steven_hong Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 I've been interested in getting a relatively cheap rangefinder to shoot some street photography but have had trouble selecting a camera. I was about to get a canonet ql17 but have heard that at wide apertures, the results are less than satisfying. This is a huge issue for me as I would like to work in available in-door light. Could anyone recommend a reasonably priced (nothing over $300) rangefinder that performs well wide open? I can't afford a leica m or bessa r2. I've heard the CL works well wide open. Any thoughts? Thanks for your help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernhard Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Seems you have to put most of the money in the lens. So what about a russian Zorki (Leica mount) body and a new Cosina/Voigtländer lens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannym Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 I've used my QL17 for 2 years now and I haven't had any problems at wide apertures. I've heard this comment before, but it appears to be bogus. I know of 3 other QL17 users and we've all gotten great results from this sturdy little camera. Look around, I got mine for $40 USD, and it is very clean. Many of these were manufactured, so you can get one quite cheap, it's worth the search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 <IMG SRC="http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-265.gif"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_oleson Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 i've found the ql17 to be pretty satisfying wide open, but i can't speak for your requirements. there were other similar models, such as the olympus 35RD, which might perform somewhat better but will cost more (still well under your $300 limit though). if you opt for the zorki/leica approach, i recommend a zorki 4 body (choose one with neckstrap lugs) which you can get for under $50 and is pretty reliable if not silky smooth or pretty, and you can pump lots of money into good lenses for it. rick :)= http://rick_oleson.tripod.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carina Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 I think you were given faulty information. For the money, you won't likely beat the QL17 for sharpness (the competing Olympus 35RC, Minolta, Konica, etc. were not quite in the same league). Even the Rollei 35 with Tessar was not as good as the Canon QL17 Lens (hence all the merely "good" valuations at f3.5 & f16 & f20 on the Rollei); while an engineering marvel, this Rollei camera is all-but useless as a photographic tool in many lighting situations. The chart someone posted above is now standard information. The lens is really quite decent by any standard. If you go back and read the reviews you will see that many "normal" (50-55mm) SLR lenses were weaker than this Canon lens; Fuji & Chinon & Ricoh & Minolta , etc., had the same number if not more "good" & "v. good" designations. Even the Leica Summilux was a mostly "v. good" ranked lens in these tests. As long as you dont care about lens changability, and want to be in any way thrifty, you probably wont beat the QL17 (spend $50, $100, $150, $200 - I doubt it will matter). You also have dedicated flash via the Canonlite D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjtower Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 The chart above tells almost all you need to know. One problem is that they didn't offer LPM scores on the lens, just "good" vs. "excellent" summaries, which is often misleading in "Modern Photography", even with their qualifications. Any ranking would depend on the importance you place on edge resolution. As long as you rank it slightly less as important as center resolution -and rank f2.8-f11 more important than wide open and al the way down- here is a list of lenses which are not, as tested, all things considered as good as the Canon QL17: (1) 55mm f1.8 EBC Fujinon; (2) 50mm f1.4 Rokkor-X; (3) 50mm f1.4 Canon [mediocre center resolution]; (4) 50mm f1.8 Canon [same as f1.4]; (5) 55mm f1.7 Chinon; (6) 50mm f1.4 Konica Hexanon; (7) 55mm f1.4 Mamiya Sekor; (8) 50mm f1.8 Miranda; (9) 50mm f1.8 Praktica Meyer Oreston; (10) 50mm f1.8 Rikenon; (11) 50mm f1.8 Olympus Zuiko; (12) 50mm f2 Leica Summicon... etc. In the end, if your overall photography with the QL17 isn't up to snuff, it might not be the camera which is at fault. It is highly unlikely most people would find the camera limiting - in terms of optical quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 My Canonete cost a mighty 20 dollars; but the meter doesnt work...It is a fine Quiet camera. The Russian Zorki's offer value too; but are alot more dicey in performance; and ALOT LOUDER..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miles stoddard Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 My short answer is: Ditto to what Daniel M. said above. The longer answer is that I believe this was Canon's best-selling or at least longest-selling camera of all time. It is a heck of a camera for the money, regardless of if you scrap one up on ebay for $35 or buy a tested one from a restorer for $135. There is a reason this little RF was a pro backup for decades. This camera has a cult following. Recent magazine articles wer ein the vein "The Cult of the Canonet", "The Street Photography Ideal", "A $100 Leica?", etc. There are repair guys who fix the RF and meters - though most are still solid, and also fan clubs and what-nt which offer new everyready cases, as well as new leather and even snakenskin "body" panels. I mention this not as I recommend it, but that it attests to the popularity of the camera. Many cameras have stuck self-timers and gooy, messy foam seals on the back door, otherwise they usually work fine. You can't go wrong with this camera; if you have a choice, get the latest version -- GIII. Try to find one with the Canonlite D flash; it is a nice accessory which on the internet sometimes sells for as much as the camera! We taught photography classes for 15 years using only Canonet QL17's, and never regretted it. Even if for some reason you weren't happy, you wont likely lose money as it is a solid camera with a still-growing reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_weinzettl1 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Haha.. I'm actually going out shopping for a QL17 tomorrow. I need a friend for my A-1. The guy at the camera store said that they usually don't have them and that I should try the thrift stores. Also told me not to pay more than $45 CDN for one. Wish me luck on my quest for the little guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carina Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 $45 CDN? Is that $45 Canadian Dollars (I am in South America)? Can you really buy perfectly functioning QL17's for so little? I am not amazed at what the photo guy told you. They will sell you a $250 Tamron/Tokina/Sigma/Canon supr-zoom, which is almost always little more than a piece of crap (is "crap" the right word?), though tell you not to pay more than $33 for a real camera! I hope you find one for that amount; then again, next time I am in the U.S., I hope I find 10 of them to bring back to Peru! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_weinzettl1 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 > $45 CDN? Is that $45 Canadian DollarsYep, Canadian. He also offered some advice. He said to cover the lens with my hand and try to fire the shutter. If it fires, the camera is busted. As far as i know, the metering circuitry is turn on by a light sensitive thingy on the lens. He also told me that they're generally not worth them repairing QL17's to sell since they sell for so little. I'm guessing I won't manage to find a perfectly working one. Actually I'd be happy to find one at all, working or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miles stoddard Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Well, the test is only valid if and only if you have the aperture set to "A", and completely cover the front of the camera face/lens assembly. If you do less, you haven't really tested what you hoped to have tested. As for not worth repairing, I doubt really this. However, if in Candada you can really buy them for so little, fully functioning, then this guy may well be right. I suspect his advice is only partially correct - if that. It should not be that hard to find one that works perfectly. It might not be $35 (I cant imagine selling a tested unit with flash for less than $100 - about the cost of a useless email camera!). I know a guy in Milwaukee who, until recently, repaired them. He sold them tested with good meters and new foam seals, for $85 without flash and $120 with it. He had a waiting list til he ran out of units last winter. This was right about the time of the first retrospective magazine article on the camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannym Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 I got my cheap because, even though it was in great physical shape, the vendor told me it had light leaks due to deteriorated sealing. He said that I could get it (rear door) re-sealed for about $50 USD by someone he knew that did repairs. I didn't want to double the cost of the camera, so before I purchased it, I ran a search on Google and I found an easy, inexpensive fix, that actually worked. WallMart sells 8 x 10 sheets of 1/8 inch thick, foam (in many colors including black). These foams sheets come with a sticky side and they are use for childrens art work. I paid .87 cents for a sheet, cut a quarter inch strip and re-sealed my canonet. It's amazing, it's worked perfectly ever since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin_hundsnurscher Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 I've taken my Canonet out to concerts to take pictures and the results were quite good at 1.9. I was also at a distance of about 10 feet from the performers so the distance made up for the lack of DOF. For a $40 camera it sure isn't a bad idea to have one, especially with it's automatic setting and battery-less light meter. It actually handles a bit better than the Yashica Electro, but I wish it came with a hair trigger rather than the long push that's required for snapping a shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjtower Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 ...and the results were quite good at 1.9......with it's automatic setting and battery-less light meter... You are refering to a different, larger, older "Canonet", probably the older QL19? The QL17 (faster f1.7 lens) is a physically smaller unit, and very compact. The automatic setting and the meter on the QL17 are battery-dependent. If you need even better low-light possibilities (faster lens, though not sharper), try the Yashica Lynx, which was f1.4. Konica made a nice f1.8 RF, with super sharp lens, but the camera is bigger and the electronics/metering less reliable than the QL17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_weinzettl1 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Well, my quest for a QL17 came up empty. Closest I got was 2 Canonet 28's. Both were really junky looking. You can tell they were the cheaper brother of the QL17.I've not given up hope yet though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_oleson Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 keep looking for a decent QL17, even if you have to pay a bit more. they are about equally as prone to problems as most other cameras at their age, but are pretty easy to work on and generally worth fixing despite the low replacement cost (the replacement would be 20-30 years old, too, after all). for those who would like to do their own repair and maintenance, you can find a lot of help with the experienced folks at this site: http://www.kyphoto.com/classics/forum/ i also have some basics here: http://members.tripod.com/rick_oleson/index-30.html rick :)= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger c Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 If you can find one, the 1960s Minoltina-S has a fearsomely sharp Rokkor-QF 40/1.8 lens. The inbuilt selenium meter is a bit random, so a hand meter is advisable, but the final results beat any SLR I've tried. I have a 30" x 20" print hanging in my stairwell which is pin-sharp. Sadly the shutter jammed on mine so I'm on the lookout for another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farce Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 Hi Steven, have you found your camera yet. I might have a couple of canonet 28s and maybe a ql17 somewhere in my house. I can try to see if I can fish them out if you are interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now