Canonet vs Leica

I am interested in the observations of anyone who has used both

Leica-M equipment & a Canonet GIII QL17. Thanks.

What�s to say? One is an interchangeble lens system, the other is a fixed lens. I have the M system now, and had a Canonet. <p>The Canon was small to carry around, had a decent lens, but jammed on me several times, so I gave it away. <p> The M is larger, much costlier, and much more versatile, but not automated unless you have the M7. IMHO, if you�re gonna do rangefinders, the M is a must, the Canonet is a nice to have.

I use both and love both. Canon GIII is definitely the cheapest of the best rangefinders out there. The only thing I don't like it is the meter won't work at manual setting. But then once you get used to the rangefinder style, you only measure the exposure when the light changes. So I measure the light at the beginning of a shooting and leave it there. I then change to manual setting, knowing what the exposure should be. It really is not a problem.

 

If you have a habit of changing lens all the time, this may not work out for you as Canon has a fixed 40/1.7 lens. It's a sharp lens though.

The Canonet has been called the poor mans Leica. I have both. The Canonet is a very usable rangefinder camera with a sharp lens. The rangefinder window is not as bright or large but very useable. Most have a haze which can be easily cleaned by removing the top. If I did it anyone can. I found the biggest difference in the focusing patch. Unless mine is faded more than usual, I find it harder to focus for street or action shots. It is a soft yellow patch as opposed to a clearly definded rectangle on the M. My M2 is much clearer and easier to use. Also the focus throw is much shorter on the Canonet so close up it is often more difficult to focus accurately. However the 40mm lens has a reasonable DOF. The light meter if working, on the auto mode is surprisingly accurate but takes the banned Mercury batteries. However there are many fixes including getting the mercury batteries on the internet. The Canonet can also be used on manual mode. The QL version is actually easier to load than an M.<p> I use my Canonet mostly for special purposes as I am not a fast user of film. I've used it with fast film for low light conditions but note the meter can only be set for 800 ISO. I've also used infrared film in mine with success. <p> In summary a good camera to take along if you don't want to damage a more expensive camera like in the glove compartment of a car or at the beach. Works better for stationary subjects as it is considerably harder to focus accurately under fast changing conditions. The perfect camera for someone who wants to try the rangefinder experience before laying out a lot of money.

If you own just a 35mm lens for your Leica M, what differentiates it from the Canon is that

it's a far better made camera with better quality lens and a better viewfinder at about 100x

the price.

 

The Canonet has a usable lens, is old and likely to jam occasionally, and was made to sell

at a modest price for entry level photographers. If you get one that works well and find it

covers all your needs, you're done. A Leica M goes beyond it in flexibility, durability,

quality of imaging and usability in almost every way.

 

But what determines the photograph, in the end, is your ability to see. If you are blind,

neither will be anything more than a lump of metal and glass.

 

Godfrey

Thanks for the replies guys. I've owned the Canonet for 25 years & it still works perfectly - even had recent CLA. I'm considering whether to buy Leica or even CV equipment. However, I don't want to duplicate the fast 40mm Canonet lens unless I'm going to get better results

 

What I most want to know is whether you see different results in the pictures you take with Leica-M equipment, CV lenses, etc. vs Canonet results. I have no basis for comparison. I don't have a problem dealing with the operational issues of the Canonet.

 

Thanks again.

If you do a lot of your shooting wide open you'll probably find the Leica and Voigtlander lenses a bit sharper but it might not be all that evident unless you print 11x14 and larger.

Bill,

 

I went through all of the mini-cameras. Canonet, Olympus XA/Pen/Trip, Rollei 35 etc.

You can do really cool things with any of them. A basic Leica CL w/ a Summicron is

MUCH better camera (no Auto Exp though...the Leica CLE does). Jump up to an M3 and

now you also have a great Finder (but no meter). The Leica simply has better image

quality.

 

As for the Screwmount stuff....I have come SO CLOSE to buying a IIIf just because they look

so cool. The Finder view is terrible. Loading Film is terrible. You can use all of the

Screwmount Lenses on an M with an adapter.

 

The only argument for a Screwmount is cool looks and price. An M3 can be had for about

$600 in user cond. Add an old Summicron Rigid for $250 and have a blast.

 

jmp

Thanks, John & Al. BTW, my intended use for the new equipment is primarily black & white.

 

Keep the comments coming!

I've used both---I cut my teeth on the Canonet before moving up to the Leica M. The 40/1.7 on the Canonet takes absolutely sharp, beautiful pictures. In terms of build quality, there really is no comparison; the Leica M system is top-of-the-line luxury, the Canonet is budget, entry-level. Either the Leica CL or Leitz-Minolta CL, or the Cosina Voigtlander system, would be a step up from the Canonet in terms of handling and build quality (e.g., the viewfinder/rangefinder alone), but not necessarily in terms of image quality. <p>

I would take a look at <a href="http://cameraquest.com/canql17.htm" >this</a> page and <a href="http://www.netaxs.com/~cassidy/images/equipment/ql17/ql17.html" >this</a> page ("How Does My QL 17 Stack Up To A Leica M6?"), if you haven't done so already.

Thanks, Andrew . . . both for your comment & for the reference. The Canonet build quality has lasted me for all these years, so for my purposes it's not a problem unless it breaks. and I've learned to work with its viewfinder, etc. My primary interest is lens comparison & whether I'd really see a difference in B&W photos taken with Leica, CV, or Konica lenses.

the late "grate" jay called the leica CL a poor man's canonet. some truth to that. the canonet is built like a tank.

 

i have a black GIII that i've used for many years. always on auto. the canonet lens is not so great at 1.7, but by 2.8 is very sharp (and you have the 1.7 when you need it). it is a great little camera that has yet to let me down.

 

two main quibbles: won't let you shoot in auto when there is not enuff light and the throw on the lens is very short making perfect focus a little bit hard to achieve sometimes. a great great camera!!

 

leica M build quality is vastly different. lenses are obviously sharper, especially at wide apertures. one is not a replacement for the other.

Bill,

 

You should consider getting a Bessa R2 and a Summicron 50 Rigid or Collapsible (if you

want Portable...). That way you have a metered camera with a decent Finder, accurate

Focus and you can find them for $300 (just sold mine). The R2 makes a great backup if

you ever get an M....it just isn't as quiet, smooth or cool as an M.

 

The CV Lenses can be quite good. I have the Ultron 35 and am very happy with it. I also

have the 21 but haven't seen enlargements from it yet.

 

jmp

Andrew, I´m very angry at you! How come you didnt use your special powers to get us 2 girls that cold night after the tortillas!!! Not going to pass by this one so easly

<i>As for the Screwmount stuff....I have come SO CLOSE to buying a IIIf just because they look so cool. The Finder view is terrible. Loading Film is terrible.</i>

<p>

all of the above...true. I have a IIIf and it does look cool. I bought the small round 50mm CV finder to use with my 50mm summitar, and use the finders that came with my various CV lenses. Loading is easy (almost) once you get used to it and get in the habit of carrying pre-trimmed film.</p>

 

<p>I like it also because it is amall enough to carry in my purse. In San Francisco a guy wanted to buy it from me on the spot. I turned him down of course, too cool looking to sell.</p>

There's something with the Canonet that Leica doesn't have: the right size. I can easily pocket my Canonet in my coat, but my M6 is (quite) a bit heftier and bulkier. I won't dispute the superior Leica quality, but then, the Canonet is a close follower.

 

A couple of years ago, in NY, I wondered the town with a Canonet in my pocket and I'm very satisfied of my shots there. I learned a lot with that little camera. Mine is still working, and it's now my backup body.

 

The odd thing is that I always thought I could really use a Contax G1 after the Canonet, so I looked for one, got it, enjoyed it but... alas, it's uses are kinda limited (but they too look cool!). I haven't sold it, and probably won't (there are moments when it comes in handy), but for the following trip I took (to Colombia), I grabbed my Canonet again.

 

There you go, Bill!

I wouldn't be without my Canonet, the top of the range QL17 GIII is a favourite. I have a number of the 70s compact rfs and it is the pick of my bunch. AFAIK the only one with Leica-like floating framelines for parallax correction, and the rangefinder patch is the brightest and best of my lot. (Do get the top off and clean it if needed)

 

The flash-matic system is where I get most use out of it, for gig photography. Synching all the way to 1/500th is a joy.

 

I've never had a problem with the meter using air-zinc batteries (but only shoot b+w with it) and it seems to be built very well...

 

But it doesn't feel like a leica, and the rangefinder patch on a Leica will blow you away with its crispness if you have only used a Canonet.

 

As for optics, as Roger Michel said, once you are stopped down a bit the Canon lens is great. Differences will be most noticable if you shoot wide open a lot, or like to muse about bokeh, in which case all the brands you listed (Leica/Konica/CV) and the different lenses in their lineups will have subtle differences... the biggest being that unless you shoot Leica lenses you'll always wonder if you are missing out ;-)

Thanks for your thoughts, guys.

 

Ben, you hit the nail on the head. As much as I enjoy my Canonet . . . well, there is that feeling of wondering if I'm missing out. Of course, 2 grand for a used M6 & a used 50 Sumicron would be a lot to find out I wasn't mising much. LOL

Canonet is cheap and effective. Stopped down to f2.8, it's neck

and neck with most modern Leica-mount lenses. At f2.0 and

f1.7, though, it's soft! Not as good as a collapsible summicron,

and certainly no match for a modern 50 or 35mm Summicron

wide-open.<div></div>

If you like the Canonet QL17 GIII, you might like the Konica Auto S2 even better. Not as compact or quite as smoothly finished, but the 45mm f1.8 Hexanon lens is even better than the Canonet's lens. I find that the Auto S2's Hexanon is optically in the same class as the Summicrons from the same era. Not as well constructed, surely, but optically very comparable. And the Konica's auto-parallax correcting bright frameline viewfinder is absolutely stellar for that class of camera, and also superior to the Canonet's finder IMHO.

<IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-265.gif>

<BR><BR>Here My Canonet with broken meter cost 20 dollars.<BR><BR>The Konica Auto S2 that by brother had a great lens. It tested as one of the best normal lenses I have ever tested. Maybe we just got lucky. It once had a shutter problem; that was fixed long ago.

Kevin, that is a wonderful picture! It shows that the combination of photographer & subject are far more important than the equipment . . . and the equipment is important.

 

Kelly, thanks for the charts. Do you have a reference on those tests? Thanks again.

Kelly's charts are from Modern Photography's Modern Tests section, in the months indicated. And, BTW, I don't have the issue any more, but I seem to recall the Konica Hexanon 45mm f1.8 of the Auto S2 testing out BETTER than the 40mm Summicron C of the Leica CL. It was Excellent at all readings, including f1.8 and f2.8, even at the corners, and the center resolutions got up into the high 80s for LPMM resolved. I remember this because I bought the camera in 1972 on the basis of those results. I still have my Auto S2, and I still haven't found a normal lens for a 35mm camera that is significantly better. Some are slightly better, but nothing is alot better.

Douglas; I tested my brothers Konica Auto S2 in the early 1970's; with Panatomic-X; times lights; USAF charts; at a 1:48 ratio.. The negative at F5.6 is my test negative for my enlargers; and scanners; for over 3 decades. It is something like 80 to 85 line pairs/mm on the as measured on the film. This is a fantastic lens; or at least the sample I tested was. My brother used this camera for shooting basketball with tri-x; and no strobe; about 1965; with the lens wide open. Sadly the camera got stolen. Someday I will get another!

Kelly, That was not an unusual sample. I've seen results from 4 different 45mm f1.8 Hexanons on Auto S2 cameras. They are typically all that good. This was simply a top notch lens that, for whatever reason, Konica chose to put on an inexpensive camera.