Any love for Canonet 28? Any tips?

[spystyle]

Hello from Maine,

OK I ordered another Canonet 28! The first one was dead on arrival but this one is advertised as "working great and taking great photos" - and I believe everything I read 🙂













30 American bucks, shipped right to my door.

I was wondering if you Rangerfinder gurus have any love or tips for this camera ?

I still have never ran a roll through a rangefinder camera, but I have high hopes for this one 🙂

Thanks!
Craig

 

[SebC]

I've only used its sibling, the QL17, which I loved. No tips really, they're super easy to use and give great results.

 

[nikku]

Here's my tip: unless you have a source for the mercury cell 1.35v battery, use C41 or black and white film for good latitude. The camera is fully battery dependant, and will only fire at (I believe) 1/30th of a second without a battery. 1.5 volt alkaline or silver oxide batteries will give incorrect meter readings.

Use it for daylight "street" and snapshot photography. Don't expect too much in the way of low light performance. The ASA setting only goes up to 400, and the maximum aperture is f2.8. The lens is sharp, and the camera "cute", a good combination for candid photos, since nobody will take it seriously.

I have one in great shape that I almost never use, only because I don't like that it is battery dependant.

Go here for more: http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?CanonCanonet28.html~mainFrame

 

[spystyle]

Thanks for the replies fellas 🙂

These adapters look good (click) they have a diode that corrects the voltage 🙂

 

[finguanzo]

I had the QL17 , besides the battery, the only other issue I had were the door seals.. They didnt look bad, but if the seals are not nice and tight, the latch to the door didnt really latch, so the door opened up on me exposing the roll.. Besides that, Ive had it for about 6 years, still works good...

 

[smasher]

I have one, as well as a QL17. I think it takes great shots, and is a bit underestimated. True, it's not as fast as the QL17 (not as good in low light) but the lens is very sharp and has great dynamic range. I think it delivers great tonality in B&W with a kind of classic look. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=121726&ppuser=27851

 

[spystyle]

Hello fellow New England residents 🙂

 

[micromontenegro]

I have one, and have used it quite a bit. I think it is a very underappreciated camera that can produce fine results within its limitations. A good sustitute for a P&S.

BTW, in my experience the 28 meters perfectly OK with 1.5 volt batteries, unlike its bigger 1.7 sibling.

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

I like the 28. Whats interesting is the diamond shaped bokeh you get from the aperture.

There are a few guides out there on cleaning the viewfinder. If the viewfinder is foggy a good cleaning will work wonders.

 

[Stuart John]

I have the 28 and the QL 17 III. I have not used either in a long long time but I remember the 28 being sharp. I bought the 28 first and liked it so much I bought the QL 17 III.

 

[Pompiere]

I have an A35F, which I understand is the same as the 28 but added a built in flash. The lens is very good, but being full auto, it doesn't allow much control for low light. If it's too dark for 1/60 second, the shutter is locked. With flash, if you focus past the recommended distance for the guide number, the shutter locks up. I use a LR44 battery with an o-ring and print film with good results.

 

[vidgamer]

I picked up a beautiful Canonet 28, which I gave to my sister, who expressed a fondness for old film cameras. I figured it'd be a good one for her to see how she likes rangefinders. We ran a roll of the BW400CN through it, and it was very sharp (when in focus ;-) ) printed at 4x6. I will try to scan in to see if I can determine how much detail is really there, but my scanner is lame, so I probably can't take advantage of a really sharp lens anyway....

I think the bokeh turned out better than that on my 35RC, which also has a diamond-shaped aperture. The 28 is just nice and easy to use, with the controls better-placed than a couple of other cameras I have here.

I dunno, from what I can see so far, the camera is underrated. I'm sure the G-III is better, but it also goes for a lot more money. I'm more willing to risk $20 for a camera which may or may not work than $45+ on one that may or may not work!