Houston, we have a problem.
I admit it. This camera buying really needs to stop. Sure, I can rationalize it – I bought this camera for a specific purpose, I’ve wanted one for a long time, I’ve already got lenses to fit it – but it’s really got to stop. How many cameras can one actually use? Your Humble Filmosaur is not a collector. If it’s not being used, what’s the point?
With that out of the way, please welcome my new Canon P. And I do mean new; for a camera that’s 50 years old, it’s as close to new as one could reasonably expect. Even the coated steel shutter curtains, which are always wrinkled on these, are nice and smooth. This thing must have lived in someone’s closet since the Johnson administration or something. Not that I’m complaining, mind you.
So why did I buy this camera when I have a bunch of other perfectly functional rangefinders? Well, the logic goes that it will be more reliable and more capable than my FED-2 (sort of a dubious premise) and that, with the lenses I already have plus a longer lens of some sort, I could have a very flexible system to take on vacation this summer (slightly less dubious, but still sketchy). That’s all well and good, but really, if I’m honest, I didn’t need it. I wanted it, and I’m a weak, weak man.
But now that I have it, here’s the good bits. It’s really solidly built; the FED-2 is as well, but the Canon has a more precise feel to it (though not quite to Rollei 35 standards). It’s got a big 1:1 finder, which means you can keep both eyes open when shooting, a huge benefit for street shooting or subjects in motion. With frame lines for 35, 50, and 100mm lenses, accessory finders are only necessary above or below those focal lengths. Overall, it just feels and looks like a properly serious camera.
Canon’s first few post-war decades were spent producing Leica-derived screwmount rangefinders. The P (short for Populaire, which in the plural sounds like the name of a band that had their one and only hit on the charts for two weeks in June 1961) was part of the sixth generation of those; by 1959 when it was introduced the design had evolved quite a ways from the original pre-war Barnack on which it was based. Aside from the screwmount, it was arguably fairly close to contemporary Leicas (though most would say the Canons still were not their equal). It is also considered among the last of the truly well-crafted Canon rangefinders; the 7 that followed it and marked the end of the line (SLRs were rapidly taking over) was bit less bomb-proof than the earlier models had been.
Observant readers may have noticed that the camera as pictured is wearing a Soviet Jupiter-8 rather than a Canon lens. This is, in fact, the same lens I bought originally for my FED-2. Part of the reason for getting this camera was to build a single system that I could pack and use in a wide variety of situations; along with the 35mm Jupiter-12 shown below, I will add a short telephoto (90 or 100mm) and a longer 135mm. I don’t really feel any compulsion to get a lens wider than the J-12, and rangefinder lenses don’t really go beyond 135mm, as longer lenses are too difficult to focus accurately.
So what’s the big advantage to the P over my FED, or any of my other cameras for that matter? Well, it’s a bit hazy, if I’m honest. The only truly concrete thing I can point to is that it offers a top speed of 1/1000, something only my Pentax SFX SLR can match (and better, actually, but it is also much larger and newer), and a full range of slow speeds as well (the FED-2 only offers five choices of speed, from 1/30 to 1/500). My Rollei 35 is smaller and has slow speeds, but is of course scale focus and, being a fixed-lens camera, is limited to the 40mm Tessar with its relatively slow f/3.5 maximum aperture. The Canonet QL19 has a similar range of shutter speeds as the Rollei, and the fixed 45mm lens is almost two stops faster, but it is almost the same size as the P.
If you look at it objectively, I just bought a not-inexpensive camera solely for the ability to shoot a rangefinder at 1/1000, which frankly would be pretty stupid. Your Humble Filmosaur is not above doing quite stupid things, but in this particular case, I think the appeal is more than what the numbers indicate. With only the 35 and 50mm lenses it doesn’t really offer much over the fixed lens cameras; throw in an additional longer lens or two and the whole thing starts to make more sense. The built-in frame lines for 35, 50, and 100 (close enough to 90 for government work) in the 1:1 viewfinder should not be undervalued – that arrangement is very handy when it comes to building an integrated system of body and lenses. Then there’s the question of which direction one goes with longer lenses – the Soviet lenses seem to work pretty well on Leica-standard cameras in wide and normal focal lengths, but once you get into telephotos the discrepancies become more pronounced. This means I would either have to buy Soviet lenses and commit to the FED-2 as the basis of my system, or go with Leica-standard lenses and build on something that matches that.
It’s all rather complicated. All I can say right now is that I have the camera and I like it.
–
Filmosaur 
Nice! just bought one myself after selling my Oly 35SP, and because I have 2 Jupiter 8’s from defunct Zorki 4’s, and I had a moment of weakness…..!
I’ll never afford a Leica, and frankly, wouldn’t feel comfortable with an expensive camera, not that the Canon is cheap,it’s just not as Poplaire(!) but from what I’ve heard, is just as well made.
Also,I have a fetish for rangefinders, and wanted a quality body which would replace the cheap Russian ones which have proved unreliable.
I toyed with the idea of a Contax, but having a Kiev 4 already, it would defeat the purpose, and be twice as expensive.
What swayed it, was that my surname is the same, and it looked like a damn fine camera!
A question though, the Jupiter 12 you have, does it fit? I thought only the black versions worked?
I used the J-8 as my standard lens on the P until I bought my Canon 50/1.5. The aluminum Jupiter is nice in that it is considerably lighter than the all-brass Canon, which makes a difference if you’re humping the camera around all day. My J-12 is a bare metal finish model and it fit the P fine – just lock the shutter open on B and watch from the back as you screw it in for the first time. You may find the rear element rubbing the light shield, but that is easily solved by gently bending the shield out of the way; you don’t need much clearance, and the shield is just thin sheet metal and easily bent.
we can go far for reliability… 🙂
I’m without a rangefinder now that I sold both my daft Kiev 4am and the sleek Konica Auto S3 with weird shutter priority.
Should I just go back to where I started with rangefinders? (Yashica one lens rangefinders… battery dependent though) Or should I hop on the L39 boat? The P is a high contender. A small Leica CL would be nice (a M2 or M5 even nicer but now we’re getting out of hand -and wallet!)
How do you like your P so far?
I’m really happy with the P, so happy in fact that I bought a very similar Canon L1 so that I could have two LTM rangefinders that I could carry together, either to shoot different focal lengths or color/b&w. I’m heavily invested in the LTM system, with 21/35/50/90/135 lenses available; it’s my primary 35mm setup.
That said, I’ve used some other RFs along the way, so I’ll make a couple of further comments. I started out in RFs with a FED-2; I still have and use it, and I still think it’s a good camera. The VF isn’t great, but throw an external unit on there (you need one for anything except 50mm anyway) and you’ve got a great street setup. I had and sold a Yashica Electro 35 GSN – spectacular lens, but a big body and aperture priority only. In fact, the only fixed lens RF I’ve been satisfied with is my Olympus 35SP. It has a brilliant lens, manual operation if you want it, battery powering the meter only, and nice ergonomics (plus of course spot metering). I wouldn’t want to, but if I had to work with one single camera/lens setup, it would be really hard to beat the 35SP.
Not a short or clear answer perhaps, but an LTM system has a lot to recommend it in my book.
aah, the sleek fed-2. seems nice! I’ve only fondled one in a dark pub though so I can’t say much for the finder. the long rangefinder base is confidence inspiring though!
The finder’s workable, just not up to the standards of later Western cameras. As to the RF, it is quite easy to focus precisely, but the irony is that these days I mostly use the camera for street photography, so I zone focus at 3m and just shoot, never bothering to focus in the vast majority of situations.
Did you have any issues with mounting the Jupiter 12? I have a Canon P and a chance to buy a pristine early (1958) silver Jupiter 12. I have read that there can be issues with the back element.
No issues in my case, but there is bound to be sample-to-sample variation. Even if there is interference, however, the fix is really easy: just bend the top edge of the light baffle slightly to allow clearance for the rear element of the lens. Just open the back and lock the shutter open the first time you try to mount the lens so you can see what’s going on.
I knew about bending the light baffle but was concerned on the protruding back element. I read the newer black models did not pose a problem, yet I have seen many images of the silver ones on the Canon P.
The rear element is why you may have to bend the baffle; nothing else poses any issue. As far as I know, the optical formulae of the early and late Jupiter-12 is identical, so the whole idea of the later ones fitting differently than the earlier ones may be apocryphal.
Good to know. As I understood the older (silver) ones were a bit longer. Like I said, a lot of conflicting information. I think I will go ahead and get it.
Nice. I’ve only dipped my toes into the wide world of rangefinders, but a Canon P and/or Canon 7 are at the top of my list. I can’t think of a better way to get into vintage Leica glass, considering how much the bodies go for these days. One of the selling points for me is the thumb lever advance as opposed to a knob.
The P and the 7 are certainly good entry points to the LTM rangefinder world. I too was attracted by the more modern controls (as compared to the earlier Barnack-derived bodies), but having now gotten two Leica IIIcs and had more experience shooting with them, the knob wind really isn’t as much of an issue as I thought it would be. If anything, the biggest selling point of the later Canon bodies to me now has to be the viewfinders, which are an order of magnitude easier to use than the much smaller ones on the early LTM models.
I have two of these fine rangefinders. I like them so much, I sent one off to Youxin Ye for a CLA. I shoot mine with Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens.
Apologies for the delay in responding – I’ve been traveling.
The P is a wonderful camera, along with the other V- and VI-series cameras. The body is large enough to balance nicely with the Canon 50/1.4, something that cannot be said about the smaller screwmount bodies. They’re certainly worth the effort and/or expense to CLA if needed.