Russ
Well-known
Dave
Your B/W infrared image did not come through. Please send again. I'd love to see it. I have burned numerous rolls with the Oly RC, Vivitar ES and Canon GIII QL-17. I have come to the conclusion that the Canon GIII QL-17, is not the "poor man's Leica" as many say that it is. Just by looking at the negs, and "one hour" 4x6 prints, it's a good lens, but nowhere near as sharp as the glass on the Viv ES, Oly RC and Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII. I don't know why so many people rave about it. It does however, have a great viewfinder and focusing patch. A joy to use. But for overall image quality, it does not deserve it's "poor man's Leica" status. Just my opinion. What's your take on it?
Do you burn B/W infrared with the SLR's? Great stuff, I love it. (sloppy picture attached)
Thanks
Russ
Your B/W infrared image did not come through. Please send again. I'd love to see it. I have burned numerous rolls with the Oly RC, Vivitar ES and Canon GIII QL-17. I have come to the conclusion that the Canon GIII QL-17, is not the "poor man's Leica" as many say that it is. Just by looking at the negs, and "one hour" 4x6 prints, it's a good lens, but nowhere near as sharp as the glass on the Viv ES, Oly RC and Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII. I don't know why so many people rave about it. It does however, have a great viewfinder and focusing patch. A joy to use. But for overall image quality, it does not deserve it's "poor man's Leica" status. Just my opinion. What's your take on it?
Do you burn B/W infrared with the SLR's? Great stuff, I love it. (sloppy picture attached)
Thanks
Russ
T
thejazzguy
Guest
russ
you are more than entitled to your opinion, naturally. but my guess is that you won't find many people who share it--i certainly don't. i have a konica auto s2, s3, a canon fd system, spotmatic/takumar system, a konica system, an olympus om system, and many other cameras. the ql17 is sharper than nearly all of these--one of the real jewels, and lens quality just isn't an issue. if i can't blow a picture up to 11x14, it's because of what i did wrong, not the lens, never the lens. these cameras are all about 30 years old, and if your hasn't had a good CLA, it might be time.
my $.02
you are more than entitled to your opinion, naturally. but my guess is that you won't find many people who share it--i certainly don't. i have a konica auto s2, s3, a canon fd system, spotmatic/takumar system, a konica system, an olympus om system, and many other cameras. the ql17 is sharper than nearly all of these--one of the real jewels, and lens quality just isn't an issue. if i can't blow a picture up to 11x14, it's because of what i did wrong, not the lens, never the lens. these cameras are all about 30 years old, and if your hasn't had a good CLA, it might be time.
my $.02
taffer
void
Well maybe I'd need a Viv 35ES or a Hi-matic 7sII first in order to compare 
However, by comparing results, even with iso 400 B&W film I'd say the 42mm f/1.7 Zuiko on the Oly SPn gives a couple turns around the Canonet lens.
And that's not to complain about the Canon, which is a very sharp one, but to praise the venerable Zuiko glass !!
That's the main reason I've decided to keep my SPn, even if I'm not a fan of its ergonomics
However, by comparing results, even with iso 400 B&W film I'd say the 42mm f/1.7 Zuiko on the Oly SPn gives a couple turns around the Canonet lens.
And that's not to complain about the Canon, which is a very sharp one, but to praise the venerable Zuiko glass !!
That's the main reason I've decided to keep my SPn, even if I'm not a fan of its ergonomics
GeneW
Veteran
My Canonet QIII 40 is not as sharp as my Summicon 40, but I've found it pretty sharp and a good shooter. I've been happy with the lens quality.
Gene
Gene
My opinions: The Canonet is probably about the best all-around camera of the fixed-lens RF's as a shooter but it does not have the sharpest lens. I find the Minolta Hi-Matic 9 and Hi-Matic E lenses sharper; but both have long-throw releases that have messed up more than one photo and the "E" is programmed auto only. The Minolta 7Sii and Konica S3 are smaller, but more lightly made, the finder in each is not as good as the Canonet. The Yashica GSN is big, and again auto only with no shutter-speed readout, and the electronics are more prone to failure. The Olympus cameras have fine lenses, but are not as heavily made. I have taken an Olympus SP apart to replace a hair-thin spring that must be kept under contant tension to operate correctly. When it snaps, the advance clutch goes haywire. It was a PAIN to replace. SO, if the poor man's Leica means a low-priced, durable, reliable, and well-handling camera, it would be the Canonet. If lens sharpness is the only criteria, others beat it out.
My Konica S2 had a bad meter, which I hear is fairly common. My Yashica Lynx 14 had a "intermittent" meter and a faded RF patch. The lens on the latter was F1.4, and comparable to the Canonet.
Kodak Retina cameras were considered the "Poor Man's Leica" in their day. The 50mm F2 and 50mm F1.9 Xenon's are a "tad" sharper than the Canonet, but the cameras are slower handling.
Here is a Shot from my July project. All of the Trampoline shots were with the Canonet; I like the low-latency.
Canonet Shot in July Project
My Konica S2 had a bad meter, which I hear is fairly common. My Yashica Lynx 14 had a "intermittent" meter and a faded RF patch. The lens on the latter was F1.4, and comparable to the Canonet.
Kodak Retina cameras were considered the "Poor Man's Leica" in their day. The 50mm F2 and 50mm F1.9 Xenon's are a "tad" sharper than the Canonet, but the cameras are slower handling.
Here is a Shot from my July project. All of the Trampoline shots were with the Canonet; I like the low-latency.
Canonet Shot in July Project
Last edited:
P
plexi
Guest
While the QL-17 doesn`t have the sharpest lens, it`s more than sharp enough for most, and I`m very happy with mine....
Sharp enough?
Sharp enough?
R
Rich Silfver
Guest
taffer said:/.../the 42mm f/1.7 Zuiko on the Oly SPn gives a couple turns around the Canonet lens.
And that's not to complain about the Canon, which is a very sharp one, but to praise the venerable Zuiko glass !!
That's the main reason I've decided to keep my SPn, even if I'm not a fan of its ergonomics
And that's why I have 3 of 'em
My Olympus 35LE is turning out to be a bit of a project though.
First it was completely unresponsive...now after some work (God I love vinegar on a q-tip...) the electronic shutter is working to 50% - mening it opens up..but doesnt shut down until I wind to the next frame. Highly annoying but it's such a great looking camera that I'm still happy. It will work one day dammit!!
taffer
void
Richard, I was thinking about the SP the other day and remembered something, is it true that the last generation SP had in fact the external appearance of the previous LC ones ?
If so, I'd really love to know why...
If so, I'd really love to know why...
R
Rich Silfver
Guest
I'd say no.
The 'SP-class' of Olympus 35 cameras were - SP, SPn and UC - they all look very much the same (colour of lens barrels differ, rims around the viewfinder, etc) - but same lens, body and dimensions.
The LC and LE are very similar in appearance and they are actually the ones that I prefer the look of the most (they look very much like the Mamiya Super Deluxe as well)
Here's some shots for the comparisons;
a) My new (still not quite working) Olympus 35LE (eh..it's the one on the right..);
The 'SP-class' of Olympus 35 cameras were - SP, SPn and UC - they all look very much the same (colour of lens barrels differ, rims around the viewfinder, etc) - but same lens, body and dimensions.
The LC and LE are very similar in appearance and they are actually the ones that I prefer the look of the most (they look very much like the Mamiya Super Deluxe as well)
Here's some shots for the comparisons;
a) My new (still not quite working) Olympus 35LE (eh..it's the one on the right..);
taffer
void
The one on the right... are you sure ?
Hmm, maybe it was the UC I was thinking about and in fact the UC is the *last* of the SPs ? Anyway thanks for clearing up my mind
Seems the Oly RF family is a populated one, hope you get the LE working soon, it's another beauty !
Hmm, maybe it was the UC I was thinking about and in fact the UC is the *last* of the SPs ? Anyway thanks for clearing up my mind
Seems the Oly RF family is a populated one, hope you get the LE working soon, it's another beauty !
R
Rich Silfver
Guest
b) Its cousin the Olympus 35LC:
Last edited by a moderator:
taffer
void
I see, this is the one with the meter readout window on the top plate ?
R
Rich Silfver
Guest
...and the UC...
Funny...as I see all three together like this there is a distinct similarity between them...
Funny...as I see all three together like this there is a distinct similarity between them...
Last edited by a moderator:
CleverName
Well-known
I've heard just about every non-leica rangefinder refered to at one point or another as a "poor man's leica". Since I'm a poor man, I own a few of them.
Personally, I love My QL-17. The lens is as sharp as I'll ever need it to be. I think it was the best $10. I ever spent.
How come nobody refers to a Leica as a "rich man's canonet"?
Personally, I love My QL-17. The lens is as sharp as I'll ever need it to be. I think it was the best $10. I ever spent.
How come nobody refers to a Leica as a "rich man's canonet"?
Well I guess that I will be scanning and uploading examples from each of the cameras that I mentioned; Except the Olympus SP. I sold it for a fair bit after repairing it myself with a much heavier duty Clutch spring.
Kodak Retina IIIc w 50mm F2 Xenon
Detail of the above shot.
Pretty Sharp for a 50 year old lens. I think the F1.9 version for the IIIS is even sharper. This was the original poor man's Leica.
Kodak Retina IIIc w 50mm F2 Xenon
Detail of the above shot.
Pretty Sharp for a 50 year old lens. I think the F1.9 version for the IIIS is even sharper. This was the original poor man's Leica.
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
Maybe not Leica quality but for 25 to 35 bucks it would be hard to find a closer competitor:
Todd
Todd
On Saturday I took the Canonet into the pool to get some shots of Nikki playing. Nina wanted to know if it was waterproof. "No, it was $10". Where no Leica has gone Before. (My swimming pool).
P
pshinkaw
Guest
I have an array of 60's and 70's rangefinders in addition to my Russian rangefinders, and from what I have seen of the results, age, abuse and mis-alignement issues may have more influence on picture quality than most people may realize. My Canon QL17 produces extrremely sharp photos while my almosty mint looking Minolta Hi-matic 9 can't seem to. My Olympus SP is also has problems producing sharp photos while my XA is superb. This runs counter to a lot people's experience's on this forum. Since I acquired all of these used, and in some instances I am sure that I am at least the third owner, I think the real problem in these instances is a one of alignment and calibration. Face it, these things are kinda old and may have been knocked around a bit. Before you make blanket generalizations about one brand being superior to the other, consider that they migh not be in tip-top shape today after 30-40-years.
-Paul
-Paul
Paul,
Do you think that the lenses are knocked out of alignment, or that the RF is not calibrated? If no part of the picture is ever in focus, the lens would be suspect. Usually, it is the RF that is off, and all of these cameras are fairly easy to calibrate. Usually it requires the removal of the top plate, and a light baffle over the finder mechanism.
The Canonet lens is sharp enough; I am up to 8 different examples of the Canonet QL 17 with the 40mm F1.7 lens over the last 25 years; three of which that I have now. All gave good results. I am dropping off two rolls today from the two Canonets that I fixed myself. I will post some shots from them next week.
Do you think that the lenses are knocked out of alignment, or that the RF is not calibrated? If no part of the picture is ever in focus, the lens would be suspect. Usually, it is the RF that is off, and all of these cameras are fairly easy to calibrate. Usually it requires the removal of the top plate, and a light baffle over the finder mechanism.
The Canonet lens is sharp enough; I am up to 8 different examples of the Canonet QL 17 with the 40mm F1.7 lens over the last 25 years; three of which that I have now. All gave good results. I am dropping off two rolls today from the two Canonets that I fixed myself. I will post some shots from them next week.
P
pshinkaw
Guest
Brian:
When I get a new rangefinder camera I usually line up the kids and their friends, one in front of the other and staggered left to right so that their noses ar about 18 inches behind the one in front of them. I measure the distances from the camera with a tape measure.
I then shoot a series starting from the front. I compare the results with the scale foot/meter setting. If the scale doesn't correspond with the actual distance to a sharply photographed face, I'm usually pretty sure that the lens is off. Sometimes it is off a little bit only and a shot at 2 meters will have a sharper face at 3.5 meters.
Only after I am satisfied with that the footage scale matches the real distance will I re-set the rangefinder.
My Minolta Hi-matic has loose lens, so that may be the real problem.However. the SP is pretty tight. It will probably have to be cleaned first.
Abuse is a little strong. Most of them have probably just been carried around a lot and bumped occasionally for 30 years.
-Paul
When I get a new rangefinder camera I usually line up the kids and their friends, one in front of the other and staggered left to right so that their noses ar about 18 inches behind the one in front of them. I measure the distances from the camera with a tape measure.
I then shoot a series starting from the front. I compare the results with the scale foot/meter setting. If the scale doesn't correspond with the actual distance to a sharply photographed face, I'm usually pretty sure that the lens is off. Sometimes it is off a little bit only and a shot at 2 meters will have a sharper face at 3.5 meters.
Only after I am satisfied with that the footage scale matches the real distance will I re-set the rangefinder.
My Minolta Hi-matic has loose lens, so that may be the real problem.However. the SP is pretty tight. It will probably have to be cleaned first.
Abuse is a little strong. Most of them have probably just been carried around a lot and bumped occasionally for 30 years.
-Paul