How are Canon rangefinders?

[mehguy]

I've been considering a Canon Barnack Leica clone for some time as a portable take everywhere camera (IId2, 4sb etc). They look quite reasonably priced (~$100) and don't have the Leica premium. How are they to use? What are your opinions of them.

 

[Mackinaw]

See this thread on the Rangefinder Forum (RFF) by Jason Schneider. It will answer all of your questions.

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/fo...-the-best-vintage-canon-rangefinder-35-part-1

Jim B.

 

[jwd722]

I have 2 Canon llS2's with the Canon 50 1.8, 35 2.8, 28 2.8 and the 135 3.5 and highly recommend the camera and lenses. Also have a Leica lllf but the Canons are a better choice as far as I'm concerned.

Also have the Canon Model 7 which is more akin to a screwmount version of a Leica M3. It's nice but I like the Barnack style better.

Another site to check out...https://www.canonrangefinder.org/

 

[RDW]

I'd be tempted by a Canon P. It's another 'M style' LTM camera, but without the Canon 7's 60 year old selenium meter (which in many cameras may be more trouble than it's worth at this point). Price is at the lower end of the Barnack Leica scale, and you have lever film advance, back loading, and framelines for 35, 50 and 100mm lenses. Nice design, too.

 

[bdial]

The Canon P is very nice to use. The Barnack style cameras are a bit smaller, but the later “M-style” cameras are a little friendlier ergonomically.
I have a Nicca Barnack-style camera and a Canon P, and prefer the P.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

People worry too much about the meter on the Canon 7. If you get one that works, great. If not, no big deal. The Canon 7 is the best screwmount rangefinder if that is what you are looking for. Great camera. Having the framelines in the viewfinder is a big deal. I have two. One was completely overhauled and it is smoother than my Leica M3.

 

[jwd722]

The meter on my Canon 7 works fine and is accurate as compared to my Gossen Luna Pro SBC but I don't use the camera's meter as it seems more awkward than useful. But, yes, it is a very nice camera and does work smoothly plus the framelines are very helpful.

 

[Paul Howell]

I had both a Canon 7s and a Leica IIIG, the IIIG had better build quality but was pain to use in the field. The 7s only flaw was that the widest internal frame line was 35, when using a 28 needed an external finder. Loading the 7s is much easier than a IIIG or F, no need to recut the film, did not need three hands to keep track of the bottom while loading. When working my primary camera was a Nikon F, F2 and later F3, with a 105 or 50mm, the rangefinder had a 35 or 28, not as noisy as an SLR. I had Leica, Canon, and Minolta screw mount lens, 28, 35, 50, 85, 100 and 135. I had considered a Nikon SP with motor drive, by the 70s had become sought after by collectors and expensive. As noted above I would not worry about the meter, if it's dead it's dead, hand held or sunny 16 will do just as well.

 

[GRHazelton]

I'd be tempted by a Canon P. It's another 'M style' LTM camera, but without the Canon 7's 60 year old selenium meter (which in many cameras may be more trouble than it's worth at this point). Price is at the lower end of the Barnack Leica scale, and you have lever film advance, back loading, and framelines for 35, 50 and 100mm lenses. Nice design, too.

Plus the viewfinder is 1 to 1, parallax corrected. Excellent fit and finish. While a few P's wore black finish from the factory, there many frauds out there. CameraQuest has a nice write-up on the P, as does photoethnography.com. See also Dante Stella at https://www.dantestella.com/technical/canonp.html. BTW, if you score the ever ready case for the P, the bulge on the case's top - for the original selenium meter, nicely accommodates the Voigtlander clip on meter VC-Meter II.

 

[gone]

My experience w/ Canon rangefinders cameras was mixed. A few had shutter issues besides the usual wrinkling, and my exposures weren't as good as my Leica IIa. These are big cameras compared to their competitors, and a little on the heavy side. I'd recommend an early Zorki, but that's a real gamble. You sometimes have to buy two or three to get one good, working camera.

I finally tired of all that and bought a Bessa R. Other than the shutter being louder and their cheesy build quality, it had a great meter and viewfinder, and made the some of the best exposures of any rangefinder I'd owned.

 

[Bazza D]

I have a Tower (Sears) branded Nicca Leica screwmount copy and a Canon VT. I like both of them. If you can find a Nicca in your price range I would go with one. Mine looks and works like it is brand new. And if you can find a later one they have lever advance. Mine does and it is a nice feature as far as I'm concerned. The Canon VT is bigger but I like it as well. And there is something about trigger wind. Also, consider which lenses you are going to use. For me a rangefinder is only for 50mm and wider lenses mostly. As it is, I only use 50mm, so a fixed lens camera may be a good option as well. And if you have never used a Leica screwmount type camera there is a bit of getting used to about it. The film seemed hard to load and the viewfinders small and annoying at first. However, I learned how to cut the film leader and got used to focusing and then switching to composing. I have grown to like the whole procedure. Probably not the fastest cameras to use unless you scale focus.And the Canon VT has a similar shooting process except it is focus then move the dial and compose in the same window. Which I like.

 

[GabrielC]

I have a canon L2, very sturdy and a reliable shutter. Nice viewfinder that can be calibrated easily. All in all a perfect small camera to make family photos and to travel with. I started with the Jupiter 8, 50mm, but mine was not very well made, and thus blurry and not really practical. I switched to a canon 50mm LTM(without haze, I was really lucky to find one in such a shape in France). Mind that this very camera only goes up to 1/500, and is really made to use a 35 or 50mm only.
Even though I never tested a Leica to do comparisons ( being broke in college ), I can recommend these cameras, lovely piece of gear and great pictures.

 

[jwd722]

Curious as to how your research is going...

Another to consider which momus said correctly can be a real gamble is the Zorki. I purchased one a while back that said "untested" but it looked good and was quite inexpensive, so I gambled. It has worked flawlessly and at times it is my favorite over my Canons and even the Leica.

It is the Zorki C aka Zorki S aka Zorki 2. Very much like the original Zorki but with flash sync, bulbs and electronic, and the top deck is a bit taller than the original and also the Canons and Leicas. It has no strap lugs and while that may seem a minus I actually like it. The camera has rounded "corners" like the Leica lllF but feels sooo much nicer to hold without the lugs, you would have to hold one to really know what I mean.

5 shutter speeds, 25 to 500 plus B and surprisingly I have never missed any other speeds.

The shutter button is taller and being on the rear part of the deck makes it much more convenient to use than Canon or Leica.

Mine has the Industar 22 collapsible lens which looks like the Leica Elmar but is purportedly a Zeiss Tessar formula. I have found it to be sharp and, since it is coated, has nice contrast.

5 1/4" wide, 3 1/8 tall to top of shutter speed dial (2 5/16" to top of deck) and 1 1/8 thick.

Anyway, if I were to buy another without gambling I would purchase from Yuri at fedka.com

Some pics because...well, why not?

 

[mehguy]

Curious as to how your research is going...

Another to consider which momus said correctly can be a real gamble is the Zorki. I purchased one a while back that said "untested" but it looked good and was quite inexpensive, so I gambled. It has worked flawlessly and at times it is my favorite over my Canons and even the Leica.

It is the Zorki C aka Zorki S aka Zorki 2. Very much like the original Zorki but with flash sync, bulbs and electronic, and the top deck is a bit taller than the original and also the Canons and Leicas. It has no strap lugs and while that may seem a minus I actually like it. The camera has rounded "corners" like the Leica lllF but feels sooo much nicer to hold without the lugs, you would have to hold one to really know what I mean.

5 shutter speeds, 25 to 500 plus B and surprisingly I have never missed any other speeds.

The shutter button is taller and being on the rear part of the deck makes it much more convenient to use than Canon or Leica.

Mine has the Industar 22 collapsible lens which looks like the Leica Elmar but is purportedly a Zeiss Tessar formula. I have found it to be sharp and, since it is coated, has nice contrast.

5 1/4" wide, 3 1/8 tall to top of shutter speed dial (2 5/16" to top of deck) and 1 1/8 thick.

Anyway, if I were to buy another without gambling I would purchase from Yuri at fedka.com

Some pics because...well, why not?
View attachment 288657 View attachment 288658 View attachment 288659 View attachment 288660

The research is going well, I'm getting acquainted with the Canon I, II, III, and IV lines as at first glance it is quite confusing what the differences are between them all!

I had considered a Zorki, and if I end up going with a Canon, I will probably stick a FED 50/3.5 collapsible lens on it to start off, but the lower end Canon rangefinders (IID etc) seem to be not much more expensive than the Zorkis and they seem to be higher quality from people's anecdotes, so that's what is effectively dictating my choice at the moment.

 

[Ron Duda]

I just purchased a Canon P body for $250 Canadian and now I need a lens for it. What I’m looking for is a 35mm F/whatever. Aside from the obvious Canon and Leica M39 (LTM) options are there less expensive alternatives? It’s unclear from what I read if the Jupiter lenses will work correctly on a Canon P or if they may damage the camera. Do I really need to spend $400 for a hazy Canon 35mm lens? Reasonable alternatives?

 

[Paul Howell]

voigtlander made many lens 39mm screw mount, I see 35mm are around $300 U.S used.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

I have a canon P with a very very-clean late version 50mm f/1.8. Very nice. I also have a very clean F/3.5 100mm EP early version. No click on aperature. For 35mm b:w these are nice. I do not have a 35mm lens for this guy. But I am not a big fan of slightly wide lenses. That’s just me.

 

[Nickargenta]

I’d take one of the Voigtlanders over a Jupiter. There were two versions of the 2.5 Skopar and a 1.7 Ultron. The Konica UC Hexanon is also particularly nice, though you might struggle to find one for a sensible price.

 

[BobD]

I regret selling my Canon L1. It's a wonderful camera.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

um. . . .. the thing about 35mm. . .. . it is light, compact, as opposed to 4x5 or 8x10. when compared to ALL FILM cameras, 35mm FILM CAMERAS are ALL about the same, due to grain size, and small real estate. within that niche, of 35mm, There is a difference. I think a manual screw mount body with any lens is pretty good, over all. (think big picture) metophorically , not literally!!!!

 

[Paul Howell]

If you're shooting landscapes, still-life, portrait your right. Most modern and many pre 70s lens can resolve Tmax 100, multicoated lens vary from brand to brand, some better than others with lower flare and better contrast. What does make a difference is mode of metering, motor drive, build quality, and features. Pen half frames are the top of the list for half frames and set the stage for Olympus's reputation for making quality lens. I still shoot sports and wildlife so my Minolta 9, weather sealed, fast motor drive, and long fast lens is my choice as opposed my Pen F, even if I had a good lens set.

 

[AnselMortensen]

I love my Canon P.
I use the Summicron from my IIIf on it.
It loads like an SLR, and has a big bright viewfinder.
The rigmarole involved with loading & using the IIIf is very off-putting for me....and the tiny squinty viewfinder? Puleeeeze.