SebC
Established
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
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
rangefinder user and fancier
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.
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-known
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.
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.
Last edited:
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
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
良かったね！
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
Established
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 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
Registered semi-lurker
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
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
Ferroequinologist
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
Native Texan
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
"Flim? You want flim?"
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.