Leica IIIg vs. Canon IVSB2 or Canon VI-L

[Farkle-Mpls]

<p>Hello.</p>

<p>I have a Canon IID1 RF with a top speed of 1/500s and non-multiple shutter speeds. I'd like to get a second RF body of the same vintage. I have read lots of positive comments on the IIIg, particular the modern shutter speed (doubling) increments and the better viewfinder -- both are very important to me. The Canon models IV-SB2 and VI-L also sport the updated shutter speeds (although I don't know if the viewfinders are any different than my IID1). </p>

<p>Obviously, the Leica is more expensive but there are at least two I have found which are in good shape and are within my budget. The Canons have actually proven harder to find (suggested sources besides Igor and KEH?) so I'm not sure what prices they fetch. </p>

<p>To summarize what I'd like beyond what my Canon IID1 RF has:<br>

- 1/1000s top shutter speed<br>

- multiple-of-2 shutter speed increments<br>

- flash sync -- faster the better<br>

- bigger/better viewfinder then the IID1<br>

- same vintage (mid 1950s or so)</p>

<p>Recommendations?</p>

<p>Also, are there any other differences between the aforementioned camera bodies? Any criterion which would swing you, as a buyer, toward one particular model of camera? I'd like to stay in the LTM family (not interested in a modern Bessa LTM body at this time).</p>

<p>Thank you!</p>

[fred_c1]

<p>No 1950s LTM camera has reasonable (let alone fast) flash sync speed for modern films ... unless you are ready to spend the time and $$$$ looking for a Compur Summicron.</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>A clean 111G goes for more than $1000. Sync speed is still low. Suggest you get some neutral density filters if you want to use flash fill. I have been known to cut an IR get and put it inside a clear UV. Don`t know if you can get gel filters anymore. Maybe Lee polyester which are better anyway.</p>

<p>B+W will also make a ND filter for you. </p>

<p>The screw mount cameras are captivating, but do not match modern cameras for features.</p>

<p>There are people who repair screw mount cameras. Parts can be canabalised form old Leicas. Canon parts are harder to find. </p>

[john_shriver]

<p>The Canon IV-SB2 is the nicest of the bottom-load Canon rangefinders. The shutter speed progression is geometric. But, the shutters on these cameras aren't accurate enough for 1/200 to really be statistically different from 1/250. The viewfinder is slightly improved, the hole in the eyepiece on the rear is a little larger, so it's a bit brighter and a bit less squinty. I started with a IIF, and upgraded to a IV-SB2, and wasn't overwhelmed by the "better finder".<br>

The Leica IIIg is a collector's item first and foremost, so you pay through the nose. It still has two finder windows on the back, one for the viewfinder and one for the rangefinder. That makes for a much slower-working viewfinder. Yes, the viewfinder has two parallax-corrected bright lines, one for 50mm and one for 90mm, but that's about it.<br>

I think the Canon VI-L is by far the most sophisticated of these three cameras. It has a non-rotating shutter speed dial with geometric speeds from 1 second to 1/1000. You get burn-proof stainless steel shutter curtains. It has a much more sophisticated version of the mutli-magnification finder in the IID1. The widest setting is a simple 35mm view, with "fuzzy edges" like any simple Galiliean finder. (Think like the IID1's finder at the widest setting, but with a 35mm frame of view instead of 50mm.) The next setting gives you reflected Albada-type bright line frames for 50mm and 100mm. Albada bright-lines work, but they are a bit twitchy. The highest magnification setting is just the focusing spot, for the most accurate focusing at high magnification. But, the real work of genius in this camera is the accessory shoe with automatic parallax correction for the matching Canon bright-line finders. Canon made finders from 25mm to 135mm that are compatible with this feature. If you're willing to pay $150 to $200 a finder (not any crazier than Leica prices), you get great and accurate accessory finders.<br>

Prices on Canon VI-L are relatively high, they don't show up that often. I don't see any for sale online. The VI-T was more popular new, but only some folks like the trigger-wind on the bottom. The Canon P is a little newer, but much more common. Simpler finder, but a very nice one, 1:1 magnification is a big plus. If you can stand going newer, the Canon 7 and 7s have a true Leica-style bright-line viewfinder (projected, not Albada), with frame-lines from 35mm to 135mm. The P, 7, and 7s are more pragmatic choices than the VI-L.<br>

None of these are great cameras for electronic flash. (Nor are the Leica M series.) All have very slow shutter curtain speeds, leading to low electronic flash sync speed. The VI-L is the fastest, with an X sync shutter speed of 1/55. The others are probably 1/25! They work great with focal plane flashbulbs, but those are annoying to source, and pricey.</p>

[02Pete]

<p>Carl --</p>

<p> I agree with John Shriver's suggestion that you consider a Canon P -- simple, straightforward design, a nice viewfinder, and good handling. This has the multiple-of-2 shutter speeds and top shutter speed of 1/1000 that you are looking for, on a single shutter-speed dial located on top of the camera. For additional info, see: http://www.cameraquest.com/canonp.htm .</p>

<p> If you are looking for something slightly older and more traditional, you might also consider a Canon L-1. This also has the multiple-of-2 shutter speeds and top shutter speed of 1/1000 that you are looking for, although the shutter speeds are divided between a fast-speed shutter speed dial on top of the camera and a slow-speed shutter speed dial on the front of the camera. For additional info, see: http://www.cameraquest.com/crfl1bl.htm .</p>

<p> Beyond those, the selection criteria you have listed may be somewhat limiting as far as selecting a 1950s Canon LTM body is concerned, particularly the fast flash sync. Simply put, most LTM bodies were designed and built during a period when the main technology available was the old-fashioned single-use flash bulb, and when strobe-type multi-use electronic flash either had not been invented yet, or was just in its infancy. While a modern LTM camera such as a Voigtlander might offer fast flash synch shutter speeds, few if any LTM cameras from the 1950s do so. Although Canon LTM rangefinders had at least some limited accommodation for flash, they were, like the Nikon and Leica rangefinders of that era, designed more for available-light shooting using fast lenses than for use with flash.</p>

<p> If you want more information about Canon rangefinder cameras, try to find a used copy of "Canon Rangefinder Cameras 1933-1968" by Peter Dechert, published in 1985 by Hove Foto Books in the UK. Now (sadly) out of print, this hardbound book was a well-organized, well-written, well-illustrated survey offering a good deal of useful information. It is worth trying to hunt down through Amazon, ABE Books, or other online sources of used books.</p>

<p> For me, at least, the real story with the Canon LTM rangefinders of the 1950s and early 1960s was not just the bodies, which were good, but the lenses, which ranged from OK to truly excellent. Since these can, with LTM to bayonet adapters, all be used on any of the Leica M bodies, they offer considerable flexibility and cost-effectiveness. </p>

<p> Two of the best were the Canon 35mm f/2 LTM and 50mm f/1.4 LTM, both of which were top-notch professional lenses offering excellent handling and optical performance directly comparable to the best Leica lenses of that time period, with excellent sharpness and contrast. (A Canon 50mm f/1.4 LTM is, for example, comparable to the 1950s version of the Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux, probably a better lens than a 1950s Leica 50mm f/1.5 Summarit, and definitely a much better lens than a Leica 50mm f/2 Summar.) These can still be found from time to time on KEH or auction sites at prices that are relatively reasonable compared to, say, prices for Leica M lenses. As one might expect, these may not be directly competitive with current production Leica or Voigtlander aspheric lenses, but they offer much better performance than most vintage lenses from the 1950s. I own and use both, and they are fine lenses which produce excellent results.</p>

<p> Canon also made an 85mm f/1.8 lens in the late 1950s or early 1960s that had an excellent reputation. I had one for a while, but I think the one I owned had been improperly serviced at some point as it did not deliver the results I had been led to expect. There aren't many of these around, and one doesn't see them offered for sale very often, so expect to pay a premium for one in good condition.</p>

<p> The Canon 35mm f/1.8 LTM and 85mm f/1.9 LTM of that period were very good, but not great, mainstream lenses -- still usable today and offering very good results, better than the older Canon Serenar lenses of the early 1950s, but not quite as good as the 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.4. Again, I own and use both, though I prefer the 35mm f/2 to the 35mm f/1.8, and a Nikkor 85mm f/2 LTM (a very good lens) to the Canon 85mm f/1.9. Canon also made a 50mm f/1.8 LTM lens and a 100mm f/3.5 lens which had good reputations, although I have not used either.</p>

<p> Canon also offered some super-speed lenses back then, including a 35mm f/1.5 LTM, a 50mm f/1.2 LTM, a 50mm f/0.95, and a 100mm f/2 LTM. These lenses have their advocates, but in my view their designs sacrificed some sharpness and contrast to deliver the highest possible speed. I own and occasionally use a 35mm f/1.5. The speed may be useful in really dim available light, but in everyday usage either the 35mm f/2 or the 35mm f/1.8 provide more satisfactory results. I have never used the 50mm f/1.2, but note that the 50mm f/1.4 is almost as fast, noticeably smaller, lighter, does not block the viewfinder, and is reputed to provide much better optical results than the f/1.2 under most shooting conditions. The Canon 50mm f/0.95 was not really an LTM lens: it had a special mount that could only be used on the Canon 7, although some were custom-modified to fit other cameras. It was exceptionally large, heavy and unwieldy, blocked much of the viewfinder, and was basically a rare and expensive special-purpose professional lens for extremely dim available light rather than a general-purpose lens for everyday use by most photographers.</p>

<p> Good luck with whatever you decide to get. The Canon LTM RF bodies and lenses from the 1950s offer an excellent entry to RF shooting, as they are generally similar in operation to Leicas, the lenses can (with readily available adapters) be used with Leica M bodies, and they are sufficiently well made to retain their value (subject of course to the usual vagaries of the marketplace). If in good operating condition, they deliver very good results. Since they are now on the order of 50 years old, they typically need CLAs to deliver the best results, but that is true of almost any equipment of that vintage.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>A lot of great information presented here.</p>

<p>Peter Dechert's book "Canon Rangefinder Cameras 1933-68" is available at Amazon.com.</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Rangefinder-Cameras-1933-68-Collectors/dp/0906447305/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231607792&sr=1-1</p>

[steve_bellayr]

<p>The Canon P is a wonderful camera from that era; also, the Nikon S2. Both I have used with their respective lenses and I have not complaints of their performance.</p>

[jtk]

<p>I have a pair of Ps, heavily used before I got them, mechanically perfect. Very mild shutter wrinkles (I've seen one that was flawless, otherwise mine are the best I've seen). I stuck my thumb through a similar titanium shutter on a then-new F1...replaced over night in San Francisco by Canon's pro shop...$90 :-)</p>

<p>P's major drawback is the cluttered viewfinder...35mm frame is marginally useful and I wear glasses. IIIG had a spectacularly good viewfinder, equal to M3. P was better in all respects, save viewfinder and the more-noisy steel shutter, than any Leica M. IMO Canon was merciful to let Leica live.</p>

<p>Get a P. IIIG deserve honor and protection on shelves, P deserves use and abuse.</p>

[Brian1664876441]

<p>Between the Canon 7, Canon VI-T, and Canon P- I find the Canon P's viewfinder the easiest to use with glasses.<br>

If I had a Leica IIIG, I would use it. I use a IIIa and IIIf. The Canon P viewfinder has the 35/50/100 lines up all the time, but it is auto-parallax corrected. The 35 lines are hard to see with glasses, but the 50 lines have plenty of margin.</p><div></div>

[john_shriver]

<p>Another way to look at it. The IV-SB2 finder is a little better than your IID1 finder. The VI-L's finder is a good bit better than your IID1 finder. The P, 7, and 7s finders are in a different league altogether, with huge rear eyepieces, and much better eye relief.<br>

But, you lose the great auto-parallax external finders when you go past the VI-T and VI-L. 100 and 135mm lenses get very small frame lines on the VI-L, P, 7, and 7s. But with an auto-parallax bright-line finders, you can really see the composition of your image, and don't have to fiddle with the parallax dial to get correct framing. So if you're partial to 85, 100, and 135mm lenses, the VI-L becomes a great choice. But be prepared to pay for the VI-L camera, and to pay for the finders.<br>

Note that the Canon 100/3.5 and 100/2 are both very compelling lenses.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Well, a Canon VI-L was just listed on eBay, item 290294122568 . Very nice kit, with meter, flash, 50/1.2, 35/1.5, and 135/3.5, and damaged case. This is going to go for serious big bucks. I'd expect this to close for well over $1000.<br>

There's another one, item 220355915842, with just a 35/3.2 lens. That would surely be more affordable.<br>

When it rains, it pours!<br /> </p>