Which RF Canon to collect?

[pdek]

If there were just one Canon rangefinder camera that you could add to your collection, which might you want it to it be? Here are some suggestions, in no particular order:
1. Hansa
2. IIB US Army Signal Corps
3. Kwanon
4. 7S2
5. IIAF
6. IIAX
Let me know what you think. After a while, I'll let you know what I think.
Peter

[radiocemetery]

Peter,
I would probably select the IIB US Army Signal Corps camera. Two reasons: see my online name "radiocemetery", one of my hobbies is restoring vacuum tube audio amps and radios, reason two is that my father in law was in the Signal Corps. So that camera appeals to me on a number of levels. Have you got one for sale?
Steve

[harry01562]

If I had the funds, I'd want to add a Hansa to my collection. Actually, any of the pre-1945 cameras would be welcome, but they are all beyond my means.

I'm fortunate to own 2 SII's (first to carry the Canon name) and a 7sZ (last of the genre), so I do cover a fair amount of Canon history. I also have the 4 models of the 'Flex and most models of the FL/FD's, stopping at the T90.

I've enjoyed the cameras more after finding your excellent books and articles. It was very generous of you to provide the links to your OOP articles and the SLR book, which is impossible to find.

Harry

[wlewisiii]

Just 1? Probably a 7sZ then. Collectable & usable as I don't own shelf only cameras A Skinner IV-1950 would be fun, though

William

[bobkonos]

I would like a black paint L1. And the instruction book that goes with it. And rarer than those, the box it came in.

[xayraa33]

I would go for a clean IID2 to use, not to collect.
my IIFs are getting hard to focus with their squinty finders, as my eye sight is degrading with age.

[CameraQuest]

from a historical standpoint, I would love to have a Hansa or Kwanon, but unless one bites me at a bargain basement price, I am just not going to spend that kind of money on one.

I like the 7sZ aka 7sII because it is the most advanced of the line, and I do own one. I don't like the almost functionally alike 7 because it just looks ugly to me, and it has no accessory shoe. I don't like the P because I find its finder sub par -- but everything else is nice.

I don't find the bottom load CRF's interesting as a group because I don't personally consider them that much different than Leica knob winds.

On the last hand, I like all the bullet proof and innovative V/VI series. To me, they are the best of CRF designs.

Stephen

[Xmas]

Stephen

Why did Canon sell so many P's then?

Noel

[rover]

I have mine (well both)

The P and L1 immediately appealed to me and I have found both. I think both are wonderful looking cameras and both offer the simple excellent quality of their eras.

[xayraa33]

I would say Noel, that price, functionality, ease of use, and beautiful lines and the fact that Canon really advertised the Canon P alot.
the P with a 50/2.8 Canon lens was going for $199.00 in 1959/60.
this was on the eve of the begining of the SLR onslaught.

[Xmas]

Xay

I use my P, the finder does not trouble me, I've not forgotten which frame is which, yet, even with glasses. A VI is nicer for a 5cm or 85mm, but if you are a 35mm lens person there is no contest. That is before you consider the origional price.

Noel

[acolla]

I vote for the IIb Signal Corps. I own a IIb and love it.

[wlewisiii]

Hello Peter,

Just wondering when you'll give us your answers to this, the user camera question & the lens question. I'm curious about your feelings, especially as I've gotten a bad case of GAS for a P

William

**********

REPLY - As soon as I can; just giving it time to percolate while I've been paying attention to another task! Thanks, Peter

[pdek]

Okay, I said I'd give an answer, so here it is, "sort of" anyway.
So far as I know, there is still only one confirmed IIAF in any collection. I know of only 2 Kwanons and two IIB US Army Signal Corps. I don't believe there ever was a IIAX: Mr. Miyazaki's book shows one, but if you examine the picture closely you'll find it's the same camera that he used to illustrate the IIAF, and in fact it would have been easy to make the camera up for illustrative purposes from spare parts, since he was working for Canon when he started on his book. The Hansa and the 7sZ (7s2) may once have existed in about equal numbers, but more of the 7sZ have survived; both are plentiful compared to the others.
I already own one of the two IIB US Army SC bodies (and 2 matching lenses), so I don't need to add it to my collection.
One Kwanon is owned by Canon, the other is the one auctioned by Skinner in Boston last year, bought and owned by a European collector unless he has sold it elsewhere. That's the one I'd lust after, but when you add on the buyer's commission and the Value Added Tax that he had to pay on his winning bid, he must have about $175,000 invested, which rules me out.
I did own the apparently unique IIAF, but it went when my collection went. If I could find it and get it back for a decent price, I would -- but that'll never happen.
So my answer would have to be the Kwanon. But I can't afford it!
That's life!
Peter

Original Question:

Originally Posted by pdek

If there were just one Canon rangefinder camera that you could add to your collection, which might you want it to it be? Here are some suggestions, in no particular order:
1. Hansa
2. IIB US Army Signal Corps
3. Kwanon
4. 7S2
5. IIAF
6. IIAX
Let me know what you think. After a while, I'll let you know what I think.
Peter

[brobbins]

Hi Peter,

Is there any list of black paint Canon rangefinder camera serial numbers like there is for Leica rangefinders? If not, do you have any suggestions for distinguishing between original black paint Canons and aftermarket black paint Canons? If there is not a list, do you have any thought as to the relative rarity of the various original black paint Canon rangefinder cameras?

Also, I have seen a number of black paint Canon cameras that appear to have nickel or chrome beneath the black paint (this can be seen on worn spots). Did Canon ever paint on anything besides brass?

Thanks,
Brett

[pdek]

Originally Posted by brobbins

Hi Peter,

Is there any list of black paint Canon rangefinder camera serial numbers like there is for Leica rangefinders? If not, do you have any suggestions for distinguishing between original black paint Canons and aftermarket black paint Canons? If there is not a list, do you have any thought as to the relative rarity of the various original black paint Canon rangefinder cameras?

Also, I have seen a number of black paint Canon cameras that appear to have nickel or chrome beneath the black paint (this can be seen on worn spots). Did Canon ever paint on anything besides brass?

Thanks,
Brett

*****

I know of no list of black Canon RF camera serial numbers. In my experience, Canon only applied black paint to the bare metal bodies; if there's chrome under the paint, you can be quite sure that someone else did the painting.
Except that the rarest black cameras are the two IVSBs. These were specially painted black by Canon after they were made, and probably do have chrome underneath. They were never a cataloged item, but made for Canon's own purposes so far as I can tell; one was still in the Canon Japan office display when I last visited it some years ago.
Other than that, I cannot say with any assurance which later models in black are scarcer than others. I've never kept track of their serials, having been more interested in the growth and development of the mechanisms themselves than I was in cosmetic details.
But some of the black cameras do look attractive!
Thanks, Peter D

[Sonnar2]

Hi Peter,

The Kwanon D of course...., BUT:

I found it very strange that this "Kwanon-D" auctioned last year was sold without written expertise about its authenticity and/or reliable history, although they wrote in the description that they have send picture of it to you for evaluation. Just that. Have you ever hold it in your hands?
So either they did a very poor marketing job at Skinner's in Boston or are just stupids - or the camera just isn't authentic.
Maybe it could have been sold for 300,000 USD or more.
For me, CANON didn't bid on the camera because of this.
From outline the camera looks similar to a HANSA but there was at least one picture published from the inside, which looks really different. Plus, a front driven gear train which is questionable for a camera with a non Contax-type shutter.
If it would be my money, I would have preferred to have some questions asked before spending 138,000 (or triple this amount) just for the fact that the camera in question looks like a picture of a Kwanon-D published in your book (which, of course, is simply "the book" about Canon rangefinders)

On the other hand, if it is authentic, we won't see something like this any more in our lifetime...

- Frank -

[harry01562]

I can tell you that Skinner's people are far from stupid, but they are not camera people. They sell estates and all kinds of antiques, concentrating on heavier weight items, pricewise. They've been in business for many years, and have an excellent reputation. The actual price paid for the camera, with fees, was something over $170,000, as I recall. I was also curious that apparently Canon wasn't represented in the sale. They could have been there represented by an agent, however. I would have been at the sale, but I was OOT. I'm certainly not capable of bidding, but I was curious to see the camera itself.

I hope Peter D. does have some comments. The provenance of the camera is interesting, and it seems to be considered authentic. So much of that history has been lost, due to the conflict, and the passage of years. The Kwanon seems to be almost forgotten, and the earliest model we see is the Hansa.

The whole saga of the finding of the camera, the limited background, and the sale might have the makings of at least a good article, if not a short book. If I had respectable journalistic credentials, I might even try following it up.. A bit late to start that.


Harry

[Mackinaw]

Not to answer for Peter D., but here's a quote he made from another post on the subject dating back to July. I'm sure Peter will chime in with more later:

"Meanwhile, just for kicks, you can count it as fact that the "Kwanon" (not so marked) that was auctioned by Skinner in Boston recently is absolutely authentic. It was the second prototype, incorporated a few parts borrowed from a Leica, and was only partly functional, but it is absolutely and beyond question real. The European who bought it was later dismayed by the number of folk who have attacked it as a fake without knowing any better, and I've tried to reassure him, but have not recently heard from him and can only assume that I succeeded. OK?"

[Sonnar2]

For curiousity, I asked Skinners in the very beginning of the auction whether the Kwanon-D has a written expertise. At this stage, it was very clear for me that the final price would be in the range of at least 100,000 USD. I expected that it would be much higher, maybe 300,000. When you collect paintings, you expect an expertise for each painting for more than, say 2,000 USD. As you all know, cameras, i.e. Leica screw mount types are as easy to fake as paintings, or even easier.

I received a very short answer: No expertise at all, but they have shown the pictures to Peter Dechert and he has valuated its real from the pictures.

BTW, I recently got the auction catalogue of a Vienna auction house and they announced a "Skinner" Canon, starting price 3,000, expected price 5,000 -6,000. They write: "Also included: documentation relating to this camera including rare literature and the original letter of authenticity from Dr. Peter Dechert". Fine that!

This is why I said Skinners marketing behavior in case of the Kwanon-D could be called stupid. It could be called something else as well if the camera ever turns out to be not legit. My suggestion: If it will ever come to the light of public, it may be authentic. If not, it was probably a fake, excellently made to fit 100% to a picture published in Peter's book...

This said, I'm still hoping the camera is real, for sake of CANON... otherwise I wouldn't have shown the picture on my private virtual museum...

[LeicaTom]

Why was`nt the IIF2 mentioned..... not rare enough?

I have (2) of them and they are somewhat uncommon and I have one of them employed as my weekly shooter

I really enjoy using the chrome f1.5 and f1.8 50mm`s on it, lovely FUN little camera

Tom

[harry01562]

Originally Posted by LeicaTom

Why was`nt the IIF2 mentioned..... not rare enough?

Tom

I think that's exactly the reason, Tom. My choice was for a Hansa, because I can't afford, or justify one. I could manage a IIF2, if I really "needed" one. I don't lack for shooters, and frequently my Leica's are carrying Canon glass!!! And they seem contented.

Harry

[pdek]

Originally Posted by LeicaTom

Why was`nt the IIF2 mentioned..... not rare enough?
I have (2) of them and they are somewhat uncommon and I have one of them employed as my weekly shooter
I really enjoy using the chrome f1.5 and f1.8 50mm`s on it, lovely FUN little camera
Tom

***
The IIF2 is a fine camera if you don't need 1/1000 or strobe synch. I believe I've already said somewhere else that any of the -2 models is great, just depending on what your particular needs are. The IVSB2 can satisfy everyone's needs, which would be my only reason for ranking it above the IIF2.
Carry on! Peter D

[pdek]

Originally Posted by Sonnar2

For curiousity, I asked Skinners in the very beginning of the auction whether the Kwanon-D has a written expertise. At this stage, it was very clear for me that the final price would be in the range of at least 100,000 USD. I expected that it would be much higher, maybe 300,000. When you collect paintings, you expect an expertise for each painting for more than, say 2,000 USD. As you all know, cameras, i.e. Leica screw mount types are as easy to fake as paintings, or even easier.
I received a very short answer: No expertise at all, but they have shown the pictures to Peter Dechert and he has valuated its real from the pictures.
BTW, I recently got the auction catalogue of a Vienna auction house and they announced a "Skinner" Canon, starting price 3,000, expected price 5,000 -6,000. They write: "Also included: documentation relating to this camera including rare literature and the original letter of authenticity from Dr. Peter Dechert". Fine that!
This is why I said Skinners marketing behavior in case of the Kwanon-D could be called stupid. It could be called something else as well if the camera ever turns out to be not legit. My suggestion: If it will ever come to the light of public, it may be authentic. If not, it was probably a fake, excellently made to fit 100% to a picture published in Peter's book...
This said, I'm still hoping the camera is real, for sake of CANON... otherwise I wouldn't have shown the picture on my private virtual museum...

***
I not only examined the 15 or so pix that the Skinner folk sent me, but I also saw more than 60 additional photos made by an expert in whose whose judgment and knowledge I have entire faith. In all these photos, which showed the insides as well as outsides of the Kwanon, it is very clear that it is an early prototype (probably, as marked, the second such) of the line. It was never fully operational (the film counter, for example, is simply fastened to the front of the body: there was no internal mechanism to make it work), but this Kwanon was capable of making photos. (The counter and wind knob, by the way, seem to have been "borrowed" from a Leica.)
All told, I have talked with two people whose backgrounds are full of expertise and who have handled the Kwanon and examined it closely: both agree that it's old, and in no way a fake made later, say in the late 1940s or early 1950s. At that time, indeed, no one knew or cared anything about old Canon cameras, and there was absolutely no incentive to make fake ones! And the verbal history of the camera states that it was acquired by its second-to-last owner in California in the early 1950s; if true (and there's no written documentation) this rules out a recent fake, such as might have been made after my book came out in 1985.
Finally, the Kwanon shows many signs of actual use as a picture-maker, presumably during testing but also perhaps in the hands of someone who had acquired it after Goro Yoshida was fired in 1934: Yoshida may have taken this camera with him, and it could have been, in fact, the Hansa-like Kwanon that was advertised for sale in Tokyo in 1938 or 39.
Anyway, it's the real thing, and I believe there's adequate proof!
Peter D

[pdek]

Originally Posted by Sonnar2

Hi Peter,
Maybe it could have been sold for 300,000 USD or more.
For me, CANON didn't bid on the camera because of this.
From outline the camera looks similar to a HANSA but there was at least one picture published from the inside, which looks really different. Plus, a front driven gear train which is questionable for a camera with a non Contax-type shutter.
On the other hand, if it is authentic, we won't see something like this any more in our lifetime...
- Frank -

***
Canon didn't bid because their president forbade them to do so, citing as his reason the fact that there are no "Canon" or "Kwanon" engravings on the Kwanon. At least, this is what I've been told. They made a huge mistake, but that's their problem.
The front-driven gear train is there to accomodate the front-mounted wind knob. Obviously it was cumbersome and didn't work very well, having to go through too many directional changes with the necessary gearing, but it was once workable on this and other prototypes. One can understand, however, why it was dropped before the Hansa-types were built!
Peter D