M7 versus QL 17: Williamsburg, Brooklyn (Revisit)

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by sliu, Jul 13, 2005.

  1. Jorn Ake kindly lent me one of his M7s to test side by side with my new $38 QL 17. (Velvia 100F, M7 meter, Minolta SD III scan, Photoshop curve, no USM)
  2. ...
  3. ....
  4. .....
  5. The QL17 must be good because it uses ELECTRO technology.
  6. Especially in the eyes of Minolta SD III (that damn thing cost almost 10 times the QL17 at $38)!
  7. One of the lenses viginettes more.
  8. awahlster

    awahlster Moderator

    So is the M7 and lens worth 100 times more when it comes to results?
  9. awahlster

    awahlster Moderator

    Just for laughs I down loaded the two first shots from both cameras (WHAT LEICA LENS??) I then cut then in half and pasted the right and left halves back together. NOW here the resulting composite can you tell which side was made by the Leica and which by the Canon? Heck can you even tell through which letter I cut the photo's? If your looking at a photo on a monitor It doesn't matter what you took it with LOL
  10. Ok, I'll go on record with a guess: 1st one is M7, 2nd is Canonet. Going on angle of view (2nd wider), vignetting (2nd more), contrast (2nd harsher) and color balance (2nd cooler). Another question tho: which lens on the M7.
  11. awahlster

    awahlster Moderator

    Your answer is all wrong all of the photo's except the one I cut and pasted on htis thread are from the M7 look for the Canonets one by following the link S. Lui gave in his post under the photo's.
  12. Congratulations for handling two great RFs! A bit confusing thread though?

  13. Mark, sounds like you're saying that my answer is -right-, not wrong. By '2nd', I meant the hyperlinked shots.
  14. I've had a QL 17 for years, and it is a very capable, sharp, compact camera. Better yet, I
    won't have a heart attack if I lose it or drop it ... same can't be said for a M7 ;-)
  15. Your little test doesn't prove much. After all, most posters around here could use the QL 17, or even a $20 point 'n' shoot, and we'd see little difference in the quality of their photos.

Share This Page