R
Is a Canonet QL17 gIII the right camera for me?
- Thread starter Merkin
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies: Replies 37
- Views: Views 6K
R
ruben
Guest
I recommend the Yashica Lynx 14
Manual
Match Needle
45mm f/1.4 Lens
BTW, this Lynx 14 is better, much better in my opinion to the Lynx 14e IC, which is not "match needle" but "traffic lights" popular stupid like in the subsequent Electro series.
The "traffic lights" at the viewfinder tell you when are you over or under, and show you the direction of moving the rings.
The match needle way, in which the needle is to match a white circle within a broad green patch, allows you like in the OM1 and OM3 and OM4 SLRs to compensate on the spot the exposure, once learning at what distance from the white circle should the needle be in order that the camera will be showing you 1 stop over, or 1 stop under.
Thus, another use of this trick is that it allows you in the fastest way to use ISO 1600 and still enjoy the light metering of the camera, which is formally designed for a max of ISO 800.
However, Merkin, a word of caution: this is a bigger and heavier beast than a Canonet.
Cheers,
Ruben
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
The same reason I sold my R3A. The Canonet is a fine camera, indeed. And its less prestigious sibling, the Canonet 28, produces excellent pictures also.
-doomed-
film is exciting
Having just bought the canonet , i have to say im a fan of it .
Its small and easy to use , has a sharp lense and is quiet.
I also enjoy that people think its just some crappy point and shoot camera.
Of course this is my first rangefinder but it def has me hooked on them.
Its small and easy to use , has a sharp lense and is quiet.
I also enjoy that people think its just some crappy point and shoot camera.
Of course this is my first rangefinder but it def has me hooked on them.
irq506
just curious
Indeed.. a statement it is. I dont mean to come across as arrogant but I work in a store and repair workshop. Before I worked here I used the expensive Canon digital cameras and the expensive L glass and to my mind there were no substitutes. However a few years working with every camera under the sun and one very quickly realizes what makes good images consistently and what does not. I know that for both me and for editors, we want a good image in preference to any image even if it takes a few moments longer to achieve it -and as most of you well know that once you master your machinery speed of use becomes an involuntary reaction.
40oz
...
I have a Canonet QL17 G3, and have owned a CL. The Canonet is a fine camera, and one I often turn to for a variety of reasons. The shutter priority is not an issue, as the aperture is shown in the finder, and one can easily adjust shutter speed to get the desired aperture. It's not an issue at all, just one way of doing the same thing as aperture priority.
You can use the system to get manual metering - just meter the scene in auto, change apertures off auto to the desired aperture or change shutter to get the desired aperture by the auto system. Not really an issue.
The CL I owned was a very nice camera. I would not shop at a camera store staffed by people who call it junk, if I may be pemitted to make my own statement. I certainly wouldn't trust a "repairman" who held that opinion. It's a solid camera that served me well. Durable, reliable, and excellent egonomics.
The CL is basically a manual metering Canonet with interchangeable lenses. The body is pretty much the same size. The 40mm Leitz or Minolta lens is slightly smaller (by rocollection). The ergonomics are better than the Canonet. The shutter speed is adjusted with your shutter finger and reflected in the finder, and the meter is a nice spot type that is easy to learn to use. The next time one becomes available near me, I will snap it up without reservation.
In short, the Canonet is a fine starter rangefinder and the CL is certainly a step above it. The shutter priority of the Canonet is a nice feature the CL lacks, but you don't need automation with the CL anyway. And the CL is easier to use when looking through the finder. Changing speeds or apertures on the Canonet is kind of a pain without lowering the camera to look at the lens barrel.
As far as batteries, Wein cells are hardly "expensive," and work well. Alkaline cells actually work fine, but I prefer the Wein cell for probably superstitious reasons. There is no reason to modify either camera as long as Wein cells are under $10 and not exactly hard to get.
You can use the system to get manual metering - just meter the scene in auto, change apertures off auto to the desired aperture or change shutter to get the desired aperture by the auto system. Not really an issue.
The CL I owned was a very nice camera. I would not shop at a camera store staffed by people who call it junk, if I may be pemitted to make my own statement. I certainly wouldn't trust a "repairman" who held that opinion. It's a solid camera that served me well. Durable, reliable, and excellent egonomics.
The CL is basically a manual metering Canonet with interchangeable lenses. The body is pretty much the same size. The 40mm Leitz or Minolta lens is slightly smaller (by rocollection). The ergonomics are better than the Canonet. The shutter speed is adjusted with your shutter finger and reflected in the finder, and the meter is a nice spot type that is easy to learn to use. The next time one becomes available near me, I will snap it up without reservation.
In short, the Canonet is a fine starter rangefinder and the CL is certainly a step above it. The shutter priority of the Canonet is a nice feature the CL lacks, but you don't need automation with the CL anyway. And the CL is easier to use when looking through the finder. Changing speeds or apertures on the Canonet is kind of a pain without lowering the camera to look at the lens barrel.
As far as batteries, Wein cells are hardly "expensive," and work well. Alkaline cells actually work fine, but I prefer the Wein cell for probably superstitious reasons. There is no reason to modify either camera as long as Wein cells are under $10 and not exactly hard to get.
summaron
Established
I have four cameras: the QL 17, a late Leitz Minolta CL, a Rollei 35S, and an M-3.
The QL17 was ok, but I found the shutter to be very stiff and could never really figure out how fully I had to press before it would fire. All sort of interesting juxtapositions of street life would pass by before the shutter would finally discharge. ---Does anyone know if this a characteristic of the camera--or can be it adjusted out?
The Leica CL seems more intuitive to use and is sculpted to nicely fit the hand. The shutter is more positive and I easily feel when it is going to fire, but it does has a bit of a kickback to it, as if it's going to jump out of my hands. Another CL I tried had the identical shutter recoil.
The leaf shutter of the Rolliei 35S (with the 40mm Sonnar) is a magnitude better than the CL. I know exactly where it is going to fire. The body is built like a rock, and this has been my prime camera for 20 years. It has never failed me. (The QL has twice.) The viewfinder is very clean and direct. I count tiles or 3 foot squares of sidewalk to gauge focus.
The shutter of the M3 is the Platonic ideal. It is butter smooth and shoots exactly when you want it to. Unfortunately, in real life the M3 seems a bit too heavy to carry around, at least on a casual basis.
James
The QL17 was ok, but I found the shutter to be very stiff and could never really figure out how fully I had to press before it would fire. All sort of interesting juxtapositions of street life would pass by before the shutter would finally discharge. ---Does anyone know if this a characteristic of the camera--or can be it adjusted out?
The Leica CL seems more intuitive to use and is sculpted to nicely fit the hand. The shutter is more positive and I easily feel when it is going to fire, but it does has a bit of a kickback to it, as if it's going to jump out of my hands. Another CL I tried had the identical shutter recoil.
The leaf shutter of the Rolliei 35S (with the 40mm Sonnar) is a magnitude better than the CL. I know exactly where it is going to fire. The body is built like a rock, and this has been my prime camera for 20 years. It has never failed me. (The QL has twice.) The viewfinder is very clean and direct. I count tiles or 3 foot squares of sidewalk to gauge focus.
The shutter of the M3 is the Platonic ideal. It is butter smooth and shoots exactly when you want it to. Unfortunately, in real life the M3 seems a bit too heavy to carry around, at least on a casual basis.
James
-doomed-
film is exciting
This is how I do it on mine it seems to work out well, having never owned any other rangefinders before this works for me.
dmr
Registered Abuser
But, to me, anyway, this really is an issue. Last night I wanted to do some night shots of a recently-opened high-profile pedestrian bridge, so I grabbed the one GIII which was recalibrated to use 1600 film. When I got there, I realized that I had a subject that was far more contrasty and bright in small places than I imagined, so I realized that if I shot totally in auto, I would get overexposed and blown-out highlights. Here's an example.
So I did as you said, metered as usual, then took the camera down, switched to manual, adjusted the exposure to what I thought was best, recomposed (everybody had moved by then), and then shot. Rinse, repeat!
I *REALLY* wish all I had to do was to tweak one dial and watch the needle. I should have probably taken the Pentax or the Mamiya (totally manual, only goes to 800, but I can fudge), but the 40mm was the better lens for this job.
It worked, but it was a major pain and took far longer for each exposure where I felt the need to do something other than what the meter was suggesting.
Oh well ...
And then one other shortcoming with the GIII, but this is really widespread of other lenses of that speed and vintage.
Here's another from that shoot, but this is not one of the keepers.
No, this is not a fountain, it's a sculpture garden with these vertical things illuminated by changing colored lights. When metering it, it was right on the threshold of releasing the exposure lock, lens wide open, at 1/30. I went ahead and shot as suggested. I should have probably switched to 1/15 and stopped down, because if you look at the lights toward the upper left and right, they are football shaped, showing the astigmatism of this lens when used wide open.
The Mamiya SD (f1.7, 48mm) does the same thing to an extent, but not as much. They tell me (the ubiquitous "they") that most lenses of this type and speed of that vintage will show this to one degree or another.
It's a shorcoming of the GIII that annoys me sometimes.
Yeah I know, I want perfection.
Overall, the GIII is a great camera, but it's not perfect by any means.
btgc
Veteran
I believe there's no perfect FL RF. One has to choose most appealing set of pros and cons.
summaron
Established
Appealing or appalling?
It's a mystery to me why a simple rangefinder (other than Leica which is too heavy and ostentatious at this moment in time) has not been created either in film or digital form.That would be with a crisp and simple (uncluttered) .72 viewfinder, a positive feel and quietish sound to the shutter release, simple needle meter, a bright and clean focusing patch, and a short, single focal length 35mm to 45mm f/2 - 2.8 lens (1.4 - 1.7 designs have to make too many compromises). Not much more than that.
Leica CL and Rollei T or S, and Ricoh in digital, seem to have come closest.
Back to topic.
racoll
Well-known
I currently have a G-III QL17 and I absolutely love it. The lens on mine is ridiculously sharp and the lens does an excellent job of capturing the fine nuances of light and color in any scene, making the picture look rich and deep. I was fortunate to get mine for the low price of $15.00 even though it was in near-mint cosmetic condition. The seller said that the meter didn't work, but upon receiving it and cleaning the corrosion out of the battery chamber, the meter works flawlessly. I was also fortunate enough to find the dedicated hood for mine. I have somewhere around 150 cameras (it's a sickness, yes!) and the Canonet is one of my top 3 favorites, certainly one I would consider taking on a trip if I had to limit myself to a small amount of gear.
Andy
Andy
Poptart
Screw Loose & Fancy-Free
I have a Canonet and like it but I prefer my Konica S3. It seems more instinctual to me.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
The only inexpensive cameras I know of with aperture priority are the Yashica G-series rangefinders (which have no manual option) and the Olympus XA. The Olympus XA has some pretty small and fiddly controls and probably would not be a good choice if you have big hands, but otherwise you might like it.
If you are seriously looking at the Canonet, you might also want to take a look at the Minolta Hi-Matic 7S and the Hi-Matic 9. They have pretty much the same specifications and are less expensive. They have the same battery problem, but it is much easier to get around it with those. Just stick a #675 hearing aid battery into it with a 50-cent rubber O-ring used to adapt it for size.
retro
Well-known
The Canonet GIII is a great camera but be sure it has been refurbed
with new seals or be prepared to do it yourself. They all need new
seals if not already done.
The Leica CL is also a great camera (I owned one) but I would get
a Bessa instead. The Bessa can be purchased new (or nearly so)
and uses a modern battery.
with new seals or be prepared to do it yourself. They all need new
seals if not already done.
The Leica CL is also a great camera (I owned one) but I would get
a Bessa instead. The Bessa can be purchased new (or nearly so)
and uses a modern battery.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Installing seals in a Canonet is more complicated than usual too.
dmr
Registered Abuser
INSTALLING the seals was easy, with the Interslice kit.
Getting the old grunged-out seals out of the camera was the icky-messy part!
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Well, I was refering to the sheer number of seals. It's complicated as compared to installing seals in a Yashica GSN, for example (15 minutes start to finish, including digging the old ones out). My Canonets seem to have an additional row of internal light seals, as compared to just one for most of my other rangefinders. It's a lot simpler and easier than CLAing a shutter, or digging the green gunk out of an Agfa, though.