A dream come true: Canon 7

<p>In 1962 my father returned from somewhere via Tokyo. He brought with him a Canonet -- the first model, whose meter's receptor was a ring around the lens and whose film advance lever was on the base plate -- and a small booklet which listed the large range of Canon photographic products. For some years I salivated over the photos and descriptions of the many half frame models. By the middle of the decade, though, my photography had advanced a little and I had decided that the Canon 7 was for me, or the Leica M2. The half frame format had of course sunk.<br>

At the time it was close to impossible to import things into India, and there wasn't enough money anyway: so I kept plugging away with a Rolleicord and the Canonet. Half a century later, I am at last the owner of a Canon 7 purchased directly from the eBay seller who calls himself nobbysparrow. He gave a bare description which contained no hyperbole or even mild praise, and when the camera arrived I was surprised that it appeared almost unused. And it is clean, by golly.<br>

My first action was to make it usable, which meant fitting vision correction to the finder eye-piece. Don Goldberg had sent me two empty frames with the M Leica thread and I had had my optician fit lenses into them. One of these cheap diopters lives on my M6 and the other is now on the Canon 7. As there were no threads of any kind, I went by something I had read either here or on another photography forum: I put a ring of Blu-Tac on the eye-piece surround and squashed down on it the little frame with the lens. It seems secure enough, and I hope that no one risks broken teeth and limbs by saying that it is not elegant.<br>

So an old fellow has finally got hold of a boyhood dream. I have used many cameras but this one is new to me. Thus I hope to read about other members' experiences with the model, which I understand was successful even though the range-finder had already lost out to the SLR. I aim to save learning time by making use of what others have learnt already.</p>

<p>The Canon 7 is one of the best Leica thread mount cameras ever made. I vastly prefer it to any of the newer Bessas. I really like the rangefinder with the nice wide base and the labeled framelines. </p>

<p>The Canon 7 was a direct competitor to the Leica M3. While the Leica M3 is considered the more groundbreaking camera, I believe that the the Canon 7 outsold the M3. </p>

<p>My only complaint about the Canon 7 is the lack of a shoe. </p>

Very appropriate that this thread was started. To fellow posters, which lens would you choose for use with an M camera: Canon 50/1.4 ltm or Canon 50/1.8 Serenar ltm?

<p>Good Luck with the new 7, Mukul. A really fine machine. I like mine:<br>

<a href="../classic-cameras-forum/00XHsX">http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00XHsX</a></p>

<p>I use a small, rubber O-ring around the meter hi/lo knob so my eye glasses don't get scratched by it.</p>

<p>The late, black Canon LTM 50 f/1.4 is terrific as is the 35mm f/2 and 100mm f/3.5.</p>

<p>I use Nikon S and Contax couplers on my 7 and 7s. Lots of fun. There is a hotshoe available for the 7.</p>

<p>So you have a few period Canon lenses, Mukul?<br>

It sounds like you bought a body by itself. You have let us know a bit about your equipment in the past, but I forget.<br>

James</p>

<p>I somewhat regret selling my 7s & 50mm 1.2 last year. I should have sold the lens only and kept the camera for use with my 50mm f1.4; it's a joy to use. I wish you many years happy photo hunting.</p>

<p>Thank you, all.<br>

James, my M6 kit has one screw mount lens, the 35mm Ultron in the photo. I have two 50mm Industars, one of which does not mount on the Canon 7, probably because the wrong part of it pushes against the R/F cam follower. The other one mounts but will I fear give back focus. I am in touch with two people about a Canon 100mm f/3.5.</p><div></div>

<p>Mukul, the Black Canon 50 1.4 is a wonderful lens. Not very heavy. I use it with a lens hood to avoid flare, but also to protect the rather large front element. My favorite 50 lens when using M bodies. Lots of comparisons of the Canon lens with Leica 50's are in the forum archives.<br>

Louis, way back in elementary school second grade we had those flip top cast iron single and double desks. As a lefty I insisted on the right seat of the double. 1952-53. Great atmosphere to the shot. Actually pretty accurate as there was always the day's chalk dust in the air.</p>

<p>Christopher, the 50/1.4 is indeed highly regarded. For 17 years from 1985 I was happy with its ancestor, the Serenar 50/1.8, which I used with an M3 and a Canon VT Deluxe. I never work without a hood, whichever the lens and whatever the circumstances. Good news is that less than an hour ago a friend in the US bought a Canon 100/3.5 for me. I should have it in about a week. I am looking forward to getting, from the lab, the first results from the newly acquired instrument in seven hours' time (8.30 a.m. here).</p>

<p>The 50/1.4 is very graceful on the Canon 7 and 7s. (Where is it awkwardly large on Canon or Leica bottom-loader.)<br>

Glad that you're getting to enjoy the (partial) liberalization of the Indian economy, and didn't need to deal with the "Permit Raj" to get your camera.</p>

<p>I cannot say if the opening up of the economy is unambiguously A Good Thing, but certainly it has been good for my photography. The M3 kit I bought in 1985 had 28, 35, 50 and 135 lenses. I must have used the last, a Komura, less than a dozen times in the 17 years for which I had it. This was even though there was no way at all to get the lens of 85/90/100/105 that I wanted. I could use only my Canon SLRs, with an FD 100/2.8, for head shots. The accepted name, by the way, is Licence-Permit Raj.</p>

<p>First results are reassuring. Focus and shutter speeds are good. This is with a Japanese (Austro-German name) lens.</p><div></div>

<p>... and this one is with a lens made in the USSR.</p><div></div>

<p>My experience with the Canon 50mm f/1.4 wasn't as good as previous posters. I used it wide open for indoor sports until Kodak produced T-Max P3200 film. Then an early Summicron 50mm f/2 proved much better. The Canon lens was too soft wide open. The Canon 7 body the fast lens came on worked well enough for many years, but the Leica M4 bought two years later is still doing fine despite some heavy use.</p>

<p>Mukul, if you liked the 1.8 Serenar you'll really like the 1.4. Regarding your new acquisition I also have a Canon 100/3.5. I found 90 viewfinder lines are close enough for framing. You'll find this lens a joy to use. Very sharp, great contrast and much lighter than an Elmar 90. I found it too crisp as a portrait lens when stopped down, your preference may be otherwise, especially for children.</p>

I love my Canon 7, I have had a lot of un with it,

<p>Christopher, I shall use the Canon 100 only on the 7, which has twinned 85-100 frames. For my M6 I have an Elmarit. In retrospect, it may be a good thing that I sold the Elmar 90 I had. It was a decent lens which gave me many good photos, but it was a little lacking in sharpness and contrast.</p>

Hello Mukul

 

Hope all is well with you. Seems you have a goodie there. Does the meter work? Because meter has been a concern, I

bought Canon P and have managed to collect four lenses- 1.2/50, 2.8/35, 3.5/100 and 3.5/135.

 

I bought an original lens hood for 1.2/50 and it was NOT cheap!!!

 

I must say the 3.5/100 is an amazing lens - wonderful! I have used it with my Leica M9 for B/W shots and the creamy

results are lovely.

 

Enjoy you new toy!

 

Best

 

Afzal

<p>I have always had an arms-length love affair with the Canon 7 but never owned one. I have a half a dozen Canonet cameras and love them truly but the 7 plays in the big boys league. You are one lucky dude.</p>

<p>The 100mm f/3.5 took twenty days to travel from Oregon, but it is here.</p><div></div>

<p>I just inherited my dad's Canon Model 7 and took it for a spin a couple of weeks ago. I am so amazed at the quality of the prints -- the color clarity, the focus... A couple of examples using Tri-X<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61205998/90800013.JPG"><br /></a><br>

<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61205998/90800013.JPG">https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61205998/90800013.JPG</a><br>

<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61205998/90800008.JPG">https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61205998/90800008.JPG</a></p>

 

<p>The pictures are good, Rebecca, as are the scans. Which lens or lenses did you get with the camera?</p>

<p>The camera came with a 49mm 1.8. I'd love to get additional lenses but they are very expensive - if it can be found. I was hoping my old 50mm closeup lens adapters and fisheye would screw on to the lens thread but they don't :(</p>

<p>The 50mm f/1.8 is a reliable performer. I had one for 17 years, and I learnt respect it. If you do portraits, you could consider a 100mm f/3.5 (see photo above) or the earlier 100mm f/4. You should get one for $150 or less. Another low cost option is the Leitz 90mm f/4 Elmar in screw mount. The Canon wide angle lenses are expensive.</p>