Canonet QL17 vs Canon P \

[SebC]

Hi,

I own a Canonet QL17 GIII which is my first rangefinder, and I love it. I bought it to see how I got on with both film and rangefinders, and I love both. But I've been thinking about various bodies with removable lenses.

I see a lot of comparison between Canonets and various fixed lens brethren, but not with the P. I know the P is earlier, but how does it compare it terms of:

Size
Weight
Rangefinder accuracy, spot contrast and brightness
Viewfinder size/brightness
Etc.

Many thanks,

Seb

 

[xayraa33]

The P is a different kettle of fish.
It is more of a professional model with interchangeable lenses and has a focal plane shutter.
It is on the same league as the Nikon S3.
The Canonets were nice cameras for the occasional snapshot shooter and were priced as such.

 

[mr_phillip]

Well you're not really comparing like with like, although both are magnificent rangefinders in their own ways. I've owned both, but ultimately moved the Canonet on when I was made a very good offer for it (although I wouldn't mind another one). You'll take my P from my cold dead hand.

The bare specs are:
Canonet - 120 x 75 x 60mm, 620g*
P (with 50mm f/2.8) - 144 x 76 x 71mm, 790g*
P (body only) - 144 x 76 x 32mm, 580g

* specs from Canon's website (body only specs from my kitchen scales and a tape measure)

The RF accuracy of both cameras I found to be spot-on, with similar spot contrast (the P is maybe fuzzier edged). In terms of viewfinder size and brightness though, the 1:1 finder in the P is in a totally different league - it's huge, bright and utterly awesome. And, as well built as the QL17 was, the P is just in a whole other dimension. The best built camera I've ever owned is my M2; the P is just a whisker behind that.

If you like the Canon RF thing, I couldn't recommend a P strongly enough.

BTW - here's a gallery of shots from the Canonet and another from the Canon P.

 

[payasam]

If you plan to move on to an interchangeable lens RF camera, the Canon P would be a good choice -- but so would be a Leica model, a Bessa, a Zorki, a Contax...

 

[flip]

Caveat - I have yet to use a canonet. That said, I recommend holding a P for a bit. Does it feel comfortable? My only qualms with it are the tendency of the rewind to swing free in my bag and a feeling that rounded barnack bodies are more my cup o' tea. But the finder IS awesome - as is the loading, etc... IOW/ I'm not selling it.

 

[SebC]

Thanks for your thoughts. I know it's not a like for like comparison, but the reason I ask isi wanted to ensure it would be a true upgrade rather than a cross grade. I am also considering other options - including bessa r / r2, m2/m3, contax, Leica CL, etc.

I know I like the compactness of my Canonet. I thought I needed an inbuilt meter but since mine is now playing up I'm less worried. I love the thought of a leica but not the price. The Canon P definitely wins on that basis, but naybe not on others. The. Problem I have is I have no practical experience of any of these cameras.

 

[harry01562]

If you like the Canonet and want the extra versatility of interchangeable lenses, the P is an excellent choice. It will stand scrutiny with the best of the competition. It is very well made, with a lovely feel and heft to it. Ideally, you will get an opportunity to actually hold and use the camera. That's the best way to discover if its for you.
I own and use the classic Contax IIa/IIIa, an M3 and a variety of Canons, including a P, 7, 7s and several Barnack-like models. The lenses are good to excellent, with a strong tilt toward excellent. The equipment is still very inexpensive compared to the other brands. With a good CLA, any of these will last beyond most of the users.

Harry

 

[Al Patterson]

Thanks for your thoughts. I know it's not a like for like comparison, but the reason I ask isi wanted to ensure it would be a true upgrade rather than a cross grade. I am also considering other options - including bessa r / r2, m2/m3, contax, Leica CL, etc.

I know I like the compactness of my Canonet. I thought I needed an inbuilt meter but since mine is now playing up I'm less worried. I love the thought of a leica but not the price. The Canon P definitely wins on that basis, but naybe not on others. The. Problem I have is I have no practical experience of any of these cameras.

I have both. The P is definately an upgrade, plus you can change lenses.

But, I do like the Canonet immensely. However, you should try to find a local RFF member who has a P so you can handle one.

 

[Bill58]

It's like the difference between a Ferrari and a Yugo or Nano. Get the P and a meter-the P can do tons of more things.

 

[januaryman]

Both are fine cameras. I know, I have both. In fact last year I had 2 of each. The P will force you to experiment with lenses and focal lengths. The Canonet's 40mm lens is just about perfect, and I carried over this slight wide angle preference in my interchangeable lens cameras, as my favorite shooting length is 35. So keep the Canonet, get a P and, if you can get a good one, match it with a Canon 35/2.0 - more info here. Or the 28mm/3.5, another good one, slower, wider. The Canon 50/1.5 is too costly right now thanks to our threads here, but the 50/1.8 is EXCELLENT.