The Canonet QL17 G-III has gained a lot of popularity, as they are tough to get for under $50. Even those that have had little testing typically go for that much. (I've been watching the auctions for a while now.) And from what I've read, they often have oil on the shutters or apertures, so I've been a bit gun-shy to buy one, fearing paying too much to turn around and have to get it fixed.
my choice is a Petri 7s. they can be had for $20, has a built in meter, and takes really beautiful looking photos.
These definitely can be had cheap, but in working condition? I contacted a couple of sellers, and it didn't sound like the meters worked on them. I bought one (from yet another seller), and it mostly works, but it has oily apertures (which normally wouldn't be a big deal, in and of itself for this camera) and I'm a bit concerned about a spot inside the lens (may be a tiny patch of oil?). So, the price is right, but buying any of these old cameras is kind of like playing some sort of lottery.
I finally got what seems to be a perfectly working camera in beautiful condition, with shipping, for just over $20. It's a Canonet 28. Not the 1.7 lens that would be more desirable, but a perfectly acceptable f/2.8 lens. It doesn't have manual mode either, which may be another deal-killer for some. (The Minolta F mentioned above is similar in these respects -- 2.8 lens and all auto, as far as I know.) Ironically, it's the perfectly-working camera that I'm planning to give away, but that's another story...
So, it really comes down to the feature list. Out of the cameras you have to choose from, certain "hot" cameras are going to sell for more. The Canonet QL17, of course, but the Minolta 7sII and Konica Auto S3 sell for astronomical prices (compared to similar cameras). After a while, you can tell that the word is out on a few of the models. (Although, I do think the QL17 price is still "reasonable" compared to the Minolta 7sII or Konica Auto S3. This is probably because there are so many of them out there. A rare camera it is not.) It is true, the older QL17 often sells for slightly less than the G-III, but not enough for me to bite.
But yeah, if you can get a working Petri 7s, I don't see why that wouldn't be a good camera. (I haven't finished the first roll with mine yet!) It's just larger than the above-mentioned three, and not as automated. I've also read that it's common for Petris to have problems, but I don't know why that was said. Is it true or just someone's personal bias? The Petris are less common, but are clearly not popular, except for one model (35 color?), which does sell for over $50, for reasons I do not understand.
I think there is a high degree of popularity for the smaller size of, say, the Minolta 7sII than the older Minolta 7s. I'm not sure if 45mm vs. 40mm is enough of a difference to matter. But the Minolta 7s is often a bargain. Perhaps size explains the popularity of the Petri 35 that sells for more?
Before I got any rangefinders, I had read about them, and thought I could get an Olympus RC for cheap. I eventually did (because it was flawed), but generally they are bid up very high on the auction sites. Then I found out that Ken Rockwell did some article praising it, and some people said maybe that created a lot of demand. So, if price is an issue, first make sure no famous reviewers have praised a particular model in several months.
🙄
