p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
I am thinking of getting a Canon rangefinder (not Canonet) but there seem to be so many models around (L1, L2..., 7, 7s... etc..). Which one would you recommend?
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
I've settled with an L2 with metal curtain.
I wrote a review-ish post some time ago.
Ignore the flash sync part, im not sure about it now.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155715
I wrote a review-ish post some time ago.
Ignore the flash sync part, im not sure about it now.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155715
Mackinaw
Think Different
What do you prefer? Knob wind, trigger advance, or lever advance? Projected framelines, reflected framelines or no framelines? So many variations when it comes to rangefinder Canons. I prefer the L1 but am currently shooting with a III-A. If you’re not in a hurry, pick up a copy of Peter Dechert’s excellent Canon rangefinder book and see which camera strikes your fancy. Also take a look at the Canon Museum site.
Jim B.
Jim B.
02Pilot
Malcontent
I have an L1 and a P. The big advantage of the latter is a 1:1 parallax-corrected finder with framelines for 35/50/100. Other than that, I prefer the feel of the L1, with just seems a little smoother and more refined. With the parallax-correcting external finders, the L1 is every bit as functional, if slightly less convenient and compact (the P does not have the facility to use these finders).
If you shoot a lot of street, the P's finder makes a huge difference. If you're just looking for a general-purpose camera, the earlier models are just as capable in most meaningful ways.
If you shoot a lot of street, the P's finder makes a huge difference. If you're just looking for a general-purpose camera, the earlier models are just as capable in most meaningful ways.
lawrence
Veteran
Another vote for the L1. My only vintage rangefinder, sold all the others a while back. If you wear glasses the 35mm frame in the P can be hard to see and who can resist the slow speed dial on the front of the L1?
Peter Jennings
Well-known
I'll vote for the L1 as well. I had one, sold it to get a VIL, didn't like the VIL as much even though it had all the features of an L1 but with one speed dial, a 1:1 viewfinder and metal curtains. Turns out those details don't matter so much to me. The larger viewfinder of the VI series is nice, but with it comes flare and a less-nice RF patch. The smaller VF is clearer and more pleasant to use. Now I have another L1 and I'm keeping it.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
It depends on your age and eyesight condition.
Good eyesight and no glasses worn, they are all very good including the bottom-loaders.
With glasses and age related poorer eyesight, the P and the 7 become more difficult to use with the internal reflections in the VF and the squinty RF/VF combo of the bottomloaders can become an exercise in futility.
The overall best finders are of the L1, L2 and Vt family of Canon Cameras for someone with poor eyesight and wears glasses. The Canon VIL and VIT are a step down to these in this case.
Good eyesight and no glasses worn, they are all very good including the bottom-loaders.
With glasses and age related poorer eyesight, the P and the 7 become more difficult to use with the internal reflections in the VF and the squinty RF/VF combo of the bottomloaders can become an exercise in futility.
The overall best finders are of the L1, L2 and Vt family of Canon Cameras for someone with poor eyesight and wears glasses. The Canon VIL and VIT are a step down to these in this case.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
Hi guys, thanks for your replies. I wrote the OP in a hurry and I didn't elaborate more.
I already have a LTM Leica and my eyesight is good so far. Most of my work is street photography with 400 iso films.
Regards.
I already have a LTM Leica and my eyesight is good so far. Most of my work is street photography with 400 iso films.
Regards.
02Pilot
Malcontent
For street photography the only limitation of the L-series Canons is the VF, which is clear but small (not Barnack small, but not too far off). Depending on your shooting style, an external VF will be either a nice addition or an absolute necessity. The parallax-correcting finders are the ideal choice, but are hard to find (I recently got a 50mm one after looking for years); any good VF will do.
ray*j*gun
Veteran
I had a 7s for years and it was a stout camera with great feel and handling. On mine the meter worked well as also. Not sure why I sold it as it was a tank of a body with excellent functionality.
raid
Dad Photographer
I ended up with three Canon P cameras in the end, and I enjoy(ed) using them all. The P is a robust camera that is basic and that allows me to focus on photography.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
I don't have a recommendation, but I can tell you what I own/use now and why:
I have had several Canon RF cameras over the years: Canonette, IVSb and IVSb2, P, Vt, and, most recently, a 7.
I am older and very farsighted.
I liked the IV cameras but not quite enough to keep them--they weren't "bad" but I ended up selling/trading them towards other cameras.
I really wanted to like the P. The one I owned was in good condition and worked well but I found that I did not like the VF on that camera. If I'd been able to physically handle the P prior to buying, I would have passed.
I got the Vt primarily for the lens it came with and, after using a Bessa R2a with its trigger winder, I wanted to use a similar but smaller set up. And the Vt has been quite fun. And I have been pretty happy with the VF on this camera.
And, I recently--October, maybe?--bought a 7. That camera purchase was sort of an impulse buy; I've been attracted by the 7 for quite a while but prices for a decent example were a bit out of my budget. I was actually looking for something else and noticed that prices for the 7 were significantly lower than I had seen for a while. So, I bought one. Not collector grade but very pretty and functional.
Out of the 6 different Canons I've tried, I still have the Vt and the 7. They seem, to me, to offer the best value for money for me. I'd still like to try a few others but for now, these two work for me.
I have had several Canon RF cameras over the years: Canonette, IVSb and IVSb2, P, Vt, and, most recently, a 7.
I am older and very farsighted.
I liked the IV cameras but not quite enough to keep them--they weren't "bad" but I ended up selling/trading them towards other cameras.
I really wanted to like the P. The one I owned was in good condition and worked well but I found that I did not like the VF on that camera. If I'd been able to physically handle the P prior to buying, I would have passed.
I got the Vt primarily for the lens it came with and, after using a Bessa R2a with its trigger winder, I wanted to use a similar but smaller set up. And the Vt has been quite fun. And I have been pretty happy with the VF on this camera.
And, I recently--October, maybe?--bought a 7. That camera purchase was sort of an impulse buy; I've been attracted by the 7 for quite a while but prices for a decent example were a bit out of my budget. I was actually looking for something else and noticed that prices for the 7 were significantly lower than I had seen for a while. So, I bought one. Not collector grade but very pretty and functional.
Out of the 6 different Canons I've tried, I still have the Vt and the 7. They seem, to me, to offer the best value for money for me. I'd still like to try a few others but for now, these two work for me.
presspass
filmshooter
How does the VT compare in size to the IVSB2? Any help appreciated.
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
http://global.canon/en/c-museum/series_search.html?t=camera&s=film&s2=rangefinder
Canon camera/lens museum shows the dimensions for most of their products. Sometimes it is inconsistent about including protruding parts or not, but you roughly get the idea.
I found those Canons all to be rather long cameras as rangefinders, often hitting 14cm in length.
Canon camera/lens museum shows the dimensions for most of their products. Sometimes it is inconsistent about including protruding parts or not, but you roughly get the idea.
I found those Canons all to be rather long cameras as rangefinders, often hitting 14cm in length.
Mackinaw
Think Different
As already mentioned, the Canon Museum site will tell you a lot.
Beyond basic measurements, I can tell you that the VT is substantially bigger than the IVSB2. Adding a bottom wind to a camera really increases bulk. I have an L1 and III-A and the III-A is smaller than the L1, which has a lever wind. Maybe not major, but the size difference is definitely noticeable.
Jim B.
raid
Dad Photographer
The IVsb2 is similar to a Leica IIIc. The VT is more like an M camera with ltm.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
I can't disagree with the posts above, the Vt is bigger than the IVSb2.
I don't have the IV any more and don't have the Vt to hand right now but my recollection is that the Vt is a bit wider left to right and quite a bit taller. Heavier too.
Numerically, a small difference but in the hand, it is significant. For me, I prefer the feel of the Vt but then I did happily use a FED 5 for several years.
Rob
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
Foe me, Raid, the Vt seems to be in between, I think the 7 is rather closer to an M camera--feels similar to me to the M4 I owned.
Rob
oltimer
Well-known
I have both; a VIT, and 7sz. They were still in the boxes when I purchased them from a Canon Dealers wife after her husband passed on, who I knew very well. I sent them out to Goldberg to completely go through them, as my thoughts were they sat just too many years without use. Both are great rangefinders; but the 7sz has a beautiful large viewfinder that lights up the frames with the lens mm shown. Also, it has a great working meter in case I forget one of my Gossen meters with spot attachments. Both are the same size.
Livesteamer
Well-known
I have the IVSB2 and a VIT, they are very different. The IVSB2 is the last and best of the bottom loaders. A tiny bit bigger and heavier than my Leica IIIc but the finder is better, at least for me. I wear glasses and on the Canon IVSB2 I can see the whole frame and the r.f. patch is very visible, a bit better than my IIIc with the new beamsplitter mirror and much better than my older IIIc. The VIT is big and I don't like the trigger wind but it did not cost much and came with a Canon 35mm f1.5 which is a really nice lens. Canon L1 is supposed to be good but you have to find what works for you. Good Luck. Joe