Canon LTM Which Canon RF LTM body?

[rfaspen]

I have several Canon's and they are certainly good bodies. I think the viewfinder of the 7 is pretty good, but I'm not a fan of that body..... usual reasons such as lack of cold shoe and size/proportions. I don't use any of my Canon's as much as I should. I have Barnacks and other LTMs that also crave my attention. But. The LTM that does come out to play on a regular basis is the cute little CV Bessa-R. That LTM body has everything. Some folks say it feels too cheap and plastic, but mine has been durable. It has a bright VF with a modern RF patch. Framelines for 35, 50, and 85? (can't remember). A hot shoe where I can put a 21 finder when using the 21. I could put a flash unit there too! The R has nice balance and I appreciate the light weight. If someone is looking for an actual modern useful and capable LTM, the R checks nearly every box I can think of.

Only downside of my little R:. It suffers from the dreaded sticky covering on the back door. Exactly the same issue we see with some Nikon stuff (e.g., D90). I has to remove the sticky with alcohol and an hour of wiping the sticky off. Now it's just smooth and hard. Really a non issue to me, but some folks seem to think it's a tragedy.

Go Bessa R !

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I had earlier version with rotative/magnifying RF/VF. Gold plated RF prism, but it did not impressed me at all with it. I think, Bartender described it once as squinty.
It had good internal build quality. And so was Leotax and Nicca. And I think, I had something else LTM from Japan...
All of those made in Japan LTM cameras were missing Barnack's charm and else. They were bulkier as well.
And I had M3, R, R2M, T, L.

I got Leica IIIc instead and it just feels better, handling as well. SBOOI is true 1:1 VF, not M3 cropped one. And for 35 I have tiny brightline VF from crapped out XA2, Minox 35 are great source for tiny brightline VF as well, since they never worked well and just good source for lens and VF.
And it is very impressive package with Russar VF and 21/4 CV CS.

 

[Dustfinder]

I know I'm supposed to reverently adore Leicas but I had an M3 for many years and we simply didn't click. Leica is not a consideration for me.

I recently went back to shooting film, but this time I decided to use rangefinders exclusively.
My first new old cameras were a Canon P and a Canon 7s, both in excellent comestic condition.
On account of live and internet peer pressure, I finally acquired a Leica M3 for a reasonable price. I don't regret it, but just because I know it won't loose value, just the opposite.
The rangefinder experience may be a tad better, but for the absurd price difference not worth it. On top of that, the shutter curtain demands much more care, the film loading is worse, and my courage to try simple maintenance on it, like opening and cleaning some parts, is just non existent.
All in all, the Canon P might not have the best rangefinder patch and clarity (there are ways to improve it), but everytime I am going out with friends and family, I think it should go with me.
On a side note, it also won't ruin your glasses, like the M3 and older Canons...

 

[paul in AZ]

Finding suitably clean bodies is one problem. Going at it from the other direction I am a bit distressed by the prices asked for the relatively few fungus free 35mm L39 lenses. They are expensive!
Now wondering about a Voightlander 40 mm. Thoughts on that?

 

[Bill N]

I recently went back to shooting film, but this time I decided to use rangefinders exclusively.
My first new old cameras were a Canon P and a Canon 7s, both in excellent comestic condition.
On account of live and internet peer pressure, I finally acquired a Leica M3 for a reasonable price. I don't regret it, but just because I know it won't loose value, just the opposite.
The rangefinder experience may be a tad better, but for the absurd price difference not worth it. On top of that, the shutter curtain demands much more care, the film loading is worse, and my courage to try simple maintenance on it, like opening and cleaning some parts, is just non existent.
All in all, the Canon P might not have the best rangefinder patch and clarity (there are ways to improve it), but everytime I am going out with friends and family, I think it should go with me.
On a side note, it also won't ruin your glasses, like the M3 and older Canons...

I have a beautiful P and would love to find the "ways to improve the rangefinder patch and clarity"
Thanks

 

[Dustfinder]

I have a beautiful P and would love to find the "ways to improve the rangefinder patch and clarity"
Thanks

Hi.

There are a few methods. I've chosen the easiest to reverse and tinker to your satisfaction. It's explained here : http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-165.html

I'm using a tiny poorly cut piece of electrical tape, but I plan on finding some semi transparent adhesive dark film and try it out.

Some photos, non perfectly centered handheld cellphone quality...

 

[Shafovaloff1]

I have on Ebay posted photographs of the internals of a Canon 7S.....which I put a Canon 7 shutter into.....what a PITA! "Shafovaloff1"....no one will buy it I am quite certain. Not at that price anyway....but have several watchers. I still think it was the most complex rangefinder camera made at the time it came to market. I have seen no repair manual with sufficient detail...maybe the expert techs have one, I did not, only the basic stuff available everywhere. So I posted photographs of the known adjustment points, screws, springs. If you look closely, even a "B" adjustment screw down under.

 

[bluesun267]

I vote for the Canon 7 or 7s. The OP stated he is an eyeglass wearer so that trumps the sleek, practical loveliness of the L1/VL/P series.

Unlike the Leica Ms, the 7 has very roomy eye relief and the eyepiece is less protruding (so less scratchy on glasses).

The Canon 7 chassis is IDENTICAL in size to the L1/VL/P series. People seem to believe it's larger because the top plate is a couple mm taller and that meter gives it a 'fat' look. But in practical terms, the 7 is no bigger than an M3 or P and will fit pretty much anywhere those cameras will.

A simple solution to the lens balance problem is to fabricate an additional strap lug that fits around the sync outlet: Here

(The strap lug position I feel is the only real engineering blunder to be found on these wonderful cameras).

 

[paul in AZ]

Canon 7 or 7s meet any requirements I have. I am unlikely to get one because of one thing ~~ I don't like the looks. That meter is pretty ugly.
To date I have looked up all sorts of RFs and have a short list of those that I like. Nikon S3 is tempting and is the winner on looks. As to Canons I like the idea of L2 and VI-L. Each with some negative feature or other. Throw in availability and condition/price of what's there and it is an equation with many variables.
I have a different favorite each day.

 

[aizan]

I got the VI-L because of the design!

But I like the looks of the Canon 7, so YMMV. There was a gorgeous custom black chrome Canon 7 at a camera show years ago that I should have bought.

Only the real nerds like selenium meter honeycombs. 😀

 

[shawn]

I have a beautiful P and would love to find the "ways to improve the rangefinder patch and clarity"
Thanks

Shine a light into the eyepiece. Look into the rangefinder window on the front of the camera. If it is hazy, spidery, not clear the RF prism likely needs to be cleaned/polished.

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/4786954

In my case the RF patch went from nearly invisible to this:




and that is with nothing extra on either window trying to increase contrast further.

Shawn

 

[shawn]

I got the VI-L because of the design!

But I like the looks of the Canon 7, so YMMV. There was a gorgeous custom black chrome Canon 7 at a camera show years ago that I should have bought.

https://www.natcam.com/products/can...m-manual-focus-rangefinder-camera-body-black/

Buy it before I do something rash.....

Shawn

 

[Dustfinder]

Shine a light into the eyepiece. Look into the rangefinder window on the front of the camera. If it is hazy, spidery, not clear the RF prism likely needs to be cleaned/polished.

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/4786954

In my case the RF patch went from nearly invisible to this:

filedata/fetch?id=4789827&d=1655572563
filedata/fetch?id=4789828&d=1655572565

and that is with nothing extra on either window trying to increase contrast further.

Shawn

Excellent work. I just made the light test you mentioned and mine was not that bad, but it's good to know I can solve this problem when it inevitably arises. I noticed that your framelines look a little dim, compared to my pictures. Is it so, or is this just a feature of the different ambient lighting?

 

[shawn]

I think the frameline difference is mostly due to the difference in focal length between your shot and my shot. I used the telephoto on my iPhone 13 Pro for mine, I think yours was with a wide angle. My framelines are fine in normal usage but in these pics do look a bit dim for the little that you can see of them.

Shawn

 

[Dustfinder]

I think the frameline difference is mostly due to the difference in focal length between your shot and my shot. I used the telephoto on my iPhone 13 Pro for mine, I think yours was with a wide angle. My framelines are fine in normal usage but in these pics do look a bit dim for the little that you can see of them.

Shawn

Yes, you're right. I redid the test with the tele lens and it looked dimmer that I usually see in real life.

On a side note, I hope someday the canon line of rangefinders will receive the praise it deserves, especially from the repair people. Leica repairmen are not difficult to find, I hope Canon rangefinder repairmen will be someday as common.
My M3 is currently being CLA'd, so I hope I will be more appreciative of it when it returns, as I currently am of my Canons.

 

[ranger9]

...to me, the most important feature of a rangefinder camera is having a large, clear, parallax-corrected combined viewfinder/rangefinder. It's just hard to go back to squinty, smaller, non-parallax-corrected and/or darker viewfinders...

The later Canons -- P, VI, and 7 series -- all have large, parallax-corrected range/viewfinders (1:1 in the case of the P and VI) and all are clear if the optics are clean, although the reflected framelines of the P/VI make them less contrasty than the projected-frame finders on the 7 series or the Leica Ms. Speaking of framelines, the ones on the 7 cameras are better defined and less confusing (they're even labeled) than the sketchy arrays found on most Leica M models. The only real ways an M RF/VF is superior to that of the 7-series Canons are the fact that it switches framelines automatically when you change lenses, and that the edges of the rangefinder patch are sharply focused rather than soft-edged. If you feel those advantages are worth the Leica's premium price, easily burnable shutter curtains, and the excitement of juggling the baseplate during rapid film changes, then welcome to the Leica M fan club, but let's not set up any straw men...

 

[das]

Well, with Leica Ms, you can use every lens ever made for Canon RFs plus every single M lens. Also, Ms RF couple down down to 0.7m, unlike the Canons. And, while I have not picked up a 7 in a while, the viewfinders of the Vi or P are overall nowhere nearly as good as the M3. The "premium" in today's pricing was always not as it is today. 10 years ago you could get an M3 for as low as $600-700. Have you seen what Japan based sellers are asking for a VI and or 7s / 7sz these days in halfway decent shape? $300-500.

 

[shawn]

Well, with Leica Ms, you can use every lens ever made for Canon RFs plus every single M lens. Also, Ms RF couple down down to 0.7m, unlike the Canons. And, while I have not picked up a 7 in a while, the viewfinders of the Vi or P are overall nowhere nearly as good as the M3. The "premium" in today's pricing was always not as it is today. 10 years ago you could get an M3 for as low as $600-700. Have you seen what Japan based sellers are asking for a VI and or 7s / 7sz these days in halfway decent shape? $300-500.

Almost every lens made for Canon RFs.



Yes, the dream lens can be modified. No M lenses can't be to the Canons. M3's couple to 1m too as do the original M mount Leica lenses. Some M3 can be modified to couple closer. Mine gets down to about 0.8m and it is a '65 production.

As far as viewfinder the hard edges of the M3 RF patch are definitely superior (and the viewfinder is clearer overall) but an even bigger difference (IMO) is the difference in how eye position effects the patch. With the Canon's if your eye position isn't correct you can't really see the patch, doesn't effect the M3 in the same way. Wether that is a good thing or a bad thing is up to the user. On the Canon it makes sure you are centered in the viewfinder, but also means with quick action to your eye you might not see it. The brightness of the second image is pretty comparable between my three. For double eyed shooting 0.8x isn't the same as 0.92x which also isn't the same as 1.0x.





As far as cost they are in different leagues. The 7 is well under $200 most of the time. I bought that 7 with case and a *mint* 50 1.2 for $225 from Camerawest in Sept. That M3 is the third one I tried. First two had to be returned due to desilvering on the prism, I got that one before the price explosion on them. The P is kind of all over the place in price but I got that one (rated as EX) for $253 from KEH about a month ago. KEH is selling M3s with what are likely desilvered viewfinders (notes that rangefinder is inoperative or rangefinder dim) in Bargain condition for almost 6x that cost at about $1500. And that has been going up and up lately. Great time to own/sell one, bad time to buy one.

Not at all claiming the Canon's are superior but also not claiming the Canon's are just poor cousins of the M3 either. They offer things the M3 doesn't have too.

Shawn

 

[TenEleven]

There's also the fact that early Elmar type lenses and derivatives (Russian, Japanese, Zeiss) with the focus knob are a huge pain to mount on M cameras with some like my 28/4.5 FED or 11'o'clock Elmar refusing to mount at all. Sure sure you could file down the M/L ring or the lens or GASP your Leica M.... Furthermore, I don't really like L/M ring juggling for my L-mount lenses - too many times I've put them in the dry box with the wrong ring on which means I have to grumble and hold down the preview lever or just live with it.

Lastly I do like that I can dial in whatever frame-line I want in the camera independent of adapters or lenses. So that when I am shooting say the 25 Canon (which you'd use an external finder for anyway) I don't accidentally start composing with the finder because it's showing the 35 frame or something. (I usually use the magnified view.)

Oh and the Canon L1 is a good bit smaller and lighter than an M camera.

I should mention that also shoot Contax I, II and IIa's and the small squinty finders don't bother me at all. I already looked at the scene and know what it looks like before raising the camera to my eye. In the end it's down to preferences.

Also the vast majority of my non Contax lenses is l-mount simply because I can use them on many many different cameras and am not married to an M body (or one of the very few copies that exist which are now also all absurdly expensive.) When it comes to versatility it just is no contest - L mount wins hands down.

Edit: Also my Canon VIL and P (a black model) both couple down to 0.6m and the RF is accurate down to that too. No modification was made to the cameras by the way. The 7 stops somewhere a bit after 0.8m but still plenty close. The L1 is more conservative stopping a bit after 0.9m

 

[Duofold RF]

It looks like a well done repaint