JMP
Established
I decided to do some comparison shots with my two new cameras, an old, larger Canonet QL17, and the newer GIII QL17. Using the same film type/speed, aperture, and shutter, I took several shots in the same place, of the same subject, one after the other. The film was processed by the same lab in the same order batch.
I am pleased by the performance of the GIII but rather disappointed by the shots from the older QL17. They seem to lack contrast and look as if there is a lot of stray light entering the lens (?). For other shots on the roll I used a hood, but the problem is still prevalent. However, there are a few shots which appear sharper, with better color and contrast. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks.
By the way, it's interesting to see where the edges of the shots fall on the subject resulting from the 5mm difference in focal length.
GIII shots are to the left.
I am pleased by the performance of the GIII but rather disappointed by the shots from the older QL17. They seem to lack contrast and look as if there is a lot of stray light entering the lens (?). For other shots on the roll I used a hood, but the problem is still prevalent. However, there are a few shots which appear sharper, with better color and contrast. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks.
By the way, it's interesting to see where the edges of the shots fall on the subject resulting from the 5mm difference in focal length.
GIII shots are to the left.
TPPhotog
Well-known
Don't know if it is of any use but I find the pictures I get from the Small QL17 and the QL17 GIII to be the same quality and if I didn't label the negs I wouldn't be able to tell which are from which camera.
I guess they could have improved the glass production between the larger and smaller QL17s?
I guess they could have improved the glass production between the larger and smaller QL17s?
JMP
Established
TPPhotog said:
Perhaps. It does appear that the GIII lens has a more obvious coating; I'm not sure if the old QL17 lens is coated at all. I'm waiting for a coated Hoya UV filter to arrive to see if it makes any difference.
parks5920
Well-known
Both like very nice to me!
TPPhotog
Well-known
I look forward to hearing if the UV filter effects the results, this has me interested 
MrRanger
Rangefinder Jockey
JMP said:
Well, my old eyes aren't the best but after checking them several times - I'd say the ones on the left do seem more contrasty.
Mike
Fedzilla_Bob
man with cat
I keep a skylight filter and a lens hood on my large ql17. I believe it makes a difference.
I also believe that the Old QL has a lens coating. It is more likely that the coatings changed.
I also believe that the Old QL has a lens coating. It is more likely that the coatings changed.
djon
Well-known
This is partially a matter of taste. High contrast isn't a positive to everyone...the newer lens obviously lost a lot of shadow detail and could be considered inferior to the more contrasty image for that reason...depends on what you want...the older lens might be much better for portraits, where contrast is often undesirable...some Leica lenses are disappointingly flat, others are obnoxiously contrasty, eye of beholder etc...some people hate Nikon lenses for excessive contrast, others love it...... a UV filter won't change anything IMO as the overcast scene has very little UV to it...
Poptart
Screw Loose & Fancy-Free
It could be an exposure variation too; two different cameras are rarely in calibration.