hoot
green behind the ears
Has anyone had the chance to (seriously) use both the Canonet QL17 GIII and the Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII?
Since these seem to me to be among the best of the tiny, fully-manual, battery-independent, RF-coupled, fixed-lens bodies with 40mm lenses faster than f/2, I thought a serious comparison may be warranted for which is the better "toss in my pocket for gorgeous snapshots when I'm too lazy to haul along the Leica M / Canon P / Nikon SP (take your pick)".
For the record, I used to own a 7sII, but have never seen a QL17. I would like to own a 7sII again, but am considering the QL17 as a competitor.
I'd rather not involve the Olympus RD in this discussion because, having owned one, I consider it to have inferior build quality compared to the 7sII. This becomes especially noticable when running a lot of film through the camera, fast.
Here are the criteria I'm especially interested in comparing. A killer CLA is assumed for each camera.
* Brightness of viewfinder and visibility of rangefinder patch and framelines, especially in awkward lighting situations such as very low light, strong backlight, or low-contrast situations
* Sharpness/resolution of the lens
* Precision and reliable long-term consistency of shutter speeds (after calibration in the course of a CLA)
* Camera's handling of the film (inconsistent spacing between frames; difficulties advancing or rewinding film; ripping the sprocket holes)
* Body compactness (exactly *how* much bigger/heavier is the QL17?)
If you, like me, only have experience with one of these cameras, feel free to post your opinions anyway.
Recommendations on where to get a killer CLA for each of these cameras would also be appreciated.
Since these seem to me to be among the best of the tiny, fully-manual, battery-independent, RF-coupled, fixed-lens bodies with 40mm lenses faster than f/2, I thought a serious comparison may be warranted for which is the better "toss in my pocket for gorgeous snapshots when I'm too lazy to haul along the Leica M / Canon P / Nikon SP (take your pick)".
For the record, I used to own a 7sII, but have never seen a QL17. I would like to own a 7sII again, but am considering the QL17 as a competitor.
I'd rather not involve the Olympus RD in this discussion because, having owned one, I consider it to have inferior build quality compared to the 7sII. This becomes especially noticable when running a lot of film through the camera, fast.
Here are the criteria I'm especially interested in comparing. A killer CLA is assumed for each camera.
* Brightness of viewfinder and visibility of rangefinder patch and framelines, especially in awkward lighting situations such as very low light, strong backlight, or low-contrast situations
* Sharpness/resolution of the lens
* Precision and reliable long-term consistency of shutter speeds (after calibration in the course of a CLA)
* Camera's handling of the film (inconsistent spacing between frames; difficulties advancing or rewinding film; ripping the sprocket holes)
* Body compactness (exactly *how* much bigger/heavier is the QL17?)
If you, like me, only have experience with one of these cameras, feel free to post your opinions anyway.
Recommendations on where to get a killer CLA for each of these cameras would also be appreciated.
I have and use both, and lately have been favoring the 7s-II for when I do not want to bring the Canon 7, Nikon SP, or Leica M3 to the playground. It is smaller, lighter, and has a better made (no dry rot) case).
Side-by-side of the Canonet and Konica S3, same size as Minolta.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2893
And the CL and Konica
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2944
Minolta and Konica side by side.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2946
Between the Canonet and Minolta, the build quality on the Canonet is better; Finder has parallax correction and is slightly more clear; lens on my Canonet is very sharp at F1.7 BUT it took me a lot of Canonets to get one this sharp. The lens on my current Canonet is has a front module from a different camera, so it was pure luck. The Minolta lens is as sharp.
Side-by-side of the Canonet and Konica S3, same size as Minolta.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2893
And the CL and Konica
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2944
Minolta and Konica side by side.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2946
Between the Canonet and Minolta, the build quality on the Canonet is better; Finder has parallax correction and is slightly more clear; lens on my Canonet is very sharp at F1.7 BUT it took me a lot of Canonets to get one this sharp. The lens on my current Canonet is has a front module from a different camera, so it was pure luck. The Minolta lens is as sharp.
Last edited: