Canon LTM Fair price for Glll QL17?? What did you pay for yours....

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Nostalgie said:
Thanks for the replies so far, I lowered my price, Ill see what happens.
Bryan
Click to expand...

Dear Bryan,

I think I may be going in the opposite direction of most of folks here. I have bought 3 GIIIs from ebay. By us$ 50 most of the chances are that you are going to get a GIII ranging from defective to plain garbage. Of course there are lucky and unlucky cases, with interst to no one.

Buying a camera from Greyhoundman is of course the best deal on the planet. The only problem being that as soon as our G man puts the last dot on his ad, the camera is already sold. Therefore this doesn't count.

Buying a camera personally, at your city, neighbourhood or relative, is a totally different issue, as you can check the camera and your neighbour being ready to give it for free, feeling happy if you pay him $15. So this type of situation is irrelevant too.

But you are selling your camera via internet/RFF forum, to forum members. This means you are selling a camera to a very specific group, ready to appreciate a good working horse.

If your yellow patch is contrasty and easy to identify, the camera value goes up accordingly.

If the meter works accurately, and smooth, the price goes up.

If all rings rotate smooth, the price goes up.

If the camera is cosmetically like new, the price goes up.

If the camera range finding is accurate, really accurate, at 0.8 and infinity, the price should go up a lot.

If the camera has been serviced during the last 2 years, overall service, the price goes up.

How much such hypotetically perfect camera should be priced, in my opinion ?
Between 150 and 200 bucks. Now, what I would do if I wanted to sell such hypotetically perfect camera at it real value and no one shows for buying? I will stick to the real value of my camera, make a glass of tea and wait a year or two before thinking lowering the price.

In my opinion, between RFF members, cameras should be sold at their real internet value. Internet value is the price of a camera I, as a buyer, cannot check, but am ready to believe you are accurately describing.

A camera or any gear sold at RFF should be described in utmost detail, without excuses, and the seller be able to explain in detail why he is asking the price he is asking.

Cheers,
Ruben

PS
I have not looked at your ad, and prefer not to, leaving to you the last word.
 
I'm curious about this camera. I want one, but I can't put my finger on why, exactly.

I have a Yashica Electro 35, which is said to be a better camera in many respects. (lens, shutter) But no manual and very limited mechanical options. So what's better, a Canonet GIII QL17 or a Yashica Lynx 14?
 
Jeremy Z said:
I'm curious about this camera. I want one, but I can't put my finger on why, exactly.

I have a Yashica Electro 35, which is said to be a better camera in many respects. (lens, shutter) But no manual and very limited mechanical options. So what's better, a Canonet GIII QL17 or a Yashica Lynx 14?
Click to expand...

To my humble opinion the three cameras you mentioned are not in the same league at all, nor in size/weight, nor in the situations they are best for. Therefore you are right in your feeling you are missing something. Have the three.

What attracts me more in the Canonet GIII is the amazing amount of features contained in a small package of camera, well organized for their manipulation. Other manufacturers have throw to the market smaller cameras with plenty of features, yet in contrast to the GIII they are a pain in the back to manipulate with your fingers. Or even to read the markings. The Canonet is not perfect, but the best overall balance in the most reasonably shrinked size. In this sense it reminds the late OM1 renaissance.

By comparizon, the Electros stand out as the fastest camera to manipulate due to both its better yellow patch, which has left behind by far the GIII patch along the proof of aging, and due to its clever no-speed-auto dial. By a superfluos view the Electro auto way can be seen as a drawback. But to my opinion it is a very clever design. Do you must shoot in a hurry, the Electro will give you the best foolproof results at the shortest time manipulation. Do you have time and want to know what speed are you using, no problem as well - just count the f-stops from either light warning. Do you want something in the middle, follow the same proceeding with less steps.

The Lynx 14 attracts me as many others by its f/1.4. But allow me to explain myself a bit. You cannot use the Electro with a faster film than ISO 1000. You can use a 1600 though with a Canonet GIII used in manual mode, with a handheld meter. So why not using a Canonet with its f/1.7 max aperture with a Neopan 1600 and handheld meter ? First you can do it, technically speaking.
But I do not know why, nor I have any proof about it, I would not rely on the GIII f/1.7 aperture. Perhaps I read too much and test too less.
Secondly, it will be a bit anachronistic to enslave a multi-use, auto featured camera, like the Canonet, to manual use only, with separate handheld meter only and Iso 1600 film.

But the contrary is not less true. Due to its big size and weight, to have a Lynx 14 as a general purpose camera is no less anachronistic to my taste. Yet making it a dedicated camera for very low light situations, with ISO 1600, makes much more sense to me.
The third and last argument for using the Lynx 14 as described, is that if you have good pics with your Canonet at 1/30, there are good chances you will have good pics with the Lynx at 1/15 speed, precisely because of its weight and size, thus further widening its capacity for low light.



Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom