claude_batmanghelidj Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 I have found one of these for $90, with new foam seals, a crystal clear finder, and a clean lens. Works fine. Can anyone tell me about this camera. I thought it would be a good cheap alternative to an M6. Still wondering about buying it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_levine Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 The price sounds a little steep, but these are good cameras for shooting. They don't have the same feel as the older, sturdier RF cameras (Canon,Leitz,Contax,Nikon). But the fixed 38MM lenses were quite sharp and produced nice contrasty images. Also after loading many older RF cameras, the GIII's "QL" system (quick loading)will seem like a marvel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wai_leong_lee Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 Google. Cameraquest has the info you need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claude_batmanghelidj Posted October 28, 2007 Author Share Posted October 28, 2007 Thanks, I've already googled all over the place, but would rather hear from my friends at Photonet on their personal experience, either with the 40mm QL17 or the 45mm QL19 GIIIs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_stobbs3 Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 I had 2 QL17GIII's and was never impressed with the results. They were 30 years old when I bought them. My Canonet 28 seems better to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_levine Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 I think mine is a 40mm, not a 38mm? Interesting note: these cameras do not have focal plane shutters. They utilize leaf shutters built into their lenses. Mine was made in Singapore c 1975. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winfried_buechsenschuetz1 Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 Yes, the QL17-GIII has a 40mm lens. Some other rangefinders of the 70s use 38mm lenses. It`s no surprise that they use leaf shutters built into the lens barrel. A focal plane shutter does not offer any advantages with a fixed lens and has the draw back of slow sync speeds. Anyhow, I made excellent experiences with my QL17 (new) - an early version of the GIII with a different battery test system. Maybe there are some lenses of that era which are even sharper but there is nothing to complain about the QL17 lens. The QL17-GIII is somewhat over-engineered and packed with each and every feature the engineers could design into a purely mechanical camera, and some of these gimmicks may cause failures. The GIII probably is the most versatile rangefinder camera with fixed lens of the 70`s era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 If it's anything like the QL17, I think the main difference you'll find is the crappier but still useable viewfinder, and a film advance that's not nearly as smooth and sure as M6. Haven't used it enough to know about the meter, but the lens certainly can make good pics..<p> <center><img src="http://chaospress.com/other_pics/man_phoneweb.jpg"></center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoff_portas Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 <P>The <A HREF="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/index.html"> Canon Camera Museum</A> web site has details of all Canon cameras from 1933 onwards.</P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred_c1 Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Steve, start another thread if all you can talk about is the Rollei 35. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred_c1 Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 >The QL17-GIII is somewhat over-engineered and packed with each and every feature the engineers could design into a purely mechanical camera, and some of these gimmicks may cause failures. I'm not sure what those gimmicks and their failures are. The self-timer mechanism on my "new QL19" is crammed inside the lens/shutter assembly and doesn't work, though it is hardly a gimmick. The GIII has the same thing. A conventional timer on the front body like the Minolta Hi-matics is a much better solution. The light meter is turned off when you select the aperture manually which is the biggest shortcoming of such cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claude_batmanghelidj Posted October 30, 2007 Author Share Posted October 30, 2007 Hey Fred, so you actually have the camera I am discussing, (and not one of the singapore Rollies, snicker...). Can you tell me more? Is it worth 90 bucks for a clean sample? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_schall Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 I don't know where you are located but $90 for this camera is way to high. I've got a QL17 GIII with new seals, clean viewfinder and sharp lenses with the dedicated flash I'll sell for $45 plus shipping. And that's about the going rate for these cameras. The QL19 is a cheaper version because of the slower lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred_c1 Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Claude, I have the "pre-GIII" model. The GIII has a battery check button which mine lacks, as well as improved lens coatings. Got it some years ago and don't know about the going price these days, though I suspect you can haggle down somewhat. The QL19 has a 45/1.9 lens vs the QL17's 40/1.7 lens, the numerical speed difference less than 1/2 stop. The QL19 is also a lot less common than the QL17, the GIII version even rarer. (Couldn't find one so I settled for its precursor.) Both versions have pentagonal irises. Shoot a test roll if you can. It's a much better user than any Rollei 35 which cost even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_amos Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Claude, I have a QL17 GIII, and not the QL19 you ask about, but I can only say that while my QL17GIII can not compare in any build aspects to my Leica M6, it was the camera that made me start to imagine what an M6 and its rangefinder could do, which started me on the Leica M path. Mine is a great picture taker and better at f2 than I would have thought likely. My wife always chooses to use the little Canon over a Leica CL I try to push on her, even though they are precisely the same size. I'm not sure why she feels this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claude_batmanghelidj Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 Brian, I am in Tokyo, where these ought to be a dime a dozen, but I rarely stumble on clean ones. I could well find a new in the box deal on Ebay, but it is such a gamble. 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