| Canon RF For classic Leica Screw Mount Canon Rangefinders. |
 |
Will Canon 7's Mount Fit Canon P? |
 |
01-09-2005
|
#1
|
|
Just learning to focus
jyl is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 118
|
Will Canon 7's Mount Fit Canon P?
As the subject says . . . the mount screws look like the same number and location, would it work?
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=541'>My Gallery</a>
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2005
|
#2
|
|
Registered User
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Great White North
Age: 56
Posts: 17,159
|
Yes it will John. I'm surprised that Joe hasn't responded as he has both cameras. They are both Leica thread mount. (LTM)
__________________
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” – quote
I myself am made entirely of faults, stitched together with good intentions. -quote
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2005
|
#3
|
|
ɹoʇɐɹǝpoɯ moderator
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: canada
Age: 62
Posts: 34,691
|
frank, i think john is talking about the actual mount. taking the mount off one camera and putting it on the other.
not about that they are both screw mounts.
this is more in brian's territory as i'm not very technical at all.
joe
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2005
|
#4
|
|
Registered User
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,160
|
Yes, I saw this post and just checked my Canon 7 against my L1, very similar to the Canon P.
I think this will work. The breech mount is offset from the body; the screw holes are in the same position, and the bodies themselves look the same. I have even seen a Canon 7 breech mount on a Russian Leica copy, see Cameraquest.com for that one!
I had the mount off of (now) Joe's Canon 7; it uses a shim underneath the mount for the proper lens-to-film spacing. I bet it is the same as the Canon P.
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2005
|
#5
|
|
void
taffer is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: BCN
Age: 36
Posts: 3,460
|
However if you're planning on swapping it for using the 0.95 lens, I've read that the massive barrel will cover a big section of the 50 finder area on the P...
Now another mad idea I had some time ago was to take advantadge of the extra thickness of the Canon 7 lens mount and 'swap' it for a M mount one, giving access to all the screw and m mount lenses on a Canon RF...
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2005
|
#6
|
|
Registered User
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Great White North
Age: 56
Posts: 17,159
|
Oops, sorry!
__________________
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” – quote
I myself am made entirely of faults, stitched together with good intentions. -quote
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2005
|
#7
|
|
Just learning to focus
jyl is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 118
|
Yes, I was actually musing about the 0.95 - but it looks like it might cover the rangefinder window in addition to obstructing the viewfinder window.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=541'>My Gallery</a>
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2005
|
#8
|
|
Registered User
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,160
|
I just held the 50mm f0.95 up to the L1; it covers the RF window so you are out of luck.
However: unless you have a completely dead/beyond repair Canon 7 with a donor mount, why not just get a Canon 7? They are cheap compared to the price of the 50mm F0.95 lens and have light baffles built in to match the F0.95. I had my jammed Canon 7 repaired at Essex and fixed the one Joe has now using a repair manual downloaded free from the web.
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2005
|
#9
|
|
Just learning to focus
jyl is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 118
|
Makes sense, Brian. I am just feeling guilty about having too many cameras. More bodies than lenses suggests my priorities are twisted.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=541'>My Gallery</a>
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2005
|
#10
|
|
Registered User
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Great White North
Age: 56
Posts: 17,159
|
"More bodies than lenses suggests my priorities are twisted."
Are you sure you're posting to the right forum?
__________________
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” – quote
I myself am made entirely of faults, stitched together with good intentions. -quote
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2005
|
#11
|
|
Registered User
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Great White North
Age: 56
Posts: 17,159
|
Oops! I thought you said too many bodies AND lenses!
__________________
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” – quote
I myself am made entirely of faults, stitched together with good intentions. -quote
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2005
|
#12
|
|
Just learning to focus
jyl is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 118
|
Consider - I currently have two cameras that I've never processed film from, two cameras that I haven't shot with in 3+ years, two or three cameras that I can't even locate, two cameras that are broken . . . and I'm researching the next camera purchase as we speak. I mean, if I were a collector this would be normal, but I'm not. My cameras aren't rare, some of them are not even in particularly good shape ("heavy users"), none are particularly valuable. It is kind of embarassing.
My New year's resolution: I'm going to stop buying cameras (as soon as I get that Nikon F4) and buy only lenses, for at least the first quarter of the year.
Yeah, it's a wimpy resolution, but I don't want to overdo it. After all, I'm not in training.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=541'>My Gallery</a>
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2005
|
#13
|
|
ɹoʇɐɹǝpoɯ moderator
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: canada
Age: 62
Posts: 34,691
|
i'll p.m. my address, send any body you like! 
joe |
|
|
|
|
01-10-2005
|
#14
|
|
Registered User
Sonnar is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 47
|
Hi John, hope you never need to buy a camera to get (or even shot with) a desired lens ;-)
sometimes it's cheaper to buy a camera with it...
Re: Canon-7 mount at P: yes indeed the 0.95/50 will shadow the rangefinder window. Plus exchanging RF mounts needs measuring the film distance before and after the invasion.
regards, Frank
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=713'>My Gallery</a>
Last edited by Sonnar : 01-10-2005 at 01:09.
|
|
|
|
|
01-10-2005
|
#15
|
|
Registered User
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,160
|
> Plus exchanging RF mounts needs measuring the film distance before and after the invasion.
Yes, when I changed the shims on my Nikon S2 to use it with the 50mm f1.5 Sonnar I set it up on an optics bench. Doesn't everyone have an optics bench in their computer lab? I used a 15x loupe to focus a target at a measured distance. I changed the shims until the image was in focus with the lens set at the proper distance. The last step was to calibrate the rangefinder to agree with the pre-set/measured distance. With the 50mm F0.95, you have to be very accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
01-10-2005
|
#16
|
|
Registered User
Sonnar is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 47
|
Quote:
|
>With the 50mm F0.95, you have to be very accurate.
|
..forsooth! I bet most arguing about missing sharpness of a 0.95/50 comes from bad calibration and/or eyesight. I have no plaints! |
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 19:49. |
|
|
