Help Needed with Canon Canonet QL17

[granolablimp]

Hello everyone, I hope this is the right place to post this, but I am in need of some help.

I bought a Canon Ql17 rangefinder on eBay. The model I picked up is just the QL17, and not the G-III. I found the badging on that one a little too "bright". It's not the original one with the meter around the lens or that says "quick loading" on the front underneath the canon logo. Not 100% sure but I believe this is a model introduced in either 1969 or 1970, but I am not sure if there is a way to find the manufacture date.

So anyways, I decided to test a roll of ultramax 400 to confirm that the light seals were good as the seller promised. The camera didn't come with the original mercury battery (obviously), so I was using a light meter app on my iPhone. I believe it's called Lux, and I have attached the link below just in case.

https://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/lux-professional-light-meter-for-film-photography/id926139057?mt=8

So I got that film back and as far as I can tell everything looks good. Stupid me didn't get prints and tried to use a epson film scanner that I borrowed with unsatisfactory results. From what I tell though there is no light leaks and the exposure was decent as well. I also did some research on the battery and suitable replacements. I ended up ordering a wein cell which just came in a few days (halfway through a roll of ektar now). I'm starting to think I'm a little foolish jumping to a roll of ektar but too late now, its already nearly done.

Still with me? Next I popped the battery in and left it as the package says for about an hour. Popped in the camera and little did I know this would open my current can of worms, so to speak. I set the camera to A and the meter works as the seller also said, but sometimes it gives me a totally different f/stop than the metering app did. I did a test scene where I got the framing as close as I could on the canon viewfinder as well as the iphone. When doing that there was maybe 1/2 - 1 stop difference between the app and built in meter. Another odd thing I noticed is that when I put the meter app through the viewfinder, the aperture of both is bang on. This prompted me to do some research on the light cell, and supposedly it covers a larger area than the 40mm FOV of the lens. In addition to this, I believe it is simply average metering, while the app lets you meter to where you tap on the screen. I am thinking this could explain why I'm getting different exposure numbers for each but not 100% sure. Unfortunately I'm sort of at the point that I don't trust the app any more or the meter in the camera either. I've about 10 more frames to shoot and I'm wary about wasting the film (who knows if what I've shot up to now is gonna come out either). Finally, I checked out the battery compartment for corrosion and there is a little bit. I didn't try yet but I was either gonna use alcohol or contact cleaner on a q-tip. I'm not electrician, but I assume that could affect the voltage?

Sorry for that long post, and I would appreciate any input on how I should go forward. I really wanted to get the meter working in the camera, because using the app was starting to become a pain in the butt. If I had 3 hands it still wouldn't be enough.

 

[dmr]

You might try a controlled comparison between the meter and the camera. Try like a neutral wall lit by a constant source and see how they compare.

I'm not so sure I would trust a light meter app for a smartphone as being anything of a standard.

 

[madNbad]

From the description the camera is most likely a Canonet QL17L (Luxury) made between 1969 to early 1971 when the GIII was introduced. It can be identified if it has the battery check button next to the viewfinder but no exterior confirmation light. The C.R.I.S. MR-9 battery adapter may work a lot better than the Wein cell. They are a little spendy but is shipped with a 386 silver oxide battery that last a long time and the design of the adapter itself is close the same size as the old PX-13 mercury so it fits better in the battery compartment.

 

[granolablimp]

You might try a controlled comparison between the meter and the camera. Try like a neutral wall lit by a constant source and see how they compare.

I'm not so sure I would trust a light meter app for a smartphone as being anything of a standard.

Yeah, I'm going to set up a test later and see how the results differ. I assume if there is maybe 1/2 to 1 stop difference between the methods then I don't really have to worry. I plan to primarily shoot ektar and some say as it's print film it can tolerate a few stops, but others claim that blues become purple when underexposed even slightly. Anyhow, I'm just gonna put a piece of paper up with a light on the wall. Does framing really affect this? Or should I just point it at the middle?

Regarding your point about the light meter app being nothing of a standard, do you mean to say that the meter in the camera is likely fine, but the app is off?

From the description the camera is most likely a Canonet QL17L (Luxury) made between 1969 to early 1971 when the GIII was introduced. It can be identified if it has the battery check button next to the viewfinder but no exterior confirmation light. The C.R.I.S. MR-9 battery adapter may work a lot better than the Wein cell. They are a little spendy but is shipped with a 386 silver oxide battery that last a long time and the design of the adapter itself is close the same size as the old PX-13 mercury so it fits better in the battery compartment.

Yeah, this matches my camera perfectly! Regarding the battery, the wein cell from what I understand is essentialy a 675 Zinc Air battery with an adapter collar attached, and it can be seperated, and you can buy 675 Z/A hearing aid batteries to use with the adapter collar. The MR-9 would probably be a good idea, but I figure since i already have the wein cell, that I can just remove the battery from the collar and try some of those 675 Z/A batteries, which are essentially the same as what I have now with the wein cell.

 

[Huss]

C41 film is fine for overexposing a bit, but underexposing makes things muddy real quick.
The slower the film, the more sensitive it is to exposure latitude. So if your meter is off, you'd be better using a 400 speed film.

Some people have been happy w light meter apps, but the one I used (I have not used others) - Pocket Light Meter - has been very unreliable. Sometimes it just gives completely wonky readings.

 

[rfaspen]

When doing that there was maybe 1/2 - 1 stop difference between the app and built in meter. Another odd thing I noticed is that when I put the meter app through the viewfinder, the aperture of both is bang on.

I know its an uncomfortable feeling, but less than one stop discrepancy is not significant. I have compared plenty of in-camera meters and handheld meters (all combinations of these) and I would suggest that the intrinsic variation among meters easily encompasses a discrepancy of up to 1 stop. I suspect both of your meters are good and giving good results (yes, I know . How can that be if they're giving different numbers?). Its process variation - measurement error - slop. Especially when we're considering an old consumer-grade meter in the Canon, and a phone app which is essentially a hack co-opting the phone to behave like a purpose-built light meter. They actually do a decent job when you consider this.

Have you noticed a direction to the discrepancy between your app and the camera? i.e., does the phone app always indicate an exposure greater than the Canon's meter?

 

[granolablimp]

C41 film is fine for overexposing a bit, but underexposing makes things muddy real quick.
The slower the film, the more sensitive it is to exposure latitude. So if your meter is off, you'd be better using a 400 speed film.

Some people have been happy w light meter apps, but the one I used (I have not used others) - Pocket Light Meter - has been very unreliable. Sometimes it just gives completely wonky readings.

I guess the only way to know for sure would be to get a dedicated photography meter, but at that price forget it. Back in the day people got away using this camera with the inbuilt meter. If my results are underexposed, I can always set the ISO selector lower or higher (forget which one it is now) to adjust. I have been recording f/stops and shutter speeds of all my photos to give me an idea when I get the prints. Anyways, see my reply right below regarding the results of my exposure meter testing.

I know its an uncomfortable feeling, but less than one stop discrepancy is not significant. I have compared plenty of in-camera meters and handheld meters (all combinations of these) and I would suggest that the intrinsic variation among meters easily encompasses a discrepancy of up to 1 stop. I suspect both of your meters are good and giving good results (yes, I know . How can that be if they're giving different numbers?). Its process variation - measurement error - slop. Especially when we're considering an old consumer-grade meter in the Canon, and a phone app which is essentially a hack co-opting the phone to behave like a purpose-built light meter. They actually do a decent job when you consider this.

Have you noticed a direction to the discrepancy between your app and the camera? i.e., does the phone app always indicate an exposure greater than the Canon's meter?

I just did some testing and wrote down the differences. For ISO 200 at 1/30th of a second, the canon's meter needle was between 1.7 and 2.8. Which I assume it means it is using an aperture between those? I've had the needle go through the middle of 2.8 and 1.7 on occasions so I believe this is the case. For the exact same setup, the app said f/16! I didn't think it would complicate things, but I tried shutter priority on my olympus micro four thirds camera with a 40mm equiv lens, and f/6.3 is what the camera said at iso 200 at 1/30th.

So it seems like if the camera is accurate then the canon is tending to over expose by a bit, which I guess as you say isn't as bad as under exposing. I am not sure if the half sized sensor in the digital camera would affect the exposure settings, but I wouldn't think it would.

Upon completing this little experiment, I decided to finish the rest of the ektar roll on a walk. I figured if I didn't then I would just sit here worrying what meter to trust forever, and never see the results.

Anyways, I hope this gives some kind of insight. Should I also try cleaning the battery contact corrosion, or would that in no way affect the metering of the camera?

Thanks

 

[rfaspen]

It sounds like a good course of action would be to finish out the roll of Ektar. Try just using the meter in the Canon for all your exposures. As you probably know, Ektar is one of the more picky C-41 films out there, so your results should give an indication whether to just trust the Canon's meter and go out making photographs with only your camera, or if you might need to augment/override the camera's meter when you go out (with a handheld meter or phone app). Either way, I think you're committed to yet another roll of film after this Ektar to pin down the particulars.

In the end, you'll have things resolved and a nice little RF camera to accompany daily life.

Remember, this is all supposed to be fun

 

[Huss]

... Should I also try cleaning the battery contact corrosion, or would that in no way affect the metering of the camera?

Thanks

Definitely clean that off! It could cause extra resistance which may result in lower voltage values - which would effect the metering of the camera.

 

[granolablimp]

It sounds like a good course of action would be to finish out the roll of Ektar. Try just using the meter in the Canon for all your exposures. As you probably know, Ektar is one of the more picky C-41 films out there, so your results should give an indication whether to just trust the Canon's meter and go out making photographs with only your camera, or if you might need to augment/override the camera's meter when you go out (with a handheld meter or phone app). Either way, I think you're committed to yet another roll of film after this Ektar to pin down the particulars.

In the end, you'll have things resolved and a nice little RF camera to accompany daily life.

Remember, this is all supposed to be fun

Yeah, I need to remember this.. don't sweat the little details so much, and if it's that important to get a photographic record of something, take a digital photo as well. Anyhow, dropped the film off today, and was shocked to see that the price of ektar went up a few bucks... sadly don't think I'm going to use it until I come up with a solution, or else purchase some cheaper film off ebay. I found many people on ebay selling ektar from china, which I thought was weird as the box says made in the USA....

Definitely clean that off! It could cause extra resistance which may result in lower voltage values - which would effect the metering of the camera.

Did this using some deoxit contact cleaner on a q-tip. no change in the fstop values before and afterwards.



I set up another controlled test, making sure that I focused to infinity this time on all the devices involved. I set everything to use shutter priority at 1/30th of a second @ ISO 400. The canonet showed the needle between 2.8 and 4, which I am not sure means 3.something, as I don't recall actually seeing the meter right on 4 at any point. My digital micro four thirds OMD camera said f/8, while the app varied between f/8 and f/16 depending on the exact framing. Now, not sure how accurate this is, but assuming the digicam is right, is there any way to adjust the meter in the canonet? I guess I could shoot iso 100 film at 400 or 800 to compensate, but I am curious if there is trim screw or anything of the like to adjust. I really don't want to rely on shooting with an app or digital camera at the same time, as it ruins the experience for me.

 

[Dwig]

You might try a controlled comparison between the meter and the camera. Try like a neutral wall lit by a constant source and see how they compare.

I'm not so sure I would trust a light meter app for a smartphone as being anything of a standard.

... and when doing a test like this with a camera that uses a needle for exposure display you need to test with the camera orientated in several positions. A basic test would be:
1. horizontal framing while aiming level
2. vertical framing while aiming level
3. pointing straight down
The needle mechanism can easily get out of balance. When it does, the meter can read 1-3 stops different in each of the orientations. My pet test method is to use a light box held against the lens so the the lighting is exactly the same in each position. These days, a phone displaying a blank white screen works well as the light source.

 

[granolablimp]

... and when doing a test like this with a camera that uses a needle for exposure display you need to test with the camera orientated in several positions. A basic test would be:
1. horizontal framing while aiming level
2. vertical framing while aiming level
3. pointing straight down
The needle mechanism can easily get out of balance. When it does, the meter can read 1-3 stops different in each of the orientations. My pet test method is to use a light box held against the lens so the the lighting is exactly the same in each position. These days, a phone displaying a blank white screen works well as the light source.

I just did this to see if it makes a difference... the needle is right between both 5.6 and 8 with barely perceptible deviations in the different positions. So, for 1/30th @ ISO400, the canon says to use between 5.6 and 8, while my dedicated digital camera says 16. There is definitely something up, should I check the voltage of that wein cell? maybe it's just defective

 

[rfaspen]

Yeah, I need to remember this.. don't sweat the little details so much, and if it's that important to get a photographic record of something, take a digital photo as well. Anyhow, dropped the film off today, and was shocked to see that the price of ektar went up a few bucks... sadly don't think I'm going to use it until I come up with a solution, or else purchase some cheaper film off ebay. I found many people on ebay selling ektar from china, which I thought was weird as the box says made in the USA....

I have a strong suspicion that your roll of Ektar will come back with a fair number of well-exposed images; despite the fact that Ektar is a more picky film among the C-41 print films out there. From the previous posts in this thread, I just get the feeling that your Canon's meter is doing well. The real test would be some transparency film. I don't remeber which slide film is most "picky", but someone here can tell us. Try a roll of picky slide film and then you'll know if the meter is way off (we need to keep in mind how scenes vary when evaluating the meter's performance -- e.g., shots in snowy landscapes).

I find it sad to hear about increasing prices for Ektar. It was prohibitively expensive to begin with! If they want me to continue to purchase this expensive film, increasing the price is probably the worst thing they can do. Wonderful film, but the rolls in my freezer may be the last I shoot if the price doesn't move into my "cost-effective zone". I wonder if the price is truly reflective of the cost of production, or just based on a profit target. I rarely shoot C-41 these days, and almost all of it is films I have already stockpiled. But, that's another story for another day.

Let us know how the roll of Ektar turns out. Like I said, I bet it comes back with a lot of good exposures.

Oh, and ebay....lots of weirdness with film on ebay. Several members here on RFF have "played" with the ebay film situation. In short, a lot of those Chinese sellers with prices "too good to be true" are just what you think. They're scams. Be careful out there. Of course there are some genuine deals out there, but the scams seem to have increased substantially over the last year or so. Errr!!

 

[granolablimp]

I have a strong suspicion that your roll of Ektar will come back with a fair number of well-exposed images; despite the fact that Ektar is a more picky film among the C-41 print films out there. From the previous posts in this thread, I just get the feeling that your Canon's meter is doing well. The real test would be some transparency film. I don't remeber which slide film is most "picky", but someone here can tell us. Try a roll of picky slide film and then you'll know if the meter is way off (we need to keep in mind how scenes vary when evaluating the meter's performance -- e.g., shots in snowy landscapes).

I find it sad to hear about increasing prices for Ektar. It was prohibitively expensive to begin with! If they want me to continue to purchase this expensive film, increasing the price is probably the worst thing they can do. Wonderful film, but the rolls in my freezer may be the last I shoot if the price doesn't move into my "cost-effective zone". I wonder if the price is truly reflective of the cost of production, or just based on a profit target. I rarely shoot C-41 these days, and almost all of it is films I have already stockpiled. But, that's another story for another day.

Let us know how the roll of Ektar turns out. Like I said, I bet it comes back with a lot of good exposures.

Oh, and ebay....lots of weirdness with film on ebay. Several members here on RFF have "played" with the ebay film situation. In short, a lot of those Chinese sellers with prices "too good to be true" are just what you think. They're scams. Be careful out there. Of course there are some genuine deals out there, but the scams seem to have increased substantially over the last year or so. Errr!!

That would definitely suck if the price did go up, I am hoping it's just my local store that marked it up. Sadly here in canada there is next to no choice these days regarding where to buy/process film. Still better than amazon who wants 28.99 PER ROLL, give me a break. In my city there is only one place left to do film. Only C-41 unfortunately, so even if i can get my hands on some slide film, i'll have no one to process it. In fact the only place I could find that still does E-6 is in another province. This is already cost prohibitive as it is which kinda sucks. Can you really get film to last past the date if you freeze it? As you say, a question for another day.


Anyhow, this time i ordered prints. I was gonna get the CD for digital images, but it was quite expensive for low res scans. I'm going to be working on my scanning rig, but when I do get the prints in, I will upload some pics here, so I can get an idea on exposure. I'm not gonna fiddle with or adjust anything until I know there is an actual problem. I too hope I get some good shots. I made careful note on what shots used the inbuilt meter and which used the app, as well as the settings used.

 

[granolablimp]

Hello again. got my photos back today from the lab and overall, they seemed to come out pretty decently (both the shots using the internal light meter as well as the app).

Here is the gallery link
https://imgur.com/a/OZtMTUz


I uploaded a gallery below with which shots used which metering method (app or builtin camera). Anyways, it seems the exposures from both methods are usable but, I am noticing that the images appear a little soft. The ones of the antenna, and the building as well as the beach was shot at infinity focus. Maybe I need to stop down a little more for those shots? Or am I doing something wrong? Maybe I'm just not used to how film differs from digital.

Finally, the last picture is one of the negatives I got back. That was the shiny side. Are those scratches? And if so, is it the lab, or the camera? Unofurtanelty home developing c-41 is not something I plan on doing (at least not yet) based on the cost of everything involved. So as a result I hope this isnt the lab. Also, near the sprocket holes on one side is some kind of residue/drying marks/water spots. I also noticed some kind of circular ring spot near the far side of the road on the one of the building. What could this be?

 

[dmr]

Yeah, I'm going to set up a test later and see how the results differ. I assume if there is maybe 1/2 to 1 stop difference between the methods then I don't really have to worry. I plan to primarily shoot ektar and some say as it's print film it can tolerate a few stops, but others claim that blues become purple when underexposed even slightly. Anyhow, I'm just gonna put a piece of paper up with a light on the wall. Does framing really affect this? Or should I just point it at the middle?

Regarding your point about the light meter app being nothing of a standard, do you mean to say that the meter in the camera is likely fine, but the app is off?

My "standard" is a bare off-white (eggshell) bathroom wall with the overhead and vanity lights on dimmers. When I check things, I first use something that I know is somewhat accurate, like the Gossen meter or the Pentax and set the dimmers to something in the range of what I'm testing.

Then I will check the camera I'm testing, such as the GIIIs or the Mamiyas, and compare. I fill the frame with the bare wall.

I figure if things compare within 1 stop, things are peachy!

Also keep in mind that the meter or auto exposure system is offering you a "suggestion" for the exposure and not the undisputed truth!

I admit to being cynical about all kinds of cell phone functions that replace normal tools. I recently scrapped a level app when I realized that my eyes were more accurate in leveling a hung picture frame than the phone. I also have a SPL meter app which I suspect is not very accurate. I would surely compare a light meter app with a known good meter or camera that you know is accurate before depending on it.

 

[thawkins]

I have a QL17 that could be a twin to yours. I bought it from the evil bay about 11 years ago. Upon arrival I had a complete CLA Including meter recalibration for 1.5v battery done. This is a great camera. The meter is spot on....never more than about a half stop from a Luna pro F meter. I have tried the iPhone meter and have no confidence there. You have a keeper. Enjoy it,

 

[granolablimp]

I have a QL17 that could be a twin to yours. I bought it from the evil bay about 11 years ago. Upon arrival I had a complete CLA Including meter recalibration for 1.5v battery done. This is a great camera. The meter is spot on....never more than about a half stop from a Luna pro F meter. I have tried the iPhone meter and have no confidence there. You have a keeper. Enjoy it,

Yeah. It seems like maybe one time out of alot, the meter in the canon slightly over exposes, but that at least gives me the peace of mind. Ektar is a pickier film, but I've seen examples of one stop under and over.. Under is much worse but even then still quite usable. Don't think my meter is recalibrated, but I will be using zinc air cells after the wein cell dies. I checked the battery with the volt meter and it is indeed just a 1.4v hearing aid battery. Good camera so far, and i've actually had more fun shooting with it than I did with a nikon fe slr. Did your ad mention it was CLA'd? My guy had told me a camera shop checked it out, but thats about it. It just needed the rear lens cleaned.

 

[willie_901]

I bought a very nice Canonet QL-17 in 2006. That camera converted me to a rangefinder proponent. Even today I operate my X-100T as operated the Canonet.

As rfaspen mentioned above, there's no reason for a Canonet meter with a Weinn battery to match an external light meter. I have a fuzzy memory that Weinn cells need a minor modification (resistor change??) to match how a mercury cell would work. When your Canonet was brand new, its meter was never intended to be as accurate as a hand-held meter.

The meter's CdS cells do age (their impedance response range becomes compressed) which is another possibility.

I tried Zn batteries, but the ones I used had very short lifetimes.

Even the very best in-camera meter is just an estimate for optimum exposure parameters. Once you have more experience with the Canonet, you can learn how to optimize exposure using the meter reading as a starting point.

What I'm saying is, you are smarter than any light meter because you can apply your experience to the meter's reading and modify the exposure as needed.