Anybody here shooting a Canonet QL17 ??

[Troy Ammons]

I bought one of these after reading a comparison to a M6. Bought it for less that $30 on Ebay. Needed minor work. Loose trim, and needed light seals.

I did not expect much, but I must admit, I am totally blown away. What a sharp little camera. Very mechanical, and very simple. It has an old style needle meter that I can actually see for a change rather than those freaking green LEDs like in my other cameras.

Syncs at all lens speeds too which is nice.

I guess the biggest con for me so far is the limited iso of 25 to 800 and that it is shutter priority. Shutter priority I can work around. Also can be shot manual, but no metering, unless I am mistaken. Still learning it.

For those that want a closer look keep in mind these were taken with a bargain grade HQ100 film, just running around taking test shots, overcast day, checking the RF accuracy etc. Also these are drum scans at 2000 dpi, neated, but no sharpening at all. Please excuse the exposure etc. I am still fiddling with that.

Cant wait to see what this thing spits out with Copex or Efke 25. Check the screws on the boardwalk rail. That was one of my RF accuracy shots. Not bad for a cheapo.

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/canonet_ql17

 

[Konical]

Good Morning, Troy,

I also have a Canonet and agree that the lens is sharp; it gives results that compare very favorably with those from my Olympus lenses. I doubt if anyone could differentiate enlargements from negatives made by the Canonet and most other (much more expensive) equipment. ( I might make an exception for my Olympus 100mm f2.0 lens!). I don't use the Canonet very much, but it's a great little camera.

Konical

 

[srs5694]

I've got one, but I generally prefer my SLRs to my rangefinders. Between that and the fact that my Canonet has mild lens fungus, I don't use it much. Still, it is a nice camera. I bought it for sentimental reasons, really -- my mother had one in the 1970s and 1980s.

There are a fair number of Canonet fans on this board, so I'm sure some will chime in.

 

[kaiyen]

You'll find about a billion favorably posts about the Canonet QLIII 17 on PH and on rangefinderforum.com. It's got its limitations, and there seems to be some variability in the quality of the lens over time (from pretty sharp to really sharp - few if any or soft). But it's got a fast lens (the oft-compared Olympus RC's have 2.8's for example) is very compact (Minolta Hi-Matics and the Konica S2 are much, much bigger), and loads like a dream.

I agree that it would be nice if it could go to 1600 on the meter. I have gotten better at metering a room in general at an unacceptably low shutter speed but at 800, then setting it to a faster shutter and a manual aperture to get 1600 or even 3200. The combination of TXT and Microphen gives enough flexibility to give me usable negatives.

allan

 

[gnashings]

Ah, so you got hooked by the Leicaslacker! I read it after I bought the QL17 - his whole web page is a hoot! I love the Bresson short story - had me laughing pretty hard. Mine is great, love it. Works great with a Wein cell - I actually got a good run (bat. life) out of it.
Run a search on Canonet QL17 GIII - you will have lots of cures for buyers remorse - the little thing has a huge fan club, myself included. You'll love it - it has its limitations, but then again so do most things, and price considered, its a great buy.

Peter.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I love my QL17. I know composition is all in the eye of the (camera's) beholder. But it does take some quality pictures. This is my don't-wanna-carry-my-whole-big-bag-around-all-day camera.

 

[matt miller]

I bought one a few months ago. I just ran a roll of NPH through it when camping with the kids. I'm impressed. The lens is great & the meter works just fine with the wein battery. I bought the battery & seal kit from ebay & it's like new now, all for $45.

 

[Woolliscroft]

I think you'll find the QL17 has a lot of fans round here. I use mine a lot, despite loads of SLR gear, when I just want something that's still good, but fits in a pocket.

You are right that there is no metering in manual, but it is very easy to use the auto setting to meter then set your own settings back in manual. You can get round the ISO limitation that way as well, with a tiny bit of mental arithmatic.

David.

 

[zenrhino]

Ah, so you got hooked by the Leicaslacker! I read it after I bought the QL17 - his whole web page is a hoot!

Everything Kyle writes is gold. Have you seen his page for the Leica-H?

 

[gnashings]

Yes! A medium format Leica, wow!
I found his page(s) to be very entertaining and informative - fancy that, a Leica user without delusions of grandeur (just kidding, don't shoot, everyone!).

Peter.

 

[GeneW]

I enjoy my GIII QL17. It's a compact, convenient carryaround camera with a sharp lens, and 40mm is a nice focal length.

Gene

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Hey, does anyone have access to a pdf owners manual for the QL17? For me for the past 3 1/2 since I got it, it has been pretty much T and E. Thank you.

 

[Lee L]

Hey, does anyone have access to a pdf owners manual for the QL17? For me for the past 3 1/2 since I got it, it has been pretty much T and E. Thank you.

Here: http://www.pentax-manuals.com/manuals/range/giii_ql17_19.pdf

Lee

 

[Uncle Bill]

I have a Leica M3 and a Canon Canonet QL17 GIII. Both are decent bookends, I am continually blown away at the quality of the photos, I bought mine refurbed from my Camera tech and it was the best $120CDN I spent. you learn how to work around the limitations. I am happy with mine.

Bill

 

[Glenn Mathison]

Bought one, love the results, bought a second one, gave it to a friend, she loves it, the wheels keep turning . . .

Glenn

 

[Mackinaw]

Just got back from several days in New Mexico. Wanting to pack light, I left my Leicas home and took along a compact digicam for color and a G3 for B&W. Just processed the film last night (Ilford FP4+) and the results are superb. A great lens and a small, compact sturdy camera.

Jim Bielecki

 

[celluloidpropaganda]

Yep, I bought one a few months ago off of rangefinderforum. It's a delight - why can't loading my Leica be this easy? For some reason I've currently got Provia inside, but I usually just load up Tri-X or FP4 and sunny-16 it.

 

[tony lockerbie]

Bought one not long ago and have just run a roll of tri-x thru it. Amazingly good! These '70's and '80's Japanese rangefinders are the bargain of the century. Most of the ones that I have bought recently have dead meters but that is no problem due to their manual overides. I have Konicas, Minoltas, Yashicas, Olympus and now the Canon and they all take really sharp pictures and are fun to use.

 

[gnashings]

What every Canonet lover needs is a Bell&Howell Canonet 19 - now there is a camera!
Seriously, its a neat camera with a good lens and a light meter and its totally battery free. The meter is sort of decorative... but its the thought that counts

Jokes aside, the QL17 GIII is a better camera in every way, but the 19 is just such a neat old thing we fell in love with it...

Peter.

 

[Gerald Koch]

They have a major problem with this camera in that the shutter blades tend to get gummed up and stop working.

Another nice rangefinder is the Minolta Hi-Matic 7s which can be operated manually or automatically. The meter still works in manual mode although it gives EV values rather than f stops. 45mm/1.8 lens (f1.8 to f22), shutter 1/4 to 1/500 +B, parallax correcting viewfinder, hot shoe, film loaded indicator, CLC exposure system same as SRT-101. Picked one up last week in mint condition for $10 at a flea market.

 

[DBP]

They have a major problem with this camera in that the shutter blades tend to get gummed up and stop working.

Easily fixed by rinsing with lighter fluid or something similar, provided you can remove the lens elements first. Sometimes that part is far from simple.

 

[salamandrine]

Just got mine in the mail today. Kinda sad 'cause the diaphragm blades are sticky and I need to take it to be repaired instead of shooting it away all weekend.

Was so eager to get it on my hand

 

[dmr]

Easily fixed by rinsing with lighter fluid or something similar, provided you can remove the lens elements first. Sometimes that part is far from simple.

Hey, if I can do it, anybody can. Just do things slowly and don't force anything. Just a little Ronsonol on a Q-tip on the shutter blades did the trick!

 

[salamandrine]

thanks for the suport
i just don't feel at ease enough, yet, to perform open heart surgery on my beloved ones
just left it at the surgean and am hoping on a not expensive operation and having it on my loving hands by the end of next week *sigh*

 

[mawz]

I've got two, a beater I got off eBay and the mint example the seller gave be as an apology for taking 3 months to ship the one I actually bought.

I mostly use the mint example (The beater won't hold a lenscap due to filter ring damage and thus eats batteries).