Leica M6 vs. Canonet G-III... and the winner is...

[Michiel Fokkema]

Hi,

I have two nice canonets and two nice M6's.
Although the canonets are fun to use I see them as toys.
I also fondled with almost any other RF camera except the ZI.
It is just plain simple that the Leica has all the view frames, the build quality and the realibility. I can use 28 to 135mm. Only the Konica RF has the same frames but lower magnification and therefore less accurate and less bright also. Build quality seems to be oke but it has to prove itself in time.
I oppose to the rumour that a Leica is expensive. I used a M3 for 10 years without any trouble and sold it for more money than I payed for it. So, where's the expense? Just don't buy it new.
As mentioned before, the VF of the older Leica's might be fogged. Also desilvering can be a problem. It is therefore very difficult to compare VF's from older camera's unless they have been cleaned recently.
It is also very difficult to judge a camera when only examined a few minutes in a store.

Just shoot what you like most. For me it is Leica of Linhof. For you it is probaly something else.

Best regards,

Michiel Fokkema

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I shoot with the Leica's, and never worried about the "pristine" looking part. After the CLA, the mechanics and optics of the M3's and M2 are "pristine". The Nikon's, I sent a mechanically perfect SP to Shintaro to take out the dents and put a "Pristine" paint job on it. I never worried about that with the Leica's. They are just great handling cameras, and a pleasure to use. So is the "Pristine" Black SP.

 

[jaapv]

A brand spanking new M6? 😕 Anybody remember when it was discontinued and replaced with the M6TTL/M7/MP?

 

[Rob]

Since some folks have both the GIII and some sort of Leica could someone do some film testing for us all to see? When I test several cameras at one time I use one roll of film to test 3 cameras. Eight shots per camera roughly and I start wide open to stopped down. I just rewind the film back into the cannister and reload it into the next camera and so on.
That way I eliminate any processing differences between films. This is done on a tripod with the self timer to eliminate shake. The shots are also done within minutes of each other to take out weather variables. Some nice slide film would also show which produces better color. Since I have neither camera, I cant do the testing, but is anyone interested in trying it and posting the results?

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

Hi,

I can do the testing you ask for, but what's the use?
I have two canonet's and one is clearly better than the other.
And what Leica lens to use? I have a 35 summilux which is not nearly as good as the latest 35 summilux asph. I have a screw mount 3.5 Summaron which is as good as the canonet but much slower. Its all apples and pears.
Very roughly I'd say that the canonet is as good as the Leica lenses of the same age but not even close to the modern Leica lenses.

Best regards,

Michiel Fokkema

 

[jaapv]

Why should any camera produce better results or colours than any other? It is just the box holding the lens. The lens produces the picture....

 

[wtl]

Oh no...no more testing please. Save your film and get out... Who really cares about tripod testing shots anyway? Have we done enough testing shots of almost every camera and every lens that ever existed on earth? Still the arguments continue...

 

[Rob]

Well I have never seen any controled testing between Leica and other cameras the few comments and pics I have seen have been haphazard at best...If its been done before and someone has a URL, I would like to see it...Whatever is the equivalent focal length in Leica would be the one to test against a Canonet. As far as colors, yes the lens makes the colors and that is what we would really be testing. Some lenses have a cooler cast to them some warmer..

 

[einolu]

I dont think this thread has anything to do with image quality, it was just about feel and preference.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

If I'm to compare two vehicles for how they perform when I drive them around the mall, I don't know I'd get the full picture (no pun intended) if I'm not looking under the hood and seeing if there's anything wrong (i.e. previous owner hardly ever changed the oil, air filters, coolant, gaskets, etc.)

But whatever satisfies me is what counts, I guess. A valid comparison? Not sure...

 

[jaapv]

I think "lens tests" are meant here. There are thousands of those floating around the Internet. It is just a matter of Google......

 

[FrankS]

Leica M6 vs. Canonet G-III... and the winner is...

Wrong. There are no winners or losers, only preferences.

 

[louis]

I worked in a camera store when the Canonet G111 was new, and it sold then for about $95. It has a good lens, good rangefinder, but it's to big and heavy for a camera with one non-interchangeable lens. It won't fit in your pocket like an Olympus XA. I always thought you were better off spending more money and getting the Canon AE-1, a small, light SLR.

All Leicas are works of art as well as fine photographic instruments. Put one next to the Canonet and the Canonet looks cheaply built. My Olympus OM1 looks cheaply built nest to the Leica. I don't own a Leica; I can't afford a mint one.
Leicas are also well designed. I have a mint Voigtlander Prominent with several lenses. It's just as well made as a Leica M3 and cost as much when it first came out. The Prominent was just not as well designed as the Leica and over time, has not retained it's value.