SurlaCraque
Member
Hey folks, rangefinder noob here.
I just acquired a Canon P and it is very well preserved copy, everything works and the viewfinder is clear with fully intact frame lines and a functional well aligned RF patch.
I wasn't able to try before buying, but I read what I could about.
For travel I have been using a Rollei AFM 35 semi-manual P&S which takes great pics, but I'm wanting to move to a classic mechanical rangefinder. (I also have a full film SLR setup based around a Minolta XD-11 and a Rolleicord TLR). I like the 38mm lens size on the Rollei for a city/travel camera so I got a 35mm Canon lens as well as a 50mm.
Ok so yeah nice clear 1:1 viewfinder on this P, but with glasses I struggle to make out the 50mm frame lines and have no chance of seeing the 35mm frame lines. Fortunately I have a mild prescription (-1.5) so I don't absolutely need my glasses to navigate the world but of course I prefer to wear them when out and about taking things in, especially when carrying a camera. If I take my glasses off - wow, what a difference, not only can I see more of the viewfinder, but the frame lines are much clearer and my ability to shoot with both eyes open is better (not sure why this should be since my non-VF eye now has no correction, but there you go). I read that the viewfinder has a slight minus diopter so that doesn't hurt me since I have mild minus diopter correction anyways. However, I will say that even without my glasses on, and my eye pressed right up to the viewfinder, it is difficult to see all the 35mm frame lines at the same time.
So I'm already wondering if the three position viewfinder of the Canon L1, VL, or VI-L (did I get that all right?) would be better for me if I want to be able to use the 35mm lens on a regular basis. If I mainly wanted to use the 50mm lens, I think the P would be ok, because with my eyeglasses on I can see most of the 50mm frame lines and I could probably just use the whole VF picture I can see as an approximation of the 50mm coverage. I could probably get used to that with some practice (remember I'm a RF noob) although I think I'd be tempted to remove the glasses a lot because the view is just so much better through the camera without them. At indoors distances, in lower light, where viewfinder brightness is more critical I could probably mostly shoot without eyeglasses b/c I can get away without my glasses at indoor distances under 20 ft or so.
However the 35mm lens would only be usable without eyeglasses and even then would require some moving the eye around to take in all the lines, at least for me. So I'd have to decide how much snap photography I want to do with the 35mm lens.
Anyways can anyone comment on how well the three position VF of those other Canon LTM cameras work with glasses? Can you see the full 35mm FOV? On the 1:1 50/100mm setting can you see all the 50mm frame lines? I read that the VFs are squinty-er than the P but maybe I'd be willing to trade off a little VF quality to get a good 35mm FOV. Are there differences between the various models or do they all have the same RF/VF unit?
TIA
I just acquired a Canon P and it is very well preserved copy, everything works and the viewfinder is clear with fully intact frame lines and a functional well aligned RF patch.
I wasn't able to try before buying, but I read what I could about.
For travel I have been using a Rollei AFM 35 semi-manual P&S which takes great pics, but I'm wanting to move to a classic mechanical rangefinder. (I also have a full film SLR setup based around a Minolta XD-11 and a Rolleicord TLR). I like the 38mm lens size on the Rollei for a city/travel camera so I got a 35mm Canon lens as well as a 50mm.
Ok so yeah nice clear 1:1 viewfinder on this P, but with glasses I struggle to make out the 50mm frame lines and have no chance of seeing the 35mm frame lines. Fortunately I have a mild prescription (-1.5) so I don't absolutely need my glasses to navigate the world but of course I prefer to wear them when out and about taking things in, especially when carrying a camera. If I take my glasses off - wow, what a difference, not only can I see more of the viewfinder, but the frame lines are much clearer and my ability to shoot with both eyes open is better (not sure why this should be since my non-VF eye now has no correction, but there you go). I read that the viewfinder has a slight minus diopter so that doesn't hurt me since I have mild minus diopter correction anyways. However, I will say that even without my glasses on, and my eye pressed right up to the viewfinder, it is difficult to see all the 35mm frame lines at the same time.
So I'm already wondering if the three position viewfinder of the Canon L1, VL, or VI-L (did I get that all right?) would be better for me if I want to be able to use the 35mm lens on a regular basis. If I mainly wanted to use the 50mm lens, I think the P would be ok, because with my eyeglasses on I can see most of the 50mm frame lines and I could probably just use the whole VF picture I can see as an approximation of the 50mm coverage. I could probably get used to that with some practice (remember I'm a RF noob) although I think I'd be tempted to remove the glasses a lot because the view is just so much better through the camera without them. At indoors distances, in lower light, where viewfinder brightness is more critical I could probably mostly shoot without eyeglasses b/c I can get away without my glasses at indoor distances under 20 ft or so.
However the 35mm lens would only be usable without eyeglasses and even then would require some moving the eye around to take in all the lines, at least for me. So I'd have to decide how much snap photography I want to do with the 35mm lens.
Anyways can anyone comment on how well the three position VF of those other Canon LTM cameras work with glasses? Can you see the full 35mm FOV? On the 1:1 50/100mm setting can you see all the 50mm frame lines? I read that the VFs are squinty-er than the P but maybe I'd be willing to trade off a little VF quality to get a good 35mm FOV. Are there differences between the various models or do they all have the same RF/VF unit?
TIA
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I find the viewfinder on the L1 and the VT series better with glasses than the ones on the P and the VIL and VIT. These later camera with reflected lines for the 50mm and 100mm viewfinders have not aged very well in these nearly 60 years (the direct view 35mm selection is ok though).
The projected frame lines of the 7 and 7s are the best for people who wear glasses, though the VF on the Canon 7 and some early 7s models are made too near sighted for most people's eyesight for some reason. This was corrected on the last Canon 7s production,( also Canon's last pro quality RF camera ever made) known as the Canon 7sz
The projected frame lines of the 7 and 7s are the best for people who wear glasses, though the VF on the Canon 7 and some early 7s models are made too near sighted for most people's eyesight for some reason. This was corrected on the last Canon 7s production,( also Canon's last pro quality RF camera ever made) known as the Canon 7sz
02Pilot
Malcontent
To me, the L1 VF seemed really small - like Barnack small. It's workable, but not ideal. The VI-L is better, but as noted the 50/100 framelines may have deteriorated (mine have, but they're still workable); the 35mm VF is decent. If 35mm is going to be your primary FL on the camera, the earlier bodies will be easier to work with, but with limitations.
Another option - the one I prefer for the L1/VI-L - is to use the special parallax-correcting Canon external finders. They aren't cheap or easy to find, however - finding a good 35mm unit that didn't require resorting to prostituting myself or selling an organ took a while.
Another option - the one I prefer for the L1/VI-L - is to use the special parallax-correcting Canon external finders. They aren't cheap or easy to find, however - finding a good 35mm unit that didn't require resorting to prostituting myself or selling an organ took a while.
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
Get an L1/L2/L3, you will like the finder if you wear glasses
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155715
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155715
Mackinaw
Think Different
Another option is to use an accessory viewfinder. V-series and L-series have the parallax compensating stud. This coupled with the appropriate viewfinder gives you a large, bright, parallax-corrected, viewing image. This is what I use on my L1.
Jim B.
Jim B.
mooge
Well-known
I have a VI-L and I wear glasses. On the 50/100 setting I can't really see all of the 50 framelines at once. And the 35 setting is waaay tighter than what my 35mm finder shows. So not a good 50 or 35 rig for a glasses wearer in my opinion. And using accessory finders isn't as convenient as having 35 framelines built into the camera, they can be expensive, etc... (says the guy who's shooting a VI-L right now with a jupiter-12 and 35mm accessory finder)
The camera I do recommend is the Canon 7 -it's got a brilliant finder and it's arguably the best bang for buck (~$100!) rangefinder overall. At 35 the framelines are pretty tight, but not worse than on my Leica M2. The 50 framelines have just the right amount of space around them (in my opinion). The only problem is it's got not accessory shoe so you can't really put auxiliary finders on it to shoot wider, but maybe this isn't an issue for you.
Or get a Bessa-R. has a meter. Shutter is a bit louder. but the finder - it's crystal clear and I can see around the 35 frames. The bessa finder is so good it's like looking into the future.
The camera I do recommend is the Canon 7 -it's got a brilliant finder and it's arguably the best bang for buck (~$100!) rangefinder overall. At 35 the framelines are pretty tight, but not worse than on my Leica M2. The 50 framelines have just the right amount of space around them (in my opinion). The only problem is it's got not accessory shoe so you can't really put auxiliary finders on it to shoot wider, but maybe this isn't an issue for you.
Or get a Bessa-R. has a meter. Shutter is a bit louder. but the finder - it's crystal clear and I can see around the 35 frames. The bessa finder is so good it's like looking into the future.
YouAreHere
Established
I'm pretty sure neither the L1 nor VL allow me to see the full 35mm framelines with my glasses (-2.5) on. Same is true for the external 35mm viewfinders I've tried as well. Canon, Nikon, Leica, Zeiss, etc. The basic problem is that none are high eyepoint. Well, except there is one from Leica. But it comes at a cost.
SurlaCraque
Member
Hey folks, thanks for all the responses and advice. I took the P out today to shoot a test roll. Being new to meterless rangefinders I definitely have some learning to do. Regarding the viewfinder, I used it both with and without glasses for the 50mm lens. Remember my prescription is only -1.5 so pretty mild. I still much prefer the view and ergonomics without glasses, but I was able to start getting used to using it with glasses. With glasses I still can't quite see the whole 50mm frame line unless I really scrunch the camera into the glasses to the point where I'm pushing my glasses lens inwards against my face - not exactly ideal or comfortable. I can fairly easily get it to the point where I can see the upper and lower lines and one of the side lines. Or the upper and lower and I center the rangefinder spot. Unless I have a shot where framing is super critical, this FOV is probably adequate. Again, absolutely forget the 35mm frame lines with glasses on, but I didn't shoot the 35mm lens today.
Other notes:
- I've had to clean the forward face of the viewfinder from finger smears a number of times. Just not used to keeping my finger away from there I guess.
- It definitely helps to try to prefocus the lens by the distance scale for an anticipated shot so that you don't have to do much focusing when you bring the camera to your eye.
- This camera is showing me how meter dependent I am. I decided to forgo using the ancient clip on selenium meter that came with the camera and I used an App on my iPhone instead. I started guessing at EVs as I walked around and then checking to see how close I was.
- This camera is not particularly compact. It's actually a little longer and taller than my main film SLR, a Minolta XD11. With the 50mm f/1.4 it's quite heavy too. It's not fitting in any pockets. I carried it around in the bottom half of its leather case using the leather strap that attaches to the case sides rather than the forward mounted lugs on the camera body itself. That strap is a little short, aged and thin, so I'll probably look at another solution soon.
- I feel like with the weight and lack of a mirror box I could shoot handheld at slower shutter speeds than I'm used to, but I'll film test that out.
So, my verdict is still out. Am I in love with the camera, no, I would say the relationship is developing. I would like to try a VI-L. That camera has a 1:1 viewfinder on the 50/100 setting right? If I could see the 50mm frame lines at least as well as I can on the P that could work because then I 'd have a demagnified setting - 0.7x? - for the 35mm frame which I'm guessing I'd be able to use. Anyone in Seattle have a VI-L or VI-T? I have read the VI finder is difficult for older eyeglasses wearers because it has a strong minus diopter built in to it that can be hard for your eyes to adjust to. However, if that is in fact the case, it might at least be great for me without glasses since it would be close to my correction anyways!
Of course, I probably should consider a 7 for the viewfinder. But yeah like many I find the 7 uglier and clunkier looking. I'm already not enamored of the size of the P so not thrilled to go bigger. But there's a reason why it's a bargain I guess - lots of other folks feel the same way. The 7s with a working meter would be better but those get expensive.
As the suggestion of accessory finders for the P, well dang if those tiny little boxes aren't ridiculously expensive! Plus moving your eye between two finders to focus and compose... For wider angles I get that the focusing isn't as critical.
Other notes:
- I've had to clean the forward face of the viewfinder from finger smears a number of times. Just not used to keeping my finger away from there I guess.
- It definitely helps to try to prefocus the lens by the distance scale for an anticipated shot so that you don't have to do much focusing when you bring the camera to your eye.
- This camera is showing me how meter dependent I am. I decided to forgo using the ancient clip on selenium meter that came with the camera and I used an App on my iPhone instead. I started guessing at EVs as I walked around and then checking to see how close I was.
- This camera is not particularly compact. It's actually a little longer and taller than my main film SLR, a Minolta XD11. With the 50mm f/1.4 it's quite heavy too. It's not fitting in any pockets. I carried it around in the bottom half of its leather case using the leather strap that attaches to the case sides rather than the forward mounted lugs on the camera body itself. That strap is a little short, aged and thin, so I'll probably look at another solution soon.
- I feel like with the weight and lack of a mirror box I could shoot handheld at slower shutter speeds than I'm used to, but I'll film test that out.
So, my verdict is still out. Am I in love with the camera, no, I would say the relationship is developing. I would like to try a VI-L. That camera has a 1:1 viewfinder on the 50/100 setting right? If I could see the 50mm frame lines at least as well as I can on the P that could work because then I 'd have a demagnified setting - 0.7x? - for the 35mm frame which I'm guessing I'd be able to use. Anyone in Seattle have a VI-L or VI-T? I have read the VI finder is difficult for older eyeglasses wearers because it has a strong minus diopter built in to it that can be hard for your eyes to adjust to. However, if that is in fact the case, it might at least be great for me without glasses since it would be close to my correction anyways!
Of course, I probably should consider a 7 for the viewfinder. But yeah like many I find the 7 uglier and clunkier looking. I'm already not enamored of the size of the P so not thrilled to go bigger. But there's a reason why it's a bargain I guess - lots of other folks feel the same way. The 7s with a working meter would be better but those get expensive.
As the suggestion of accessory finders for the P, well dang if those tiny little boxes aren't ridiculously expensive! Plus moving your eye between two finders to focus and compose... For wider angles I get that the focusing isn't as critical.
The VI and VIL have miserable finders because not only do the framelines have a tendency to corrode and disappear, those finders also have a strong tendency to degrade towards lots of flare.
The L1 finder with its gold mirror is my pick, and its also the favorite of Peter Dechert.
The P is lots more numerous but not as good overall IMO.
Pick up his book Canon Rangefinders - its all the info on Canon LTM rangefinder bodies you are ever likely to need.
The L1 finder with its gold mirror is my pick, and its also the favorite of Peter Dechert.
The P is lots more numerous but not as good overall IMO.
Pick up his book Canon Rangefinders - its all the info on Canon LTM rangefinder bodies you are ever likely to need.
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
As an eyeglass wearer, my 7 is much more usable than the P finder for seeing outside the frame at 50mm. The 7 is so cheap, you can buy a user condition one and try it, then sell it on if you don't like it.
The accessory viewfinders are good but as you say, not ideal. I happened to find a VTD in a thrift store with a 35, 50, 85 set of auto parallax finders on the shoulder strap of the case for dirt cheap and so I'm loathe to give the whole kit up but I'm really more comfortable using the P or the 7 or my M3. I've had the VT that got me started in Canon RF for quite a few years now and I'm still not "finalized" for a kit.
The accessory viewfinders are good but as you say, not ideal. I happened to find a VTD in a thrift store with a 35, 50, 85 set of auto parallax finders on the shoulder strap of the case for dirt cheap and so I'm loathe to give the whole kit up but I'm really more comfortable using the P or the 7 or my M3. I've had the VT that got me started in Canon RF for quite a few years now and I'm still not "finalized" for a kit.
SurlaCraque
Member
Wow I got a comment from Stephen Gandy of CameraQuest?! Thank you sir for your website which is both a boon and bane (because it encourages GAS) to camera nerds everywhere.
Ok, ok so I'm getting the message that I should forget about the VI models. That's fine, they seem pricey used anyways. I did a bit more shooting with the P and I think I should give it more time. Although I don't have anything to compare it to, I think I got a good copy; the viewfinder (and the whole camera) seem very clean. The frame lines are clear and crisp. I don't see any flaking or degrading of the etched lines. The RF spot is kind of a yellow blob, it is properly aligned and I'm getting used to how it works.
Someone, either on this forum or somewhere else, made that comment that the P is great if you mainly want to shoot with a 50mm lens. With possible forays to 35 or 100mm. That seems about right. I was planning on using my 35mm f/1.8 a lot, but maybe I'll see how much I can get into the 50mm. Apparently I have a well regarded one in the Canon f/1.4. With the 1:1 finder with both eyes open I could work on my "in the moment photojournalist street style" technique, which seems best suited to the 50mm focal length. I will say shooting with both eyes open is fun; it's a new technique for me coming from SLRs but it wasn't hard for my brain to figure out. We'll see if I can make good use of this style of shooting. I do have other cameras for other purposes. HCB and others shot with the 50mm almost exclusively. Perhaps an old screw mount RF camera is best considered a one lens outfit anyways? The lenses obviously aren't as easy to swap as the bayonet styles that came later and futzing with accessory finders to go beyond capabilities of the camera's native viewfinder is also not very convenient either. Although I will say the P handles nicely and looks very sharp with my 35mm f/1/8 - see attachment.
I can sympathize with the complaint that the P's VF is cluttered with the three frame lines, but since I can't see the 35mm lines with eyeglasses on or even that easily without, for me there's mainly the 50 and 100 and the 100 corners don't bother me too much.
I will be able to use my 35mm but it will be more of option, to be carefully framed. Maybe I should get an L1 to mount the 35mm?
Ok, ok so I'm getting the message that I should forget about the VI models. That's fine, they seem pricey used anyways. I did a bit more shooting with the P and I think I should give it more time. Although I don't have anything to compare it to, I think I got a good copy; the viewfinder (and the whole camera) seem very clean. The frame lines are clear and crisp. I don't see any flaking or degrading of the etched lines. The RF spot is kind of a yellow blob, it is properly aligned and I'm getting used to how it works.
Someone, either on this forum or somewhere else, made that comment that the P is great if you mainly want to shoot with a 50mm lens. With possible forays to 35 or 100mm. That seems about right. I was planning on using my 35mm f/1.8 a lot, but maybe I'll see how much I can get into the 50mm. Apparently I have a well regarded one in the Canon f/1.4. With the 1:1 finder with both eyes open I could work on my "in the moment photojournalist street style" technique, which seems best suited to the 50mm focal length. I will say shooting with both eyes open is fun; it's a new technique for me coming from SLRs but it wasn't hard for my brain to figure out. We'll see if I can make good use of this style of shooting. I do have other cameras for other purposes. HCB and others shot with the 50mm almost exclusively. Perhaps an old screw mount RF camera is best considered a one lens outfit anyways? The lenses obviously aren't as easy to swap as the bayonet styles that came later and futzing with accessory finders to go beyond capabilities of the camera's native viewfinder is also not very convenient either. Although I will say the P handles nicely and looks very sharp with my 35mm f/1/8 - see attachment.
I can sympathize with the complaint that the P's VF is cluttered with the three frame lines, but since I can't see the 35mm lines with eyeglasses on or even that easily without, for me there's mainly the 50 and 100 and the 100 corners don't bother me too much.
I will be able to use my 35mm but it will be more of option, to be carefully framed. Maybe I should get an L1 to mount the 35mm?
Attachments
Last edited:
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
If you like the P, and have an opportunity to get an L1, do so. It has a beautiful finder. And if you focus by selecting its magnifier, you don't need your glasses for framing the shot in 35 view. You can mount a J12 if you like, as I did.
(Disclosure: I sold my L1 to Stephen when I left LTM. If he has 2 or 3, he might sell you one....)
(Disclosure: I sold my L1 to Stephen when I left LTM. If he has 2 or 3, he might sell you one....)
davhill
Canon P
When using eyeglasses with my Canon P, the 50mm frame lines almost perfectly match the visible view. Even without glasses, the 35mm area is never fully visible - I need to shift around a bit to see the entire field. And yet I rarely find this an issue in use with a 35 -- I find I keep a peripheral consciousness of how much additional the frame is taking in. Not perfect, but it works for me.
I'd dearly like to try a L1. Yessirr.
RLH mentions mounting a Jupiter-12 on the L1... which begs the question: Is this unusual? My J12 mounts fine on the P. Tolerances are close, but its fine. Are there, perhaps, differences in J12's?
I'd dearly like to try a L1. Yessirr.
RLH mentions mounting a Jupiter-12 on the L1... which begs the question: Is this unusual? My J12 mounts fine on the P. Tolerances are close, but its fine. Are there, perhaps, differences in J12's?
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
Right, I didn't mean to imply that the P can't mount a J12.
I did not own a J12 when I had a P. I did when I had the L1, and I enjoyed that small luxury of not having to worry about retrofocal grind.
If anyone can confirm that the P will handle a J12, the OP can consider the appeal of that lens.
(Here it is at f8 with XP 400.)
I did not own a J12 when I had a P. I did when I had the L1, and I enjoyed that small luxury of not having to worry about retrofocal grind.
If anyone can confirm that the P will handle a J12, the OP can consider the appeal of that lens.
(Here it is at f8 with XP 400.)
davhill
Canon P
I've seen warnings about mounting the J12 on the Canon P (Karen Nakamura comes to mind) -- but as noted, my (1960) J12 fits my P just fine. The issue is the diameter of the rear element vs baffles in the film chamber--clearance is extremely close. If, say, there were variations in the diameter of that element over the many years that lens was produced .. other versions might not fit. So .. "Try before you buy" if possible.
I've also seen warnings about using the collapsible Leitz Elmar 3.5/5cm with the Canon P. In this case its the diameter of the 'bayonet' flanges on the end of the barrel which touch the baffles -- but with care and a bit of wiggle & twist, I can collapse mine. Depth (in either case) is not an issue.
Now this is gone way off-topic, and I apologize.
David Hill
I've also seen warnings about using the collapsible Leitz Elmar 3.5/5cm with the Canon P. In this case its the diameter of the 'bayonet' flanges on the end of the barrel which touch the baffles -- but with care and a bit of wiggle & twist, I can collapse mine. Depth (in either case) is not an issue.
Now this is gone way off-topic, and I apologize.
David Hill
Shac
Well-known
I have both a Canon P and an L1 and I much prefer the L1 - much easier to focus and I really like the ability to change btwn 34 and 50 views (better for me that framelines).
I find the L1 as easy to focus as my Leica film M's. But everyone has their own preferences of course. The P is a great camera - so are many of the Canon RF lenses as you probably know.
Bought the L1 by the way after carefully reading Stephens great pieces on Canon rangefinders - great information
I find the L1 as easy to focus as my Leica film M's. But everyone has their own preferences of course. The P is a great camera - so are many of the Canon RF lenses as you probably know.
Bought the L1 by the way after carefully reading Stephens great pieces on Canon rangefinders - great information
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
I've seen more J-12 fitting (3) the Canon RF than not fitting (0). Just my experience.
All of the J-12 are 60s and 70s, without the metal guard around the rear elements.
All of the J-12 are 60s and 70s, without the metal guard around the rear elements.
Peter Jennings
Well-known
I've only been shooting with rangefinders for a few years, but I've tried many cameras in that time. What I've learned is that if you want to shoot 35mm focal length, get a camera that lets you do that comfortably. Get the gear that suits your shooting style, don't adapt your style to suit the gear. To me, 1:1 VFs are not ideal for shooting 35mm. I preferred the L1 to the P for this reason. That said, the 7 is better than the P because the 35mm frame lines are a little easier to see. Eventually, I found a good deal on a Leica M2 and that's what I'm using for 35mm now. For comfortably shooting 35mm, the Canons are no competition.