Which canon rangefinder?

[rbiemer]

I have both; a VT, and 7sz. ..... Both are the same size.

Hmm, interesting. I've not measured my 7 or Vt and I am NOT disagreeing here but they certainly feel differently.

This goes to show that subtle changes in shape may make as much (more?) difference to how well a camera "fits" somebody versus the actual size?

Rob

 

[oltimer]

Hmm, interesting. I've not measured my 7 or Vt and I am NOT disagreeing here but they certainly feel differently.

This goes to show that subtle changes in shape may make as much (more?) difference to how well a camera "fits" somebody versus the actual size?

Rob

One is a VIT which I just did the edit on. I did measure both before I posted, and yes: the 7sz does feel more heavy.

 

[raid]

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

Hi Rob,

I addressed the question about the IVsb and the VT. Just these two cameras.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I've got all three cameras (IIIa, M3, VI-T) right here.
Here's a quick size comparison shot of them.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=105241&stc=1&d=1482775012

 

[rbiemer]

Hi Rob,

I addressed the question about the IVsb and the VT. Just these two cameras.

Hi, Raid!
Sorry, I was unclear about what I meant. Which was:
the IVSb ifeels like the Leica III and the Vt feels bigger. And, based on my recall of how they feel in my hand, the 7 feels closer to an M camera.

My quote of your post was NOT to dispute your post but to (poorly, as it turns out) talk about how the cameras felt in my hands when I've used them.

Again, this is about my subjective impression of the cameras.

Rob

 

[xayraa33]

Hi, Raid!
Sorry, I was unclear about what I meant. Which was:
the IVSb ifeels like the Leica III and the Vt feels bigger. And, based on my recall of how they feel in my hand, the 7 feels closer to an M camera.

My quote of your post was NOT to dispute your post but to (poorly, as it turns out) talk about how the cameras felt in my hands when I've used them.

Again, this is about my subjective impression of the cameras.

Rob

If you have big hands and don't mind the extra weight, the VT is very nice.

I have both models VT and IVSB2, and find hand holding lower shutter speeds is more easily done on the VT, plus the finder is now easier to look through for me and film loading on the fly is much easier on the VT.

But some people find the fixed bottom Leica-Vit type film advance on the VT and the extra weigh to carry around is not to their liking and they have a point there.

 

[oltimer]

If you have big hands and don't mind the extra weight, the VT is very nice.

I have both models VT and IVSB2, and find hand holding lower shutter speeds is more easily done on the VT, plus the finder is now easier to look through for me and film loading on the fly is much easier on the VT.

But some people find the fixed bottom Leica-Vit type film advance on the VT and the extra weigh to carry around is not to their liking and they have a point there.

I agree with you on the VT finder, but the 7sz viewfinder blew the socks off anything made in that time period. Today; it still is one of the tops.

 

[xayraa33]

I agree with you on the VT finder, but the 7sz viewfinder blew the socks off anything made in that time period. Today; it still is one of the tops.

The 7sz finder did not have the built-in nearsightedness of the 7 and 7s and like you said, blew the socks off anything made in that time period.

And remember, not too many RF cameras had the luxury of reflected frame lines. The Canon 7 series did, the Leica Ms and the Nikon SP and the Yashica YF (Nicca) and maybe the some of the French built Foca cameras did ( I never seen one in real life to confirm this) and some upmarket fixed lens RF cameras also had reflected frame lines in the VF, but very few models did have this feature and of course most of the modern CV made cameras we have today and rare Leica copies like the Red Flag.

 

[Mackinaw]

.......And remember, not too many RF cameras had the luxury of reflected frame lines. The Canon 7 series did, the Leica Ms and the Nikon SP and.........

Actually the 7 and 7s (as well as the Leica M-series, Nikon SP) had projected framelines. The Canon P had reflected framelines.

Jim B.

 

[xayraa33]

Actually the 7 and 7s (as well as the Leica M-series, Nikon SP) had projected framelines. The Canon P had reflected framelines.

Jim B.

My bad, I meant to write projected.

Too many family distractions on Boxing Day🙂

 

[raid]

Hi, Raid!
Sorry, I was unclear about what I meant. Which was:
the IVSb ifeels like the Leica III and the Vt feels bigger. And, based on my recall of how they feel in my hand, the 7 feels closer to an M camera.

My quote of your post was NOT to dispute your post but to (poorly, as it turns out) talk about how the cameras felt in my hands when I've used them.

Again, this is about my subjective impression of the cameras.

Rob

No problem, Rob. The Canon 7 is close to an M size wise. The 7sz is expensive, and the VI-L is rare. I foolishly sold a very clean VI-L many years ago.

 

[gb hill]

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

Joe has a lovely IVSB2 & had the extreme pleasure of holding & looking through it. It is a hefty solid build & a nice VF. I just like the Barnack style of these camera's. Then Joe pulled his IIIC out of his pants pocket & I forgot about the Canon.😀 JK the Canon is very nice, problem is there are way too many to find the right one.

 

[Bingley]

I've had the P, the 7, the L1, and still have a IVSB2. If I were starting over in rangefinders, I'd go for either the L1 or the IVSB2. The L1 has a variable magnification vf the covers both 35 and 50. It's a beautifully designed and constructed camera. The IVSB2 competes with a Leica IIIf but has a variable magnification vf that is sweet for fine focusing. The shutter on my sample is quieter than the shutter on my IIIc. It's also a very rugged camera. Been shooting a lot with it recently.

 

[xayraa33]

I've had the P, the 7, the L1, and still have a IVSB2. If I were starting over in rangefinders, I'd go for either the L1 or the IVSB2. The L1 has a variable magnification vf the covers both 35 and 50. It's a beautifully designed and constructed camera. The IVSB2 competes with a Leica IIIf but has a variable magnification vf that is sweet for fine focusing. The shutter on my sample is quieter than the shutter on my IIIc. It's also a very rugged camera. Been shooting a lot with it recently.

Good choice Bingley, I would narrow it down to the L1 now having used an L1 and the IVsb2.

The VF/RF is much better on the L1 and I am appreciating the easier film loading on it now too.

 

[Mackinaw]

I own an L1 as well as an old Canon III-A (an earlier version of the IVSB2). Yeah, the L1 is a better in-the-field user camera, but there’s something about the III-A’s small, pocketable size and silky-smooth knob advance that has it’s own pleasures. I have a roll of Eastman 5222-XX in my III-A right now. The L1 will sit for another time.

Jim B.

 

[p.giannakis]

Eventually i ended up buying a Canon L2.
Got it cheap (£110 including Special delivery postage) from an online retailer and it has been serviced. Very smooth advance level, all speeds are working fine and the rangefinder patch is very good.

 

[Peter Jennings]

Nice choice. Good luck with it!

 

[ForestCap]

Excellent choice. Ringo is with you.

 

[kb244]

That L2 looks nice, I prefered the Canon P, which I used to have, but had to sell. I now have a 7 with a working meter.

The 7 is nice in the sense that it has switchable frame lines (35, 50, 85/100, 135) which are parrallax corrected, and has a better magnification to be able to see the 35mm frameline (whereas some people complain of being able to clearly see the 35mm frame line on the Canon P).

I like my 7, but I would like a P better, except the P seems to fetch more than a 7 from my searching around. (plus the P has an accessory shoe, the first 7 does not, so no easy room to put a viewfinder if you want to shoot a wider lens).

The only major issue I can think of with the 7 currently is that it does not seem easy to find a professional repair person who will touch a 7. They seem to work on a P as the latest Canon RF they will touch.

 

[Shac]

I wish I could blame all on this thread but GAS is GAS - just got hold of an L1 with 50/1.8 & original front cap. Just needed it's rangefinder tweaking (5 minute job thanks for the great how-to info on another RFF thread) and it's ready to go. Really like the viewfinder with the 3 settings