Canonets

[oftheherd]

Today I posted in the Flower thread a photo I took with my Canonet qll 17. On a whim I decided to look in ebay for prices on Canonets.

Wow! The prices for the 17s are mostly way over $200. The 19s and 28s seem rather low. I never understand the prices on ebay, probably something to do with the tides or moon phases. But I was surprised.

I haven't used any of mine for some time, but the 17, 28 and both large 19s and small, were fine photo takers and small and easy to use (although I have developed a real fondness for my XA with my back problems).

Anybody still have and use a Canonet?

 

[Mackinaw]

.....Anybody still have and use a Canonet?

Have a black QL 1.7 that I still use. Meter doesn't work, but I love the light weight and compact design. Nice lens too.

Jim B.

 

[oftheherd]

I have never had the black one, but the others I have and have enjoyed using. I just haven't used any of them in quite a long time. Nor unfortunately, another camera other than a digital P&S my kids got for me years ago. Back problems. But they are good picture makers IMHO, and light to carry.

 

[narsuitus]

Anybody still have and use a Canonet?

Yes, I still have and use my Canonet rangefinder. However, after I purchased my Leica M6 (left), my use of the Canonet (right) decreased.


Rangefinders by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Phil_F_NM]

The prices on goodwill are even crazier. I've seen Canonets go for anything from $10 to $250. Lately, there is a trend with point and shoots, like the Nikon L35AF and Canon AF35ML going for stupid amounts of money. Within the last month I've seen bids for Yashica T4s going up over $600. These are all for cameras that have no guarantee and are basically in the thrift store bin, but bought sight unseen. Absolutely ridiculous. Meanwhile, SLRs go for low to moderate amounts of money. Something out there in the water or like you say, the cycle of the moon or star alignment causes some incredible fervor of bidding for these disposables.

And back in 2019 I tried to sell a bunch of P&S cameras for almost nothing, I was actually giving a few away, but no one wanted them.

Phil Forrest

 

[oftheherd]

The prices on goodwill are even crazier. I've seen Canonets go for anything from $10 to $250. Lately, there is a trend with point and shoots, like the Nikon L35AF and Canon AF35ML going for stupid amounts of money. Within the last month I've seen bids for Yashica T4s going up over $600. These are all for cameras that have no guarantee and are basically in the thrift store bin, but bought sight unseen. Absolutely ridiculous. Meanwhile, SLRs go for low to moderate amounts of money. Something out there in the water or like you say, the cycle of the moon or star alignment causes some incredible fervor of bidding for these disposables.

And back in 2019 I tried to sell a bunch of P&S cameras for almost nothing, I was actually giving a few away, but no one wanted them.

Phil Forrest

For all their versatility, Canonets and others like them were basically a step from P&S cameras and many may have felt like being RF rather than auto everything made them less desirable. But moving forward to these days, I am puzzled as are you. Just doesn't make sense.

But if people are buying to use, and don't get put off by non-working cameras, I guess it is good. It should keep film makers making film for us all.

But I still don't get it.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

The one camera on the GW site I don't get is the AE1 Canon. I'm not a Canon guy but those are always in the $100+ range now it seems.
Are they that good?

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Are they that good?

The lenses can be spectacular, but that body is more often than not near-garbage, needing repair. The 40 year old electronics and the wheezing shutters all need work.

Phil Forrest

 

[John Bragg]

I have been surprised by just how really good the QL 17 is. I have had mine along time as part of a collection and only just put a film through it. Shame on me ! I was blown away by the ability to nail focus in low light and the sheer quality of lens it has. It has taken the place of my two Olympus Mju iis of which one has sold and the other is presently for sale. I really wanted to like them, but they let me down too often when working in low light. They miss focus too often. They are also fragile, so the time has come for a cull ! I may buy something more useful with the proceeds. Perhaps a Black QL17 ? Here are some shots from that roll of HP5+ developed in Ilfosol 3.

Mevagissey meeting by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr

Learning with Nanna by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr

OMG! by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr

Deep in thought by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr

 

[dmr]

Anybody still have and use a Canonet?

Since the Covid hit the fan, I have not done much shooting, period, but now that things are easing up I'm looking forward to getting out there and shooting again.

Yes, I still use (or used, until Covid) the GIII as well as two Pentax film cameras.

 

[Mudman]

I've had 2 GIIIs (both had their issues) and recently got one that was pretty much new in box that was the previous generation. They get touted quite often as a leica alternative, and they're still very cheap in that comparison. I just did a video unboxing it actually. I've got a roll of kodak gold 200 in it at the moment.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I kept my QL17l, the immediate predecessor to the GIII. I put the top and bottom plate from a black Canonet QL17l that was bought for parts. I had about 10 QL17GIII's, bought/repaired/sold years ago. The Ql17l seemed to have better quality control, was made in Japan.

 

[oftheherd]

I kept my QL17l, the immediate predecessor to the GIII. I put the top and bottom plate from a black Canonet QL17l that was bought for parts. I had about 10 QL17GIII's, bought/repaired/sold years ago. The Ql17l seemed to have better quality control, was made in Japan.

I bet most of them are still working too.

 

[oftheherd]

I kept my QL17l, the immediate predecessor to the GIII. I put the top and bottom plate from a black Canonet QL17l that was bought for parts. I had about 10 QL17GIII's, bought/repaired/sold years ago. The Ql17l seemed to have better quality control, was made in Japan.

Are those the at-the-time inexpensive ones that came out about 1974/5? If so, I think they held up pretty well. I was pretty good at all types of photography by then and had something of a good reputation in my MOS in the US Army for being able to get the photographs needed. Few offices, except for perhaps Europe (so I had heard but I never go assigned there), so I used my own gear which I was very familiar with. There was never any poll that I know of, but I think there probably no more than 10 or at the most, 15 agents world wide with similar skills. And I guess they had the 4x5 and Leica cameras due to so many being in Europe after the war.

Anyway, there I was enjoying my abilities and reputation in a small command that I didn't think could have afforded any type of camera purchases, never mind kits..

But guess what, our agents took to those cameras and lenses like ducks to water. They started turning out some rather good crime scene photos as well. The cameras didn't immediately die from being used by folks not used to using cameras and extra focal length lenses. I still got requests for unusual needs, but I wasn't needed as much as before. Actually, I was kind of happy to see them able to use those cameras and that the cameras were so agent proof.

 

[Evergreen States]

I bought my Canonet QL17 GIII for $50 USD on Craigslist years ago. Shortly after I bought it, the shutter jammed. Fine, I guess. I was going to send it in for a CLA anyway. I shot a bit with it but never warmed to it. The focus tab implementation is ergonomically trash. But sometime this year or last the shutter started sticking before finally jamming up again. I'd like to get it fixed and shoot a few rolls comparing lens quality to my Olympus 35RC and then sell it.

Pros:
The quick load mechanism is wonderful
Bokeh is actually nice so long as the background isn't too busy
Parallax corrected finder
Shutter speeds go down to 1/4th of a second

Cons:
Focus tab implementation sucks
Big and heavy for a compact
Shutter reliability on my copy
Wide open the lens is soft, but you all knew that

Despite having to live with a slower lens, tick marks for parallax correction and no quick load mechanism, I've been greatly preferring my Olympus. It's smaller, lighter and turning the focus ring is far less aggravating.

 

[Contarama]

I sold a black QL17I for $200 about 10 years ago and gave one away not long after that. About the same time sold a minty F1 for $75 I think. Whenever I hear Canonet I think of Brian's old how to flood clean tutorials.

They're pretty cool always enjoyed mine and wouldn't mind having another.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Are those the at-the-time inexpensive ones that came out about 1974/5? If so, I think they held up pretty well.

That's the one. Made in Japan, more metal that was replaced by plastic in the GIII.
I still have it, got the hard case for it that does not suffer from dry-rot.
Adjusted for a 1.5v battery.

 

[julio1fer]

Had two Canonets, the large original 1.9 and a QL17. Gave both to friends. Lenses were very good, both worked well and were solid performers, but I needed to prune the collection. In that Japanese RF era my favorite is a different camera, the Olympus 35SP.

This one from the original 1.9:

 

[Pál_K]

Eleven years ago I bought this Canonet 28 for $1 at a camera show; it works fine and I’ve made nice photos with it. Some years later I bought the QL17 GIII for about $125 and it has also worked well, its meter handling even tricky lighting situations. The 28 is nice, showing the shutter speed and I especially like the QL17’s aperture display and parallax-correcting framelines while focusing.

​​​​​​​

 

[leicapixie]

I read these cameras are mostly from the early 70's. How reliable would a Leica M be with no services, CLA or care! The Canon were at a very inexpensive level compared to you know who! Yet here many still working! I own an AE-1 (mint black) AE-1P (has the mouse thing) and my favorite AV-1! Seriously well-made cameras, super lenses, low contrast ala Leitz. Weigh way less than an M. If the correct Battery, Siver Oxide was good for 10,000 exposures. Canon data. 5 for a $1 not quite that good. Alkaline from Amazon OK. The camera not like Toronto's winter! Minus 15C~ and worse. Neither does Tr-X film.