Is a canonet a decent introduction to rangefinders?

derwent · Jun 15, 2010

I've got to second the voice for the Konica Auto S2...they are a lovely thing to use, and that Hexanon lens........
I've also got a Voigtlander Vito CLR which is a lovely thing...results from them are quite different to a Konica, the lens is not as sharp, but it has a lovely colour rendition and it is wonderful for monochrome too. Good portrait lens.

TheSohnly · Jun 17, 2010

I really REALLY regret selling my Canonet QL17 G-III
I had it converted to use modern px625 batteries and cleaned it and then sold it for 2.5x what i paid for it + fix cost. sooooo much sellers remorse

to answer your question: yes, get a QL17 G-III. They are pretty cheap and they are fantastic cameras

Bill Burk · Jun 18, 2010

The Canon QL17GIII is a great way to get a feel for rangefinders. I think the lens is "pretty good".

You'll be spoiled by the camera. You get parallax correction, a short-throw, easy to find focusing lever and short single-throw advance. QL lets you get the next roll in very quickly.

Replace the seals they'll be gummy. You also will want to find a 625 mercury battery replacement though it will operate on alkaline.

I used it for a while taking family snapshots and found a "statistically significant" increase in keepers. This led me to believe for myself that rangefinders were the way I wanted to go.

cj8281 · Jun 18, 2010

My first range finder camera was an Argus C3. I like it very much, it is definitely independent of batteries. My next one was a Yashica Electro 35 GS. I also found a Canonet 28. My next 2 that I acquired are a Kodak Retina IIa and a Kodak 35, both have issues about focusing and need some work so they have not had any film run through them yet. I got really lucky on my C3 as it takes fantastic pictures, I hear some of them have somewhat poor lenses. My Yashica is nice and has had the most amount of film go through it. The Canonet 28 is very simple when set in automatic, the focus is fast as it only turns about 35 degrees for the full range of focus. My total outlay for all of these cameras is $19 USD. The Canonet 28 is the second smallest of my range finders with the Retina IIa being the smallest. I prefer the Yashica over the Canonet because of the aperture priority.

Al Patterson · Jun 18, 2010

I like my QL17 GIII almost as much as my Leica CL. 90% of the quality at 10% of the price.

clayne · Jun 19, 2010

I seriously believe you need to get that 1:1 viewfinder hangup out of your head. It's not realistic and really has no bearing on creating good photographs. Your insistence on it is creating a situation where you're trying to find the perfect non-existent camera. Plenty of photographers have no issue with this, why do you make it an issue for you?

To answer your question: yes the Canonets are decent cameras with great optics. Definitely usable. Ignore the meter as it's only useful in shutter-prio mode.

jerry lebens · Jun 19, 2010

Buy a Canonet and try to resist the attractions of a Leica/Voigtlander. Leica/Voigtlander's are 'better' cameras ; having interchangeable lenses, better ergonomics and superior build quality etc. But in terms of value for money, the Canonet wins hands down.
Nobody - not even a Leica enthusiast - will be able to tell that you didn't use a Leica by looking at the prints...

BetterSense · Jun 19, 2010

Does anyone know a good place to get a CLA done on a Canonet? The fast speeds on mine aren't, and the film transport mechanism is acting up.

2F/2F · Jun 19, 2010

Any low/mid-level rangefinder would be a good introduction to rangefinders. I always suggest a Canonet, Yashica, Minolta, etc. to people who tell me they want a Leica. Rangefinders stink for many reasons, and I want them to know this before dropping beaucoup bux for a camera that most people would not like using, and which will likely not suit their photography at all. If the cheaper camera works for them, then they can go to a Leica, no problem. Canonets are probably some of the best from which to choose. While I love my Yashica Electro 35s because of their simplicity, value (an average price of $2.50 each for me), and the quality of the lens, if I were actually shopping with some money to spend on a low/mid-level RF, I'd try to get one that allows fully manual exposure.

BetterSense · Jun 19, 2010

Basically the biggest plus for me so far with the Canonet is that it's slightly smaller, much lighter and somewhat cheaper than the OM2, so for my "throw it around my neck when going out" camera it's just more convenient. Plus, for some reason it seems more rugged, or less likely to break; maybe it's my perception that there's less moving parts. As far as actual operation, it hasn't really been a radical revelation or anything. The shutter release is kind of crappy feeling to be honest. I think the OM2's viewfinder is bigger and brighter, and lets me compose more exactly, so basically the only thing the Canonet has going for it is batteryless operation, and simplicity. Once I get the shutter and winder working, I will use it even more because for most things the OM2 is better and more versatile, but just kind of overkill for a walking-around camera.

Pumal · Jun 19, 2010

Overkill is right. I use an Olympus Stylus Epic F/2.8/35mm

stevco · Jun 19, 2010

You could go with a Minolta 7sII, it's prettier than Canonet's, mine's black one for sure

sangetsu · Jun 20, 2010

There are 3 different versions of the QL-17. The original version is rather large and clunky. The second variation was smaller and more modern, the third variation was the GIII, which is more or less identical to the second version.

When looking at old Canonets, check the glass carefully, for some reason Canon glass is exceedingly fungus-prone, check both the front and rear elements. I have 4 Canonets sitting on my shelf, one is a plain Canonet, one is the old QL-17, two are the newer black QL-17 cameras. Both of the older cameras have fungus in the lenses.

The entry-level rangefinder I would prefer to the Canonet is the Yashica GX or CC. The Yashica cameras do not offer the manual operation that the Canonet has, but in my experience they are capable of better quality images. The Yashicas are somewhat smaller, simpler to operate, and easier to maintain (such as when you want to remove the lens elements for cleaning, or the top cover to clean the rangefinder/viewfinder).

stewmander · Jun 29, 2010

I bought two Canonet GIII QL17s on RFF, and really like the one I have tested. I replaced the light seals on both of them using Jon Goodman's lightseal kits, and am testing out one of the cameras now. I use the px675 blue hearing aid battery (1.4v compared to 1.35v) and the light meter works just fine. See here.

Is a canonet a decent introduction to rangefinders?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency