Nikon S2 vs Canon P viewfinder/rangefinder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xmas

a Canon p is cheaper to buy and maintain than a bessa

---

I will rephrase that a Canon P body is cheaper....

The Canon LTM lenses are/have acquiring(ed) cult status (>>$/£) and for a practical shooter you instead need a cosina/voightlander LTM lens, buy a kit sell the Canon lens on ebay.

Last Canon 7 with Canon f/1.5 5cm in brick shop was £350 (mint, working and accurate meter)

Since 2007 Canon 35mm f/2 have more then doubled in brick camera shops... Ex +++ 450 £, none of mine cost 200.

Not often I make investments.

Noel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xmas

a canon p is cheaper to buy and maintain than a bessa

---

And a Leica may be cheaper yet over several decades of use. The film run through my M4 cost much more than the camera body.

The framelines of the P's viewfinder are reflected, not projected like on the M-series Leica and the Canon 7/7s. Because of this, some viewfinders of the P have aged well, some haven't. Always look at through the viewfinder of a Canon P before buying.

That being said, the P has almost a cult-like following. A simple but very high-quality 35mm rangefinder camera. The Canon 50/1.4 is a superb lens too. It's relegated my collapsible 50/2.0 Summicron to my closet.

Jim B.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mackinaw

some viewfinders of the P have aged well, some haven't. Always look at through the viewfinder of a Canon P before buying.

Jim B.

---

Any rangefinder that you intend to use in poor light needs to have an intact finder, try before you buy, Leica Ms and IIIC are the most frequently damaged by poor storage over time, Kiev, Contax II, Canons are the most tolerant, note YMMV.

But try before you buy, (similarly some SLRs have damaged penta prism optics).

CRR at Luton will refurb a Leica M finder to be better than new, Ive looked through one, but expensive unless you get the camera for free.

http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Leica/page10.html


Noel

Hi there.

Finder of the Canon P is commonly brighter, less dimm than the Nikon S2 finders and the RF patch better to see.
Plus you got the 35mm framelines.
The Canon P is heavier and seems to be more sturdy than the S2.
M39 lenses are more common and less expensive in same quality than Nikon S mount.
A working Canon P with an attached meter isn't to beat as classic user RF camera. You want a TTL meter, take the modern follower, Bessa R (but take the black ones, they keep better when the color comes off in heavy use)

Hi

The Canon P is closer to the Nikon S3 or SP or F2.

It has a metal shutter like a late SP, but you are unlikely to burn a fabric shutter unless you are careless, hands up...
A non rotating speed dial like a S3, more critical limitation unless you have good finger control.
Fast loading like a Nikon F2 (SLR), some people need this...

Noel

Both of these cameras would be old enough that the individual copies you may be looking at are going to determine which has a better viewfinder. I like the simplicity of the P and its "modern" features like a single shutter speed dial.

The M-3 was a major leap forward in modern camera features. It basically convinced the Japanese makers, Nikon more than Canon at first, to build SLRs to compete. The M series Leicas had enough patent protection that other rangefinder manufacturers just couldn't compete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrosenlof

Both of these cameras would be old enough that the individual copies you may be looking at are going to determine which has a better viewfinder.

---

Some are going to need strip and optics cleaned internally as they can mist from lube outgassing, Some are going to need 'resilvering' as thesplitter and front surface mirrors may be damaged from atmospheric contaminants.

You need to pay for either....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrosenlof

The M-3 was a major leap forward in modern camera features. It basically convinced the Japanese makers, Nikon more than Canon at first, to build SLRs to compete. The M series Leicas had enough patent protection that other rangefinder manufacturers just couldn't compete.

---

Canon made near Barnack copies until the Canon VI and P the 'near' copies did not sell in volume, Canon was a 'cottage industry'. The Canon P sold in volume 100k from 59 to 61, a P was a lot cheaper then a M2, cause Canon built it for production assembly, Leica remained a cottage manufacturer note the up market 'pro' VI did not sell as well as the P. Canon saw a market and went to simple popular cameras as well as 'prosumer' models, they became a giant supplier.
The Nikon S3 and SP models were pro cameras and competed with M3 and M2, Leica were not able to make a popular SLR system to compete the Nikon F and follow on F2,... Leica were also not able to compete with Canon SLRs. Zeiss did not do so well either.
Leica did not go to production assembly until the M4-2... they were lucky to survive.

Noel

Most of the viewfinders of of 35mm range-finder cameras that era were crap by modern standards.

If their respective conditions are reasonable, they are both good and very usable cameras. The P has a decent finder with more frame lines, but in my view the finder is not quite as "ergonomic" as on the S2. The S2 has only 50mm framing (requiring external finders with non-50mm lenses), but the S2 finder has more eye relief and is just very eye friendly. If one is changing lenses frequently, the P might be a better choice. The P is also a less expensive camera and probably a little newer than the S2. Nikon rangefinder mount lenses are fairly plentiful, but not quite as easy to find in all focal lengths as LTM lenses, although some of the Nikon fit lenses are a compelling reason in themselves to support a Nilkon RF mount body purchase!