Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Canon Leica Screw Mount Film Rangefinders

Canon Leica Screw Mount Film Rangefinders For classic Leica Screw Mount Canon Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Just picked up a Canon 7, moved from a P
Old 12-20-2016   #1
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
Cool Just picked up a Canon 7, moved from a P

Few years back I sold my P which I absolutely loved but needed the money.

The only rangefinder I kept around for a while was a Fed 2A and three russian lens. (though I really should have kept my CVs and vintage Canon LTMs ... but money... )

So when I went to reacquire a P, it seemed like the price was still up there considering. So I decided to see how I would like the 7, seeing as it's basically a P upgrade with a meter and different style viewfinder.

This one I picked up, while it did have a dent in the back corner by the rewind (possibly dropped, especially with a little ding by the lever), which was quickly resolved by the seller with a price adjustment.

Fortunately everything else appears to work, shutter speeds, meter, timer, advance, rangefinder coupling, viewfinder frames, etc. And I just adjusted the vertical alignment ever so slightly (was mainly lined up at less than 3 feet, but vertically off elsewhere, now it's spot-on for everything a little under 3 feet up to infinity, with only a sliver off the vertical under 3 feet). Coupling seemed good when I checked against a ground glass.

I haven't had a chance to go out and about with it just yet, but I have a feeling I'm going to like it just as much as the P. The P will always have a special place in my heart, but I think the 7 will grow on me just as much.

Right now I just have :

- Fed Industar-10 50/3.5 Collapsible (gaffer tape just behind the front to keep it from going back in too far when adapted on my olympus, fits the 7 collapsed as long as I mount extended first, and keep the "FED" logo at 12'clock when collapsing)

Was super-hazy and very very low contrast when I had it for a few years, the just recently decided to go ahead and open it up (very easy, two elements thru the rear spanner, cleaned up, no haze, good sharpness, decent out of camera contrast). Seems to work best on my Fed 2A.

- Industar-61L/D 55/2.8 which doesn't have the greatest focus ring gets a tad stiff going down to 2m or closer. Originally I thought there might be some kind of growth inside the lens, so like the I10 I disassembled it thru the rear pretty easily as before, cleaned which mostly seemed like dust, re-assembled and seemed fine. (Seems to have better contrast than the I10, but not as sharp).

- Jupiter 11 135/4 My favorite telephoto even on my Olympus E-M5 (micro-4/3rd) sharp as a tack at f/4 and good contrast.

But soon I'll have a Canon Serenar 35mm f/2.8 Mk I to cover my wide angle need on the LTM (would love to get the CV Ultron 35/1.7 back, but $$$, so I'll see how the Canon 35/2.8 does, least aesthetically it'll match the 7 like a charm)

Just thinking if I continue down the path of re-acquisition if I should try to get the Canon 50/1.8 Serenar I originally had with my P, or maybe look at getting a post-1950s Summarit 50mm, or perhaps some other variant of a faster 50 (f/2 or faster).

Without further ado, some pictures I shot of the 7 with the Industar-61L/D attached (Will do the same bit different setting once I get the Serenar).











__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #2
mcfingon
Western Australia
 
mcfingon is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 720
Looks good Karl. If you want genuine and appropriate Canon lenses from the period of the 7 I can recommend the Canon 50/1.4 (1959-1971). I have one and it's an excellent lens which would suit the size and look of the 7.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #3
Jake Mongey
Registered User
 
Jake Mongey's Avatar
 
Jake Mongey is online now
Join Date: May 2016
Age: 16
Posts: 356
Welcome to the world of the canon 7. Ive been using mine for 3 years now and its reliable and fun to shoot with every time.
__________________
Should probably spend less time talking more time shooting but unfortunately I dont have to leave my desk to talk
www.jmongeyphoto.co.uk
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #4
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcfingon View Post
Looks good Karl. If you want genuine and appropriate Canon lenses from the period of the 7 I can recommend the Canon 50/1.4 (1959-1971). I have one and it's an excellent lens which would suit the size and look of the 7.
Hrm, certainly looks it. http://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/s46.html

Looks to be a tad lighter than the 50/1.8 Serenar. They replace some parts with plastic?

Seems to be averaging around 100 more than the 50/1.8 (both the Mk 1 and 2)

This one seems a little confusing, they say serenar, but it's not chrome. Looks like a Mk II... but it has 8 aperture blades. Not 9.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/EXC-Canon-Se.../132035998582?
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #5
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
 
nukecoke's Avatar
 
nukecoke is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Sweden/China
Posts: 589
I moved from a Canon 7 to a Canon L2.
I miss the projected frame-lines but the Canon 7 is a bit to large for me. Plus the meter on mine was busted.
__________________
tumblr

flickr

About Film Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #6
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by nukecoke View Post
I moved from a Canon 7 to a Canon L2.
I miss the projected frame-lines but the Canon 7 is a bit to large for me. Plus the meter on mine was busted.
I would probably go P if went backwards, but that L2 does seem like it's lighter/smaller than either.

I'm looking at 495 grams for my Fed 2A (without lens) and and 640g for the Canon 7 (without lens).

Funny enough, the Canon 7 is heavier than my Universal Mercury II (with the Tricor 35/2.7 lens, it's a 1945 half-framer that still works accurately), which weighs in at 590g. Bigger too when I put em side by side, outside of the hump on top going taller than the 7.



That reminds me. I need to get a strap onto my 7. On my P I used to use a rather 70-ish strap ( was kind of the way to go for me lol).
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #7
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
Noticed that some of the wiggling from the I61 was not cuz of the lens, the bayonet/screw mount ring on the body itself was loose. I tightened down the screws. Hopefully no more surprises on this "excellent condition" body.
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #8
mabelsound
Registered User
 
mabelsound's Avatar
 
mabelsound is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 47
Posts: 6,179
I'm using a P now, but I really did enjoy using my old 7, a black repaint that somebody had removed the meter from. Shouldn't have sold it...

Enjoy yours, it looks great!
__________________
flickr insta twitter
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #9
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
I'm using a P now, but I really did enjoy using my old 7, a black repaint that somebody had removed the meter from. Shouldn't have sold it...

Enjoy yours, it looks great!
A repaint sounds cool. The loss of a meter would kind of irk me.

Funny thing is, I think I would feel more irked at a meter removed, than just simply dead. (weird how that goes).

What are you pairing with your P currently?

And for general audience : Any suggestions on an 85/90? (like maybe the Jupiter-9 80/2?)
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #10
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
 
Fixcinater is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Portales, NM, USA
Posts: 392
The chrome 85/2 Canon can be found for a low price. They are heavy and slow to focus but good optics. The late black 85/1.8 is good but no better than the Canon FL 85/1.8 which it shares optics with.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #11
Robert Lai
Registered User
 
Robert Lai is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,309
In response to a few questions that you've asked along the way:

1) The Canon 50 1.4 is all metal and glass. There is no plastic on the lens (except the rear lens cap, the original one is similar to bakelite).

2) If the lens mounting flange is loose, even though you've tightened it down, inspect your images closely. You need to know if the image is in focus or not (film to flange distance may be affected), or if one corner or corners are sharp (flange is not square on the body, but canted).

3) The Leitz Elmar 90mm f/4 is a common, good, inexpensive 90mm lens. Due to age, some may have haze, but these aren't difficult to clean out.

Canon lenses are good, but the old chrome ones are VERY HEAVY!. I have the 85mm f/1.9. I hardly use it due to weight.

I've never had luck with a Jupiter 9. Often they are meant for a different film to flange distance than Leica LTM. They may be in focus at infinity, but then as you focus closer they get more out of focus. Some experts such as Brian Sweeney and Kim Coxon have managed to cure this by internal shims, but I'd pass on this lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #12
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
Used to have the 50/1.8 Serenar, so I know heavy.

Well... ran into a disappointing situation, but not all that unexpected.

Had a couple test color rolls (for the mercury, fed, and 7) , and it used to be I would just drop it off at Meijer like I did last year for "negatives only" and pick it up later in the day.

None of the stores locally seem develop 35mm locally anymore they don't even have the little fujitsu processors anymore. Not even most of the drug stores, just they send it out and wait a week.


As I said, unexpected, but not that surprising, and usually I only use some cheap left over C41 rolls for quick tests, before I bother with B&W.

In regard to the mounting flange, it appears level across, but I can measure each sides/corners depth off the body with my digital calipers to be sure. (the ground glass/loupe test seemed ok).

But unless there's a place locally that can develop my C41 rolls, it'll be a little while longer before I can see results.
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #13
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is online now
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,028
the P looks sleeker.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #14
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by xayraa33 View Post
the P looks sleeker.
Can't disagree with you from an aesthetic standpoint.
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #15
mcfingon
Western Australia
 
mcfingon is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb244 View Post
Hrm, certainly looks it. http://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/s46.html

Looks to be a tad lighter than the 50/1.8 Serenar. They replace some parts with plastic?

Seems to be averaging around 100 more than the 50/1.8 (both the Mk 1 and 2)

This one seems a little confusing, they say serenar, but it's not chrome. Looks like a Mk II... but it has 8 aperture blades. Not 9.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/EXC-Canon-Se.../132035998582?
It's not a Serenar, but according to the book I have (Kitchingman - Canon M39 Rangefinder Lenses) it has the same optics as the 50/1.8 Serenar did. He lists 8 versions of the 50/1.8 from 1951 to 1975. The big change was the alloy body in 1956, which the 50/1.4 also has. That's why it's lighter than the earlier Serenars.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #16
mcfingon
Western Australia
 
mcfingon is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 720
Here is my 1950 Serenar 50/1.9 on my 1951 Leica IIIf with Kitchingman's book as a background. It's a lovely lens in spite of not having as good a reputation as the 50/1.8 Serenar. My recommendation is only buy lenses that the seller specifically says have no haze or fungus. If the aperture oil sits on the glass of these lenses for a long time it can etch them and they can't be cleaned easily.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #17
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcfingon View Post
Here is my 1950 Serenar 50/1.9 on my 1951 Leica IIIf with Kitchingman's book as a background. It's a lovely lens in spite of not having as good a reputation as the 50/1.8 Serenar. My recommendation is only buy lenses that the seller specifically says have no haze or fungus. If the aperture oil sits on the glass of these lenses for a long time it can etch them and they can't be cleaned easily.
That's what I been doing to date. My feeling is, if I get something with fungus... fungus is alive... fungus can migrate.
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #18
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
By the way, side note : who in this day and age could CLA a working Canon 7 into tip-top shape?
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #19
nasmformyzombie
Registered
 
nasmformyzombie is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb244 View Post
By the way, side note : who in this day and age could CLA a working Canon 7 into tip-top shape?
Youxin Ye.
http://www.yyecamera.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #20
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by nasmformyzombie View Post
Noted. Not sure where the 7 would fall on the price list. But seems like either way it's gonna be at least twice what i paid for the 7 if I need it. (but then it'd be like new again in a manner of speaking)

http://www.yyecamera.com/price_list.html

Sent him an email to inquire on approximate pricing in case I want it to be looked over and fine-tuned.
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #21
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by nasmformyzombie View Post
I don't believe Youxin Ye works on the Canon 7 or 7s. His website suggests he only works on earlier Canons.

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:

http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #22
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mackinaw View Post
I don't believe Youxin Ye works on the Canon 7 or 7s. His website suggests he only works on earlier Canons.

Jim B.
Though the P is mentioned. Which aside from the light meter, in theory could be addressed in a similar manner to checking shutter accuracy and RF coupling.

But course I'll find out soon enough when he returns my inquiry.
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #23
mabelsound
Registered User
 
mabelsound's Avatar
 
mabelsound is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 47
Posts: 6,179
Mark Hama is the go-to canon RF guy, right? Is he still active?
__________________
flickr insta twitter
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2016   #24
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
 
nukecoke's Avatar
 
nukecoke is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Sweden/China
Posts: 589
Both my 7 and L2 came with working and accurate shutter, despite that they haven't been serviced for decades, that's what I like about those Canon RF. For shutter speed accuracy you can do the display test if you can find Andy old CRT display/TV.

The only problem those two cameras had was fungus in finder, which is quite common in unserviced cameras from Japan. I opened top plates and cleaned myself, and in the end they became fine shooters and were joy to use. 7's finder is easier to clean than the V series models. There are detailed images showing how to remove top plates on 7 somewhere on Flickr if I remember right.

For rangefinder focus accuracy test you can do the ground glass/matte-finish tape + magnifier trick.
__________________
tumblr

flickr

About Film Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-21-2016   #25
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by nukecoke View Post
For rangefinder focus accuracy test you can do the ground glass/matte-finish tape + magnifier trick.
I have a split/micro focus screen out of an old Minolta X7000 (shutter all froze up etc, I also stole it's lug rings for the 7), I did check that briefly (with gaffer tape to hold it) against the two russian lens I have that seem to coincide with the double image though the matte fresnel isn't' that easy to see depending on my angle of view with my 30X loupe.

I'm wondering though, if I get my viewing angle just right on the tripod, if the split/micro ring would function as intended to checking focus.

edit: The Serenar 35/2.8 should be here tomorrow.
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-21-2016   #26
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
Not much distance in here, but I figured I would try the close focusing check (the Industar-61L/D can focus a little closer than it's 1M mark).

I stuck the camera on a tripod, bought it up to about eye level (sitting), leveled it,
measured off exactly 100cm (from black surface to the film plane line on top of the camera).

For the first bit I focused on "4x5" on the magazine since I could clearly see the font's edges and adjusted the vertical double image.
I didn't mess with horizontal because it seems that the RF merged image coincides with the ground glass.



Then I focused on the left edge of the ruler since it was the easiest to see for horizontal merging (and flatter up against the black) roughly near the corner of the magazine.



While the focus screen and RF seem to match up, the focus scale on the lens is a little off seeing as it's supposed to be 1M.
I know I can adjust it, I just can't remember the details on how, only that it required disassembling the lens a bit just to correct the helical, but I'm not going to worry about it since the RF coupling seems to be accurate. (it'd be another matter if it was correctly at 1M, and showed focused in the RF... but then was actually out of focus).

And a comparison to a purposely out of focus screen, where it shows two rulers side by side in the rangefinder, and can see the split/micro prism at work.



My guess is when I get the 35/2.8 Serenar tomorrow, I'll get the same results, but at least the focus scale on the lens will match up with what I see.
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-21-2016   #27
mcfingon
Western Australia
 
mcfingon is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 720
If the focus scale on the Canon doesn't match up with the actual distance, and the rangefinder is wrong too, then the problem may be that there is a shim missing from inside the lens. My 50/1.9 Serenar was missing a 0.28mm (from memory) shim, presumably lost when the lens was cleaned before my ownership. I replaced it with a shim from a Jupiter-8 lens which was surprisingly exactly the right dimensions.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-21-2016   #28
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcfingon View Post
If the focus scale on the Canon doesn't match up with the actual distance, and the rangefinder is wrong too, then the problem may be that there is a shim missing from inside the lens. My 50/1.9 Serenar was missing a 0.28mm (from memory) shim, presumably lost when the lens was cleaned before my ownership. I replaced it with a shim from a Jupiter-8 lens which was surprisingly exactly the right dimensions.

Well here's to fingers crossing when I get the Serenar tomorrow.

It seems that the distance on both the I10 and I61L/D appear to be the same when focused in the rangefinder with a confirmed distance of 1 meter from the focus plane (the I10 doesn't have a 1,1m mark, but it's a little over 1m, but not yet 1,25m, the I61L/D shows as above).

Since it's two russian lens that have nearly matched scale readings, but the RF and ground glass match (which means if focused with the RF it'll be focused on the film), then I'm wondering if it's an FSU thing. Basically means when scale focusing I would be off from accurate.

It'd be easier to check if I had a 50/1.8 or 1.4 when doing the ground glass method. Down the road I guess.

Edit:

Just thought I'd try the same thing on my old 1955 Fed-2A. Though a little harder to do since there's no tripod mount when you take the back of the camera off. So I used the tripod as a guide to how fall away I should have the camera, focused on the ruler in the rangefinder (much smaller rangefinder spot to see), then louped the ground glass.

Seems the lens when RF focused , the lens shows exactly 1M as expected... but the focus on the ground glass is slightly off. Seems my FED might actually be off and when it was serviced they simply matched the RF to the lens distance (probably assumed the lens scale was already accurate), rather than checking the result off the ground glass.

Are there local places that sell strips of decent quality frosted glass that can be used as a ground glass? (probably higher quality than the fresnel rings around the minolta focus screen).

edit #2:

My 135mm framelines are off. When trying my jupiter-11 (which doesn't correctly focus compared to the rangefinder double image, ie: RF focus = ground glass not.) I noticed that the edge of the frame line in the viewfinder don't match the image I get on the ground glass. Seems like the 135mm frame is about 20% too far to the right, and 15% too far down. meaning if I put something at the top left corner of the frame line, it'll be 15% further into the picture vertically and 20% further into the picture horizontally.

I noticed the same framing issue with the I61 (55mm using 50mm frame lines) and I10 (50mm), the shift isn't as bad as the 135 frame line but noticeable that it doesn't match up to what's on the film plane.
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-22-2016   #29
presspass
filmshooter
 
presspass is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 908
Confirming Jim B's comments on Youxin Ye's work on Canon 7s. Just had an internet chat with him about this earlier this month. He will not work on 7s.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-22-2016   #30
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
To visually illustrate what I was saying in my last post :



I was curious if the seller had experienced this (Since it arrived to me selected to 135, so thought *maybe* he could have used it with a 135) I asked mainly three questions, 1) what lens was usually on the camera when he was using it, 2) if he noticed that the frame in the viewfinder was off by about 25%-ish meaning someone on the edge of the frame would be cut in half. and 3) if he knew anyone in the US that could CLA a 7.

His answer to all three was : "I'm really not sure on any of your questions. I'm sorry. "

Quote:
Originally Posted by presspass View Post
Confirming Jim B's comments on Youxin Ye's work on Canon 7s. Just had an internet chat with him about this earlier this month. He will not work on 7s.
Yep, he responded to my inquiry a little bit ago stating such.
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-22-2016   #31
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
Got the 35/2.8 Serenar today. Seems rather clean, not too heavy, kind of tiny looking (compared to what I would normally have). Only issue I saw when I got it is the geared ring right next to the focus knob was loose where it was freely rotating/unscrewing, til I tightened it back clockwise. So in theory I could do two finger focus on that ring, but if it gets stiff (like it does around 10-15 feet on the scale) it could start unscrewing instead of continuing to turn.



I also picked up a set of screwdrivers for the smaller precision heads, and decided to go ahead and adjust the rangefinders horizontal alignment to the Serenar's. (since I trust that more than I trust two russian lens that sort of wobble when turning the focus).

Final results (based on the focus screen/ground glass off back):

Canon Serenar 35/2.8 : spot on when focused in rangefinder

Industar-61L/D 55/2.8 : spot on

Industar-10 50/3.5 : off a little (requires a slight counter-clockwise turn to get it spot on, making the RF double image slightly slivered)

Jupiter-11 135/4 : nada, too much out of focus to use on the 7. Wondering if it's one of those FSU oddities where it was designed for a LTM-mount SLR or something.

After the horizontal adjustment, also went back over and re-did the vertical alignment. The Serenar isn't *perfect* in terms of what shows up on the distance scale, but it's within margin. For example focused to something exactly 3.5 feet away, it shows up on the scale as closer to 4 feet. Or something about 25 feet it shows as roughly 20 feet on the scale. But at least the focus screen check is spot on when the RF is focused.

Which the combination of horizontal and vertical alignment may have adjusted the parallax at the same time.

Cell phone shots of the frame lines versus the coverage out of the film window.





The ground glass above is tad fuzzy only because I set the ground glass into the opening rather than flush against the chrome rails (which puts it closer to the lens than the negatives would be), so it was only to check the composition versus the frame lines. Can see they're still off, but not too terribly bad.

A shot of the focus screen as I would normally have it when checking the focus, angled so that it's level against the chrome lines making it the same distance from the lens as the negatives would be. (I need to get a ground glass strip, or make something bigger).



Managed to find a store local to develop the test color rolls I shot previously, so will have those tomorrow. (mostly tested off the FED and Mercury, with two rolls of the 7... which I expect will be out of focus especially on the jupiter-11 before I realized just how off it was).

Side Note : I noticed that the Serenar when adapted to my Olympus via a LTM to Micro-4/3rd adapter (same one I use for my J-11) kills off my close focusing capabilities, the shortest distance I can focus is about 6 to 7 feet from a subject. And something that is off to infinity shows up as around 25 feet on the scale (or saying something 20 feet away is 5 feet from me).

At least
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-22-2016   #32
AlwaysOnAuto
Registered User
 
AlwaysOnAuto is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 482
You're going to like that little 35mm Canon lens. I have one like it and use it all the time on my Sony's. Great little lens.
__________________
IIIa, M3, some lenses + digital
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-22-2016   #33
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlwaysOnAuto View Post
You're going to like that little 35mm Canon lens. I have one like it and use it all the time on my Sony's. Great little lens.
On my Olympus the focusing distance is much too great of practical use unless all my subjects are further than 7 feet from me (it won't focus closer than that). Though not quite as bad as my Jupiter-11 which can't do closer than 12 feet (the lens minimum focusing distance is 2.5 meters, roughly 8ft, so not getting closer than 10~12 adapted seems normal... but going from 3.5 feet to 8 seems off-ish).

Funny thing is when I was doing some non-scientific testing of it earlier today in a car ride. Focusing on something way off in the distance (ie: something that infinity should have caught on the lens), anything past 20 feet is out of focus, seems like 20 feet is the infinity mark when adapted.

For example focusing on this trash can while waiting for them to pick up chinese food, the lens said it was 8 feet away... that would only be to the front of the hood at best.

Rather crisp though.

Attached Images
File Type: jpg _T220011_500.jpg (67.1 KB, 194 views)
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-22-2016   #34
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
... shutter clicks makes my framelines jump. Made my 50 jump a bit to the left on one of the test clicks.

edit: if I look thru the viewfinder and slowly rotate from landscape to portrait frame lines (all of them) will sort of jitter over a little, and getting over into portrait mode (right side of the camera facing down), I saw the 35mm frame line shoot up towards the left. o_O

added video :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGmnMZIx2sI

EDIT

I self repaired it. It was a prism knocked loose as shown at the end of this thread. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...d.php?t=159013

I also went ahead and fixed the shutter selection knob so that the film speed doesn't slide when trying to set it. (it was missing one of the two short screws, so I stole one of the three screws off of the A[dot]R dial).
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2017   #35
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
Still need to find someone to CLA the Canon 7. After I used the shutter-speed app (along with a photoplug addon) I'm getting about these readings (flashlight on back of the camera, photo plug sticking into the opening of the lens mount to keep it out of the light)

Set = actual

1 second = 1/1.3
1/2 = 1/2.1
1/4 = 1/3.3
1/8 = 1/6.1
1/15 = 1/17.5
1/30 = 1/26.6
1/60 = 1/47.4
1/125 = 1/92
1/250 = 1/153.9
1/500 = 1/227.6
1/1000 = 1/289.5

Assuming I'm charting it correctly (Start of the first peak, to the start of the second peak)



My other rangefinder which I was probably going to use for class if not the 7 doesn't fare well was my Fed 2A (Which I know was serviced in 2012), but it's speeds are off too :

1/25 = 1/18.9
1/50 = 1/37.1
1/100 = 1/55.5
1/250 = 1/98.5
1/500 = 1/135.5

Mercury II also tests slow/off (though wondering if it's the plug or if everything I can use is just off)

1/20 = 1/15.8
1/30 = 1/24.5
1/40 = 1/32.1
1/60 = 1/46.6
1/100 = 1/173.5
1/200 = 1/107.0
1/300 = 1/125.5
1/1000 = 1/188.1

Edit: even my Pentax MZ-6 (an electronic shutter SLR) seems off at higher speeds... perhaps I'm not getting a good reading? (has 1/109 for 1/125, 172.4 for 1/250, and 1/307.5 for 1/500, but has 1/2 for 1/2 and 1/59.1 for 1/60)
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2017   #36
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by radi(c)al_cam View Post
That's IMHO not bad at all. It's unlikely that it can be substantially improved, unless you spend quite a lot of money. I would leave it alone.

What's confusing me is with the phototransistor, and 3 other cameras, It's like I'm unlucky in that I have speed variations as far off as 3 stops. Especially on the Pentax MZ6 which is an electronically timed shutter.

Basically my top three speeds are not accurate, off by a stop at 250 and 500, and off by well 2 stops at 1/1,000th.

Was kind of hoping my Mercury II would have fared better but doesn't seem to be able to get up above 1/160th-ish even at 1/1,000th setting.

Least the Holga 120 is near spot-on for it's 1/100th ( )

I need to get some "normal" film, kind of bummed out cuz the old Tri-X bulk roll I had was already shot, whoever had it before me actually shot the whole bulk roll in some kind of bulk camera and stuck it back into the tin (as in has actual images frame by frame on it). So was testing before I started dropping any money to actually get new film (I prefer experimenting with the older stuff if it's unexposed).
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2017   #37
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
Tested each shutter speed 4x (for checking consistency versus erratic). App is only designed for up to 1/500th, though I can see the waveform clearly at speeds above. (it just won't let you save a camera profile above 1/500th)

1/1,000 = 1/193, 1/230, 1/211, 1/221

Set Speed (Average Deviation) = Actual Speed

1/500 (+4/3) = 1/191.1 (+4/3), 1/170 (+5/3), 1/180 (+4/3), 1/185 (+4/3)
1/250 (+1) = 1/135.6 (+1), 1/150 (+2/3), 1/133.6 (+1), 1/140 (+1)
1/125 (+2/3) = 1/81.6 (+2/3), 1/85.6 (+2/3), 1/88.2 (+2/3), 1/84 (+2/3)
1/60 (+1/3) = 1/46.9 (+1/3), 1/45.5 (+1/3), 1/49.9 (+1/3), 1/46.4 (+1/3)
1/30 (~) = 1/26.8 (~), 1/26.8 (~), 1/26.8 (~), 1/26.2 (+1/3)
1/15 (-1/3) = 1/17.6 (-1/3), 1/18 (-1/3), 1/17.6 (-1/3), 1/17.8 (-1/3)
1/8 (-1/3) = 1/6.2 (-1/3), 1/6.3 (-1/3), 1/6.2 (-1/3), 1/6.2 (-1/3)
1/4 (+1/3) = 1/3.4 (+1/3), 1/3.3 (+1/3), 1/3.3 (+1/3), 1/3.3 (+1/3)
1/2 (~) = 1/2.2 (~), 1/2.2 (~), 1/2.2 (~), 1/2.2 (~)
1" (-1/3) = 1/1.3 (-1/3), 1/1.3, 1/1.3, 1/1.3

Least it's consistent and I know where it's at. Guess as you said, not *that* bad when you consider all the speeds under 1/500th are within a stop of deviation, most of them within a third. Kind of sucks though I don't really have a 1/1,000th to work with, since it's essentially the same speed as 1/500th, just ever so slightly faster.

Are there different springs/mechanism of the Canon 7 for the 'fast' and 'slow' speeds? Like their target? Since those seem to be both the 1/30th and 1/2 nearly spot on.
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2017   #38
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
 
Fixcinater is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Portales, NM, USA
Posts: 392
Since you have taken the top plate off and the bottom plate is easily removed (couple of screws and the black ring around tripod mount, IIRC), you should be able to clean up any old hardened grease and replace with new lubricants at the shutter pivot/rotating points.

I wouldn't adjust the tensions on the shutter springs, just clean out well with naptha or lighter fluid and replace with very little amounts of correct grease/light oil where appropriate and see where the shutter speeds end up after cycling it through quite a few times to work the new lubricants in.

As for 1/1000th, I doubt it was ever actually that fast even when brand new. It should be faster than what yours is currently but I'd be very surprised if it was 1/900th or faster from the showroom. Just like most leaf shutters are never actually good for their fastest speed and large format photographers will relabel their shutter dials according to the actual tested speed.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2017   #39
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fixcinater View Post
Since you have taken the top plate off and the bottom plate is easily removed (couple of screws and the black ring around tripod mount, IIRC), you should be able to clean up any old hardened grease and replace with new lubricants at the shutter pivot/rotating points.
Getting it off isn't the problem, getting it back on and keeping the shutter/asa and meter configuration the same as before is where it's a PITA.

I developed the P3200 roll that was in it earlier today, aside from the old expired roll (expired in 2004, and was not refrigerated) having a darker base fog, it appears the last couple frames I shot (parking garage), which I know to be 1/30th as I just shot them the night before last, and they were based off the meter reading, appears to be spot on for the target of ISO 1600 (I developed at the usual 3200 intending to overexpose since it was an old roll).

Used HC-110 Dil. B, 68F for 10.5 minutes, brisk agitation once every minute. Gritty. But least usable, relatively speaking.

All were with the Canon 50mm f/1.8 Type 6 (Serenar optics, 8 blade aperture with a curved-inward octagon shape, newer alloy body).



Focus point on next two at the square arrangement of bricks.





Focus point was on the "V" in Devos.



Focus point was the far wall at the top of the ramp.



Focus point was the printed paper above the card swipe.



I'll either try FP4+ or some Kodak Ultratec (ISO 10, ektar base orthochromatic film) next.
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2017   #40
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
Had a 'duh' realization with the shutter speed tester.

I shouldn't be hand-holding the phone/photoplug while testing the speed. Since much like camera shake, the 'eye' of the sensor moving away from a static position relative to the exposure could alter the reading to be longer/shorter.

So I set the camera, light, and phone on a level surface, and tested each speed 4x for consistency.

If I had to guess, (I don't know my stops that well beyond full/half) I would say the speeds given for 1/1,000 are roughly +2/3 a stop brighter, but course the photoplug isn't designed to test over 1/500th (probably because of the width of it). But just from the look of it everything seems to be within 1/3-stop or less to their target speed when keeping everything still in testing. And as Fixcinater mentioned, it probably wasn't that fast to begin with brand new at 1/1,000th.

1/1000* (~2/3?) = 1/609.5, 1/599.5, 1/617.6, 1/632.5
1/500 (1/3~1/2) = 1/382.8, 1/380.2, 1/381.2, 1/381.5
1/250 = 1/235.9, 1/231.6, 1/231.7, 1/230.5
1/125 = 1/112, 1/111.7, 1/112.3, 1/111.7
1/60 = 1/54.8, 1/54.5, 1/54.5, 1/54.6
1/30 = 1/28.6, 1/29.0, 1/28.9, 1/28.9
1/15 (-1/3) = 1/18.5, 1/18.7, 1/18.7, 1/18.7
1/8 (1/3) = 1/6, 1/6.3, 1/6.5, 1/6.3
1/4 (1/3) = 1/3.4, 1/3.4, 1/3.4, 1/3.4
1/2 = 1/2.2, 1/2.2, 1/2.2, 1/2.2
1" (-1/3) = 1/1.3, 1/1.3, 1/1.3, 1/1.3

* The photoplug is not designed to read above 1/500th.

Just deciding if I want to go HP5+ or FP4+ in it.
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:58.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.