.
I may buy the body only from the seller and then order the 1.5 from Cameraquest, depending on the price of the body.
Again, many thanks to you and everyone else for the great feedback and info. I've learned a lot from all of you and am most grateful.
Happy shooting.
-Mark
How do you enjoy using the Voigtlander 50 1.5? Does it block any of the finder? How is the form factor? It seems a bit bigger than either the Canon 1.8 or 1.4 but I can't tell for sure.
I may buy the body only from the seller and then order the 1.5 from Cameraquest, depending on the price of the body.
Again, many thanks to you and everyone else for the great feedback and info. I've learned a lot from all of you and am most grateful.
Happy shooting.
-Mark
R
rotzbremse
Guest
I use a Canon P more than any other rangefinder camera, even though its viewfinder has a little crack in it. It is a very reliable camera that has never failed me. One day I will buy another P with a super clear viewfinder.
Sonnar2
Well-known
Mark, I don't have either of these lenses but the C/V 2.5/75 and 1.7/35 which have comparable sizes. Both looking perfect at a Canon P:
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Bessa_RF.html#Color-Ultron_1.735mm
The Ultron shades about 1/8 of the 35mm frame, hardly to detect. The Nokton has 5mm more width than the Ultron but a smaller frame too. Probably it will be the best looking standard lens at a Canon P... even better than the 1.4/50mm. And as I would expect from a design 40 years newer, sharper too...
cheers, Frank
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Bessa_RF.html#Color-Ultron_1.735mm
The Ultron shades about 1/8 of the 35mm frame, hardly to detect. The Nokton has 5mm more width than the Ultron but a smaller frame too. Probably it will be the best looking standard lens at a Canon P... even better than the 1.4/50mm. And as I would expect from a design 40 years newer, sharper too...
cheers, Frank