Tuning-Up an older camera? (Canonet QL17)

[va3uxb]

<p>I just acquired a Canonet GIII QL17 rangefinder, and while it appears to be in pretty good condition, I'm wondering if there is any sort of standard maintenance that can or should be done? Like any rule-of-thumb stuff to do to ensure that it stays in working order.<br>

The only two things I can see that might be an issue both have to do with the back / film door. The foam seal that lines the edges of the door appears to be starting to degrade, and the door itself has a very small amount of play when it is closed. That is, even when it is closed I am able to push it in a bit further, though it 'springs' back out again a little bit. In spite of this, I am pretty sure it is not in danger of popping open on its own.<br>

I've just put a roll of Tri-X 400 in it, so I'll know when I develop that if things are actually fully functional or not.<br>

Thanks!</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>The foam deterioration is a standard issue and a Google will reveal everything from advice to instructions to actual kits (e.g., <a href="http://www.northwestcamerarepair.com/used_equipment/light%20seal%20kits/light.seal.kits.html">link</a> ) for doing the job.<br>

Otherwise, while a general cleaning and such couldn't hurt, it may not be necessary. Most of these are still working fine (except for the foam).</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>One of the typical things to do is to replace the light seals. There is a seller on Ebay named Interslice with a light seal kit. </p>

[va3uxb]

<p>Thanks very much for the quick responses!</p>

 

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Sometimes these rangefinder get a bit of haze in the viewfinder that varies from very light to downright cloudy. If it's light it may be fine and not bothersome. If it heavy it can be like looking through a fog. Mine was light, with bad seals, so I sent it in for a CLA. Even though I thought the viewfinder looked OK, I was amazed at the clarity it achieved after getting a pro clean job. I've seen instructions on line somewhere on DIY finder cleaning but choose to let my tech handle it. It's a wonderful little shooter, totally worth the extra cost to me.</p>

[va3uxb]

<p>Actually the view in the rangefinder looks quite clear to me, I was pleasantly surprised with how sharp it seems - the viewfinder, the rf square and the frame & meter part are all fairly sharp easy to see. <br>

Sorry if this is a stupid question but I've seen the term CLA a number of times in the forum here... what does CLA stand for?<br>

Thanks again!</p>

 

[tomscott]

<p>CLA Clean Lube and Adjust. I will second the recommendation for seals from Jon Goodman, (ebay seller Interslice) his kits are excellent and he will go out of his way to help you if you have any trouble with the job, although it is fairly easy. Cleaning the old seals is the worst part but, the whole job can easily be done in an hour or less.</p>

[jon_goodman1]

<p>Thanks very much for the endorsements Marc and Tom! In the latest edition of the re-sealing instructions, I show how to remove the top plate and clean the rangefinder/viewfinder (even show the adjustment screws I think...has been a month or two since I wrote them). At any rate, I think I used 12 image files and a paragraph to help de-mystify this procedure using only common tools and some masking tape. If anyone here needs those, all you have to do is email me. Oh, and I also created templates to reproduce the ends for the seals...just like original.<br>

Jon</p>

[va3uxb]

<p>As I eagerly await the light-seal kit from Jon, I have to share a 'funny' moment I had while testing the camera -- I wanted to ensure that the hot-shoe was working so I put on an old generic flash I've had for ages, and gave it a go. I had a moment of panic, the flash fired but I thought the shutter had failed to operate. So I took another shot, and same thing!<br>

When I pushed the shutter release, I could see the flash firing as I looked through the viewfinder, and could hear it (it makes a sort of 'Puh!' noise when it discharges), but the viewfinder didn't go black nor did I hear a loud kerchunk, or even a snap/click. <br>

It took me a few seconds to remember that rangefinders don't black out when you release the shutter, and the shutter in the QL17 is so quiet that the flash discharge drowns it out! Duh. It's been too long since I used a rangefinder. Actually even my last digital P&S made more noise when it went off than the Canonet!</p>

 

[Lou_Meluso]

<blockquote>

<p> It's been too long since I used a rangefinder.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a funny story, Stephanie. Almost as funny as me shooting half a roll of film without realizing I had left the lens cap on. Another unforunate issue with rangefinders.<br>

The real problem is that the meter keeps drawing battery power if it's not capped (no on/off switch) as long as its exposed to light. To solve this problem I no longer use a cap but keep the camera in a very small, zippered camera pouch on my belt. It's easy to carry this way, it stays dark in there and I never have to worry about the lens cap being left on again.</p>

[va3uxb]

<p>Thanks for the info about the battery Louis - I've got a "UV filter" on there and have been going without the lens cap, so as to avoid accidentally leaving the cap on. Basicaly using the filter as a see-through cap. I didn't think about running down the battery.<br>

I wonder if switching it off Auto would disengage the battery, since the meter is not used in manual mode?</p>

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>Although SLR's are more versatile with respect to focal lengths and that they eliminate the Parallax correction issue, rangefinders make up some ground in how they handle filters. While you'd have to calculate filter factors into the lens settings in most rangefinders (although apparently not this one), even the darkest ND filter will have no effect on focusing and composing.</p>

[tomscott]

<p>Stephanie, you are correct, if you take it off the Auto setting it will not run down the battery on this model. If you need one, I have a user manual for the QL17 GIII that you can have, just email me with an address and I will send it too you.</p>

 

[va3uxb]

<p>Thanks for the confirmation Tom, and for the manual offer! I was able to locate some scans of the manual already and have downloaded them all - it's pretty straightforward in fact.<br>

I'm just reviewing the results from my first test roll and scratching my head a bit, almost every frame is very under-exposed. I have a feeling this is from a brand-new alkaline battery providing too much voltage into the metering system? I knew to expect exposure-problems from the incorrect voltage, but didn't think it would be so severe. </p>

[tomscott]

<p>Are you shooting slide film or print film? I never had a problem with print film and a 625a Alkaline battery. From what I understand, slide film is a bit more particular about exposure.</p>

[va3uxb]

<p>It's B&W negatives, Tri-X 400 that I developed myself. Which may also be part of my problem, I might have messed that up somehow. After 10-15 years off, this was just my second roll and although the first one came out ok, my problem may have been in processing.<br>

I'll experiment with another roll and try some different exposures to see if I need to compensate in the ISO setting. <br>

Cheers!</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>You can use a 675 zinc air cell which has voltage closer to the original mercury cell intended for the camera. You may have to put a #9 o-ring to make a 675 fit. If you still doubt the meter, try shooting a few pics on TX under bright sun for 1/500 between f11 and f16. Compare to those taken on automatic. Also, if you use the camera on automatic, don't worry about the lens cap. The cds cell is covered and the shutter won't trip on automatic is the meter can't read any light.<br>

The Canonets are incredible little cameras. I think you will really enjoy yours after resolving the exposure issue.</p>

[va3uxb]

<p>Figured I should report-back with some more results - I do love this camera. I shot through a roll last weekend while visiting a friend. Before I left, I compared the way the meter was working to the meter in another camera, an exposure calculator, and a handheld meter, and found that with the ISO at 400, the Canonet was giving results that the others matched at 800. When I set the Canonet to ISO 250 it gave results that matched the others at 400, so I left it at 250 when I went shooting. Some of the results can be seen here: <a href="http://planetstephanie.net/2009/09/14/the-shwaa/">The Shwaa?</a><br>

Tonight, I just finished replacing the light seals using Jon's kit. It went well, the kit & instructions were great! The only tricky bit for me was re-attaching the QL mechanism to the door. All in all it was quite fun, and it feels good to be able to service your own gear.</p>