Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,212   Posts: 1,532,059   Online: 1182
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 39 of 39
  1. #31
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    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.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Brighton UK
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    256
    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...

  3. #33
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,862
    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.
    f/22 and be there.

  4. #34
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    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.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 06-19-2010 at 10:24 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  5. #35
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,862
    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.
    f/22 and be there.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    580
    Overkill is right. I use an Olympus Stylus Epic F/2.8/35mm

  7. #37
    stevco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Macedonia, Ohrid
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    91
    You could go with a Minolta 7sII, it's prettier than Canonet's, mine's black one for sure
    "It's not about the pictures, concepts, people, human bodies, emotions, experimentations, colours, dreams, tricky scenes, camera or imaginations.. it's about the poetry behind them all."

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    東京
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    212
    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).

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Ventura, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    19
    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.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin