Canon VI-T or VI-L

[spider71ko]

<p>I found one of these in my parent's closet when we were cleaning it out for their move.<br>

Does anyone know anything about them? It seems to be in good working order.<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p> </p>

[federico_prieto]

<p><a href="http://www.kuroneko-camera.com/cameras/canon_6l.html">http://www.kuroneko-camera.com/cameras/canon_6l.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/canon7.html">http://www.dantestella.com/technical/canon7.html</a></p>

 

[Brian1664876441]

Does it have a lever advance, or trigger advance? Or did you find two cameras?

 

They are very good Leica Thread Mount cameras. I have and use the VI-T.

[spider71ko]

<p>Thank you! Just one camera. I'm not sure which one it is. The instruction book is for both and so far I haven't figured out the difference. I think it uses the 120 film and is considered medium format?</p>

[mark_medin]

<p>Well, if it has a wind lever on the top deck, it's a VI-L.</p>

[spider71ko]

<p>Looks like it is the VI-T.</p>

 

[02Pete]

<p>If it's a VI-T, it ought to have a trigger-type rapid wind lever that folds out from the bottom of the camera. If not, more likely to be a VI-L. Both take 35mm film, they're both good cameras, some of the Canon LTM lenses (especially the 35mm f/2 LTM and 50mm f/1.4 LTM) were excellent, and Voigtlander is still making high quality LTM lenses that should work on VI-T and VI-L bodies, including aspheric lenses in both 35mm and 50mm focal lengths. If you like film photography at all, use the camera rather than getting rid of it, especially since it may have some sentimental meaning for you as one of your parents' cameras. You may understand that part more clearly in later years when your parents are gone and the camera is a tangible connection to them.</p>

[ph.]

In my inspection of ancient posts to learn about experiences with classic film apparati  I have arrived at page 383 and discover that the venerable Canon rangefinder that preceded the C-7 is mentioned.

I recall that one as sturdy with a selectable rangefinder view, and its LTM mount would take leica lenses as well as Canons- And as pointed out above, also the ecellent new "Voigtländer" ones. I preferred the VI-T to the C7 because the cloth shutter curtain  was not so sensitive to being touched as the metal one was when changing films. But eventually  the M3 won.

p

 

[glen_h]

5 hours ago, ph. said:

In my inspection of ancient posts to learn about experiences with classic film apparati  I have arrived at page 383 and discover that the venerable Canon rangefinder that preceded the C-7 is mentioned.

I recall that one as sturdy with a selectable rangefinder view, and its LTM mount would take leica lenses as well as Canons- And as pointed out above, also the ecellent new "Voigtländer" ones. I preferred the VI-T to the C7 because the cloth shutter curtain  was not so sensitive to being touched as the metal one was when changing films. But eventually  the M3 won.

p

 

The VI has a stainless steel shutter.

I never had any problem with it, and (last I tried) it still works fine.

It is very similar to the Canon P, the main difference being the adjustable viewfinder.

[ph.]

my memory of the shutters may indeed be wrong, but I do recall worrying about the metal ones and in spite of the C7 having a larger view the adjustable bit was attractive.

p.

 

[glen_h]

On 3/20/2023 at 5:45 AM, ph. said:

my memory of the shutters may indeed be wrong, but I do recall worrying about the metal ones and in spite of the C7 having a larger view the adjustable bit was attractive.

p.

 

They do tent to get a small amount of wrinkle or dent, but still work fine.

If you poke a finger through, I suspect either cloth or metal won't survive.

The cloth shutters get pinholes if you point the lens toward the sun too long.

My dad explained that to me when I was young.

 

I have a Canon II with a shutter pinhole, which otherwise works fine.

 

But yes, the adjustable viewfinder is nice, as I have a (non-Canon) 35mm lens, and the Canon 50/2.8.

Well, my dad bought the camera new when I was about one. 

[Kent T]

Operationally, I prefer the VI-L (as I like lever wind best) to the VI-T (which has trigger wind from the bottom). I'd be proud to own either camera, as I like Canon Rangefinders. And have admired them for many years. I have a Canon L-1 on it's way to me (a dream which will soon be fulfilled). Leica screw mount done better than Leica itself did, with useful features Leica didn't offer in the III series. Keep the camera, enjoy shooting pictures, get a good light meter. Be proud of the legacy left to you, to preserve and enjoy! 

[glen_h]

3 hours ago, Kent T said:

Operationally, I prefer the VI-L (as I like lever wind best) to the VI-T (which has trigger wind from the bottom). I'd be proud to own either camera, as I like Canon Rangefinders. And have admired them for many years. I have a Canon L-1 on it's way to me (a dream which will soon be fulfilled). Leica screw mount done better than Leica itself did, with useful features Leica didn't offer in the III series. Keep the camera, enjoy shooting pictures, get a good light meter. Be proud of the legacy left to you, to preserve and enjoy! 

When I was young, my dad had stories about Leica and Canon.

One was that the early Canon was a copy of the Leica so exact, that it copies a screw that didn't do anything.

(Maybe put in intentionally to catch copiers.)

But then he explained how Canon went from there, to make much better cameras, including the stainless steel shutter.

 

When I was 10, he bought a Canon Pellix.  When that got stolen, he bought an AT-1.

(And then an EF mount SLR, but I am not sure which one.)

And then when DSLRs came out, he bought more Canons. 

So, 60 years later and he still only buys Canon.

 

One that I only somewhat recently learned, though.  As part of the deals at the end of WW2,

Germany lost all their patents.  The start of much industry outside Germany.

 

 

 

[john_shriver]

Yes, Germany lost international (but not domestic) enforcement of patents as a war reparation. The shutters in Canon and Leica rangefinders would have violated Leitz's patents, and the rangefinder coupling on Leica was also patented. Many of the early Canon and Nikon lenses were copies of Zeiss's patented designs.

Nobody was foolish enough to copy Zeiss's patented shutter from the Contax, which was incredibly complicated and hard to manufacture to avoid Leitz's patents. The constant-acceleration shutter in the Leica was so much more elegant and manufacturable.

Nikon did burden themselves with the Contax lens mount, coupling distance to the camera through rotation, which Zeiss had used to avoid Leitz patent.

[chuck_foreman1]

Do you really see the "bayonet" mount as to avoid the patented TM from Leica?? As the name implies, it is a twist and lock system that is IMHO a better system for interchangable lenses, not a poor substitute because they couldn't use TM  due to legal problems. I'm saying, I don't think the bayonet mount was the result of settling for something less.  Did Leica avoid moving to the bayonet mount b/c of Zeiss?  They finally get on-board with the M series in the mid fifties.

 

 

[Kent T]

I agree with you partially. The Contax bayonet mount was in practice fiddly, as there was inner and outer bayonet mounts. A single bayonet mount like Leica adopted with the M3 of 1954 would have been superior. The Leica in practice was the superior camera in practical use, as it was a better system, easier to grip, easier to operate outside of the fiddly loading from the bottom. 

[chuck_foreman1]

Fiddly film loading vs fiddly lens mount.. I have used both to some extent... the inner/outer mount is pretty striaght-forward, but this was to accomodate the lenses. I had more problems loading (Leica style) Zorki/Fed than I did with mounting lenses on Contax.  YMMV .  Exakta (Ihagee) had a bayonet mount, a simple but practical one. So it wasn't unheard of  Did the Kine-Exacta precede the Contax?

 

[AJG]

1 hour ago, chuck_foreman1 said:

Fiddly film loading vs fiddly lens mount.. I have used both to some extent... the inner/outer mount is pretty striaght-forward, but this was to accomodate the lenses. I had more problems loading (Leica style) Zorki/Fed than I did with mounting lenses on Contax.  YMMV .  Exakta (Ihagee) had a bayonet mount, a simple but practical one. So it wasn't unheard of  Did the Kine-Exacta precede the Contax?

 

A quick Wikipedia check states that the first Exakta came out in 1936 and the Contax I preceded that by being introduced in 1932.  I agree with you that bottom loading Leicas and their clones are more of a pain in the neck than changing lenses on a Contax.  My first 35 mm SLRs were screw mount Yashicas and my least favorite feature was the screw mount once I had more than one lens.

[john_shriver]

The way the lens mounts on the Leica and Contax is not the subject of the patent. The Leitz patent was for the cam on the lens and the roller on an arm in the camera that followed it, in the context of an interchangeable lens. So the Contax mount coupled the distance setting of the lens through rotation of the inner mount. Now, ultimately there is a cam on the back of that rotating inner mount, moving the rangefinder prism. But it is not a part of the lens mount proper. 

 

[chuck_foreman1]

On 7/16/2023 at 3:36 PM, john_shriver said:

The way the lens mounts on the Leica and Contax is not the subject of the patent. The Leitz patent was for the cam on the lens and the roller on an arm in the camera that followed it, in the context of an interchangeable lens. So the Contax mount coupled the distance setting of the lens through rotation of the inner mount. Now, ultimately there is a cam on the back of that rotating inner mount, moving the rangefinder prism. But it is not a part of the lens mount proper. 

 

So there was no fear of infringing on the LTM mount that the bayonett was conceived, the fear was in coupling the lens to the RF. IIRC this a very distinctive difference in the RF. I have always wanted to see this comparison. The Contax has a "prism" that turns, the Leica is supposedly simpler. The Contax base length is often hearlded as more precise, but apparently the Leica does a very good job with a shorter length.  I think Rick Oleson had a paper on viewfinder evolution that might explain thses differences better. I know I need to read-up to understand it better. 

[Kent T]

The grip necessary to hold the Contax slowed it down considerably, more than anything else. Please note, I admire Zeiss and the engineering effort which went into the Contax. The lenses were the best for years on Contax. Once film is loaded, the Leica was the better, faster, easier operated, shooter of the two. Leitz optics were no slouch, especially past the super fast/ 

[AJG]

41 minutes ago, Kent T said:

The grip necessary to hold the Contax slowed it down considerably, more than anything else. Please note, I admire Zeiss and the engineering effort which went into the Contax. The lenses were the best for years on Contax. Once film is loaded, the Leica was the better, faster, easier operated, shooter of the two. Leitz optics were no slouch, especially past the super fast/ 

While I agree that it is easy to cover the rangefinder window on a Contax with a finger, it isn't that hard to learn to avoid it.  What I don't like about my Leica IIIa is the placement of the shutter release.  It is too far toward the back of the camera for me, although I realize that everybody's different and thousands of people obviously like it where it is.

[Kent T]

15 hours ago, AJG said:

While I agree that it is easy to cover the rangefinder window on a Contax with a finger, it isn't that hard to learn to avoid it.  What I don't like about my Leica IIIa is the placement of the shutter release.  It is too far toward the back of the camera for me, although I realize that everybody's different and thousands of people obviously like it where it is.

I get that. And for some, not the most pleasant location. 

[chuck_foreman1]

I do think the M series took the prize... The Contax  "finger-grip" is the only way you can see the the RF image...so a beneficial longer base length..interferes with RF window... it's the only way to use the RF..