gliderbee
Well-known
Is there a difference between those two cameras that I should care about if I'm looking for one ?
Thanks,
Stefan.
Thanks,
Stefan.
Canonet QL17 versus QL17 GIII ?
- Thread starter gliderbee
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 8
- Views 2K
Mackinaw
Think Different
- Local time
- 12:13 AM
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 4,718
This is from memory, but the G-III has a battery check button next to the viewfinder that, when pressed, will light up a small light directly beneath said button. The older QL-17 models either have no battery check, or a battery check button that will move the meter needle to an index mark in the viewfinder. Supposedly the G-III models have other various quality improvements. And, for what it's worth, the first QL-17s' were made in Japan, later ones were built in Taiwan.
Jim B.
Jim B.
wray
Well-known
The QL17 GLIII is smaller, lighter and has a narrower diameter lens - 48mm as opposed to 55mm on the QL17.
The original QL17 was a full-sized camera with a 45mm F1.7 lens.
The first compact Canonet was the QL17 "new" and QL17l. The "l" stood for "Luxury", meaning it had the battery test that moved the meter. All of these have the same form factor as the QL17 GIII. All have the 40mm F1.7 lens.
There is no practical difference between the three Compact QL17's. If anything, I've found the quality control on the QL17l to be the better than the GIII. I currently have a QL17l and a GIII. The latter is the "pick of the litter" of about 10.
The first compact Canonet was the QL17 "new" and QL17l. The "l" stood for "Luxury", meaning it had the battery test that moved the meter. All of these have the same form factor as the QL17 GIII. All have the 40mm F1.7 lens.
There is no practical difference between the three Compact QL17's. If anything, I've found the quality control on the QL17l to be the better than the GIII. I currently have a QL17l and a GIII. The latter is the "pick of the litter" of about 10.
Rey
Well-known
I agree with Brian, the "new" version of the QL17 (doesn't say new, but it is compact and virtually identical to the GIII) does have slightly better build quality, a bit more metal instead of plastic on the inside. But the differences are minor, and both are fantastic.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Ah, thank you guys so much for educating me on this fascinating camera. It's superb build quality is surpassed by none and the result is ... wow.
All you who are reading this thread need to get your own, hurry. It's definitely worth the price of admission.
Don't forget, it's early in the month, prices are at all times low, so come one, get your own Canonet GIII QL17 or other variants discussed in this thread. It's the bomb! Did I say that this camera has no equal? the fact that this camera is popular even before Canon became the no.1 household name in photography, tells you a lot about the superb quality of this camera.
I really can't say anything that will dent this camera's so deserved reputation. It's built like a tank, takes picture out of your wallet, pocket, purse, bag, vest, and other body attachments. Yes, it's that compact.
Combined with the six-element Canon lens that is super high-caliber color-corrected, zero distortion at the most versatile focus length and what speed. Can you imagine *six* elements, even the famous Tessar lenses only sports four. No other cameras the same vintage can even touch the Canonet.
So don't delay, get your own, make sure you're getting one that has been CLA'd. It's worth it!
All you who are reading this thread need to get your own, hurry. It's definitely worth the price of admission.
Don't forget, it's early in the month, prices are at all times low, so come one, get your own Canonet GIII QL17 or other variants discussed in this thread. It's the bomb! Did I say that this camera has no equal? the fact that this camera is popular even before Canon became the no.1 household name in photography, tells you a lot about the superb quality of this camera.
I really can't say anything that will dent this camera's so deserved reputation. It's built like a tank, takes picture out of your wallet, pocket, purse, bag, vest, and other body attachments. Yes, it's that compact.
Combined with the six-element Canon lens that is super high-caliber color-corrected, zero distortion at the most versatile focus length and what speed. Can you imagine *six* elements, even the famous Tessar lenses only sports four. No other cameras the same vintage can even touch the Canonet.
So don't delay, get your own, make sure you're getting one that has been CLA'd. It's worth it!
Mackinaw
Think Different
- Local time
- 12:13 AM
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 4,718
Well, I suspect Minolta and Olympus fans (and others) wouldn't agree with this, but no doubt that the Canonets' are real nice cameras. I've got a couple of black ones I use on occasion.
Jim B.
Will- are you selling a Canonet?
Overall, the Canonet is my favorite Fixed-lens RF. I use a Panda one, with black body parts from a parts camera (dead shutter, someone attempted to "fix" the self-timer when it got stuck in place). The viewfinder is bright, and auto-parallax corrected. The viewfinder is easy to clean, all of the surfaces with the top popped. The shutter release is the softest/shortest throw of the trapped-needle automatics. The release on the Lynx 14e is as soft, but it is a manual-only. I've had four Ql17L's and about 10 GIII's. The sharpness on the four Ql17L's seemed more consistent; two of the GIII's were stand-outs, 6 were good, and two were "okay" at F1.7. All were good by F4.
Overall, the Canonet is my favorite Fixed-lens RF. I use a Panda one, with black body parts from a parts camera (dead shutter, someone attempted to "fix" the self-timer when it got stuck in place). The viewfinder is bright, and auto-parallax corrected. The viewfinder is easy to clean, all of the surfaces with the top popped. The shutter release is the softest/shortest throw of the trapped-needle automatics. The release on the Lynx 14e is as soft, but it is a manual-only. I've had four Ql17L's and about 10 GIII's. The sharpness on the four Ql17L's seemed more consistent; two of the GIII's were stand-outs, 6 were good, and two were "okay" at F1.7. All were good by F4.
