Canon LTM Tell me I don't need a Canon 7...

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
The lens .95 was built before ASA 800, which was the reason for its existence. With faster film you do not need that f stop. Also, I have read that the optics at .95 are not good or recommended. As for the difference between the P & 7 it comes down to the meter. Once the meter goes consider its repairability.
 
I have a canon 7 and love it - but I sold some other rf equipment to finance it - so I narrowed my equipment down to a more precise,reliable and a better vf\rf body. I use it with a 35/2.8 canon and while wouldnt mind getting a fast normal,dont need it since I have an slr nikon with 50/1.4 which I love a lot
 
What about updating your RFF gallery before getting yet more gear ?
Nothing new there since August 8, 2006 ......
 
Steve Bellayr said:
The lens .95 was built before ASA 800, which was the reason for its existence. With faster film you do not need that f stop.
Click to expand...

Until it gets a bit darker...

Also, I have read that the optics at .95 are not good or recommended.
Click to expand...

Ahh, but this is RFF, where you don't have to settle for unquestioning belief in what you read!

Instead you can read threads full of actual users' experiences (including mine) and draw your own conclusions from the example photos, as in this thread, or this one, or this one, or especially this one, which lets you compare the Canon lens to other exoticae such as the 50/1.1 Nikkor and the 50/1 Noctilux.)

And as long as I'm plugging my own threads, there's a somewhat more philosophical view of 50/0.95 lens practice here. And my page of info about having mine converted to M-mount is still here.

So, that's my input as a Defender of the Faith. Now, getting back to Stephanie's original question -- I don't want to come over all grandfatherly and say you should stop being such a camera butterfly, so how about this: I promise I won't try to talk you out of buying a Canon 7 if you'll promise us all that if you do buy one, you'll keep it and use it for at least a year! Deal?
 
I almost bought a nice Nikon F right before my daughter was born.
But I never went in to get it; I let the store keep the deposit.
A good thing too, because we needed the rest of the money for baby expenses...


Chris
 
Last edited:
jlw is the person who actually piqued my lust for the .95 lens with his photos of dance and theatre taken with it. I take some photos in lower light conditions that would benefit from its speed. I can't afford it yet, however, but I will one day want it.

Don't get me wrong, either. The Kiev is a nice camera and I plan on keeping it for quite some time. The FE is a great camera as well, but I'm going to be replacing it with a camera that doesn't use batteries for shutter operation (and one that's cheaper to buy lenses for than the Nikon). I'm actually using my folding camera for the first time ever and liking it so much that I plan to use it in a project I've been wanting to do.

I'm still kinda trying to find the gear that works the best for me. The Canon 7 is a step in the right direction. It'll get me into the Leica screwmount system again, which would give me incredible lens options, and it would also give me a camera that has a longer lens frame and a wider lens frame, things I badly need.

I do have one question though. THere's another Canon rangefinder that changes magnification based on the lens you're using? Which was that? A VI?
 
You don't NEED it, you WANT it. Nothing wrong with that, I've wanted a Canon P since Joe had three of them. One of these days I might even buy one...

Wanting things is probably the best motivation one can have for working, so enjoy the 7 when you get one. I'm sure you'll let us know how you like it once you have one.
 
Stephanie Brim said:
I do have one question though. THere's another Canon rangefinder that changes magnification based on the lens you're using? Which was that? A VI?
Click to expand...

Here's the short course on Canon viewfinderology:

The 7-series is the only Canon RF line that has a projected-frame viewfinder -- the kind with a frosted window on the front that projects sharply-defined luminous framelines into the finder field. The 7 cameras have framelines for 35, 50, 85/100, and 135mm lenses, and all these framelines move diagonally to compensate for parallax. However, the finder's magnification does not change.

Before they got their act together with projected frames, Canon made two camera types that had reflected-frame viewfinders. These use a semi-transparent mirror inside the finder system to bounce back silvered framelines etched inside the eyepiece -- useful, but not as clear, well-defined, or easy to see under tricky lighting conditions as the projected-frame system (which is why Canon dumped reflected frames and brought out the 7.) The cameras with reflected framelines were:

-- The P, which has frames for 35, 50 and 100mm lenses, all shown together in a finder with a lifesize 1:1 image and all moving for parallax compensation. Again, though, the viewfinder magnification does not change based on the lens in use.

-- The VI-series cameras, which were identical except for the winding mechanism: the VI-L had a conventional thumb lever, and the VI-T had a trigger in the baseplate plus an auxiliary winding knob on top (for use during loading or with the camera mounting on a tripod.) These cameras did have switchable finder magnification. There was a position that showed parallax-compensated, reflected framelines for 50mm and 100mm lenses within a 1:1-magnified field; a reduced-magnification position showing the field of view for a 35mm lens, but with no framelines (and no parallax compensation); and a magnifying position that doesn't show the full field of any lens, but is useful for more accurate focusing with long and/or high-speed lenses.

The VI cameras were the only Canons which had both framelines and selectable finder magnification.

Before that, though, Canon made a whole slew of cameras that had no finder framelines of any kind, but did offer selectable finder magnification. The V-series and L-series cameras had unframed finders with selectable 35mm, 50mm, or magnifying positions. And their predecessors, the Leica-sorta-lookalike II, III and IV series, had had switchable finders covering a 50mm position; a "1x" position for more accurate focusing and a fairly good approximation of the field of view of a 100mm lens; and a 1.5x position for critical focusing. This system had made its debut on the Canon IIB of 1949, where it was a patented world's-first feature.
 
I think that the 7 fits me the best of all the Canon offerings. And yes, just so everyone knows, I'm pretty sure that this one is in fine working shape. I'll have to think seriously about it while I use the Sonnar for a while. ;)
 
jlw said:
Steve Bellayr said:
The lens .95 was built before ASA 800, which was the reason for its existence. With faster film you do not need that f stop.
Click to expand...
Until it gets a bit darker...
Click to expand...
Until it gets one stop darker. This one stop means either the need to lug a big huge expensive lens that is difficult to focus, or the step from 800 to 1600 film (no problem today), or a one-stop push (which Stephanie apparently isn't afraid to do), or even a one-stop underexposure which isn't much of a problem with film either, especially since Stephanie mostly does B&W. There might be the occasional 6400 ASA, f/0.95, 1/8 of a second handheld shot once a year that you wouldn't get otherwise, but that's it.

Available darkness isn't a real argument for this lens anymore IMHO. It's a a curiosity lens for people interested in 1960s optical design, and a special effect lens that makes sense between f/0.95 and f/1.4. This effect might make a difference for your photography, or it might not. Maybe it's just that I don't like the result, but most of what I've seen from the lens just looks fuzzy, and that's after the photographer weeded out all the misfocused and unsharp and blurry shots. For me it wouldn't be worth it, I'm happy with f/1.4. Your mileage may vary, of course. :)

Sonnar2 said:
After all, we talking about RF here: small, inobstrusive cameras, small lenses.
Click to expand...
But we are also talking about the Canon 7 and 50/f0.95, a rather large RF body with a huge, heavy, conspicuous lens... The supposed size and unobtrusiveness advantage of RF's doesn't really apply to this combination! :D :D

For me this kind of lens would just detract from photography. Heck, when I miss good opportunities it's usually not because DOF isn't shallow enough, but because I don't have a camera on hand at the moment. Having a bigger camera with an even bigger lens isn't going to change that.

Philipp
 
Last edited:
rxmd said:
But we are also talking about the Canon 7 and 50/f0.95, a rather large RF body with a huge, heavy, conspicuous lens... The supposed size and unobtrusiveness advantage of RF's doesn't really apply to this combination! :D :D
Click to expand...

Of course not. But the 0.95/50 is not as big and heavy as a FD 1.2/55 (AL). At least, it's a lot shorter.

The 0.95/50 is a night or theatre lens, solely, like jlw has shown us. ...Come on, everyone capable of buying this lens for, let's say 600 USD (my was 700), has at least one other 50LTM. Use it in daylight and you will get everyone's attention. That's a shame because at f/2.8 it's as sharp as the 1.4/50mm, at least.

The Canon 7 is (all around tech.specs, usability the best and cheapest Canon LTM around. Except in roughness, where it's equal to the Canon P, VI and V (not more, not less). Plus, it's the only choice, if you want to use the 0.95/50. Why it's cheap:

- collectors value (most units produced of all Canon LTMs)
- don't look as good as a Canon P. Attach a meter to a Canon P and look again!

This speaks for a low budget user LTM classic camera. No, it don't make you a better photographer. Just use it on a city-walk on a bright day. "Feel it holding a Canon RF" (varying a Pentax slogan of the 60's)

Maybe not as cool than a walk with a Nikon S2 but cooler than a Bessa for sure...

I can't say if you need it or not, Steph. Probably we all don't need it. Depends on where beauty and luxury has some place in your life...
 
Last edited:
rxmd said:
Until it gets one stop darker. This one stop means either the need to lug a big huge expensive lens that is difficult to focus, or the step from 800 to 1600 film (no problem today), or a one-stop push (which Stephanie apparently isn't afraid to do), or even a one-stop underexposure which isn't much of a problem...
Click to expand...

You must live in that "clean well-lighted place" that Hemingway maundered about. Personally, it seems as if I'm always shooting at EI 1600 and wishing I could get up to 1/60 instead of taking my chances at 1/30. True, a one-stop underexposure isn't much of a problem... unless you want shadow detail, but I do.

So when the occasion calls for it, I'm willing to lug an ultraspeed 50mm lens, even though it does weigh 605 grams (actually quite a bit lighter than my 85/1.5) and has a 72mm filter thread (not exactly an unprecedentedly large size.) I'm the first to admit that not everyone is going to like the look characteristic of near-zero depth of field, and that these are special-purpose optics. But if your purposes are special, that's exactly what you need.

True, "your mileage may vary" -- but in this context, it may be more important to recognize that we're driving to different destinations in the first place.
 
Low DOF is something I love.

I may or may not do this and I won't make the decision lightly. People have made good arguments for and against the camera. The 'save for a Leica' argument is actually pretty good...except for the fact that if I sold some rare video games and related merchandise I could easily afford one. I'm thinking about that, too. I tallied up what I'd get off the duplicate games that my boyfriend and I have and now no longer need plus some action figures that I no longer really want, still in boxes, plus the Burger King Star Wars toys, plus a few other things...and it comes to around $700 and change, with the sale of the FE.

The thing about a Leica is this: I want one, but I have a baby on the way. It would be in my best interest not to spend $6-700 on a body right now. Perhaps sometime in the future, but right now I'd be better off with the screwmount body of my choice and the Kiev. If I sold the other stuff as well and added it to the FE I could get the 50/.95 lens I want, but I don't really need THAT right now either. I'm more interested in the Cosina Voigtlander 35mm Skopar than the 50. The 7 and the Skopar with the Kiev and the Sonnar would be a great walk-around kit for me, and the 7, with it's easier film advance, would be a good street shooter. I won't be as worried about it getting stolen or lost as I would be with a Leica, and I'll have almost the same quality in the body as I would if I had an M2. Quality is what I look for these days...something that could stand up to being handed to a kid to play with a bit.

There's a 3 year old that loves my cameras. His name is Lucas. He's a friend's son.

learningwithfilm3.jpg


I'll take that down a bit later. Forgive the water spots. He loves taking my SLR and pretending he's taking photos. I trust the Nikon FE to him because I know the thing is built like a tank and nothing he could really do to it is going to break it. I now know that I can't be buying a lot of fragile cameras. I have one of these coming in a few months, too, and then in a few more months that baby is going to get interested in mommy and what that thing is she's holding up to her face.

Now this is just getting long. But anyway, I have a bunch of reasons for wanting the Canon 7 other than just wanting it. I didn't have a bunch of reasons for wanting the Speed Graphic. I may not need it in a life or death sort of way, but I need it in the sense that it would make photographic life easier.

And anyway, I can decide in the next couple of weeks or so. I may be working more soon and that means extra money. Who knows...maybe I'll end up with a Canon 7 and an Ultron instead. :)
 
i played with a canon 7 + 50/.95 a couple days ago. it is one heavy sob, yuck.

$300...bessa r2, contax t2, leica minilux, nikon 35ti...
 
I'm not getting the 50/.95 anytime in the near future. One of the reasons I want the camera is to be able to mount it when I DO get it, but it won't be for a couple years at least.

Now then, since that's out of the way, anyone have good ideas as to 35mm lenses?
 
Stephanie, if you love limited DOF, maybe what you really want is a short telephoto lens rather than a 50mm.

Duane
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom