I totally love all Barnack-inspired cameras! So thanks for your comment and insight! Personally I really love using the self timer from time to time. Maybe I even don’t mind the looks. (except on the Olympus PEN-FT: there the self timer looks really weird!) It is pure coincidence that i got the VL and not one of the other V or VI models. Here in Europe they all are really rare!
Hello Tom, I totally agree. The Canon cameras between 1950 and 1960 were driven by new techniques and new ideas and where (mostly) made of high build quality. The Canon 7 (I do own all three models) has the best equipment, but the body feels uncomfortible in my hands, especially the first model because the index finger touches the window of the selennium meter. And the body is nearly as big as an AE-1. I prefer the models of the V and VI series because of their size and the viewfinder system. My all time favourite is the Leica style Canon III and IV series, although the finder is dim and smaller than in later models (look for auxiliary finders). Especially the IVsb2 with a matching Canon 1.8/50mm from 1952, the same as yours. I work with Canon gear since 1981 and work with canon lensen from 1947 up to 2020, but never again a lens pleased me so much than that old lens from the 1950s (beside some EF-L lenses on mirrorless R-cameras).
Thanks Thomas for your feedback! I maybe have to give the Canon IV series a closer look as well. Of all the "classic" Leica copies they seem to be amongst the best, both technically and also in terms of build quality!
Hey Tom, nice to see somebody that does their research, you got many things right! For example you correctly called it the Canon VL (five L). I have the Canon P from the VI (six) series. I was recently looking at a VT deluxe in a local shop in really nice condition. The only thing is that I wasn't convinced about the tiny viewfinder, otherwise, a beautiful camera. By the way, I did a side by side test of the 50/1.8 vs the highly acclaimed 50/1.4. I found the 1.8 to be 99% as good as the faster 1.4, maybe the 1.4 was a teeny bit sharper but it was almost impossible to tell the difference, plus the 1.8 is quite a bit cheaper, smaller and lighter. I also have the 35/2 which is so nice it's practically glued to my Canon P. So, you don't mind the VL's viewfinder, it's not too small? I'm still thinking about that VT. Thanks for the review!
Hi John, many thanks for your commend and feedback! And yes, the Canon V has a small viewfinder. I tried to measure the magnification myself because I found somewhat confusing data on the web. I compared the size of the details in the viewfinder photos that I took with the iPhone with those of the Leica M6. I assume that 0.72x is very accurate as that is the official data by Leica. Anyway, that's where the magnification numbers come from in my video ... Now the Canon P and VI (50/100 viewfinder) are said to be 1:1 so they definitely must be much bigger than the viewfinder in the V series. What bothers me most on my VL's viewfinder are the blurry black edges in the 50mm finder and all that dust - but that's a problem of age and maintenance and can be cleaned I hope. I showed the VL to a friend and he actually liked the 35mm the most as he could easily see it with his glasses. I find the 35mm finder really small at first glance (only 0.4x ...) but haven't shot a 35mm lens yet, so I can't exactly say how it feels in the long term. Overall I came to the conclusion that a VI would be the nicest. But they're kind of rare. You would have 50/100 even with framelines, and 35mm without (but provided the black frame edges are somewhat sharp at 35mm as with the VL, the missing frame lines wouldn't bother me so much). Most users swear by the Canon 7 viewfinder, but it's a pretty bulky camera and the V and VI just look nicer. Thanks also for your feedback about the lenses. I am pretty happy about my 50/1.8, in my opinion it gives the best that you could ever wish for in a 1950's lens, and I really love the look created by quality old glass.
@@tomscameras Thanks Tom for your very detailed reply. I have been keeping my eye out for a VI L for a few years, they never seem to come up for sale, it seems nobody wants to sell this rare gem. Yes those blurred frame lines would really bother me. I shot with the Canon P for three years even though it had a few issues, the main problem was that about 30% of my shots had a terrible light leak. I sent it in for a CLA to Kanto Camera and they fixed it up perfectly. I'm sure they could sort out your V's frame lines and clean, lubricate everything to run well for another 60+ years. Cost a bit ($$) but it may be worth it for you if you plan to keep the camera for a long time.
I owned the L1/VL, P and 7. I sold the P, because I found it to be of too flimsy build quality and preferred the VL‘s viewfinder. Also, the 7 gives you a better shooting experience, especially when in your late 40s eyesight reduces. But still, I think I will buy the VI-L just because I want to know how the viewfinder behaves. Also, I just ordered a parallax corrected viewfinder for my 100 mm 3.5 portrait lens. The VL‘s rangefinder in RF setting should be a perfect combination.
I own and owned Leicas of different eras as well as I like using Canon LTM-lenses on them. I knew from experience the best Canon lenses really hold their ground against Leica-lenses and I really like the Canon 1.8/50 mm LTM (mine is chrome too) but in this case I was really suprised as I was sure the examples from camera B had a bit more fine detail and must be the summicron. 😮 I really enjoyed this episode and will try the Canon V-series (didn't like the P too much for its cluttered multi-frame finder). Thanks for sharing! ❤
Thanks for your feedback! And oh yes, that Canon lens is simply gorgeous. I’m kind of happy that I got the older version because the all-chrome barrel is even nicer (also in finish) than the later version. But the optics are swelte in any version! I would love to try the Canon VI which still has the multi-sized viewfinder of the V, but much larger and with 100mm frame lines as well. But as a camera, the V series is even nicer than the VI in some small details!
A note, the first Leica 1 did not have interchangeable screw mount lenses. Until the Leica Standard was introduced later, which began screw mount lenses. Some early 1 models were converted to Standard later.
Yes. That's why I mention 1931 as the starting point for the Leica "system". The camera went on sale around 1924, but at that time it had the fixed lens. And yes: All those converted old Leica's are actually a super interesting part of the story! Back then, you could upgrade from the Leica I all the way to the IIIa, I think!
I have three Canon rangefinders: the IVsb, the VT, and the P. I love them. I actually prefer the IVsb, which feels even more like a tank than the others. The Canon 50mm f/1.8 is a gem. I have that along with the 50mm f/1.4 and the 50mm f/1.5. They're all great lenses. But I've taken some shots with the f/1.8 that are beautifully three-dimensional. Maybe I've just gotten lucky with my shots!
I’ve had some of the other Canon rangefinders in my hands but did not shoot them. So I can confirm that the Canon P feels just a litttle bit less “nice” even though I do love its simple but vast and clear viewfinder. Have to give the IVsb another close look when there is an occasion! I am super happy about the 50/1.8 and can only confirm what you said. I didn’t expect it to be such a gem of a lens!
Great video on those lovely Canon Rangefinders. I watched nearly every Video and read a lot about them but in your video I still learned something new: I did'nt know about the "T" setting. I am waitung for a Canon L2 and a 50mm 1.4 LTM to arrive. Really looking forward using them. Thankx for the great presentation and comparison !
@@tomscameras Tom, have you read about the gold range finder patches in the L1? They seem to hold up better than the silver ones in other Canon rangefinders. I shoot with an L1 and love it!! I have a couple vintage Canon lenses and absolutely love their character .. the Canon images were easy to point out in your video : )
I guessed right on the A-B photos. I have that same lens on an older (Barnack style) canon rangefinder body and it is a bit less contrasty than a modern lens but still quite nice (even when adapted to digital) I paid 70 USD ( 64 euro) for camera and lens this past year. They are a bargain!
I haven't tried an MX, but recently bought a KX and am very impressed by it. Interesting to hear your views of the MX, although if it is a little smaller than the Olympus OM1 I'm wondering whether it is a little awkward to use if you have big hands. The Babylon film also has me interested, but probably best used in very sunny conditions, or maybe tripod use?
I shot the K1000 some time ago and also had a KX in my hands recently. Those bodies are better suited to big hands. On the MX, things start to feel a bit cramped. For some weird reason, I don't have that feeling with the OM-1 though. I'll maybe create a dedicated video about Lomography Babylon 13 film. The results are very good. Contrast is very high. I like that a lot personally, but the high contrast can also be limiting in some conditions. And yes, it's 3 f/stops slower than ISO 100: Let's say you have sunlight and ISO 100 film would give f/11 at 1/125 second, then you'll end up with f/4 at 1/125 for Babylon 13. Put on a yellow filter and it's f/2.8! All the shots in my video are hand-held, so I was using f/1.4 to maybe f/4. Or you use a tripod, yes ...
VL is fine. For me, the rather significant issue is smallish VF (which is generally true for all Leica screw mount cameras). It's a bit annoying, because you have big, bright VF when using M2, M3 etc then faced with the VL. I heard Voigt Bessa R have bigger VF.
Also the Canon VI series has a much bigger viewfinder than the V, but retains that system with two zoom settings. The Canon P and Canon 7 cameras also have considerably larger viewfinders than the V series, but they don't have the zoom feature anymore.
I'm asking for advice. Between Canon VL and Canon VI-L. What are the differences between these two? And if I want to choose 1 item Which one should I choose? Which one has better quality in terms of materials and functions?
The viewfinder in the VI series is considerable larger. Both have that zoom finder with two settings, and both these settings offer a larger view in the VI. Also the VI offers framelines (50+100) in the larger viewfinder setting; the 35mm setting does not have framelines though. Apart from the viewfinder all the rest is virtually identical; only some more cosmetic changes were introduced with the VI. All shutter times are on one dial on the VI while the V has the split dial (one for fast and one for slow speeds) but in real life this doesn’t really matter a lot. If you have a free choice and find a good working and clean example, I recon the VI is the better choice because of that bigger viewfinder. But in my opinion, the condition of the camera is most important! Happy hunting!
@@tomscameras Thank you for your comment. If you have to choose VL / VI-L / P if you can choose only 1 Which one would you choose and why? (If they were all in the same good condition). P.S. How are VL1 and VL2 separated? How can you tell which is 1 and which is 2?
I have the Canon L2 and even with it’s 1/500 top speed, it’s still a very solid and reliable performer. I also have the Canon 7, I like the frame lines and the top speed of 1/1000 but end up using the L2 more.
Thanks for your feedback! I reckon that especially when you're shooting black&white film and use a yellow or orange filter in sunlight, the 1/500 is not that much of a problem in real life. All these bodies are great shooters! I didn't get a Canon 7 yet. The viewfinder is maybe the most versatile of them all, but somehow I fell in love too much with the VL's finish and overall design so I didn't look any further yet. Here in Europe, the Canon 7 is the easiest to find, though!
@@tomscameras I own a Canon L1, and a Canon 50 mm/f2.8 and love mine. Feels superb, quality as quality gets, the build is beautiful, and precision as anything from Germany. An extension of me.
There isn't any space left between the components of the shutter mechanism at the base of the camera in both Leica and Canon so the tripod socket is located to one side, under the spool of the 35mm magazine where nothing much is happening.
Thanks for the explanation! However every other manufacturer was eventually able to move the socket; also the Nikon F with essentially the same shutter design managed to do it and it didn’t need a much more bulky camera base to do so. So I am still rather convinced Leica could eventually have done better as well …
@@tomscameras The Nikon F is a different animal. :) The addition of the reflex mirror to the S3 base design added extra space in the middle where the tripod nut can be installed. In the rangefinders, nothing much could be put at the base of the shutter crate. But when a mirror had to be added for the SLR viewfinder, it became possible to put more things under the mirror (in some of the Nikkormats, even a battery chamber!). It also put the tripod connection to a more balanced position in the camera.
Great video as always, Tom. Rangefinders were a great way of being invisible while snapping around,. I borrowed a Nikon SP and a 50mm f2.0 from a friend in the 90's and was almost hooked on it. He wasn't even interested in selling it for any price! Are you still doing the Nikkormat video? I'm holding my Nikkormat FT3 in my hands as I type 😎.
Yes! Actually I have my Nikkormat with me this weekend and hope to get the video shot pretty soon as well. It really took a back seat for some time ... I traveled to many awesome places around the world with it when I was young! So me and the Nikkormat, that's a special old love affair that will never be over! 😍
Try the Canon 7 for a more Leica M viewfinder and RF patch and non rotating single shutter dial, not as sleek as the VL but bodies are very plentiful and can be bought for 160-200 dollars US. No cold shoe on the 7 but if the 35mm is the widest RF lens you use then its no problem.
It’s a bit of a coincidence that the VL is my first Canon rangefinder. Here in Europe, they’re all a bit rare. I am sure a Canon 7 is coming my way sooner or later! 😀
@@tomscameras Canon made over a 137,000 Canon 7 cameras and no more than 5,450 Canon VL cameras were made. So the 7 is the highest production pro level RF Camera Canon made, the 2nd highest production was the Canon P at 87,000 made. The Canon 7 is easy to acquire on that 'E" auction site and low in price because of its commonality.
@@jaymichaels5187 yes the Canon 7 is made in bigger numbers than the previous models. But take into account that there are many different V series models so it doesn’t have to be a VL, an L1, VT etc. will also do. The number of those combined is around 68,000. Still only half of the 7 (and there is also an improved 7 version) but not as drastic a difference as if you only look for the VL specifically. Most cameras for sale are located in Japan. That’s no problem of course but still a bit of a hassle especially when you have to deal with the slow German customs. Also many listings on eBay are far worse than their description suggests: „excellent +++++“ or even „mint“ … you really have to read the description and check out every bit of the photos to see what’s really going on there. Having said all that: Yes, the Canon 7 is a great camera! I am sure I’ll get one at some point!
Hi, if you want to use an accessory viwfinder on the model 7 try to find the adaptor that was made by Canon (sells for 70 up to 200 USD). Or try to buy a Canon 7s, it has the cold shoe on top.
Great video thank you 🙌. However, I do disagree I think the M6 is just as well built as the previous M cameras. It is built like a tank. Arguably maybe even a little better than the M3.
Canon AE-1 is overrated as is the AE 1 Program. And many suffer electronic problems. They also eat batteries about as bad as a Contarex Super Electronic. For an FD mount Canon, get an F1 or an FTb.
@@KentTeffeteller What is one man‘s legend, is the other one‘s overrated hype :) but seriously, I also prefer mechanical cameras over old electronic ones overall!
I also love the looks of the Canon VL :) ... but on the other hand, the Leica M3 came back in 1954, the Leica M2 in 1957. And Leica just stuck to that body design ... until even today!
Not really. On paper, the 1.3x setting makes focusing a bit easier than on the Canon P (1x magnification), but that's maybe nitpicking ... on the other hand, the Canon P is always 1x, also when you're shooting 50mm or 35mm lenses. What's definitely easier on the VL is to overview the entire frame when shooting a 35mm lens - but you're having a very small viewfinder image at that setting.
Tom, you're raising the prices of old Canon rangefinders, because before the crowd doesn't know about it... ;) Well, optically, the lenses aren't that comparable, but i do think the same as you - i wouldn't waste, (or "invest") nowadays 2-4K EUR into "just" a M6 body....and the OVF is even worse, than later M-A variants, for instance. Built quality isn't the best - but ppl freaking out, because it does have a built-in lightmeter. The M5 also, but i've found that design very ambitious...to say politely. ;-)
Oh I really like the M5. Yes it looks a bit weird, but it was the last Leica M strictly designed for purpose, all the later ones were more trying to freeze the design from better days instead of coming up with anything really new. Also I love the big protruding shutter dial and the analog meter readout that also displays the shutter time! Actually the Canon 50mm seems to be a surprising good lens. It is surely better than my Olympus 50mm SLR lenses. I will try to compare all these lenses on digital if I get the opportunity! But sure the much more modern M lenses will beat them all. I still believe that there’s also the point where you should rather go medium format instead of worrying even more about lens quality - at least in analog photography. Oh and by the way did you see the Canon VT video from Analog Insight? It was just published a week before my video! Also awesome to watch! I love their channel a lot! But if Canon rangefinder prices are going up now, it’s certainly their fault and not mine 😄😄
@@tomscameras Hi Tom, i've read all about the Canon Rangefinder Series about 12-15 years ago. I had the Canon P, but sold it long ago, because i couldn't find a decent 35mm Canon LTM for it, for the price i was willing to pay, didn't want to shell out 400-500 EUR plus customs from Japan, you'd understand. :) I'm settled with my main 2 brands 35mm SLR setup, and with digital - i've had enough. Fujifilm, Nikon APS-C, Canon & Sony fullframe is enough. I've never given up Film since the 80s, and since the past couple years, i'm mostly shooting Film only, seldom my Fuji's, and since years no more my Sony and Canon system...it just bores me too much. Nope, i mean, there's a difference between a Summilux or Canon LTM, the Canon lenses are all way older designs, up the the 60's. Especially handling with flare, sunlight, because most lenses are only being single coated by that time period, and can't compete with more modern lens designs...i'm always since the beginning using a lens hood, on all my lenses. No issues.
@@marcp.1752 I'm not sure that Canon lenses from the 1950's were per sé simpler or older designs as Leica glass. In 1952 (when the Canon LTM 50/1.8 came out) there was not even a Summilux yet, the 50/2 was the Summitar and the fastest Leica lens was the Summarit 50/1.5. The Canon 50/1.8 really has a very good reputation. There were some older Canon 50mm designs already and by the time the 50/1.8 came out, they absolutely knew how to make a great 50mm lens already. Of course, there is a huge number of more modern Leica M lens designs from the times when Canon already stopped developing LTM glass. And yes, a lens hood always helps. I should also use one on my OM Zuiko's more often. :)
I have soon a Canon VI L 6L, which would go nicely with my ~20 year old Voigtländer Color Skopar 35/2.8 LTM, it's a relative modern optic from ca. 2000-2005, and since 35mm is my #1 focal length to shoot it all...well, about >= 80%...it's being handy, and the lens was cheap, the Canon into contrast to a Leica a bargain. Any M series Leica is out of my league, in terms of asking price. @@tomscameras
That’s a nice one! I hope it helps people with Leica gas a little bit to get rid of it. ;-) I personally share your unofficial verdict. The Canon is the nicer looking camera, they it is by far not that expensive and if you got some nice m39 Glas, it is also a capable camera. On my phone I could not sense the differences between A and B. And Since I have a canon 50mm 1.4 M39 lens on my bessa R at the moment, I think one of those Canons will at some point get into my hands anyway. 😁 BTW.: I do envy your output a little bit. Keep on rolling. I enjoy your videos. I myself just started this year and set a target for 1 Video per month and already failed it. 😅 but family and job come first so that’s okay for me. 😁
Thanks a lot for your comment! The Canon 50/1.4 surely is also a great lens! Thanks also for pointing towards your own channel! You can even fix things it seems! 😀
@@tomscameras Haha! Yes, I am trying to get some old cameras back into working condition. Sometimes it works, sometimes I have to try hard (Kiev 4a) and sometimes bad things happen. (Sorry Biotar helicoid😢). Thanks a lot for following me. I am really happy about it. 😁 now I am a bit nervous and the next video has to be even better. 😅 🖖
The leica m4 or m6 get awesome (except the loading) with very good build quality and the summicron is exquisite… but at which price :((. The canon VL or P are very good cemeras for the 10th of the price and the 50mm f1.8 or 35mm f2.8 are quite affordable lenses vey well made and which give perfect decent pictures for film. They just would need a central tripod mount. Their view finders are quite easy to use and their build quality doesn t make cheap. If you add to them a 100mm f3.5 (the f 2 is really expensive) you have a perfect combination for less than half of the price of an m4 naked… so if you want to play with rangefinders and films it’s far sufficient.
Yes, it is a pity that so many of these cameras copied the screwmount Leica's weird tripod threads! I still do love my VL a lot. I've got too many great other cameras so I don't shoot it as much as I should! The lenses you mention are perfect - and both 35 and 100 work with the built-in finder. (Of course there is no real 100mm setting on the Canon V series but you can sort of get away using the "RF" setting). The later Canon VI-L and VI-P (and the Canon P) even have proper 100mm framelines!
@Gilbert Daroy I prefer shooting Film. LCDs onto the backside, especially on Rangefinders, do look really not quite good, from my aesthetic feeling. And chimping onto a non-color calibrated LCD on the go makes it even worse. 😀 Therefore, i always see my RAWs if digital (seldom), onto the TFT @home, never when shooting.
Well it's apples and oranges I love Fuji also but now and then I like the "film" experience it takes me back 50 years when I was shooting and developing film I prefer scanning and Photoshop to a enlarger because of the better way you can process a image and I don't have room for darkroom that I did back then I have Mamiya C33 and enjoy the thought that goes with it
@@tomscameras I am curious as to why we're not seeing that happening, considering the popularity of the Barnack cameras. I can only guess that Leica has a patent on LTM/LSM/L39 that is still current and able to stop competitors from making lenses to suit the mount. If so, this is very disappointing.
I see that you are a left eye shorter. So when you shoot horizontals you have to remove the camera from your face to wind the film, making rapid shooting problematic. You should consider using VT or VT deluxe …
Thanks for your feedback! Actually, I try to shoot all my rangefinder cameras with the right eye ... but as you can see, old habits get in the way sometimes :)
I thought it was A for the the Leica. The Leica has more contrast and probably a little more sharpness but can't say for sure, some of those Canon lenses are pretty sharp.
I’d agree on contrast, which is maybe obvious in a way given that I was shooting a 1950s Canon lens versus a 1990s Leica lens. In sharpness, this old Canon lens is just amazing, however!
I love the Contax II because it had a lot of features that we take for granted today already back in 1936! The downside (from a user point of view) is the lens mount that locks you into the Contax/Kiev universe. Personally I love 35mm lenses and then Canon is also one of the very few choices that offer an integrated matching viewfinder!
Bit pointless to compare pictures like that when talking about film cameras. After all they're just boxes with holes in them. As long the timings work they wont show any difference in the camera body. You can just see the difference the lens makes.
Absolutely true! I maybe should have made that more clear, that's right. In the end it IS about the lenses. And as I say in the video, you won't get modern Leica M glass performance with any LTM camera. So maybe my comparison was more about if that makes such a big difference or if 1950's lens performance is already good enough ...
@@tomscameras I think it was a worthy comparison and thank you for it, as it highlights the shortcomings of each of the cameras as tools that hold the lens. The Leica is a quirky camera to load film, never liked the procedure. And as far as lenses go, it is very very close in the way each render the scenes. Too close for such an immense price gap, for sure. And for that, this Canon lens and camera combo is the superior one.
Great video. Thank you. I still have my M6 but long ago sold the V & P Canons as not the equal. Nice cameras but not an m6. My M6 was made in 1984, it was the 748th M6 off the assembly line. I have owned it for over 25 years and sent it in last year for a CLA so it will be good for another 25 years, long after I am gone. The Canon cameras are very nice but they are not Leica.
Thanks a lot for your comment! I understand why a Canon is not a Leica! I'll have a comment about that in my next video (in 1-2 weeks) where I shoot the OM-1 against the M6. But still I'd say that the Canon can compete with the Leica pretty well. And the build quality especially in the V series is also extremely good, from what I can tell my camera has never been serviced and it works amazingly well (and would be even nicer after a good CLA). Maybe the more natural comparison to the Canon VL would be a Barnack Leica. But I wanted to pitch a LTM body against an M-mount body in this video. Because today's prices are not about the cameras itself, they're just about the mount: if you want any M-mount body today you're looking north of 1,000 Euros, even for a Voigtländer!
No, the camera that I have is a V (five) L (lever advance). The VI-T or VI-L came after that and has a different, bigger viewfinder including framelines for 50mm and 100mm and it also has a different shutter speed dial.
I love the look of the Canon L3 with no self timer, the build quality on the earlier Barnack style models like the IVsb is even better.
I totally love all Barnack-inspired cameras! So thanks for your comment and insight! Personally I really love using the self timer from time to time. Maybe I even don’t mind the looks. (except on the Olympus PEN-FT: there the self timer looks really weird!) It is pure coincidence that i got the VL and not one of the other V or VI models. Here in Europe they all are really rare!
Hello Tom, I totally agree. The Canon cameras between 1950 and 1960 were driven by new techniques and new ideas and where (mostly) made of high build quality. The Canon 7 (I do own all three models) has the best equipment, but the body feels uncomfortible in my hands, especially the first model because the index finger touches the window of the selennium meter. And the body is nearly as big as an AE-1. I prefer the models of the V and VI series because of their size and the viewfinder system. My all time favourite is the Leica style Canon III and IV series, although the finder is dim and smaller than in later models (look for auxiliary finders). Especially the IVsb2 with a matching Canon 1.8/50mm from 1952, the same as yours. I work with Canon gear since 1981 and work with canon lensen from 1947 up to 2020, but never again a lens pleased me so much than that old lens from the 1950s (beside some EF-L lenses on mirrorless R-cameras).
Thanks Thomas for your feedback! I maybe have to give the Canon IV series a closer look as well. Of all the "classic" Leica copies they seem to be amongst the best, both technically and also in terms of build quality!
Hey Tom, nice to see somebody that does their research, you got many things right! For example you correctly called it the Canon VL (five L). I have the Canon P from the VI (six) series. I was recently looking at a VT deluxe in a local shop in really nice condition. The only thing is that I wasn't convinced about the tiny viewfinder, otherwise, a beautiful camera. By the way, I did a side by side test of the 50/1.8 vs the highly acclaimed 50/1.4. I found the 1.8 to be 99% as good as the faster 1.4, maybe the 1.4 was a teeny bit sharper but it was almost impossible to tell the difference, plus the 1.8 is quite a bit cheaper, smaller and lighter. I also have the 35/2 which is so nice it's practically glued to my Canon P. So, you don't mind the VL's viewfinder, it's not too small? I'm still thinking about that VT. Thanks for the review!
Hi John, many thanks for your commend and feedback! And yes, the Canon V has a small viewfinder.
I tried to measure the magnification myself because I found somewhat confusing data on the web. I compared the size of the details in the viewfinder photos that I took with the iPhone with those of the Leica M6. I assume that 0.72x is very accurate as that is the official data by Leica. Anyway, that's where the magnification numbers come from in my video ...
Now the Canon P and VI (50/100 viewfinder) are said to be 1:1 so they definitely must be much bigger than the viewfinder in the V series.
What bothers me most on my VL's viewfinder are the blurry black edges in the 50mm finder and all that dust - but that's a problem of age and maintenance and can be cleaned I hope. I showed the VL to a friend and he actually liked the 35mm the most as he could easily see it with his glasses. I find the 35mm finder really small at first glance (only 0.4x ...) but haven't shot a 35mm lens yet, so I can't exactly say how it feels in the long term.
Overall I came to the conclusion that a VI would be the nicest. But they're kind of rare. You would have 50/100 even with framelines, and 35mm without (but provided the black frame edges are somewhat sharp at 35mm as with the VL, the missing frame lines wouldn't bother me so much).
Most users swear by the Canon 7 viewfinder, but it's a pretty bulky camera and the V and VI just look nicer.
Thanks also for your feedback about the lenses. I am pretty happy about my 50/1.8, in my opinion it gives the best that you could ever wish for in a 1950's lens, and I really love the look created by quality old glass.
@@tomscameras Thanks Tom for your very detailed reply. I have been keeping my eye out for a VI L for a few years, they never seem to come up for sale, it seems nobody wants to sell this rare gem. Yes those blurred frame lines would really bother me.
I shot with the Canon P for three years even though it had a few issues, the main problem was that about 30% of my shots had a terrible light leak. I sent it in for a CLA to Kanto Camera and they fixed it up perfectly. I'm sure they could sort out your V's frame lines and clean, lubricate everything to run well for another 60+ years. Cost a bit ($$) but it may be worth it for you if you plan to keep the camera for a long time.
I owned the L1/VL, P and 7. I sold the P, because I found it to be of too flimsy build quality and preferred the VL‘s viewfinder. Also, the 7 gives you a better shooting experience, especially when in your late 40s eyesight reduces.
But still, I think I will buy the VI-L just because I want to know how the viewfinder behaves.
Also, I just ordered a parallax corrected viewfinder for my 100 mm 3.5 portrait lens. The VL‘s rangefinder in RF setting should be a perfect combination.
I own and owned Leicas of different eras as well as I like using Canon LTM-lenses on them. I knew from experience the best Canon lenses really hold their ground against Leica-lenses and I really like the Canon 1.8/50 mm LTM (mine is chrome too) but in this case I was really suprised as I was sure the examples from camera B had a bit more fine detail and must be the summicron. 😮 I really enjoyed this episode and will try the Canon V-series (didn't like the P too much for its cluttered multi-frame finder). Thanks for sharing! ❤
Thanks for your feedback! And oh yes, that Canon lens is simply gorgeous. I’m kind of happy that I got the older version because the all-chrome barrel is even nicer (also in finish) than the later version. But the optics are swelte in any version! I would love to try the Canon VI which still has the multi-sized viewfinder of the V, but much larger and with 100mm frame lines as well. But as a camera, the V series is even nicer than the VI in some small details!
A note, the first Leica 1 did not have interchangeable screw mount lenses. Until the Leica Standard was introduced later, which began screw mount lenses. Some early 1 models were converted to Standard later.
Yes. That's why I mention 1931 as the starting point for the Leica "system". The camera went on sale around 1924, but at that time it had the fixed lens. And yes: All those converted old Leica's are actually a super interesting part of the story! Back then, you could upgrade from the Leica I all the way to the IIIa, I think!
Lovely and interesting video! Keep it up! ⭐️
Thanks a lot for your feedback!
I have three Canon rangefinders: the IVsb, the VT, and the P. I love them. I actually prefer the IVsb, which feels even more like a tank than the others.
The Canon 50mm f/1.8 is a gem. I have that along with the 50mm f/1.4 and the 50mm f/1.5. They're all great lenses. But I've taken some shots with the f/1.8 that are beautifully three-dimensional. Maybe I've just gotten lucky with my shots!
I’ve had some of the other Canon rangefinders in my hands but did not shoot them. So I can confirm that the Canon P feels just a litttle bit less “nice” even though I do love its simple but vast and clear viewfinder. Have to give the IVsb another close look when there is an occasion!
I am super happy about the 50/1.8 and can only confirm what you said. I didn’t expect it to be such a gem of a lens!
@@tomscameras Ooh. I forgot that I also have the 50/1.2. It's a cool lens, but it's such a beast! I can't imagine the 0.95!
Great video on those lovely Canon Rangefinders. I watched nearly every Video and read a lot about them but in your video I still learned something new: I did'nt know about the "T" setting. I am waitung for a Canon L2 and a 50mm 1.4 LTM to arrive. Really looking forward using them. Thankx for the great presentation and comparison !
Thanks Herbert for your feedback. The L2 and f/1.4 are both gorgeous, I hope that your camera will be in good shape and wish you a lot of fun with it!
@@tomscameras Tom, have you read about the gold range finder patches in the L1? They seem to hold up better than the silver ones in other Canon rangefinders. I shoot with an L1 and love it!! I have a couple vintage Canon lenses and absolutely love their character .. the Canon images were easy to point out in your video : )
Really like your channel, and your camera pics :)
I am glad you enjoy the videos! Many thanks!
I guessed right on the A-B photos. I have that same lens on an older (Barnack style) canon rangefinder body and it is a bit less contrasty than a modern lens but still quite nice (even when adapted to digital) I paid 70 USD ( 64 euro) for camera and lens this past year. They are a bargain!
Great video ! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Many thanks for your feedback! :)
I haven't tried an MX, but recently bought a KX and am very impressed by it.
Interesting to hear your views of the MX, although if it is a little smaller than the Olympus OM1 I'm wondering whether it is a little awkward to use if you have big hands.
The Babylon film also has me interested, but probably best used in very sunny conditions, or maybe tripod use?
I shot the K1000 some time ago and also had a KX in my hands recently. Those bodies are better suited to big hands. On the MX, things start to feel a bit cramped. For some weird reason, I don't have that feeling with the OM-1 though.
I'll maybe create a dedicated video about Lomography Babylon 13 film. The results are very good. Contrast is very high. I like that a lot personally, but the high contrast can also be limiting in some conditions.
And yes, it's 3 f/stops slower than ISO 100: Let's say you have sunlight and ISO 100 film would give f/11 at 1/125 second, then you'll end up with f/4 at 1/125 for Babylon 13. Put on a yellow filter and it's f/2.8! All the shots in my video are hand-held, so I was using f/1.4 to maybe f/4.
Or you use a tripod, yes ...
VL is fine. For me, the rather significant issue is smallish VF (which is generally true for all Leica screw mount cameras). It's a bit annoying, because you have big, bright VF when using M2, M3 etc then faced with the VL. I heard Voigt Bessa R have bigger VF.
Also the Canon VI series has a much bigger viewfinder than the V, but retains that system with two zoom settings. The Canon P and Canon 7 cameras also have considerably larger viewfinders than the V series, but they don't have the zoom feature anymore.
I'm asking for advice. Between Canon VL and Canon VI-L. What are the differences between these two? And if I want to choose 1 item Which one should I choose? Which one has better quality in terms of materials and functions?
Between VL1 and VL2, what are the points or differences that you need to look at when buying a camera?
The viewfinder in the VI series is considerable larger. Both have that zoom finder with two settings, and both these settings offer a larger view in the VI. Also the VI offers framelines (50+100) in the larger viewfinder setting; the 35mm setting does not have framelines though.
Apart from the viewfinder all the rest is virtually identical; only some more cosmetic changes were introduced with the VI. All shutter times are on one dial on the VI while the V has the split dial (one for fast and one for slow speeds) but in real life this doesn’t really matter a lot. If you have a free choice and find a good working and clean example, I recon the VI is the better choice because of that bigger viewfinder. But in my opinion, the condition of the camera is most important! Happy hunting!
@@tomscameras Thank you for your comment. If you have to choose VL / VI-L / P if you can choose only 1 Which one would you choose and why? (If they were all in the same good condition).
P.S. How are VL1 and VL2 separated? How can you tell which is 1 and which is 2?
@@tomscameras How about VI-L (6) What do you think VS P , please advise me.
I have the Canon L2 and even with it’s 1/500 top speed, it’s still a very solid and reliable performer. I also have the Canon 7, I like the frame lines and the top speed of 1/1000 but end up using the L2 more.
Thanks for your feedback! I reckon that especially when you're shooting black&white film and use a yellow or orange filter in sunlight, the 1/500 is not that much of a problem in real life. All these bodies are great shooters!
I didn't get a Canon 7 yet. The viewfinder is maybe the most versatile of them all, but somehow I fell in love too much with the VL's finish and overall design so I didn't look any further yet. Here in Europe, the Canon 7 is the easiest to find, though!
@@tomscameras I own a Canon L1, and a Canon 50 mm/f2.8 and love mine. Feels superb, quality as quality gets, the build is beautiful, and precision as anything from Germany. An extension of me.
@@KentTeffeteller Yes, the Canon V series cameras are fantastic in every regard! I also like the compact yet beautiful 50/2.8!
There isn't any space left between the components of the shutter mechanism at the base of the camera in both Leica and Canon so the tripod socket is located to one side, under the spool of the 35mm magazine where nothing much is happening.
Thanks for the explanation! However every other manufacturer was eventually able to move the socket; also the Nikon F with essentially the same shutter design managed to do it and it didn’t need a much more bulky camera base to do so. So I am still rather convinced Leica could eventually have done better as well …
@@tomscameras The Nikon F is a different animal. :) The addition of the reflex mirror to the S3 base design added extra space in the middle where the tripod nut can be installed. In the rangefinders, nothing much could be put at the base of the shutter crate. But when a mirror had to be added for the SLR viewfinder, it became possible to put more things under the mirror (in some of the Nikkormats, even a battery chamber!). It also put the tripod connection to a more balanced position in the camera.
Great video as always, Tom.
Rangefinders were a great way of being invisible while snapping around,. I borrowed a Nikon SP and a 50mm f2.0 from a friend in the 90's and was almost hooked on it. He wasn't even interested in selling it for any price!
Are you still doing the Nikkormat video? I'm holding my Nikkormat FT3 in my hands as I type 😎.
Yes! Actually I have my Nikkormat with me this weekend and hope to get the video shot pretty soon as well. It really took a back seat for some time ... I traveled to many awesome places around the world with it when I was young! So me and the Nikkormat, that's a special old love affair that will never be over! 😍
Try the Canon 7 for a more Leica M viewfinder and RF patch and non rotating single shutter dial, not as sleek as the VL but bodies are very plentiful and can be bought for 160-200 dollars US. No cold shoe on the 7 but if the 35mm is the widest RF lens you use then its no problem.
It’s a bit of a coincidence that the VL is my first Canon rangefinder. Here in Europe, they’re all a bit rare. I am sure a Canon 7 is coming my way sooner or later! 😀
@@tomscameras Canon made over a 137,000 Canon 7 cameras and no more than 5,450 Canon VL cameras were made. So the 7 is the highest production pro level RF Camera Canon made, the 2nd highest production was the Canon P at 87,000 made. The Canon 7 is easy to acquire on that 'E" auction site and low in price because of its commonality.
@@jaymichaels5187 yes the Canon 7 is made in bigger numbers than the previous models. But take into account that there are many different V series models so it doesn’t have to be a VL, an L1, VT etc. will also do. The number of those combined is around 68,000. Still only half of the 7 (and there is also an improved 7 version) but not as drastic a difference as if you only look for the VL specifically.
Most cameras for sale are located in Japan. That’s no problem of course but still a bit of a hassle especially when you have to deal with the slow German customs. Also many listings on eBay are far worse than their description suggests: „excellent +++++“ or even „mint“ … you really have to read the description and check out every bit of the photos to see what’s really going on there.
Having said all that: Yes, the Canon 7 is a great camera! I am sure I’ll get one at some point!
Hi, if you want to use an accessory viwfinder on the model 7 try to find the adaptor that was made by Canon (sells for 70 up to 200 USD). Or try to buy a Canon 7s, it has the cold shoe on top.
Great video thank you 🙌. However, I do disagree I think the M6 is just as well built as the previous M cameras. It is built like a tank. Arguably maybe even a little better than the M3.
Can you present a Canon AE-1 as well? I’m interested in one. Curious how you find it.
Many thanks for your idea! Yes, the Canon FD system still is kind of a blind spot for me, yes! I definitely should try out one of these cameras!
Canon AE-1 is overrated as is the AE 1 Program. And many suffer electronic problems. They also eat batteries about as bad as a Contarex Super Electronic. For an FD mount Canon, get an F1 or an FTb.
@@KentTeffeteller What is one man‘s legend, is the other one‘s overrated hype :) but seriously, I also prefer mechanical cameras over old electronic ones overall!
It's crazy how modern the Canon P looks. it looks like it should be a Leica M6 competitor instead of a IIIg competitor.
I also love the looks of the Canon VL :) ... but on the other hand, the Leica M3 came back in 1954, the Leica M2 in 1957. And Leica just stuck to that body design ... until even today!
would you say that the focussing is easier on the VL compared to the P?
Not really. On paper, the 1.3x setting makes focusing a bit easier than on the Canon P (1x magnification), but that's maybe nitpicking ... on the other hand, the Canon P is always 1x, also when you're shooting 50mm or 35mm lenses. What's definitely easier on the VL is to overview the entire frame when shooting a 35mm lens - but you're having a very small viewfinder image at that setting.
Tom, you're raising the prices of old Canon rangefinders, because before the crowd doesn't know about it... ;) Well, optically, the lenses aren't that comparable, but i do think the same as you - i wouldn't waste, (or "invest") nowadays 2-4K EUR into "just" a M6 body....and the OVF is even worse, than later M-A variants, for instance. Built quality isn't the best - but ppl freaking out, because it does have a built-in lightmeter. The M5 also, but i've found that design very ambitious...to say politely. ;-)
Oh I really like the M5. Yes it looks a bit weird, but it was the last Leica M strictly designed for purpose, all the later ones were more trying to freeze the design from better days instead of coming up with anything really new. Also I love the big protruding shutter dial and the analog meter readout that also displays the shutter time!
Actually the Canon 50mm seems to be a surprising good lens. It is surely better than my Olympus 50mm SLR lenses. I will try to compare all these lenses on digital if I get the opportunity! But sure the much more modern M lenses will beat them all. I still believe that there’s also the point where you should rather go medium format instead of worrying even more about lens quality - at least in analog photography.
Oh and by the way did you see the Canon VT video from Analog Insight? It was just published a week before my video! Also awesome to watch! I love their channel a lot! But if Canon rangefinder prices are going up now, it’s certainly their fault and not mine 😄😄
@@tomscameras Hi Tom, i've read all about the Canon Rangefinder Series about 12-15 years ago. I had the Canon P, but sold it long ago, because i couldn't find a decent 35mm Canon LTM for it, for the price i was willing to pay, didn't want to shell out 400-500 EUR plus customs from Japan, you'd understand. :)
I'm settled with my main 2 brands 35mm SLR setup, and with digital - i've had enough. Fujifilm, Nikon APS-C, Canon & Sony fullframe is enough.
I've never given up Film since the 80s, and since the past couple years, i'm mostly shooting Film only, seldom my Fuji's, and since years no more my Sony and Canon system...it just bores me too much.
Nope, i mean, there's a difference between a Summilux or Canon LTM, the Canon lenses are all way older designs, up the the 60's. Especially handling with flare, sunlight, because most lenses are only being single coated by that time period, and can't compete with more modern lens designs...i'm always since the beginning using a lens hood, on all my lenses. No issues.
@@marcp.1752 I'm not sure that Canon lenses from the 1950's were per sé simpler or older designs as Leica glass. In 1952 (when the Canon LTM 50/1.8 came out) there was not even a Summilux yet, the 50/2 was the Summitar and the fastest Leica lens was the Summarit 50/1.5. The Canon 50/1.8 really has a very good reputation. There were some older Canon 50mm designs already and by the time the 50/1.8 came out, they absolutely knew how to make a great 50mm lens already.
Of course, there is a huge number of more modern Leica M lens designs from the times when Canon already stopped developing LTM glass.
And yes, a lens hood always helps. I should also use one on my OM Zuiko's more often. :)
I have soon a Canon VI L 6L, which would go nicely with my ~20 year old Voigtländer Color Skopar 35/2.8 LTM, it's a relative modern optic from ca. 2000-2005, and since 35mm is my #1 focal length to shoot it all...well, about >= 80%...it's being handy, and the lens was cheap, the Canon into contrast to a Leica a bargain. Any M series Leica is out of my league, in terms of asking price. @@tomscameras
That’s a nice one! I hope it helps people with Leica gas a little bit to get rid of it. ;-)
I personally share your unofficial verdict. The Canon is the nicer looking camera, they it is by far not that expensive and if you got some nice m39 Glas, it is also a capable camera. On my phone I could not sense the differences between A and B.
And Since I have a canon 50mm 1.4 M39 lens on my bessa R at the moment, I think one of those Canons will at some point get into my hands anyway. 😁
BTW.: I do envy your output a little bit. Keep on rolling. I enjoy your videos. I myself just started this year and set a target for 1 Video per month and already failed it. 😅 but family and job come first so that’s okay for me. 😁
Thanks a lot for your comment! The Canon 50/1.4 surely is also a great lens!
Thanks also for pointing towards your own channel! You can even fix things it seems! 😀
@@tomscameras Haha! Yes, I am trying to get some old cameras back into working condition. Sometimes it works, sometimes I have to try hard (Kiev 4a) and sometimes bad things happen. (Sorry Biotar helicoid😢).
Thanks a lot for following me. I am really happy about it. 😁 now I am a bit nervous and the next video has to be even better. 😅
🖖
I enjoy your style of video. Conversational and fair. I'm looking forward to watching more. Sub'd.
Many thanks for your feedback, I appreciate it!
The leica m4 or m6 get awesome (except the loading) with very good build quality and the summicron is exquisite… but at which price :((. The canon VL or P are very good cemeras for the 10th of the price and the 50mm f1.8 or 35mm f2.8 are quite affordable lenses vey well made and which give perfect decent pictures for film. They just would need a central tripod mount. Their view finders are quite easy to use and their build quality doesn t make cheap. If you add to them a 100mm f3.5 (the f 2 is really expensive) you have a perfect combination for less than half of the price of an m4 naked… so if you want to play with rangefinders and films it’s far sufficient.
Yes, it is a pity that so many of these cameras copied the screwmount Leica's weird tripod threads! I still do love my VL a lot. I've got too many great other cameras so I don't shoot it as much as I should!
The lenses you mention are perfect - and both 35 and 100 work with the built-in finder. (Of course there is no real 100mm setting on the Canon V series but you can sort of get away using the "RF" setting). The later Canon VI-L and VI-P (and the Canon P) even have proper 100mm framelines!
That Canon VL is one good looking camera, however I prefer the ease of use of today's digital cameras.
I can't argue against that! I also love my digital Fuji a lot! 😀
@Gilbert Daroy I prefer shooting Film. LCDs onto the backside, especially on Rangefinders, do look really not quite good, from my aesthetic feeling. And chimping onto a non-color calibrated LCD on the go makes it even worse. 😀 Therefore, i always see my RAWs if digital (seldom), onto the TFT @home, never when shooting.
@@tomscameras Yes, i like my X100, X-T1, X-E1&E2
Well it's apples and oranges I love Fuji also but now and then I like the "film" experience it takes me back 50 years when I was shooting and developing film I prefer scanning and Photoshop to a enlarger because of the better way you can process a image and I don't have room for darkroom that I did back then
I have Mamiya C33 and enjoy the thought that goes with it
the Canon is LTM and not M mount bayonet...kind of puts it at a disadvantage imho. And it's also why it's much cheaper.
Yes, it's the LTM mount. I'm still very much hoping that the lens manufacturers from China see the big opportunity to sell some new LTM lenses!
@@tomscameras I am curious as to why we're not seeing that happening, considering the popularity of the Barnack cameras. I can only guess that Leica has a patent on LTM/LSM/L39 that is still current and able to stop competitors from making lenses to suit the mount. If so, this is very disappointing.
I see that you are a left eye shorter. So when you shoot horizontals you have to remove the camera from your face to wind the film, making rapid shooting problematic.
You should consider using VT or VT deluxe …
Thanks for your feedback! Actually, I try to shoot all my rangefinder cameras with the right eye ... but as you can see, old habits get in the way sometimes :)
I thought it was A for the the Leica. The Leica has more contrast and probably a little more sharpness but can't say for sure, some of those Canon lenses are pretty sharp.
I’d agree on contrast, which is maybe obvious in a way given that I was shooting a 1950s Canon lens versus a 1990s Leica lens. In sharpness, this old Canon lens is just amazing, however!
The Canon v always seems to get a good review ands it's tempting me away from my contax ii
I love the Contax II because it had a lot of features that we take for granted today already back in 1936! The downside (from a user point of view) is the lens mount that locks you into the Contax/Kiev universe.
Personally I love 35mm lenses and then Canon is also one of the very few choices that offer an integrated matching viewfinder!
Bit pointless to compare pictures like that when talking about film cameras. After all they're just boxes with holes in them. As long the timings work they wont show any difference in the camera body. You can just see the difference the lens makes.
Absolutely true! I maybe should have made that more clear, that's right. In the end it IS about the lenses. And as I say in the video, you won't get modern Leica M glass performance with any LTM camera. So maybe my comparison was more about if that makes such a big difference or if 1950's lens performance is already good enough ...
@@tomscameras I think it was a worthy comparison and thank you for it, as it highlights the shortcomings of each of the cameras as tools that hold the lens. The Leica is a quirky camera to load film, never liked the procedure. And as far as lenses go, it is very very close in the way each render the scenes. Too close for such an immense price gap, for sure. And for that, this Canon lens and camera combo is the superior one.
Not true. Different models of camera provide different operating experiences.
@@andrewelliott4436 They weren't comparing different shooting experiences. You cant see that in the image quality.
@@JanneRanta Don't understand what you mean.
Great video. Thank you. I still have my M6 but long ago sold the V & P Canons as not the equal. Nice cameras but not an m6. My M6 was made in 1984, it was the 748th M6 off the assembly line. I have owned it for over 25 years and sent it in last year for a CLA so it will be good for another 25 years, long after I am gone. The Canon cameras are very nice but they are not Leica.
Thanks a lot for your comment! I understand why a Canon is not a Leica! I'll have a comment about that in my next video (in 1-2 weeks) where I shoot the OM-1 against the M6.
But still I'd say that the Canon can compete with the Leica pretty well. And the build quality especially in the V series is also extremely good, from what I can tell my camera has never been serviced and it works amazingly well (and would be even nicer after a good CLA).
Maybe the more natural comparison to the Canon VL would be a Barnack Leica. But I wanted to pitch a LTM body against an M-mount body in this video. Because today's prices are not about the cameras itself, they're just about the mount: if you want any M-mount body today you're looking north of 1,000 Euros, even for a Voigtländer!
@@tomscamerasCheck out the leitz and minolta collaboration in the 80s with their cl and cle, best entry for leica m mount body imo
It's name is Canon Six (VI in latin numbers) not 5L!
No, the camera that I have is a V (five) L (lever advance). The VI-T or VI-L came after that and has a different, bigger viewfinder including framelines for 50mm and 100mm and it also has a different shutter speed dial.
@@tomscameras Ok; bit of confusion. The one I have is a VI-T. A part for the trigger mechanism and the viewfinder it's similar to a «P».