Your experiences with Canon rangefinder cameras?

I've been shooting with various rangefinder cameras "ever since I was knee-high to a grasshopper", the first at age eight having been a Kodak 35 (in company with a GE meter). Since then I've owned and used a variety - screw-mount and M-series Leicas, Contax II and IIa, Robot Royal and quite a few more. Recently I threw a low bid at a very nice-looking, properly functioning Canon 7 with two lenses - Jupiter 8 and 12. I should have everything shortly, but in the meantime - anything I should be looking out for or pondering when I put it into use?

Was the Jupiter-12 that was included with the Canon 7 actually used on it? Did the seller show the lens mounted on the camera? This is important: J-12's have a very large rear group, and this will interfere with the light baffles of the later (including the Canon 7) bodies. Some had metal bands, other just "bare glass". Construction changed through the years. The ones that will most likely work have bare glass on the rear group, either had a metal band removed or never had one. I've used several J-12's on my M mount bodies, could not use them on the Canon 7 and Canon P.

 

Also: The Russian lenses are built to a slightly different focal length from the Canon. If required, it is possible to adjust the Russian lenses to work better with Canon (and Leica) cameras. As these came with the camera, they were probably adjusted for it.

 

My 1952 J-12, shows the large rear group with metal band:

 

Leica Showcase - KMZ 3.5cm F2.8 Jupiter-12 in LTM

And to add- The Canon rangefinders are very good, the stainless steel shutters can develop "crinkle", but no effect on use. The viewfinder is comparable with the Nikon SP finder, lower magnification at 0.8x compared with 1x. But- the Canon 7 has framelines for the 35,50,85/100 and 135. The Selenium meter on my two Canon 7 bodies are both accurate.

Was the Jupiter-12 that was included with the Canon 7 actually used on it? Did the seller show the lens mounted on the camera? This is important: J-12's have a very large rear group, and this will interfere with the light baffles of the later (including the Canon 7) bodies. Some had metal bands, other just "bare glass". Construction changed through the years. The ones that will most likely work have bare glass on the rear group, either had a metal band removed or never had one. I've used several J-12's on my M mount bodies, could not use them on the Canon 7 and Canon P.

 

Also: The Russian lenses are built to a slightly different focal length from the Canon. If required, it is possible to adjust the Russian lenses to work better with Canon (and Leica) cameras. As these came with the camera, they were probably adjusted for it.

 

My 1952 J-12, shows the large rear group with metal band:

 

Leica Showcase - KMZ 3.5cm F2.8 Jupiter-12 in LTM

The Jupiter 12 does work on the camera, yes. I gather there are some Canon models where it comes in contact with a baffle, but on this 7 it is apparently ok. It seems some work out, some don't? The design reminds me a bit of the lens in my Olympus XA, now I think of it!

I had a Canon 7 a long while ago. It was large and kind of ugly but as far as I remember I didn't have any ergonomic issues or anything like that. I do happen to have a Canon P that I have only used once. I like it but the framelines are not illuminated as they would be in a more expensive camera. Because of that they can be hard to make out in dimmer light.

Like any older body the lubricants may need refreshing to make things work smoothly. I had a Canon SP which was fine, but the Canon P I have seemed not quite so smooth so I had Youxin Ye check it over and with a CLA it became smooth as can be.and much quieter.

Canon SP? No such animal. Do you mean Nikon SP?

Best rangefinder setup I was ever stupid enough to sell was a trigger-wind Canon VT deLux that came with a screw-mount 35mm f1.8 Nikkor.

see Canon VL2 rangefinder 1958 for my comments on the later Canon LTM RF

 

I have a good number of Leicas, Contaxes, and suchlike cameras. The Canon has great lenses of its own, and does accept Russian lenses which are still pretty inexpensive.

see Canon VL2 rangefinder 1958 for my comments on the later Canon LTM RF

 

I have a good number of Leicas, Contaxes, and suchlike cameras. The Canon has great lenses of its own, and does accept Russian lenses which are still pretty inexpensive.

I figured that in buying this for minimal investment I could get back into the fun of exploring the screw-mount lens options again. I had a Leica IIIf (with Summitar) many years ago, but never really did any hunting for other lenses for it.

Canon SP? No such animal. Do you mean Nikon SP?

Clumsy fingers - SII

I wear eye-glasses, found the Hi/Lo switch for the meter tended to scratch up my glasses. I used a rubber foot, like for the bottom of a computer, to go over the dial. Easier to turn, does not scratch.

 

Wrote this over 12 years ago:

http://www.pentax-manuals.com/repairs/j3service.pdf

Adjusting a J-3 using the Canon 7, it has "T" setting for the shutter. I used this to adjust lenses before getting the M8 almost 10 years ago.

A little update. I finally got the Canon 7 today. I'd had it shipped to a friend's home in Detroit area and we'd just not been able to out our schedules together until now. So - this thing is quite lovely. Everything on the body works perfectly and not a hint of wrinkle in the shutter. Very smooth indeed! Both the Jupiter 8 and 12 are delightfully petite things and focus very smoothly on the body. Both the 8 and 12 mount and focus correctly. Now I just need to pick up a short tele for the set and I'm happy. Now to put a roll in and do some shooting - tomorrow perhaps?

Now to put a roll in and do some shooting - tomorrow perhaps?

Looking forward to a 'real world' review soon. ;-)

You need to be able to find one with Clean glass, be able to inspect on receipt-

 

The Canon 100/3.5 is one of my favorite short telephoto lenses. Small, Sharp.

 

https://cameraderie.org/threads/canon-100mm-f3-5-black-version-40mm-filter-thread.39471/

 

Unfortunately, the surface behind the aperture is prone to being etched by the lubricant used. Not all of them- but enough to need an inspection period.

 

If you want fast-

 

https://cameraderie.org/threads/canon-85mm-f1-5-super-speed-telephoto.39291/

 

Also- I am receiving a 7artisans 75/1.25 this week and will be putting it through the tests.

DSC_5648 by fiddlefye, on Flickr

You need to be able to find one with Clean glass, be able to inspect on receipt-

 

The Canon 100/3.5 is one of my favorite short telephoto lenses. Small, Sharp.

 

https://cameraderie.org/threads/canon-100mm-f3-5-black-version-40mm-filter-thread.39471/

 

Unfortunately, the surface behind the aperture is prone to being etched by the lubricant used. Not all of them- but enough to need an inspection period.

 

If you want fast-

 

https://cameraderie.org/threads/canon-85mm-f1-5-super-speed-telephoto.39291/

 

Also- I am receiving a 7artisans 75/1.25 this week and will be putting it through the tests.

I'm on the hunt for a short tele and toe 100 f3.5 is well up on the list. Small and sharp would be just the ticket.

This lens is a gem. Small and light, mine is a nice fit with the Leica LTM to M adapter on either an M or my Leica CL. Very sharp and clear stopped down.

RIMG0950 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

I ended up with 3 usable Canon 100/3.5's, two came out very good by transplanting glass from later FL and FD versions of the lens bought dirt cheap. I had two sent to me to use for parts and projects, that were considered "unrepairable" by a professional repairman. They cleaned up nicely, I sent my friend the one he had for 40 years back to him, kept the second. After that- took a chance on buying "for parts" lenses, and mixing/matching glass from them. Worked out for me. One perfect, two near perfect glass.

I have the Canon VI that took my baby pictures when it was new.

 

For as long as I have known, it went with a Canon 50/2.8, Canon 135/4.0 and

Xenogon 35/2.8 lenses. And it still works just fine.

 

This is from yesterday on TP2415 in HC-110 (F):

 

Love using the Canon P with either a 50 mm f2.8 or a Jupiter 12 35 mm f2.8.

Saving for a Canon 35 mm lens.

I've shot one roll of HP5 with the Canon 7. Now I just have to find time to develop it and see how it all worked out. I decided to use the built-in selenium meter and see how it goes, though my seat-of-the-pants said it overexposes a stop or two. We shall see.

I've shot one roll of HP5 with the Canon 7. Now I just have to find time to develop it and see how it all worked out. I decided to use the built-in selenium meter and see how it goes, though my seat-of-the-pants said it overexposes a stop or two. We shall see.

 

I suppose that is possbile, but what I see most with the Canon VI meter is that it either works or it doesn't.

 

Often enough, a slight tap will make it work again.

 

As well as I understand selenium meters, they have selenium on iron, with a thin (almost transparent)

gold layer on the front, with a contact point somewhere.

 

The contacts to the front or back can oxidize or otherwise deteriorate.

I suppose that is possbile, but what I see most with the Canon VI meter is that it either works or it doesn't.

 

Often enough, a slight tap will make it work again.

 

As well as I understand selenium meters, they have selenium on iron, with a thin (almost transparent)

gold layer on the front, with a contact point somewhere.

 

The contacts to the front or back can oxidize or otherwise deteriorate.

The meter works great, super responsive and quick. I was just feeling very suspicious that the readings were a bit optimistic about how much light the meter was seeing. It isn't my first rodeo when it comes to such meters so I'd used all of the tricks I remembered like shielding the meter from strong overhead sun etc. I guess I'll find out when I see the density of the negs.

Many selenium cell meters have a lens array in front.

 

I never figured out exactly what it did.

 

It would seem that the idea is to concentrate on a smaller area,

but that isn't so obvious, unless you put masks behind the lenses.

 

In any case, it would be unusual for a meter to become more sensitive with age.