Picking a Canonet

[Bobbo]

Hello again to the forum. It's been a long time🙂.

I'm finally wanting to get back into rangefinders. I want to get a Leica, but alas, it's either a leica and one good lens or a new mac laptop and a backup / wide-angle D70 ... and a used Nikon F100🙂

So I'm looking at Canonets... I don't know which one to pick, though. I'm thinking the QL17 GIII (cause it's the popular choice probably), but I'm thinking maybe an older Canonet 28 or maybe even an original... The bottom wind might be fun to try, and I honestly don't care about the meter too much, but then again full auto might be a fun thing to mess with...

I have no idea🙂. I'm just looking for something cheap to play with. As long as it works, I really don't care.

Thanks for all the help I'll probably get🙂,
Bob Clark

 

[tobias gerhards]

Yeah, I'm also thinking of buying a Canonet 28 just for trying out developing the film myself. Still I think the Canonet 28 shoot great pictures and looks great! But I'm sharing your philosophy - as long as it works, I really don't care. First I was thinking of buying the Leica IIIc. There is actually a so far low bid of that one on eBay. And sure, it's a real rarity, but I rather choose the Canonet 28 that you can get for around $20 or cheaper.

 

[peter_n]

I have a Canonet QL17 GIII. I paid around $30 on eBay for it then had it CLA'd by Essex. It came back like a new camera and the lens is very good indeed on my sample. I highly recommend the QL17.

 

[filmgoerjuan]

I love my Canonet 28, but be warned that it's a fully automatic camera which can be a little limiting (it picks the aperature and shutter speed for you, and you only get to see the shutter speed in the viewfinder). If your battery dies or meter dies, you're out of luck (although you can set the aperature manually, you're stuck at 1/30 only as that is the flash sync speed).

I'd get a Canonet QL17 or QL19, either the GIII or earlier models. You can shoot fully manually even if the meter doesn't work and the lenses are superb.

 

[vrgard]

I'd go for the Canonet QL17 GIII myself (small size, quality relatively fast lens, manual & automatic as desired, etc.). But I think getting one in good condition that doesn't already need a cleaning and seal replacement will likely cost a bit more than the prices quoted in the replies above.

 

[Austintatious]

The GIII is a fine performer! Size is handy, glass is tack sharp,auto or manual mode. Bright VF with a very visible RF patch,easy to focus, it is one of my favs.

Charles

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

Bobbo,

What happened to your Kiev?

I would recomend the Ql-17 GIII or the QL-19 over the 28.

Wayne

 

[Bobbo]

Thanks for the replies. A kind member of the board offered me a QL17 GIII for a very good price. It needs new foam, but hey, I have one of Jon Goodman's kits, and it's not like I haven't refoamed cameras before (last count is around 15, so I've been around the block a little bit). I should be all set. I even have a really ratty-looking never-ready case coming, so nobody will try to steal it off me🙂. As soon as I get some more Tri-X, I'll shoot some through it and let everyone know how it works out. I can see it getting used in the really small "lab" theatre that my college uses for some productions. It SHOULD be quieter than my D1H or F2, right🙂?

Just as a side question, how reliable are the original Canonets (45/1.9 lenses, selenium cells around the lens, bottom winders)? That might be something to look at, seeing how there's always a plethora of them cheap on *Bay, and the bottom winding would be something different for a different day...damn, why do I have this strange feeling I'm going to end up with a complete Canonet collection (other than buying one good one of each would be less than that Leica M4 and 35/2 'cron I was looking at in the shop yesterday...)?.

Thanks again,
Bob Clark

 

[JoeFriday]

I had a 28 and didn't like it.. but my QL17 GIII took this shot at 6am with a dead battery.. even meterless, I managed to get one of my personal favorite shots

 

[ampguy]

Thats a great shot Joe

Thats a great shot Joe

probably for the best that the meter wasn't working 😀

I had a 28 and didn't like it.. but my QL17 GIII took this shot at 6am with a dead battery.. even meterless, I managed to get one of my personal favorite shots

 

[sirius]

Nice shot Brett.

I have a QL17 GIII. It's a great camera. They are a pretty design and small. I think they are even quieter than leicas. The iris aperature makes a hissing sound. You will apreciate having manual control in this camera versus over the Canonets (I have one of those too and they get rather boring to use).

B&H sells Weiss air batteries that are the correct voltage for this camera. There are no other modern equivalents as these cameras used mercury batteries. There is someone named g'man on RFF who can readjust the camera to take modern voltage (1.5v). If you plug-in a new battery without adjusting the camera the meter will be off.

Have fun!

 

[sirius]

Here is a picture that I took with one. The aperature was fully open. You can see the star shaped out-of-focus areas in the background. The whole roll had this antique colour cast. This camera works really well in low light. There is vingnetting.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=4252

 

[dmr]

I agree that the QL17 GIII is a good choice.

The only real disadvantage to it is that it doesn't say "Leica" on it. 🙂

I daresay that very few of the people here could tell the difference between a similar shot on the GIII and one on any of the M models. (Or a Canon S3 or a Fed or Zorki or an Olympus Stylus or a {gasp} digital, but ...)

The GIII probably gives you the most bang for the buck than anything else you'll see talked about here. 🙂

Of course you don't have all those agonizing decisions, like whether to use that 35mm f3.5 fnordinar or the 40mm 2.8 blargicron to shoot the folk dancing at this year's Arbor Day festivities. 🙂 🙂

Oh well ... 🙂

 

[schrackman]

Hi Bob,

I have really fallen for my GIII. My only complaint is that focusing can be a bit cumbersome at first, but I'm getting used to using the focusing ring. The viewfinder also presents a bit of a challenge for me, but I'm getting used to that too. Having shot only digital the past three years I suppose it's a little more difficult for me to get used to a camera like this. But I'm sure you'll enjoy the Canonet and will probably take to it a bit faster. Probably the best thing I like about this camera is the lens. Very sharp, and fast, unlike the cheap Sigma lenses I use on my DRebel.

 

[peter_n]

OK so here's a couple of shots from my QL17 in the gallery here. The middle one was shot somewhere between f1.7 and f2 so you can see what the lens looks like fairly wide open. 🙂

 

[tobias gerhards]

I bought a Canonet 28 a few days ago. Didn't know about the limited issue that it's fully automatic, but it's cool anyway. Will definetely buy another compact camera later (like the Olympus 35LC).

 

[Bobbo]

Thank you all again. I got my QL17 G-III in the mail yesterday. I swapped the foam, gave it a once-over with a cotton swab and alcohol, and today I'm going to find a battery for it and go run some Tri-X through it.

Anyone know where I can get a 48-49mm step-up ring, a Red 25 and polarizing filter, and a vented lens hood?

I can see where this thing will actually be of some use to me. I talked to the A&E editor for my college paper (an old friend of mine from 7th grade), and she wants to see more coverage of the plays and concerts that the school puts on (the theory is if more people know about them, the more they just might show up🙂), so it looks like this little Canonet is going to the theatre this semester.

As soon as I scan the 10 other rolls of tri-X ahead of the Canonet (from my F2), I'll post some shots if anyone is interested.

Thanks, and have a nice day,
Bob

 

[Austintatious]

Bobbo,
Try B&H photo or the *bay for those needed items. The GIII has a filter size that may not be easy to find in stores. I found a hood for mine, but it's not vented. Sticks out into field of view a little bit. The lens will flair in bright sun, but indoors is no problem.
Charles

 

[schrackman]

As soon as I scan the 10 other rolls of tri-X ahead of the Canonet (from my F2), I'll post some shots if anyone is interested.

hehe, you may not be able to wait that long to see how your canonet pictures come out.

 

[vrgard]

Canonet Hood 4 & Hood 5

Canonet Hood 4 & Hood 5

Hi Bobbo,

I happen to have both a Canonet Hood 4 and a Canonet Hood 5. I've read that the 4 is the proper hood for the Canonet QL17 GIII however the 5 works fine too. They both have a little cutout to see through when you look through the viewfinder so they don't block your view when framing a shot. Pictures shown below of each (Hood 4 on the left and Hood 5 on the right, as is evident from the printing on the boxes)

The only difference between the 4 and 5 that I have noticed is that the 4 is a round hood and the 5 has flats on opposing sides of the round hood. They both clamp on to the outside of the lens body with a thumb screw. And a neat feature is that you can reverse them so rather than sticking out they cover the lens body. Neat, not to protect the lens, but makes for a smaller package for traveling or putting in your pocket or bag.

Be forewarned, however, that the Canonet hoods are kinda pricey. Presumably because they're somewhat rare. I've seen them regularly sell for something like $45. Of course, you can always look for a generic 48mm hood which will likely be cheaper. But since I'm not really shooting with my Canonet these days I would be happy to sell you one of mine.

Best,
Randy