CliveC
Well-known
Since I've started shooting and collecting film cameras, I've been told that the Canon Canonet QL17 GIII was the one to have. Ebayers seem to have taken that advice to heart, with prices regularly soaring past $120.
I own a Yashica Electro 35 GSN and an Olympus 35RD: would it be worth my while to track down a QL17? There sure doesn't seem to be a shortage of them, but the prices are astounding.
Is it simply a short-term trend thing that I've found myself on the wrong side of or are prices expected to continue to climb?
I own a Yashica Electro 35 GSN and an Olympus 35RD: would it be worth my while to track down a QL17? There sure doesn't seem to be a shortage of them, but the prices are astounding.
Is it simply a short-term trend thing that I've found myself on the wrong side of or are prices expected to continue to climb?
kuzano
Veteran
Prices not rising and not falling...
Prices not rising and not falling...
These prices are consistent for some time with very clean, well functioning GIII models. If you want one for less, opt for the QL17 without the GIII badge. Only difference with the GIII badge as far as I know is the battery check feature on the back. Same Camera with the Quick Load system otherwise.
Very heavy (re well built).
Don't get GAS for the black model. My last one sold for $500. Black models generally sell for $250 and up. Excellent plus generally close to $500.
Very rugged, good glass, meters generally work, but also has full override for manual.
They are nice. I rank them alongside Olympus SP35 models. Made in large quantities for a decade.
Prices not rising and not falling...
These prices are consistent for some time with very clean, well functioning GIII models. If you want one for less, opt for the QL17 without the GIII badge. Only difference with the GIII badge as far as I know is the battery check feature on the back. Same Camera with the Quick Load system otherwise.
Very heavy (re well built).
Don't get GAS for the black model. My last one sold for $500. Black models generally sell for $250 and up. Excellent plus generally close to $500.
Very rugged, good glass, meters generally work, but also has full override for manual.
They are nice. I rank them alongside Olympus SP35 models. Made in large quantities for a decade.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
I was never really a fan. I'd rather have one of the Yashica Lynx (5000 or 14) or larger bodies. The Canonets were too small in my hand, and I never liked the metering/shooting modes.
They are well built, but not worth the hype (and inflated prices), imo.
They are well built, but not worth the hype (and inflated prices), imo.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I paid maybe $75 for mine. I think the Yashica is a better camera as I have large hands, but both take great pictures.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
I'd say it's very good. I agree with Kuzano, I'd rank the Canon with the Olympus 35SP ...
Realistically I don't think you'd notice a huge improvement over the 2 rangefinders you mentioned in your original post. The Canon is not THAT much better IMHO. It's a very well-built 1970's rangefinder. But so is the Olympus you already own.
The Canon has a what I would call a 'unique' lens signature. I think it's due to the kinds of coatings they used. If you look on Flickr for examples, you'll see what I mean. I have noticed that with C-41 film the QL-17 the imparts a certain color cast to the images. It's neither good nor bad, it's just what it does.
The QL-17 operates best at smaller apertures, like F5.6 and above. Sure, you can use it in low-light but I've found the images lose too much contrast for my taste. But again, this is all subjective. Some people would disagree with me, I'm sure.
I own a couple QL-17's but I actually use my Olympus 35RC a lot more. The lens is sharper and the body of the 35RC is about 1/3 smaller than the QL-17. But the QL-17 definitely has its own charm.
Realistically I don't think you'd notice a huge improvement over the 2 rangefinders you mentioned in your original post. The Canon is not THAT much better IMHO. It's a very well-built 1970's rangefinder. But so is the Olympus you already own.
The Canon has a what I would call a 'unique' lens signature. I think it's due to the kinds of coatings they used. If you look on Flickr for examples, you'll see what I mean. I have noticed that with C-41 film the QL-17 the imparts a certain color cast to the images. It's neither good nor bad, it's just what it does.
The QL-17 operates best at smaller apertures, like F5.6 and above. Sure, you can use it in low-light but I've found the images lose too much contrast for my taste. But again, this is all subjective. Some people would disagree with me, I'm sure.
I own a couple QL-17's but I actually use my Olympus 35RC a lot more. The lens is sharper and the body of the 35RC is about 1/3 smaller than the QL-17. But the QL-17 definitely has its own charm.
nikku
Well-known
The 35RC is my favorite of the fixed lens rangefinders I've used (and those are legion) but the QL17 will always hold a special place in my heart. It's a great camera, I'd pay up to $150 for a good working copy.
stewmander
Established
I have the QL-17 GIII and really like it. It was the first film range finder I used but the size and quality are great. The quick loading (QL) is awesome for film. The prices have seemed to go up a bit since I bought mine.
If you are interested in a QL-17 GIII send me a PM. I have a second, very clean QL-17 GIII that I had tried to trade before, perhaps we can make an exchange.
If you are interested in a QL-17 GIII send me a PM. I have a second, very clean QL-17 GIII that I had tried to trade before, perhaps we can make an exchange.
Brian Legge
Veteran
A functional 35RD is just as good if not better than the GIII. My only qualm with the 35RD is that the aperture ring is a bit hard to grasp. Other than that, its just as good a camera. Great optics, compact, quiet, etc.
EdMars
Newbie
I like the QL17 but it does have a few shortcomings: meter only works in auto mode so no metered manual, shutter speeds only down to, I think, 1/8.
The Oly 35SP is even better though and without these shortcomings plus it has a spot meter.
The Oly 35SP is even better though and without these shortcomings plus it has a spot meter.
willie_901
Veteran
The lens on my QL-17 III made lovely photographs. I think the lens is why the camera is o popular.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Batteryless and all, my old Canonet is still in my possession. It was my first RF camera, and I learned a lot from it. Granted, the meter works only with the camera's own style of AE, but it's a very reliable one. The lens is great at all apertures, and the camera is fairly well built to withstand abuse. I took mine to Cartagena, Colombia (temps of above 98 degrees Fahrenheit and humidity to boot) and to New York city in the winter of 2003 (it was cold).
There's a number of nice things to say about the camera, and I won't add them to this thread. It is really good, and the size is one of the good things, at least to me.
There's a number of nice things to say about the camera, and I won't add them to this thread. It is really good, and the size is one of the good things, at least to me.
ndavid813
Member
I have a QL 19 - slightly different lens from the 17, and an Olympus UC (same as the SP) I like the Olympus lens better as well as the way if fits in my hand. I paid 500 yen for the Canon and 1,000 yen for the Olympus.
Gave away the Canon and not using the Olympus much since I went the LTM route.
Gave away the Canon and not using the Olympus much since I went the LTM route.