sqjaw
sqjaw = Mr.Lauren MacInto
I am thinking about getting a canon range finder of older age , I have a Caono F-1 the first model ,I have a Canonet QL17 -GIII , DSLR Eos 20D , just feel I would like a older range finder: These three come to my mind
Caono VI-T or Canon 4sb or canon VIT,6T just simple taste's
Thanks for your comments on this question:
Caono VI-T or Canon 4sb or canon VIT,6T just simple taste's
Thanks for your comments on this question:
Well, as they are the most common, and perhaps best featured with excellent viewfinders, you should also consider the P and 7. Both are generally are found for less than the "6 series" cameras. The older knob wind Canons are nice, but require bottom loading and have smaller viewfinders.
John Shriver
Well-known
The IVSB is certainly very sweet in the hands. I do appreciate the small size of the bottom loaders. But it's really best for a 50mm lens. (The 1X magnification is a reasonable substitute for a 100mm finder, but that's it.)
All of the rear loaders are larger. Only some folks like the trigger winder, if I was going to spring for a VI, it would be the VI-L. The auto-parallax bright-field finders for the V and VI series must be very nice indeed. Still, what I went for was a 7s, the finder is so nice, and the meter is usable.
All of the rear loaders are larger. Only some folks like the trigger winder, if I was going to spring for a VI, it would be the VI-L. The auto-parallax bright-field finders for the V and VI series must be very nice indeed. Still, what I went for was a 7s, the finder is so nice, and the meter is usable.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Buy a P - you'll never regret it and never look back. I wouldn't sell mine for a grand.
gnashings
Member
I hope you forgive me for piggy-backing onto your thread, but I was having a simular quandry of late, and found this thread helpful. I did want to ask something more specific. I was over on Dante Stella's web site (its always a good read), and he seemed to allude to the limitations in focusing accuracy of the P vs the 7, due to rf base width (if I understood correctly)... Is this something that is a real concern when looking at those two, as well as the older Canon RF's? Thanks,
Peter.
Peter.
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
Hi Peter,
The RF base is shorter on the Barnack-like early Canon RF's. That reduces the accuracy, but has no practical effect when used with the lenses for which they were designed. The cameras were made slightly larger, because of design changes to the shutter crates, the hinged back, etc. That allowed a longer effective baselength for the RF, which was of importance principally with the very fast lenses. The 7series has the longest RF base, and focuses the 0.95 nicely. Wide open that lens has a DOF measured in mm.... Not much room for error.
The II-III-IV series takes a bit of getting used to, because of the bottom loading. They are very small, and very nicely made. The V-VI series, and the P are a bit larger, have a hinged back, and some individual design quirks, like the trigger wind on the VI-T, versus the lever wind on the VI-L.
The articles on the Cameraquest site give a great deal of background on these cameras, and are very helpful.
Any of the bodies, in good shape, will give a good account of itself. They are fine picture-takers. The older ones may need a CLA, and some of the newer ones, as well. There are several techs who can work magic, for a fee.
The P is popular (strange.. that's what the P stood for), has a classically beautiful design, and may be a bit pricey. The 7series is not as highly regarded, but are versatile examples of the last of Canon's design efforts in the RF family. Properly functioning, they are fine cameras.
Read a lot, check over the forum articles by Peter Dechert here on RFF, go to the Canon Museum, and read, read, read. You'll learn a lot, and the good news is that the cameras are relatively cheap now, and easy to find, as well. With the switch to digital, our film stuff is not well regarded in the outside world. Better for buyers that way...
These cameras will do anything the contemporary Leica bodies could do, for a lot less money. That is even more true of the lenses...
Harry
The RF base is shorter on the Barnack-like early Canon RF's. That reduces the accuracy, but has no practical effect when used with the lenses for which they were designed. The cameras were made slightly larger, because of design changes to the shutter crates, the hinged back, etc. That allowed a longer effective baselength for the RF, which was of importance principally with the very fast lenses. The 7series has the longest RF base, and focuses the 0.95 nicely. Wide open that lens has a DOF measured in mm.... Not much room for error.
The II-III-IV series takes a bit of getting used to, because of the bottom loading. They are very small, and very nicely made. The V-VI series, and the P are a bit larger, have a hinged back, and some individual design quirks, like the trigger wind on the VI-T, versus the lever wind on the VI-L.
The articles on the Cameraquest site give a great deal of background on these cameras, and are very helpful.
Any of the bodies, in good shape, will give a good account of itself. They are fine picture-takers. The older ones may need a CLA, and some of the newer ones, as well. There are several techs who can work magic, for a fee.
The P is popular (strange.. that's what the P stood for), has a classically beautiful design, and may be a bit pricey. The 7series is not as highly regarded, but are versatile examples of the last of Canon's design efforts in the RF family. Properly functioning, they are fine cameras.
Read a lot, check over the forum articles by Peter Dechert here on RFF, go to the Canon Museum, and read, read, read. You'll learn a lot, and the good news is that the cameras are relatively cheap now, and easy to find, as well. With the switch to digital, our film stuff is not well regarded in the outside world. Better for buyers that way...
These cameras will do anything the contemporary Leica bodies could do, for a lot less money. That is even more true of the lenses...
Harry
gnashings
Member
Hi Harry, thanks for the input - very helpful, and I can certainly see that you are a man after my own heart with regards to film, and brand names
I was just wondering if I would in practice miss anything by going to the P in terms of being able to focus accurately - it seemed unlikely to me. Obviously, the longer base provides greater accuracy, but the key word for me was "practical". Would I ever see the difference? I do shoot a lot wide open or near wide open, and a quick 50 would be in the works for sure - but realistically, when that happens I am usually pushing the limits of handholding. I am sure that I would be losing more from the movement then any limitations of the camera.
And those P's are just about the most handsome cameras I have ever seen! There is a black one with a light meter on the auctionsite right now... but its really pricy. Sure looks great, though!
Peter.
I was just wondering if I would in practice miss anything by going to the P in terms of being able to focus accurately - it seemed unlikely to me. Obviously, the longer base provides greater accuracy, but the key word for me was "practical". Would I ever see the difference? I do shoot a lot wide open or near wide open, and a quick 50 would be in the works for sure - but realistically, when that happens I am usually pushing the limits of handholding. I am sure that I would be losing more from the movement then any limitations of the camera.
And those P's are just about the most handsome cameras I have ever seen! There is a black one with a light meter on the auctionsite right now... but its really pricy. Sure looks great, though!
Peter.
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
No question, the P is a beautiful camera. You would notice a difference trying to focus the huge 0.95 on one. As I mentioned the DOF wide open is just a few inches, at best. It really requires all that Canon built into the 7series to do it justice. I've taken on-stage shots where only the actor I focused on was sharp. To me, the bokeh is not bad on that lens, just an increasing amount of fuzzy/blur. I'm also amazed at its ability to handle flare, providing its clean, with no internal haze.
So, the P would be a good choice, and if you did go for the "dream lens" a 7s isn't expensive now, and the older 7 is usually cheap. For a bottom loader, the last series, especially the IVSb2, is a great choice. It has the newer, larger VF, and is easier and brighter in use. Any of these will also handle the 50/1.2, which is fast and much smaller/lighter than the 0.95. That's a high demand optic right now, after years of being very cheap and ill-thought-of. Many of them are being used with the adapter on the M-seies. I've used one on my M3 for years, and its a good fit.
Lots of choices....
Harry
So, the P would be a good choice, and if you did go for the "dream lens" a 7s isn't expensive now, and the older 7 is usually cheap. For a bottom loader, the last series, especially the IVSb2, is a great choice. It has the newer, larger VF, and is easier and brighter in use. Any of these will also handle the 50/1.2, which is fast and much smaller/lighter than the 0.95. That's a high demand optic right now, after years of being very cheap and ill-thought-of. Many of them are being used with the adapter on the M-seies. I've used one on my M3 for years, and its a good fit.
Lots of choices....
Harry
ferider
Veteran
I used the P and really liked it. Simple, robust and pretty, and the 1:1 finder is great.
I agree with all that Harry said, except, I would hesitate to
reliably focus 100/2 and 85/1.8 with the Canon P. 50/1.2 is no problem
at all.
Roland.
I agree with all that Harry said, except, I would hesitate to
reliably focus 100/2 and 85/1.8 with the Canon P. 50/1.2 is no problem
at all.
Roland.
hairy_paperclip
Member
here's a pretty QL17 with a day to go
http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-Canonet-G...ryZ30027QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
or item # 230217568575
http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-Canonet-G...ryZ30027QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
or item # 230217568575
