R
ruben
Guest
Just to make sure we understand each other, I am talking about this model:
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/...965/1965_ql19.html?lang=us&categ=srs&page=net
And all what I wanted to say is that all the pictures I have seen so far about it have been extremely misleading for me in one sense: When seeing this camera on my table, direct contact - I must say that for me this is the most beautifully contured fixed lens rangefinder I have ever seen.
I say it because as in other cases, the pictured photos distort the real camera. But in this case it is a double crime.
The truth is that this camera enabled me to see what I dislike in the compact GIII series: they are full featured, yes - but look like a small brick. This doesn't mean I will not use them, of course.
Now you may laugh. If the GIII looks like a small brick, then the crude old canonet ql must be poorly featured and a more ugly brick.
I am not discussing now about features. Just wanted to say that seen live, the QL 1965 is the most beautifully countured camera I have ever seen, among all fixed lenses cameras. But you are right, taste is very much a personal issue. The only thing I can tell you is that the photos you may have seen are very misleading.
Nevertheless, when I went to open the top casting for cleaning the inside - then I was really amazed. I have never seen such rich investment of component parts, one by one, also beautifuilly placed in a glorious harmony.
Ok, what cameras top casting have I opened to clean the interiors, giving me a standing for comparizon ? The Lynx 1000, Lynx 14, GSN, Olympus SP, RD, RC, Konica Auto S2, Canonets GIII of course,Kievs. And no one even nears the interior luxury of this Canonet, which in an extremely curious way for me, bears at the Canon Camera Museum a standard price. Absolute enigma.
Kindly take note I have no idea of the lens quality of this camera.
Cheers,
Ruben
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/...965/1965_ql19.html?lang=us&categ=srs&page=net
And all what I wanted to say is that all the pictures I have seen so far about it have been extremely misleading for me in one sense: When seeing this camera on my table, direct contact - I must say that for me this is the most beautifully contured fixed lens rangefinder I have ever seen.
I say it because as in other cases, the pictured photos distort the real camera. But in this case it is a double crime.
The truth is that this camera enabled me to see what I dislike in the compact GIII series: they are full featured, yes - but look like a small brick. This doesn't mean I will not use them, of course.
Now you may laugh. If the GIII looks like a small brick, then the crude old canonet ql must be poorly featured and a more ugly brick.
I am not discussing now about features. Just wanted to say that seen live, the QL 1965 is the most beautifully countured camera I have ever seen, among all fixed lenses cameras. But you are right, taste is very much a personal issue. The only thing I can tell you is that the photos you may have seen are very misleading.
Nevertheless, when I went to open the top casting for cleaning the inside - then I was really amazed. I have never seen such rich investment of component parts, one by one, also beautifuilly placed in a glorious harmony.
Ok, what cameras top casting have I opened to clean the interiors, giving me a standing for comparizon ? The Lynx 1000, Lynx 14, GSN, Olympus SP, RD, RC, Konica Auto S2, Canonets GIII of course,Kievs. And no one even nears the interior luxury of this Canonet, which in an extremely curious way for me, bears at the Canon Camera Museum a standard price. Absolute enigma.
Kindly take note I have no idea of the lens quality of this camera.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
