Canonet QL17 GIII

[Califfoto]

Hi, I have recently acquired a Canonet QL17 GIII*, and have been told to use a "Light meter" to get the best out of it. All suggestions are greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Alex K.

* I've been using a 300D so far 😡

 

[JoeFriday]

hi Alex.. a really cheap light meter would be the one that's built into it.. mine seems to work pretty well that way 🙂

 

[Califfoto]

Hi Joe, I agree. But I was also told that since "the negative film can handle highlights but loses all details in the shadows if underexposed. With such a film it is better to take a reading from the shadows." which is almost impossible with the builtin meter, unless you get "disturbingly" close to the subject.
Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks
Alex K.

 

[cp_ste.croix]

meh...run some film through it to see first. All my canonet shots in my gallery (admitedly not the best examples to be found here) were done without an external meter. Try it, you may be surprised and save yourself some money.

 

[Califfoto]

Here come a couple of shots taken with my Canonet. The first one is quite underexposed, but I had to set it myself.
Would you think that an external meter would help?
As you can see they are taken with a 400ISO set at 350ISO. They are not as sharp as yours though ... :bang:

 

[cp_ste.croix]

The first one looks nice to me...

I find that the FLRF's can have their meters fooled by signifigant light sources like windows or reflections...with that in mind, I in-camera meter w/o that in the frame and recompose.

I mean, a meter is a great tool, and I don't want to tell you not to get one, but in my mind, the FLRF's are almost a P&S for me and the meter would take away that P&S sponteneity. Have you had the voltage adjusted in the camera for the newer batteries? That might change things...

 

[dmr]

Hi, I have recently acquired a Canonet QL17 GIII*, and have been told to use a "Light meter" to get the best out of it. All suggestions are greatly appreciated.

I got one of these last year and I've been very happy with it. Although it's not been professionally checked, the built in meter seems right on, even for Kodachromes.

I might suggest you shoot a couple rolls of slide film under various light and that should give you an idea of how close (or how far off) it is.

 

[Califfoto]

Thanks so much DMR. Did you take the photos in your gallery with Canonet?

 

[derevaun]

Another benefit of using the builtin meter is a greatly reduced incidence of setting off the self-timer 🙂

 

[nwcanonman]

I've used my QL17 with only the built-in meter for 4 years now with no metering problems. Even one of the shots of mine in the Rangefinder book was taken with it.

 

[dmr]

Thanks so much DMR. Did you take the photos in your gallery with Canonet?

Yes, quite a few of them. The camera of each shot should be noted.

Another thing to think of, think of what your light meter says, built in or hand held, as a suggestion only. If it doesn't look sane, follow your instinct. (Use the Force, Luke ...) 🙂

Unfortunately the GIII is not that easy to tweak up or down. You have to contort and watch the needle, or take it off auto and do manual. The one thing I wish it had is a true match-needle mode.

Also bracket if the shot is critical.

 

[fredus]

With such a film it is better to take a reading from the shadows." which is almost impossible with the builtin meter, unless you get "disturbingly" close to the subject.
Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks
Alex K.

mmm .. you would have the same problem with an external meter. You'd still need to get close to that shadow, unless your meter is spot.
I really think the advantage of a meter would be to handle film above 800iso.
I think the Canonet can only handle 800 max (or 400, don't remember on the top of my head).

Fred

 

[Califfoto]

Excuse my ignorance but what do you mean by "Also bracket if the shot is critical."?

 

[dmr]

Excuse my ignorance but what do you mean by "Also bracket if the shot is critical."?

Oh, sorry. Take one shot with a normal exposure. Then another 1 stop over and under exposed for slides or two stops over/under for negatives. That way you'll have a better chance if your normal exposure is off.

When I shot the first roll of Kodachrome with the GIII I did just that, and very consistently the middle one, the normal exposure one, was best. That was proof to me that the internal meter was very close. 🙂

 

[sbug]

I've shot with a Canonet for years and I have found the built-in meter to be surprisingly reliable. Unless you are using slide film, you will have plenty of latitude anyway. I set the camera for the proper ISO if I am shooting color and I set it slower (ie. 300 or so for 400 film) if shooting b&w, particularly the c-41 b&w from Ilford. I have not had the voltage modified yet and I use the Wein cells. I go through maybe 2 each year.
Most of all, shoot a few rolls and let your experience and your eye be your guide. I like the exposures in the two shots you posted.