Canon P and Canon 7

<p>Having some free time this past weekend, I spent a few hours running searches on photo.net and got interested in the comments about the Canon rangefinders. The opinion on this forum is pretty consistent that the P is the better value, and when checking used and auction prices online, the P usually priced 2 or more times a 7 (not the 7s's) in similar condition.</p>

<p>The reasons given for preferring the P are due to the perceived shortcomings of the 7:</p>

<p>1. No accessory shoe, meaning no finder for lenses wider than 35mm</p>

<p>2. The selenium meter because: it is old and probably off, if not already dead, and it is not much good in low light even if it is working.</p>

<p>3. The 7 is not as well built and sturdy.</p>

<p>4. The P is prettier</p>

<p>(a reason given for buying the 7 seems to be for using the f/0.95 Canon)</p>

<p>But if one doesn't use lenses wider than 35mm? As for the meter, the P doesn't have one, so it seems a bogus reason or one that is in favor of the 7. As well, I've got 4 selenium meter cameras, one as old as a Canon 7. All the meters work well enough for C41 and b&w. The "meter inoperative" cameras I've bought all have cds meters. Regarding build, who uses a 40-50 year old 35mm camera as their system 'goto' camera, anyway (I'll guess here some Ms are the exceptions proving the rule). And does the 7 have build issues?</p>

<p>The P is prettier? Ok, I'll agree, but twice the price, or more, prettier?</p>

<p>To what extent has, say, Steve Gandy or Karen Nakamura influenced the opinion that the P is the better camera? Assuming one doesn't need to go wider than 35mm, it seems the Canon 7 is a huge bargain on the rangefinder market.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The Canon P looks like an elegant camera. I've been tempted by it, but never pulled the trigger. The Canon 7 was my first serious camera decades ago, and it remains one of my favorites. Its build quality is good enough for serious use. I can use 28mm lenses on it without an auxillary finder, using the whole finder window to estimate the view. That means I can use it for 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm, and 135mm lenses. It's the only platform, along with the 7s, on which I can use the 50mm f0.95. It has a .8x finder and a reasonably wide effective base length.</p>

<p>I have a Canon 7s also, and you know, I have never used the shoe for an auxillary finder. When I want to use lenses wider than 28mm I just use another body. I usually carry two bodies anyway. There are at least 3 great wide angle platforms ... .57x Leica M, Bessa R4, and Bessa L. Any of these are a great second body for wide-angles.</p>

<p>I don't know if anyone has influenced the perception of the P as a better camera. I don't really see the P as better than the 7. I will say this ... the black Canon P Steve Gandy has on his site looks beautiful.</p>

<p>Yes, the Canon P is a more elegant camera and quite frankly that does matter to some extent. When buying a Canon 7 the meter may be completely off or inoperable. As for the f0.95 lens I do not think that is an issue as the lens his rare and extremely expensive. There are better more modern lenses for less. If you are going to buy either camera do you really want to invest in a series of older lenses which to find in excellent shape may be difficult. If so, then you might want a good meter as the camera might be a primary go to camera. There is a modern meter that fits onto the accessory shoe, though you might not want to use it there, as it could scratch the top. I believe there is even an accessory that lets you fit the meter and an extra viewfinder. Be aware that finding shades for these older lenses (1950's) can sometimes be challenging and costly. With that said the Canon 50mm f1.4 Serenar is a fantastic performer. </p>

<p>I'm not going to lie, if I were to buy a Canon rangefinder, it would be a "P". They are just too cool looking to pass up. No, looks aren't everything. But if I'm buying a classic, I'm buying the one I want.</p>

<p>Get a Canon 7s. It is elegant, usually has a pretty good meter, a hot shoe, frames from 35 to 135. I've outfitted mine with a Nikon S adapter, which means I use it with lovely Nikon S lenses.</p>

<p>I looked at KEH's Canon rf list. There are several post-Barnack style bodies, all graded EX. The 7s is more than twice the price of a 7. In fact, the 7 is the lowest priced post-Barnack on the list, sometimes half the price of the others. Does the 7s's cds meter and hot shoe make it worth more than twice the price of the 7?</p>

<p>Until a year ago I was a rf virgin (well, ok, I'd gotten to 2nd base with a GIII). The I bought a IIIf and some Elmars. Often enough in this forum rf virgins want to give the format a try and rightfully don't want to spend big money for the experience. Being so new to rf, I'm sympathetic to their concern. The way a nice 7 is priced, and also LTM lenses, it seems a no brainer to consider the plain 7.</p>

<p>There's something about a rf body KEH graded EX for cheap that attracts me like Mr Toad to a motor car...so after starting this thread I bought a 7. I can't help myself, I guess. I'm flawed.</p>

 

The meter on my Canon 7 is accurate. I bought the 50/0.95 before they skyrocketed. So $400 for a camera and 50/0.95 lens was a steal. I like the Canon 7. Finder is really good, build quality is as good as the Canon P. I rebuilt one that had been dropped so hard the solid glass prism sheared. The camera worked. I fixed the prism.

 

But the finder on the Canon P is great to use- the 1x finder spoils you. Goes great with an LTM Sonnar. I'm hooked.

<p>When my 7 arrives and proves to work, I can send the IIIf off to restore the finders, and Elmars for CLAs. I think my Nokton 50 will go nicely with the 7.</p>

 

<p>I own both a Canon 7 and a Canon P. I don't understand why anyone thinks the build of the P is better. The door on mine moves up and down a tad, which does not hurt anything, but it feels a bit creepy. Also the 35mm viewfinder lines are impossible to see all at once even without glasses. One needs to move ones eye up and down a bit to see the lower and upper limits, and to the left and right to see the sides. The viewfinder is really only usable for 50mm. 100mm is also there but mine is too faint to use. I wish they had made the viewer 0.9 rather than 1.0 so the 35 mm lines were visible. On the other hand, the 7 has projected lines, which are markedly brighter, and since one can change the lines, the view is much less cluttered. The viewfinder on the 7 is much brighter than the P. The meter I have is consistently high by one stop, so I just adjust the ASA down one notch. I bought my 7 in perfect working order for $70 because it has a bit of corrosion between the shutter release and the ridge next to the shutter speed dial. The P cost me $50 but is in need of a a CLA. I intend to send it to the U.S for a complete overhaul.</p>

<p>I have also found Canon film magazines for the Canon V, VI, P, and 7. They have a door that closes and opens, rather than a felt light lock like standard 35mm film cassettes. The reasoning is that the film will never be scratched by the felt or other parts of the magazine. The door lock on the bottom of the cameras serves to open and close the door on the film magazine after the camera back is closed. This seems like an excellent system, but I am not sure how users are supposed to load the film into these magazines without doing it manually inside a dark bag. Doing this would probably cause many more scratches (and dust) than the standard film cassette. Does anyone know if there used to be a dedicated day loader to make it easier to load these cartridges? Leica also had a similar system for their bottom-loading Cameras, as did Canon, but the cassette shape differed. </p>

I own a Canon L1 and a P. Yesterday my 7 arrived and I don’t have my first roll through it but am sure that it is the winner against the other two.

Of course the P and L1 look awesome, especially their rewind cranks are just too cool. And the P‘s 100% viewfinder magnification is a dream. But the focusing spot at the P is too dimm for my taste, I am already loving the 7 over the P.

And build quality wise I don‘t see a difference among the three.

As others said before, the cold shoe will hardly be missed on the 7. If I want to attach a viewfinder for ultra wide lenses I could even take a zorki 1 as a second body, because I will hardly need the rangefinder of it anyway. I bought the 7 for it‘s viewfinder, so I am not complaining about it‘s missing ability to add an external one.

I had a 7 but sold it years ago, too big and clunky. Never had a P but do have 2 IVSB's one with bad shutter and another bought to replace it to test the 25mm Nikkor from the same early 1950's. Sold the Nikkor and replaced it with a 53mm f/4 Super Angulon for my (under repair) Linhof Press 70. The Press 70 is a really big and heavy rangefinder for 120/220 film, but I plan to use it on a mono-pod, since my tired, soon to be 78 years old muscles find it hard to carry for long. But the Linhof is much more modern being from the early to late 1960's. The SA was manufactured in 1969/70 according to its serial number with the other lenses 80 and 180 from 1961/3. The 1950's were good times for range finders but the 1960's dominance by the SLR soon put a stop to their further development apart from Leica of course.

 

Who cannot love this camera! The VF magnification is similar to the Leica M3 which makes it very accurate to focus with a 50mm lens and both eyes wide open. When I got mine I recovered it and sent it to Youxin Ye for a CLA as winding the film in it felt "dry". It came back as smooth as my Leica bodies and I got good use out of it. As my eyes changed, however, I had difficulty focusing it as I couldn't find or fit a diopter. IMHO that was its only drawback. It felt larger than it actually was, and I attribute that to its solid construction. It was easy to load film and never had any light leaks. To those looking for a good RF taking LTM lenses, I will tell you it can be a really good buy. There seem to be plenty available from Japanese sellers at reasonable prices. As an aside, having owned the "dream lens" Canon 50/0.95, I found it really unsuitable wide open, waaaay too soft across the entire field, and sold it after trying to love it for a year. Never owned the Canon 7 or L series, but did own a couple of IVSBs, which were serviceable, but I prefer the older Leica Barnack bodies. And a thaank you to Cosina Voigtlander for producing modern glass for these old LTM rangefinders.

I finally settled on a Canon VL2 for representing the Canon regular (i.e., LTM) rangefinders. (LINK Canon VL2 rangefinder 1958).

It's a wonderful camera and it suits me fine, though I was tempted by the P and 7.

Canon: Canon 7 (Chrome) Price Guide: estimate a camera value

 

does say the 7 should cost less than the P.

 

That surprises me. The Canon VI is somewhat more,

with the convenient adjustable viewfinder.

 

The P and VI can use an shutter speed knob coupled meter.

The one I have works about half the time, with a tap on the side

often making it work.

 

I also have a Canon IV, which I think works well (enough).

 

But all of them are pretty nice, and most a lot more affordable

than Leica, and more likely to work.