Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 76,328   Posts: 1,681,995   Online: 798
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13
  1. #11
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Multi Format
    Quote Originally Posted by aoresteen View Post
    2. Anyone know where I can get the proper lens hood? I've seen a listing for a Hood 4 and a Hood 5 but I'm not sure if both will work with the QL17. Which one is the best shade to get?
    The go-to replacement for the original lens hood on the QL17 is the black, all-metal Hoya 48mm screw-in. I waited for about 3-4 months for one to show up on "that auction site" and was rewarded with a near new sample for a reasonable price.

    As a second almost as good if not better option, consider the lowly Kalt 49mm black metal screw-in shade with a 48-49mm step-up ring. This combo results in a deeper (and thus darker) recess for the lens and surprisingly does not vignette whatsoever - at least when mounted without a filter between it and the lens. I can confirm this from personal use.

    It also looks really cool on QL17, which as everyone knows results in much improved compositions...

    Also, the comments by 'Bill Burk' regarding hoods and meter readings are dead on, and should be heeded if you intend to rely on the internal meter for outdoor daytime exposures. Meter readings on my QL17 vary widely for the same scene with and without a hood.

    "When making a portrait, my approach is quite the same as when I am portraying a rock. I do not wish to impose my personality upon the sitter, but, keeping myself open to receive reactions from his own special ego, record this with nothing added: except of course when I am working professionally, when money enters in,—then for a price, I become a liar..."

    — Edward Weston, Daybooks, Vol. II, February 2, 1932

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Minneapolis, MN
    Medium Format
    Wow. Nice to see a black one show up in the wild.
    I love my Canonet, for sure. You can redo the light seals yourself. There's a guy on ebay who sells kits that are just perfect. It'll take you about 30 min the first time.
    And I've checked the meter in my QIII 17 with an alkaline 625 battery against my Sekonic hand-held and it's only about 1/2 stop difference at most for me, which since I only shoot b/w and c-41, isn't that critical.

    One of the nice things about a Canonet is that you can clean and adjust the rangefinder yourself as well. Lots of good instructionals out there on the web for that.

  3. #13
    Wishy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Medium Format
    Quote Originally Posted by graywolf View Post
    Yes it is worth servicing, especially a black one. I never noticed much difference in exposure using an alkaline battery, compared to the mercury one. For those doing super critical work the way to fix it is to put a voltage regulator in the camera, but then an on camera meter is not much use for super critical work anyway, and the meter does not work on manual either, I suggest a small hand held meter an forget about batteries.

    Sorry, I can not recommend anyone as I do my own service work.
    I bought my black QL17 for £5 at a camera fair with a stuck shutter. Repaired for around £40. Bargain all in all. I used a "all cameras" repairer

    Regarding alkaline battery vs mercury. I find alkaline is sufficient give the type of camera.
    Be aware the QL17 has a single CDS cell which isn't very well recessed. It reacts very poorly to backlighting, and has a bad habit of exposing for the sky.

    So my advice is, if you're anal enough to be worrying about a >half stop difference between the 625A vs mercury, then you should be using a reliable handheld meter instead.

    Other than that, its a good camera. Heavy for the size. The lens is good - sharp / contrasty / fast. Rangefinder could be brighter, but you probably won't find anything better without spending a lot more. One thing that does annoy me - its hard to tell how much of the image is going to be included on the right hand side as there are no framelines here.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12



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