lorriman
Established
Hello,
My Ladyfriend and I have been dreaming of marriage possibilities, which are on a fairly far away horizon right now, but always worth having nice thoughts, don't you think? We aren't so old, but past 20 is a bit ripe, I reckon, for "girlfriend" and "boyfriend". Plus she is just too elegant and fun to be anything but a lady (teenagers generally aren't much fun).
Anyway, one fantasy is sitting in an Italian café outside the tomb of St Francis of Assisi, drinking our excellent espressos and I'm taking photo's of her with my pentax super me and she's taking pictures of me with her cute rangefinder. It's terrible, I know, and St Francis will be having quite the nasty turn. But the glow of self-indulgence hasn't quite left my thoughts yet, and so I'm now fishing around for the right rangefinder.
I'm not wealthy, however, and I am looking at the possibility of 50 or so kids, and so cheap is the order of the day. For that the Canonet seems to fit: cheap, but half-decent and is cute.
However, I appreciate the importance of the subject's backdrop and therefore that of bokeh, and it does seem to me that that the Canonet I would like to get, the f1.7, has quite distracting bokeh wide open. Trawling through the bokeh mega-thread made my heart sink. The f1.7 examples were near traumatising. However, as far as I know, bokeh usually improves on stopping down, which is my experience with the pentax-m 50/1.7 (good for bokeh at 2.8).
And so I am hoping that someone might have some Canonet f1.7 shots, known to be at f2 or f2.8, of busy backgrounds, specular highlights, lines and such like. As it happens I reckon these apertures are more practical apertures for interesting backgrounds, as with preserving some of the visibility of oof faces and expressions.
If anyone could oblige, I would be quite grateful. I haven't got very far with google or flickr.
My Ladyfriend and I have been dreaming of marriage possibilities, which are on a fairly far away horizon right now, but always worth having nice thoughts, don't you think? We aren't so old, but past 20 is a bit ripe, I reckon, for "girlfriend" and "boyfriend". Plus she is just too elegant and fun to be anything but a lady (teenagers generally aren't much fun).
Anyway, one fantasy is sitting in an Italian café outside the tomb of St Francis of Assisi, drinking our excellent espressos and I'm taking photo's of her with my pentax super me and she's taking pictures of me with her cute rangefinder. It's terrible, I know, and St Francis will be having quite the nasty turn. But the glow of self-indulgence hasn't quite left my thoughts yet, and so I'm now fishing around for the right rangefinder.
I'm not wealthy, however, and I am looking at the possibility of 50 or so kids, and so cheap is the order of the day. For that the Canonet seems to fit: cheap, but half-decent and is cute.
However, I appreciate the importance of the subject's backdrop and therefore that of bokeh, and it does seem to me that that the Canonet I would like to get, the f1.7, has quite distracting bokeh wide open. Trawling through the bokeh mega-thread made my heart sink. The f1.7 examples were near traumatising. However, as far as I know, bokeh usually improves on stopping down, which is my experience with the pentax-m 50/1.7 (good for bokeh at 2.8).
And so I am hoping that someone might have some Canonet f1.7 shots, known to be at f2 or f2.8, of busy backgrounds, specular highlights, lines and such like. As it happens I reckon these apertures are more practical apertures for interesting backgrounds, as with preserving some of the visibility of oof faces and expressions.
If anyone could oblige, I would be quite grateful. I haven't got very far with google or flickr.
Gumby
Veteran
Between your attraction to St. Francis and this comment I can only conclude that you are a devout Catholic.
My experience with the Canonet is somewhat limited, but I have used one to a fair degree in the past couple of years and found it to be a better-than-average snapshooter type of camera. It probably meets your requirements quite well. I have also noticed that there seems to be quite a bit of variability between individual Canonets, so I'm not too sure that sample pictures will help you or not. My suggestion is that you seek out a decent condition Canonet and let the little lady have some fun. I doubt that you will be disappointed so long as the camera is in good operating condition.
As an additional and unsolicited suggestion... if 50 children are in your future you might want to get started ASAP. Good luck!
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Here's a couple of Canonet shots from a tour in the High Tatras.
Don't bother too much about bokeh. I don't think the OOF behaviour leaves a lot to be desired. Bokeh is so subjective that for any lens you can find ugly examples and beautiful examples, and you will find pictures that person A will find ugly and person B will find beautiful. The Canonet delivers fine images and it's a great camera in a compact package.
Philipp
Don't bother too much about bokeh. I don't think the OOF behaviour leaves a lot to be desired. Bokeh is so subjective that for any lens you can find ugly examples and beautiful examples, and you will find pictures that person A will find ugly and person B will find beautiful. The Canonet delivers fine images and it's a great camera in a compact package.
Philipp
Attachments
Honus
carpe diem
Yes, if you're planning on having 50 children, your concerns about bokeh @ f1.7 are going to significantly diminish.
One that I repaired and sold here, it is "middle of the pack" for sharpness:
At F4
At F4
Last edited:
BillP
Rangefinder General
I think a Canonet for your ladyfriend is a fair swap, but how much does she suffer from bokeh in real-world conditions?
Regards,
Bill
Regards,
Bill
photophorous
Registered User
Sorry no examples that specific, but here is a link to all my Canonet shots on flickr. A few of them should be in the f/2 - f/3.5 range, but I can't say for sure which ones. http://www.flickr.com/photos/photophore/tags/canonet/
The Canonet is a gateway rangefinder. Lots of fun, very capable, and I've seen much worse bokeh. But you may find yourself thinking 30-40 kids is enough, if that allows you find the funds for a Bessa or an M. One thing to be aware of is that these cameras come from an age when light seals were made of some kind of material that turns to a nasty black goo just before someone puts it up for auction. You may need to replace the light seals. It's a dirty job, but easy and cheap. No problem. Just something to be aware of.
Good luck.
Paul
The Canonet is a gateway rangefinder. Lots of fun, very capable, and I've seen much worse bokeh. But you may find yourself thinking 30-40 kids is enough, if that allows you find the funds for a Bessa or an M. One thing to be aware of is that these cameras come from an age when light seals were made of some kind of material that turns to a nasty black goo just before someone puts it up for auction. You may need to replace the light seals. It's a dirty job, but easy and cheap. No problem. Just something to be aware of.
Good luck.
Paul
She wants one in Black.
kuzano
Veteran
Bokeh and the aperture blade connection
Bokeh and the aperture blade connection
Others may correct me, but I have always been of the impression that the roundness of the aperture influences the quality (???) of bokeh. The roundness of the aperture at various f-stops is related to the number of aperture blades. I have a Mamiya w/Zuiko folder that is round, round, round at all f-stops, because it has a very large number of aperture blades.
As I recall, the canonets had/have 5 blade aperture and are very blocky at larger f-stops. I think you will find that true of many of the 60's-70's rangefinders.
When I look at my Jupiter 8 FSU lens, it's very round.. again many blades. Nice Bokeh, but nothing tops the Mamiya Automat 6
I am sure this is an overly simple explanation of Bokeh, but it may be a contributing factor, and it's consistent with my experience. So, that's my story and I'm sticking to it until someone shows other evidence to that explanation.
I think that the only way to get a nice bokeh on a canonet at wide open is to machine a slot in the side of the lens housing, tear out the stock aperture blades and use perfectly round Waterhouse stops.]
Oh Yes, and the last two Black Canonet GIII's I saw on eBay sold for $500 and $600 approx. I had a black one and sold it on eBay about 4 years ago for $350. Black Prices are rising.
Bokeh and the aperture blade connection
Others may correct me, but I have always been of the impression that the roundness of the aperture influences the quality (???) of bokeh. The roundness of the aperture at various f-stops is related to the number of aperture blades. I have a Mamiya w/Zuiko folder that is round, round, round at all f-stops, because it has a very large number of aperture blades.
As I recall, the canonets had/have 5 blade aperture and are very blocky at larger f-stops. I think you will find that true of many of the 60's-70's rangefinders.
When I look at my Jupiter 8 FSU lens, it's very round.. again many blades. Nice Bokeh, but nothing tops the Mamiya Automat 6
I am sure this is an overly simple explanation of Bokeh, but it may be a contributing factor, and it's consistent with my experience. So, that's my story and I'm sticking to it until someone shows other evidence to that explanation.
I think that the only way to get a nice bokeh on a canonet at wide open is to machine a slot in the side of the lens housing, tear out the stock aperture blades and use perfectly round Waterhouse stops.]
Oh Yes, and the last two Black Canonet GIII's I saw on eBay sold for $500 and $600 approx. I had a black one and sold it on eBay about 4 years ago for $350. Black Prices are rising.
Last edited:
scorpius73
Well-known
here is an example of the canonet at f2
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=71652&ppuser=3913
i dont know how insert pictures sorry.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=71652&ppuser=3913
i dont know how insert pictures sorry.
> Oh Yes, and the last two Black Canonet GIII's I saw on eBay sold for $500 and $600
> approx. I had a black one and sold it on eBay about 4 years ago for $350. Black Prices
> are rising.
INSANE! I made my "Panda" for $50.
> approx. I had a black one and sold it on eBay about 4 years ago for $350. Black Prices
> are rising.
INSANE! I made my "Panda" for $50.
kievman
Kievman
MY Black canonet is worth that much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?? and its in mint condition Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hans voralberg
Veteran
You're not wrong, but the "shape" really only show up much when there is alot of light spot in the background, or when it flare. That's my experience anyway.
kuzano
Veteran
Great example... and if you look close>>>>
Great example... and if you look close>>>>
Some of those bokeh highlights actually show the five sided pentagon of the Canon aperture.
Also, in regard to Hans point... that's true bokeh is exaggerated by bright or flare light.
I think the image shown shows clearly that the canon, while a great rangefinder is going to present some problems in bokeh, depending on your taste in bokeh. Some people actually like misshapen bokeh.
Again, I think you will find this true of a good percentage of the consumer rangefinders of the 60's and 70's where fewer blades in the aperture reduced production costs.
Great example... and if you look close>>>>
Some of those bokeh highlights actually show the five sided pentagon of the Canon aperture.
Also, in regard to Hans point... that's true bokeh is exaggerated by bright or flare light.
I think the image shown shows clearly that the canon, while a great rangefinder is going to present some problems in bokeh, depending on your taste in bokeh. Some people actually like misshapen bokeh.
Again, I think you will find this true of a good percentage of the consumer rangefinders of the 60's and 70's where fewer blades in the aperture reduced production costs.
kuzano
Veteran
I kid you NOT...
I kid you NOT...
The black Canonet GIII's and QL's, in addition to the black Minolta 7 SII have been bringing very high prices in good condition. Over the last 6 months, I recall 7 or 8 of these camera's selling for in excess of $500.
Add the black Petri Color35 and the Olympus 35SP rangefinder in black to that list.
I kid you NOT...
The black Canonet GIII's and QL's, in addition to the black Minolta 7 SII have been bringing very high prices in good condition. Over the last 6 months, I recall 7 or 8 of these camera's selling for in excess of $500.
Add the black Petri Color35 and the Olympus 35SP rangefinder in black to that list.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
There are a couple of pictures in my gallery taken with the first Canonet, the one with a 45/1.9 lens ringed by selenium meter cells.
lorriman
Established
Thanks for the answers folks.
Does anyone know if both the f1.7 and f1.9 stop down to f2, or at least something between wide open and f2.8? I could do with the flexibility while getting the improvement to bokeh of stopping down.
@gumby : she likes the idea of having twins. So one might consider that as 25 rather than 50 which is much more manageable, don't you think?
@rxmd : thanks for that. love the background on the 2nd one. Not bad bokeh either. Looks like the theory is playing out if those are stopped down shots.
@honus : true enough, but until they arrive I may as well have fun choosing a camera.
@brian : looks good to me. thanks for that.
@photophorous : thanks. I have a light seal kit which I used on my pentax. I'm hoping it'll do the job.
@brian: I reckon the non-black is cuter, actually. Which is a good thing considering the shocking price difference. I quite fell off my chair (metaphorically speaking).
@Kuzano : as far as I know it is mostly a question of spherical aberration correction. The more corrected the worse the bokeh, although 'front-bokeh' improves. Nikon even have portrait lenses where the correction can be adjusted to change the bokeh. It seems the aperture blades only make a difference to the shape, and only when stopped down: some people prefer circles.
@payasam : thanks for that. It does seem that the f1.9 may be the better choice. I'm just also hoping it doesn't stop down straight from 1.9 to 2.8 so that I can have the flexibility of stopping down a bit to get the bokeh advantage without going straight to 2.8. Would you happen to know if there is an aperture between wide-open and 2.8?
Does anyone know if both the f1.7 and f1.9 stop down to f2, or at least something between wide open and f2.8? I could do with the flexibility while getting the improvement to bokeh of stopping down.
@gumby : she likes the idea of having twins. So one might consider that as 25 rather than 50 which is much more manageable, don't you think?
@rxmd : thanks for that. love the background on the 2nd one. Not bad bokeh either. Looks like the theory is playing out if those are stopped down shots.
@honus : true enough, but until they arrive I may as well have fun choosing a camera.
@brian : looks good to me. thanks for that.
@photophorous : thanks. I have a light seal kit which I used on my pentax. I'm hoping it'll do the job.
@brian: I reckon the non-black is cuter, actually. Which is a good thing considering the shocking price difference. I quite fell off my chair (metaphorically speaking).
@Kuzano : as far as I know it is mostly a question of spherical aberration correction. The more corrected the worse the bokeh, although 'front-bokeh' improves. Nikon even have portrait lenses where the correction can be adjusted to change the bokeh. It seems the aperture blades only make a difference to the shape, and only when stopped down: some people prefer circles.
@payasam : thanks for that. It does seem that the f1.9 may be the better choice. I'm just also hoping it doesn't stop down straight from 1.9 to 2.8 so that I can have the flexibility of stopping down a bit to get the bokeh advantage without going straight to 2.8. Would you happen to know if there is an aperture between wide-open and 2.8?
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I'm under the impression that the aperture is more or less stepless. The electronics are 100% analog.
Whether you'd see much of a bokeh difference at f1.9 vs f2 is debatable IMHO.
In practice on the Canonet you don't bother much about aperture anyway when shooting. And shooters are different, too. I don't know your girlfriend obviously, but if she's not a photo geek, I wouldn't bother too much about the geeky details.
Philipp
Maxapple88
Established
You might want to consider an Olympus 35RD instead of a Canonet if you're aiming for elegance Its much lighter and feels better imo. I've had both, I prefer the Oly.
Its much lighter and feels better imo. I've had both, I prefer the Oly.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
50 kids??
Boy, you need an ultrawide lens.
Jokes aside, i have found that the 45mm rokkor on the minolta hi-matic 9 has the best bokeh compared to yashica gsn, cc and canonet. So why not try to find a hi-matic (9,11, or even better, 7 or 7II - although i think 7II has a different lens already).
The yashica gsn's also have nice smooth backgrounds...See my gallery, folder "Model No Model" - the colour shots were all done with the gsn.
Boy, you need an ultrawide lens.
Jokes aside, i have found that the 45mm rokkor on the minolta hi-matic 9 has the best bokeh compared to yashica gsn, cc and canonet. So why not try to find a hi-matic (9,11, or even better, 7 or 7II - although i think 7II has a different lens already).
The yashica gsn's also have nice smooth backgrounds...See my gallery, folder "Model No Model" - the colour shots were all done with the gsn.