Rob-F
Likes Leicas
The discussion so far makes it pretty clear this is about film cameras. But just in case anyone wants to include digital, I want to say that my Fuji X100 feels really close to handling my Leica M2 or MP with a 35mm Summicron!
steveyork
Well-known
Old Topcon SLR cameras from the 50's were very sold and well made. Their Topcor lenses were excellent, maybe even better then Leica optics at the time.
From my limited experience with Japanese rangefinders from the 1950's, I'll give a slight nod to the early Canons for build construction over Nikons, but what really separated Leica from the pack at that time (in my own mind) was their viewfinders. For me, Nikons had better viewfinders then Canons, although I have no experience with the P and 7. It's a bit of apples and oranges, because they were designed so different. Maybe the only similarity is that Canon and Nikkor optics were very good, maybe better then Leica, at least on par in the 50's, and today, ha, ha, they are much better values on the used market, especially the Canons. Along with Zeiss Contax, Canon rangefinders are a relative steal.
From my limited experience with Japanese rangefinders from the 1950's, I'll give a slight nod to the early Canons for build construction over Nikons, but what really separated Leica from the pack at that time (in my own mind) was their viewfinders. For me, Nikons had better viewfinders then Canons, although I have no experience with the P and 7. It's a bit of apples and oranges, because they were designed so different. Maybe the only similarity is that Canon and Nikkor optics were very good, maybe better then Leica, at least on par in the 50's, and today, ha, ha, they are much better values on the used market, especially the Canons. Along with Zeiss Contax, Canon rangefinders are a relative steal.
Kyocera, actually.
Horatio
Masked photographer
So, if the viewfinders aren’t as good as Leica, does that mean inaccurate focusing, or off-framed images?
I think it's best to compare products made during specific eras. Not much point in comparing a 1936 Leica III to a Nikon F6. 
Looking only at build quality of just Barnacks and clones, design differences aside, the Canon and Niccas are equal to Leica, through and including the IIIc model, I would say. This is just my experience owning many bodies of each.
The IIIf and IIIg were manufactured during the peak of Leitz manufacturing, the precision and exquisite finish of these cameras exceeded anything from Japan at the time, and they were a step forward from the Leica IIIc. This takes nothing away from the overall build quality of the Japanese Barnack clones which has been proven over decades.
I've also had Leotax but not enough copies of those to make any sort of fair judgment.
In some areas the Japanese clones have fared much better over time than Leica; for example, the covering on Niccas is almost always intact whereas vulcanite on Leicas tends to crumble and disintegrate.
I think this same quality comparison holds true moving forward to the M era, which overlapped the IIIf and IIIg era, to include the Nikon S-mount rangefinders. That is, the fit and finish, precision mechanical feel, the chrome plating, and other details on Leicas are superior.
It is generally accepted that Nikon S2 through the SP, however, are less likely to need CLAs than Leicas of the same vintage.
Looking only at build quality of just Barnacks and clones, design differences aside, the Canon and Niccas are equal to Leica, through and including the IIIc model, I would say. This is just my experience owning many bodies of each.
The IIIf and IIIg were manufactured during the peak of Leitz manufacturing, the precision and exquisite finish of these cameras exceeded anything from Japan at the time, and they were a step forward from the Leica IIIc. This takes nothing away from the overall build quality of the Japanese Barnack clones which has been proven over decades.
I've also had Leotax but not enough copies of those to make any sort of fair judgment.
In some areas the Japanese clones have fared much better over time than Leica; for example, the covering on Niccas is almost always intact whereas vulcanite on Leicas tends to crumble and disintegrate.
I think this same quality comparison holds true moving forward to the M era, which overlapped the IIIf and IIIg era, to include the Nikon S-mount rangefinders. That is, the fit and finish, precision mechanical feel, the chrome plating, and other details on Leicas are superior.
It is generally accepted that Nikon S2 through the SP, however, are less likely to need CLAs than Leicas of the same vintage.
steveyork
Well-known
Without going into rangefinder finder base length, the Leica generally had better eye relief and the rangefinder patches have withstood time better. Generally a feeling of bigger and brighter. I'm just basing it on the stuff from the 50's I owned and used (a few Canons, S2/3, M2/3). I understand the Canon 7 has from the 60's has a nice viewfinder, but I've never owned/used one. No black and white conclusions here; someone will be able to be up contrary examples to anything I've written. If there is a difference in quality, it's just a matter of degree.
A few days ago I came across the equipment list from 1953 of one of the founding members of Magnum. I was surprised at how many Canon cameras were listed. Zeiss, Nikkor, Canon optics too. The solitary Leica was a IIIf. No Leica lenses, but that predated the M3.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I use M Leicas and also use the Canon 7 and both camera brands give you accurate focus with well adjusted RFs and lenses that are made to the Leica standard Like CV lenses and Leica lenses and Nikkor lenses and Canon Lenses etc. FSU lenses in LTM can be a bit of a problem sometimes with accurate focus on Leicas and Canons but well adjusted and shimmed FSU lenses take care of that if any discrepancy exists.. in most cases.
Both M Leicas and the Canon 7 have accurate framelines for the focal length lens you are using.
But if you want 100% frameline accuracy then RF cameras are not the ones to go for as neither the best film M Leica or a Canon 7 can guarantee that all the time..go with an SLR then with 100% coverage in the VF like on the Nikon F series of SLRs.
Horatio
Masked photographer
I'm liking the Canon 7, which has a meter. I assume these are very basic. Question for all you 7 owners out there: how accurate is the meter?
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
The 7 has a selenium cell meter...not the best or the most sensitive even in 1962...on many Canon 7 cameras after 59 years the selenium cell meter is now inoperative. The later 7s model had a cds meter but these models are not as numerous on the used market and the camera bodies sell for many dollars more.
Use a modern hand-held light-meter with a Canon 7, same as if you were using a Leica M3 or M2 or M4 camera.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
You can quickly learn that a meter, built in or hand held, is nowhere near as essential as you think after you try shooting without one for a while. The reason they were not of a part of early cameras is that manufacturers had not yet sold consumers on the idea that they needed them.
Realize back in those early days every box of Kodak film included a little slip of paper that said something like:
Bright sun: f11 @ 1/250th
Hazy: f8 @ 1/250th
shadow: f5.6 @ 1/125th
inside: f4 @ 1/60th
Plus, many photos were made with box cameras that had no adjustable aperture or shutter speed.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Get a Gossen Luna Pro and never look back.
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
CMur12
Veteran
I think this could be true for documentary photography with B&W negative film (though less so for the Zone System), but I shoot color slides (35mm and 6x6), where a half-stop difference in exposure is significant.
We've had discussions about this here before, and some say that they can eyeball exposures exactly enough for slides, as well. I've been doing this for long enough that I, too, could probably train myself to do the same without a lot of effort. But I prefer the assured precision of a good meter.
- Murray
Highway 61
Revisited
Now what we need is a new RFF member named Curiatio.
Scrambler
Well-known
The nice thing with the 1950s optics is you dont need a camera to match. I have a Canon 50mm/f1.4 and a Nikkor 85mm/f2, both in LTM. Nice lenses, every bit as good as a Leica lens of the time (or better than the Summitar copy I had). Attach to a Leica (or whatever) and you are right to go. The Nikkor can also be had in Nikon mount and in Contax mount if you prefer those.
Cameras? I can't help you there. But unless you are a working professional, will it matter? And if you ARE a working professional with 1950s cameras, chose a camera you can get reliably serviced/repaired.
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
Getting away from RF's a bit, but the only two cameras I've used/owned that come close to my M2 in terms of fit and finish are the Pentax SV and Nikon F2.
The SV has by far the smooth film advance of any camera I've used (including the M2), while the F2 just feels so precisely engineered.
Likewise, build quality on early Pentax lenses from Super-Takumar through to SMC Pentax (K) is as good or better than the Leitz lenses I've owned.
hilltime
Well-known
Throwing in my 2 cents for what it's worth, I clearly remember the first time I put my hands on a M3, and loaded it up and shot the first roll of film, I said to myself, "Now I know what this Leica stuff is all about." Probably the greatest handling and viewing rangefinder camera of all time, IMHO. Now, I was coming from the SLR world of Nikon FM and FE2, so it was some of my first rangefinder experience. I will have to say when I got a Canon 7SZ and paired it with the 50/1.4, I felt like I had the same experience, with the added bonus of a CDS meter. I will also say I would compare my Leotax FV very favorably with my Leica IIIG for the screw mount style cameras.
Just my take on all this...
Just my take on all this...
css9450
Veteran
The bottom-loader Canons have a neat viewfinder feature which includes a three-position magnifier. This not only aids greatly in focusing, but the two magnified settings roughly approximate two longer lens' field-of-views. 90mm and 105 I think, or 135mm. I've not tried shooting that way, mainly because I usually use a 28 or a 35 on my Canon, and also because I would need to check first which focal length exactly they are approximating! With my luck, I'd be using the wrong lens by accident....
But the focusing magnifier is a great help for focusing! I really like it.
But the focusing magnifier is a great help for focusing! I really like it.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Hmmm. Neither really. My Nikon S2 does the same thing the M3 does, when you look through the viewfinder with both eyes open. Your brain superimposes the RF lines on the world. Best viewfinder ever, in my view -- even if it makes wides impractical. But asking which is "closer" is like asking which cuisine is closer to Italian: Korean or Japanese? It is a purely academic exercise as there are similarities that don't really get at the essence of the thing.
What's closest to Leica? Probably Contax of the same era.
What's closest to Leica? Probably Contax of the same era.
Alberti
Well-known
Looking just at the lenses, Canon is Leica-like and Nikon is Zeiss-like.
Nikon extensively built upon the Zeiss licences (and often improved these).
For me a reason in the seventies to choose Canon as second camera.
Nikon extensively built upon the Zeiss licences (and often improved these).
For me a reason in the seventies to choose Canon as second camera.
narsuitus
Well-known
Thanks for the comparison. It was not until I read your comment that I understood why I prefer the images from my Zeiss and Nikon lenses more than my Leica lenses.