first rangefinder

[JamieB]

Looking into getting a rangefinder now. I don't have a load of money and the Canonet QL17 Giii seems like a good option. Anyone have or used one?
I hear modern batteries in the camera effect the meter. So I need to account for this... I want cheap and easy batteries to get and I don't have the head for fiddling with the inner workings of it

Also can you explain how the meter shows? I mean in manual mode, how do I see the meter? Is it a needle in the viewfinder like old SLRs?

 

[SalveSlog]

I don't have the camera, but the manual is here:
http://butkus.org/chinon/canon/canonet_g-iii_17/canonet_g-iii_17.htm

 

[Platelayer]

Great camera, the lens is very good. It's heavy to carry around at 650g; for comparison, a small SLR with a standard lens is around 800g-850g. The only modes are shutter priority and fully manual. In shutter priority mode, a needle on the right hand side of the viewfinder moves against a scale covering the full height of the finder to show the aperture that will be chosen, from f/1.7 at the top to f/16. Over and under exposure zones are indicated on the scale; if the needle is in either zone, the shutter locks and you have to choose a different shutter speed. In manual mode, the light meter is turned off; it's a shame there isn't a 'match-needle' mode as well.

As for finding a battery; I only use black and white negative film with mine and find that an alkaline cell gives sufficiently accurate readings. As the voltage drops, the camera will start to over expose.

 

[BrianShaw]

I once had one. It was alright but the image quality didn't thrill me. Without a battery there is no meter so one must use a handheld meter (or guess). I used a Gossen adapter in mine to convert from 1.5v to 1.3v.

After my fling with the Canonet I got a Kodak Retina. I've been much happier with it.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have and use one, I use a hearing aid battery, cut out a small round of thin cardboard to keep it in place. Otherwise only down side is it uses 48mm filters which are not all that common. It is shutter speed preferred, you set the shutter speed and the selected aperture is shown in the right side of the viewfinder, for manual mode you need to set the F stop, when set to A is auto, once off the A the meter no longer is active. You can judge the darkling effect of a polarizer by watching the meter, about a stop open when darker. Slowerst shutter speed is 1/4 second, top ISO (ASA) 800. I find the lens to be good and sharp. Not as sharp as the Konica S3, but good enough.

 

[Chan Tran]

I have one. I tested it with alkaline battery and it's reasonably accurate but I always use it without the battery in manual mode. It's OK but I would much prefer a good copy of a Petri 7s. I have 2 of these but they are not in good condition. I don't feel going thru the trouble to put in a battery of right voltage like Wein cell or adapter etc...

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I think the Minolta 7sII has a slightly better lens, but the Canon is a capable camera. It has been a long time since I used the Canon (even though I have one somewhere around here), but I think I used an alkaline battery and didn't have any problems. You can of course set the film speed so you can compensate if you do have an issue with under/overexposure. Another option is the Yashica GS/N. If you get a working one it is a pretty good camera and they are cheap. If you like the Canon though, get it.

 

[John Koehrer]

The Canon's not a bad size/weight combination at all. Want the meter?
Get an adapter to convert the 1.5V battery to 1.3V. or use the 1,5V with a #9 O ring
& live with a slight error.

 

[dmr]

Looking into getting a rangefinder now. I don't have a load of money and the Canonet QL17 Giii seems like a good option. Anyone have or used one?
I hear modern batteries in the camera effect the meter. So I need to account for this... I want cheap and easy batteries to get and I don't have the head for fiddling with the inner workings of it

Also can you explain how the meter shows? I mean in manual mode, how do I see the meter? Is it a needle in the viewfinder like old SLRs?

Yes, actually I have two of them. Very nice, easy to carry and use.

The lens is great and tack-sharp for most photos. There is some astigmatism when wide open.

All of these shots at this link were taken with them:

http://www.demare.me/gallery/index.php/tag/14/CanonGIII

As for batteries, I've always used the "wrong" batteries in the black one and found the meter error to be well within the latitude of modern color negative film. With the chrome one, I recalibrated the meter to work with ISO 1600 film and the modern batteries. Unfortunately the 1600 film is now quite scarce.

Yes, the meter is in the viewfinder and shows the aperture for a given shutter speed. Unfortunately, there's no "match needle" mode. It's either auto or totally manual without the meter. I do have a Mamiya SD rangefinder which does have the match-needle mode.

Hope this helps.

 

[albada]

You might also consider the Canonet QL19 (new model), which looks identical to the GIII QL17 because it uses the same body, but should be cheaper because it's not a cult classic like the GIII. The QL19 has a 45mm lens (GIII is 40mm), and lacks a battery test button in the back. Also, watch out for stuck shutters, which afflict all of these models.

Mark Overton

 

[PGillin]

If you can live with full-manual you might also consider a Petri (Kuribayashi) 1.9. The lenses are good and the build quality is quite solid.

 

[dmr]

My favorite of the type is the Mamiya SD shown immediately below. It's full manual and built like a tank.

My first "real" camera was one of these, when in my teens. I sold it long ago and was kicking myself for doing so and took some pains to acquire another one in good working order. They show up occasionally on Ebay and are usually much cheaper than the GIII, which, yes, is quite popular.

The lower one is my black GIII which is now starting to show some brassing.

Both of these are very good performers.

 

[jspillane]

It's a great camera, but many of the prices you see now are crazy. I think I got mine for $35 4-5 years ago in user condition.
The lens is fast and the camera is capable... but you are limited to shutter priority or full manual. Annoyingly, the meter does not function at all when in manual mode, so you cannot use the built in meter unless you are shooting shutter priority.

I've used it a lot as a travel camera and no complaints. It looks great and is fun to use. My rangefinder patch is a bit pale but gets the job done. The focus throw is very narrow.
Lately I've drifted back to 35mm SLRs for travel... they aren't much heavier with a fast 50 attached and a lot more versatile.

 

[twelvetone12]

I have a Canonet 28, which if I understand correctly is a cheaper version of the QL17 Giii, and I absolutely love it. It is my carry around camera and it is basically always with me. I use an alkaline px625 replacement and it works very well for me (the meter underexposes a bit). The lens is sharp and I like a lot how it renders images. With metering (at leas on the 28) you are stuck in auto mode, but I find it normally makes good exposures.
The image is an AgfaPhoto CT 100 slide exposed with the meter set at ISO100.

 

[wastelanded]

The Canon is a good camera, but popularity has jacked the prices up. An early Minolta Hi-matic, like the 7s or 9, will give you manual controls and a very good piece of glass for less money. I found a Hi-matic 9, serviced with new seals, for $60 on Etsy. I'm very pleased with it, lovely f1.7 lens.

I'm using one of the MR-9 battery adapters with the built in circuitry to knock the voltage down to 1.35, it works fine. It is a little pricey, but it's a one-time buy.

Of course, you can get a Canon RF like an L1-2-3, or a P or model 7. With patience you can find a decent one for around $100. Add a Russian lens like a Jupiter-8 or Industar-61 for $30 and you're off to the races.

 

[JamieB]

Yes, actually I have two of them. Very nice, easy to carry and use.

The lens is great and tack-sharp for most photos. There is some astigmatism when wide open.

All of these shots at this link were taken with them:

http://www.demare.me/gallery/index.php/tag/14/CanonGIII

As for batteries, I've always used the "wrong" batteries in the black one and found the meter error to be well within the latitude of modern color negative film. With the chrome one, I recalibrated the meter to work with ISO 1600 film and the modern batteries. Unfortunately the 1600 film is now quite scarce.

Yes, the meter is in the viewfinder and shows the aperture for a given shutter speed. Unfortunately, there's no "match needle" mode. It's either auto or totally manual without the meter. I do have a Mamiya SD rangefinder which does have the match-needle mode.

Hope this helps.

Nice pictures. I also found another guy who did one camera one year. He is on tumblr and instagram. He used just this camera for one year. Mainly fashion photography and really nice results. I like the wide angler. A lot of the recommendations here are for 45mm lenses. I know it's not a huge difference but 40 is closer to 35 where I am most happy. So many options it can be a bit confusing. I think I will stick with the Giii. I am not sure what you mean by callibrated meter. I would like to know how many stops over or under it would be to use the modern 625A alkaline battery. Rather than running a whole roll of film through it to find out. Of course I could just practice and become brilliant at reading the light with no meter or use an app

 

[Paul Howell]

Yaschica made a rangefinder, dont recall the model number, with a 35mm 2.8, lens is very sharp. Other option is the Konica S3 with 38mm 1.9, in the day Modern Photography tested it and found the lens to be one of sharpest it ever tested. Down side for both is no manual override.

 

[Chan Tran]

I got mine QL17 GIII for $3.00. I wouldn't pay good money for it. It isn't even a Canon and Canon didn't feel it was worthy of making it in Japan even back in the 70's.

 

[dmr]

I know it's not a huge difference but 40 is closer to 35 where I am most happy.

I actually grew to like the wide-ish normal lens. It's actually quite sharp, particularly when stopped down to 5.6 or smaller. I've done quite a few stunning 13x19 prints from shots I've done with it, particularly the Kodachromes. It also performs very well when wide open or close to it. The only times I've had any issues was when I was really pushing it, low light scenes with bright light sources in the field gave "UFO" flare artifacts and crescent-shaped overexposed highlights toward the corners. Example is here, and this was shot with the Mamiya (above), but is somewhat typical of the GIII under the same conditions.

http://www.demare.me/gallery/index.php/757640-R1-031-14_014

I am not sure what you mean by callibrated meter.

If you're referring to my recalibration, I wanted to be able to more accurately shoot 1600 film in it. I did a careful two-point calibration using laboratory standards (LOL, a "sunny 16" outdoor scene and a low-light bathroom wall with the overhead and vanity lights on dimmers) and it killed two birds with one stone, bumping up the high-end ISO to 1600 and compensating for the "wrong" battery. I wrote up the procedure on RFF at the time, and I may have posted it here as well.

Here is the link to the RFF post. Go about 1/2 way down on the page for the two-point calibration with the photos showing some details.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25305

I would like to know how many stops over or under it would be to use the modern 625A alkaline battery.

Here's my opinion, and to be honest, for as long as I've had the black one, which I assume is factory calibrated for the original battery, I really don't know exactly how much it's off with the new "wrong" battery.

However, I stopped and did a quickie non-scientific test outside, using the same "laboratory scene" as cited above. With the black GIII (I assume factory calibration) with the "wrong" battery, at ISO 200 and 1/500, the meter says between f/11 and f/16. Comparing this to the Pentax MX, the Pentax shows f/11 at ISO 200 and 1/500 using the normal 50mm lens. Therefore, under these particular conditions, the GIII shows about 1/2 stop underexposed relative to the Pentax.

There are many variables here. I do know that both cameras generally expose well. Both are well within the same ballpark and I would trust either to do a close to perfect exposure with negative film. My hunch is that a shot with slide film would be well within range too, but for an important shot, I would bracket one over and one under to be sure.

Hopefully this is helpful to you.

 

[JamieB]

I actually grew to like the wide-ish normal lens. It's actually quite sharp, particularly when stopped down to 5.6 or smaller. I've done quite a few stunning 13x19 prints from shots I've done with it, particularly the Kodachromes. It also performs very well when wide open or close to it. The only times I've had any issues was when I was really pushing it, low light scenes with bright light sources in the field gave "UFO" flare artifacts and crescent-shaped overexposed highlights toward the corners. Example is here, and this was shot with the Mamiya (above), but is somewhat typical of the GIII under the same conditions.

http://www.demare.me/gallery/index.php/757640-R1-031-14_014



If you're referring to my recalibration, I wanted to be able to more accurately shoot 1600 film in it. I did a careful two-point calibration using laboratory standards (LOL, a "sunny 16" outdoor scene and a low-light bathroom wall with the overhead and vanity lights on dimmers) and it killed two birds with one stone, bumping up the high-end ISO to 1600 and compensating for the "wrong" battery. I wrote up the procedure on RFF at the time, and I may have posted it here as well.

Here is the link to the RFF post. Go about 1/2 way down on the page for the two-point calibration with the photos showing some details.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25305



Here's my opinion, and to be honest, for as long as I've had the black one, which I assume is factory calibrated for the original battery, I really don't know exactly how much it's off with the new "wrong" battery.

However, I stopped and did a quickie non-scientific test outside, using the same "laboratory scene" as cited above. With the black GIII (I assume factory calibration) with the "wrong" battery, at ISO 200 and 1/500, the meter says between f/11 and f/16. Comparing this to the Pentax MX, the Pentax shows f/11 at ISO 200 and 1/500 using the normal 50mm lens. Therefore, under these particular conditions, the GIII shows about 1/2 stop underexposed relative to the Pentax.

There are many variables here. I do know that both cameras generally expose well. Both are well within the same ballpark and I would trust either to do a close to perfect exposure with negative film. My hunch is that a shot with slide film would be well within range too, but for an important shot, I would bracket one over and one under to be sure.

Hopefully this is helpful to you.

Yes, very helpful. Much appreciated I am definitely going to get one. I know it isn't perfect but no camera is. I examined all the other suggestions here and still found my way back to it again. Considering I am coming from a heavy and very loud SLR with a 50mm lens and another super-plastic one with a dire viewfinder and the same old 50 again, this little camera will be a revelation. Will post some pictures here when I start shooting with it.

 

[Ces1um]

might still be able to find a few voigtlander bessa rm's new out there. Just saying. Still shiny!

 

[dmr]

Considering I am coming from a heavy and very loud SLR with a 50mm lens ...

One reason I re-acquired the RF(s) is that back in 2004 I was shooting some available-light shots in the subway with the Pentax K1000 and I realized that the **THWACK!** of the mirror was probably costing me at least one f-stop. I began to kick myself for selling the original Mamiya SD some years before. The RFs, particularly those with leaf shutters, are very quiet and very still when they expose. The GIII is, of course, light and small.

Will post some pictures here when I start shooting with it.

Please do so! I think you'll be surprised at the number of keepers in your first rolls!

The quote of the decade came as I was showing off the camera and some of the first shots.

"You paid less than $50 for that camera and it takes pictures like that?"

This was a client so I did not say what I thought of saying, which was along the line of "No, I paid less than $50 for it and **I** take pictures like that!"

Also, please don't get all hung up over the perceived error in metering. Remember that meters offer a suggestion, not a mandate. With the GIII, if you think the suggested exposure is a bit off, just momentarily aim toward something brighter or darker, press the shutter half way to hold the auto-exposure, then recompose and shoot.

 

[flavio81]

One reason I re-acquired the RF(s) is that back in 2004 I was shooting some available-light shots in the subway with the Pentax K1000 and I realized that the **THWACK!** of the mirror was probably costing me at least one f-stop.

I don't own a K1000, but let me tell you that most likely there are other 35mm SLRs with a gentler mirror action than the K1000.

If it is of any help, my Pentax P30 mounts K lenses and is not too noisy. Mirror shock seems ok (i.e. gentle enough.)

If you want a very quiet SLR camera, one of the quietest i've have had are the Nikon F cameras.

 

[Paul Howell]

Surprising one of the quietest SLR I have used or own is the lowly Pentax PZ30, I had forgotten how nice it is as street shooter. I took mine apart and painted the silver body panels flat dark green, (now the worse for wear) use a 50 1.7, put on action setting to keep the shutter speed up in dim light, work very well.

 

[narsuitus]

Looking into getting a rangefinder now. I don't have a load of money and the Canonet QL17 Giii seems like a good option. Anyone have or used one?

The Canon Canonet QL17 G-III 35mm rangefinder with fixed 40mm f/1.7 lens is a very good option (camera on left).

Another very good option is the Minolta Hi-Matic 9 35mm rangefinder with fixed 45mm f/1.7 lens (camera on right).

I do not put batteries in either rangefinder because I do not use the built-in light meter. Instead, I use a handheld meter. Thank goodness, neither rangefinder needs batteries for taking pictures.



Rangefinders by Narsuitus, on Flickr