Holy Cow that's Sharp...

joeyjoe

New rangefinder lover
Local time
9:13 PM
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
61
Is it just me, or is this image really, really friggin' sharp?

BluesGuitarAdjustedweb.jpg


I don't know what the deal is, but the shots that I get out of my Canonet seem sharper than anything else I own. That includes my Canon EOS SLR and older FD stuff as well. I think this shot was stopped down to about f 5.6 or so.

I love my rangefinder.

There's more in my gallery; comments are always welcome :)
 
Beautiful indeed. Joe I had the same impression after my first Canonet shots, somehow they look sharper than anything I did before, the lens is great from mid aperture an on, and the quiet leaf shutter allows for more steady hand held shots, which film did you use ?
 
After working on quite some rangefinders' and even tlrs' focusing, i've come to a conclusion. It's very important to have the lens-to-film distance correctly set, whatever camera you own. I think it's much more important than the slight differences between modern lenses.

The canonets are quite robustly built, i would expect that they retain their accuracy very well over time. My two yashica GSN's both wobble a bit (i mean the lens barrel wobbles in the body), while the canonets (even the one run over by a tank) are steady smooth.

The biggest danger is if they are dropped on their face or disassembled and reassembled in a bad/inaccurate way, i would say. Or, of course, if the rf is misaligned.

An extra problem with SLR's and fast lenses is, people think they look through the lens so if it's in focus it's in focus. However, what they see is not the image on the film, it's an image on a ground glass which can be a little bit misaligned. With an 50mm f/1.2 lens (or a 85/1.4, a true 1:1 macro lens etc) there's a great danger of too thin DOF on both the subject and image side. If there's a tiny misalignment of the focus screen, you get off focus easily.
 
But i agree that the pic you've posted is very sharp on the subject, and it's a nice picture compositionwise too! which has nothing to do with the camera:D
 
Pherdinand's reasoning is consistent with my experience. A few years ago I had a couple EOS RT bodies and the pix never seemed quite right from either. I put it down the pellicle design for a while but finally got frustrated and took 'em to my service guy. It turned out both needed mirror alignment. After that, MAJOR improvement in quality. Now I wish I hadn't sold those cams!

I wonder if it's easier to align an RF than a reflex mirror?

BTW, my Canonet also seems very sharp. I make a 'Fall color' pic a few years ago on a roll that was otherwise occupied with family/kid pix. Amost every one who went through those pix wanted a print of the Fall color!

And yes, to answer your question, your pic does look sharp. Bet it looks even better when printed! Did you make one without so much background?

:) /ScottGee1
 
Last edited:
Very nice shot and great subject.

An Industar 61LD has just landed in my hands from Ukraine. I hope to try to achieve something even approaching this.
 
Hmm... how do you find out if your camera needs a mirror adjustment? For the most part, my SLR shots are good but if they can be better and sharper, then I should try to make it happen.

And to answer taffer's question: The only film I've put through my Canonet so far is XP2 Super @ 400 asa. It's my favorite at the time and I think I've got it's behavior down pretty good so I stick with it.
 
Since we are on the subject of sharp. Check this one out. This was done with a canon Digital SLR and a Zeiss 35-70mm zoom. Thanks to this shot I have sold many adapters to mount Zeiss on canon cameras. I think this is one of the sharpest I have personally taken.

attachment.php
 
The only way is to check if the focus is reallly on the point where you wanted it to be. A piece of graded paper or ruler photographed from a 45 degree angle, focused on the middle, is a good tool. You will immediately see if, on the image, the focus is off by say two centimeters forward or backward.
 
Yep Joe, XP2 can be very very sharp, if possible, do some tests rating it around 200 as well (you may even mix different EI shots in the same roll, just process it normally and the scan will do the rest), seems to be even better at that ISO.
 
taffer said:
Beautiful indeed. Joe I had the same impression after my first Canonet shots, somehow they look sharper than anything I did before, the lens is great from mid aperture an on, and the quiet leaf shutter allows for more steady hand held shots

I've been following Canonet 1.7 prices on Ebay and making an occasional bid. Some have been selling for less than $30. I figure I'll win one of them in the near future. I'm getting the impression that the consensus here is that it's one of the best ones for somebody who wants to get (back) into a rangefinder, but doesn't have all kinds of $$$ for that purpose. :)
 
I like its robustness, relatively good build, and i like the manual override option. However, i'd prefer aperture priority autoexposure such as the one on Yashica Electro's..
 
Yeah, what I wouldn't give for an aperture priority canonet... that'd be sweet. I think I'm going to try out the XP2 rated at 200 ISO next chance I get.
 
dmr436 said:
I've been following Canonet 1.7 prices on Ebay and making an occasional bid. Some have been selling for less than $30. I figure I'll win one of them in the near future. I'm getting the impression that the consensus here is that it's one of the best ones for somebody who wants to get (back) into a rangefinder, but doesn't have all kinds of $$$ for that purpose. :)

dmr436, if I wanted to get a Canonet (or any other cam ) I 'd ask here on RFF first. These guys won't sell you bad stuff. FleaBay....is a scary place when it comes to rangefinder cameras ... worse than Russian roulette!
 
I love my Canonet QL17 and have taken some really enjoyable pictures with it, particularly in low light on 800 ASA film (that leaf shutter is so gentle). Stopping down, though, really makes a difference. Wide open it gets really soft, which can be an interesting effect, but something to be careful of.
 
joe, he looks like Paganini on guitar....playing with broken strings:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That picture is sharp! The Canonet 40mm F1.7 really sharpens up at F4 and has great contrast. It is good wide-open. I spent this snowy day bringing a Canonet back on-line, new front element, new seals, etc. I have had at least 8, and have owned one or another continuously for almost 25 years. Some of the full-sized RF's are a bit sharper wide-open. My Konica S2 and Minolta Hi-Matic 9 are somewhat better wide-open than the Canonet. These cameras go for $25~$50, compared with the Canonet's $50~$100 range for an "average" (unserviced but working) camera.

The Canonet has a convenience factor that most fixed-lens RF's could do better on; soft/short-throw shutter release, full manual over-ride, auto-parallax correction, bright RF spot, and convenient size. It has the worst ever-ready case that suffers from horrible dry-rot. Usually I look for cameras that have been stored in a case as it protects them. In the Canonet's case, the dry-rot vinyl gets into the camera and mucks up the works.
 
Back
Top Bottom