Canon III Range finder VS Canon QL17

[ToddB]

Hey guys,

I was curious.. What is the better camera.. The Canon III Rangefinder or the Canon QL17?

Todd

 

[frank]

What do you mean by better?

I'd prefer the RF camera because of lens interchangeability.

If built in metering is more important to someone, then they'd choose the Canonet.

If build quality is more important, then the RF.

 

[ToddB]

Sorry I was in a hurry.. I had a customer up front.. Better.. ? I mainly want to know if there if there is a diffrence in image quality? Oh.. I need to make a correction.. Canon GIIb.. There is one for grabs in classified

Todd

 

[frank]

The biggest diff in these cameras is the haptics, aka human interface. The Canonet will be less fiddly to control, but some would prefer that.

With the RF, you have to supply your own lens, and an external finder is a big improvement over the built in one for 50mm.

 

[ToddB]

Is there any difference in picture quality? I heard that QL17 has a really nice lens in it , I actually own one and I'm very happy with it. But you can't deny the cosmedic beauty of the Range finder. I one better that other in picture quality. Understandably it depend on lens too. Just wondering.

 

[frank]

Obviously depends on what lens you put on it. The RF camera is a much more involved experience and maybe not suited to a casual relationship with photography.

I already have a similar Leica screw mount camera.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Sorry I was in a hurry.. I had a customer up front.. Better.. ? I mainly want to know if there if there is a diffrence in image quality? Oh.. I need to make a correction.. Canon GIIb.. There is one for grabs in classified

Todd

It's a IIb. Put a Summicron on it and compare it with the Ql17, then tell us. As long as the shutter (in the IIb) is good, the flange distance is correct, and the rangefinder is properly adjusted, the image quality will depend utterly on the lens... and the person using it. Be aware, it's essentially a 1930s camera. Wait 'till you load your first roll of film - follow the procedure correctly, and it works like a charm. Don't follow the procedure, and it's a nightmare.

I have a IIb with a Jupiter-8 on it. It's a lovely little outfit.

 

[summicron1]

the image quality will depend, sorry, on how well you handle which camera, so you should get the camera that feels best in your hands and is easiest and most intuitive to use.

Lens quality differences of modern lenses makes about 1 percent difference. The other 99 is how well you use the lens.

 

[zanxion72]

With the fixed lens of the QL17 you have also a fixed quality. That means that you will always have the quality of the lens that the QL17 offers. The Canon rangefinder offers you lens interchangeability and that means that in the future you can invest on a better lens and get better results.
Although Canon III has the advantage of the lens interchangeability it has a few quirks:
1. A cloth shutter that will gradually deteriorate and develop holes and/or get off from its rotating drums. QL17 has a metal leaf shutter that will last a long longer.
2. Canon III has a far less accurate shutter than that of the QL17.
3. Shutters of old rangefinder cameras, often need tension adjustment. That is a tricky thing to perform by yourself if you don't know how.

If you need accuracy in exposure, that is say 1/250 to be as close possible to 1/250, go for the QL.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

With the fixed lens of the QL17 you have also a fixed quality. That means that you will always have the quality of the lens that the QL17 offers. The Canon rangefinder offers you lens interchangeability and that means that in the future you can invest on a better lens and get better results.
Although Canon III has the advantage of the lens interchangeability it has a few quirks:
1. A cloth shutter that will gradually deteriorate and develop holes and/or get off from its rotating drums. QL17 has a metal leaf shutter that will last a long longer.
2. Canon III has a far less accurate shutter than that of the QL17.
3. Shutters of old rangefinder cameras, often need tension adjustment. That is a tricky thing to perform by yourself if you don't know how.

If you need accuracy in exposure, that is say 1/250 to be as close possible to 1/250, go for the QL.

Actually that's far from true. Both shutters top out at 1/500 sec. The focal plane shutter on the IIb (it's a IIb in the classifieds, not a III which had 1/1000 as the top speed) will actually give you that speed - the leaf shutter on the Ql17 will not. To boot, the efficiency of the leaf shutter design dictates that the effective shutter speed of the top two or three speeds will vary slightly according to the aperture you select. If you don't believe me, look up the shutter efficiency charts in an old Kodak Professional Dataguide.
As for the longevity, an overhauled cloth shutter will run well for a couple decades, just like an overhauled leaf shutter, and new curtains will be good for 50 years or so.

 

[frank]

The IIb is more easily repairable. The fixed lens canon will develop shutter problems eventually that are not reasonably repairable.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The IIb is more easily repairable. The fixed lens canon will develop shutter problems eventually that are not reasonably repairable.

Very good point. I recently overhauled mine with new curtains, and as for ease of repair I'd rather overhaul three IIbs than one QL 17. The IIb can be kept going for your great (or great-great) grandchildren - not so the other one.

 

[Mackinaw]

Two major differences. The II-B is an interchangeable lens camera, the Canonet is fixed lens. The Canonet has a better viewfinder (projected frameline like a Leica M) while the II-B has a typical 1950’s “squinty” viewfinder.

Take a look a the Canon Museum for more info on both cameras.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/

Jim B.