Canonet Q17 GIII

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>I'm not trying to start a flame war hear, I really am just curious...For the past ten years or so I have been slowly collecting (several of them as of late) little fixed lens RF cameras. I have around 15 of them (with a few duplicates) and I use many of them regularly. My question is this, why is it that the Canonet Q17 GIII is so popular and command prices that I think are rather outrageous especially considering the fact that there are plentiful supplies?</p>

<p>I have had 2 Q17 GIIIs (both CLA'd and one adjusted to use alkaline cells) and used them quite a bit. I thought they had a decent lens and a good VF but they didn't strike me as anything super duper. I also thought the build quality seemed okay but not spectacular. I see them referred to quite a bit as a Poor man's Leica and I have to say that was not my experience with them. I did rather like that film loading thing they have and they produced sharp images when not wide open but not more so than my other cameras and not as good as a few of them (like my Auto S2, S3 and Hi-Matic 9). I sold the one to fund other purchases and gave the other as a gift and while I wouldn't mind getting another one I doubt I would go out of my way to pick up another one at the current prices. Also, the price the black ones get is outrageous ( I understand they are rare but...).</p>

<p>So, what am I missing here? </p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Kevin typed - "</strong> My question is this, why is it that the Canonet Q17 GIII is so popular and command prices that I think are rather outrageous especially considering the fact that there are plentiful supplies?"</p>

<p> Demand? I have a recently CLA'd pristine one. That 1/500th sec synch, and all mechanical ability is a good thing. I love mine.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p> I shot a GIII along with a Nikon FM2n on a vacation years ago, both with Kodachrome 64. And now days I can't distinguish what camera shot which slides. The GIII's meter with mercury batteries, worked perfectly. And stopped to F5.6 or F8 , the lens was as good as Canon glass gets. And that's pretty darn good.<br>

And it's size and weight are a breeze to carry, even compared to a relatively light weight SLR such as the Nikon FM. Maybe you are expecting too much out of this simple machine? "Poor man's Leica", isn't meant to imply the camera is built bank vault solid like a Leica. But it should imply that in the end in does the job of a light weight , easy handling RF camera.</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Bit of a cult thing going on here, <strong>Kevin</strong> , I suspect.....It was the last development of a very good line of cameras, and certainly a very nice camera to use, but in reality it was just another shutter-priority rangefinder, typical of it's era. I had one, used it on and off for a year and sold it when the price was high enough to buy me a Kiev III. I found the lens softened off somewhat at apertures wider than about f3.5; the much-vaunted quick-load system was a dandy little gadget but hardly worth all the fuss, and I already already had several Canonets awaiting attention for the stuck-shutter syndrome. The Leica-comparison thing I always found a bit incomprehensible, since the cameras are totally dissimilar; "poor man's Leica' seems to be one of those catch-phrases that gets bandied about, my rather lovely Ambi Silette having suffered the same indignity. And since we're moving from being users to collectors, the rarer black models of any brand and model attract a premium, and they do look nice.... All this, of course, is mainly IMHO, so please, Canonfans, don't jump on me too hard!</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>Like I said, I have nothing against them, I think they are nice cameras but I also think there are a number of nice 70's RF cameras that are just as nice or nicer that largely get ignored by people. I understand that demand drives up price. Thats why my Konica S3 was so expensive relative to the other RFs I have but they are pretty hard to come by in good condition. Q17 GIIIs are really EASY to come by in good condition and yet they go for quite a bit. They're nice but I guess I'm wondering what about them has made them suddenly so attractive to people vs other cameras? For instance, Konica S2s, Yashica Electros and Minolta Hi-Matics (the bigger ones) are all really nice cameras that are dirt cheap. I just picked up 2 Hi-Matic 7s's and a 9 for $20 each and they arrived in lovely condition. They all work, the meters are accurate and the VFs are clear. Yes, they are bigger than Canonet but the Q17 GIII is not a pocketable camera. The Canonet has a nice 40/1.7 lens but the S2's and the Hi-Matics are no slouch in the lens department (in fact I would argue the S2 lens is sharper). </p>

<p>What is the thing that makes theses Canonets so special to folks? Like I said I like them but I find them a bit pricey and I cannot figure out why they would be that way. Well, to each their own I suppose. On the up side with people going nuts over the Canonets I get to pick up some bargains in the remainder bins.</p>

<p> </p>

[darin_cozine]

<p>The collectors seem to be into small cameras right now.<br>

Olympus XA's, good point and shoots, and small rangefinders are going for exorbant prices.<br>

There are some favorable reviews online for the QL17 GIII, and thats what collectors are seeing.</p>

<p>The good thing about the Cannonet's is that they are plentiful, so many still sell at reasonable prices. The best examples are the ones garnering high bids.<br>

I was lucky that I found one in mint condition locally including the original hood, a uv filter, and a rollei flash. I just replaced the seals but I havent put film through it yet. It's a nice camera but for me I'd rather have an XA.</p>

 

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>It's a good enough camera; nice and compact but mine is underwhelming optically. My Konica Auto S2 and Aires III see a lot more play time.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Must be one of those things. I have three perfect XAs, and one XA2 in decent shape also. Those things produce a disproportionate number of keepers for me.</p>

<p> One thing I find odd.... when I'm out with the Canonet, I get a lot of 20-something people who come up and ask me what it is, more than with my Leicas, and I don't know why. They like the way it looks. This only happens more frequently with my big Nikon digis (and then it always seems to be women who want to become wedding photogs). I don't want to give a false impression that the Canonet is my favorite or that I think its lens is extraordinary. It's no Leica, but I do like it, it's amply good enough, and that synch speed matters to me in the sunny clime I inhabit. I just wish I hadn't lost that damned shade...</p>

<p> </p>

[charles_stobbs3]

The two I had seemed somewhat shaky and I sold them on EBay in Parts and Repair section. The Canonet 28 is a more reliable design IMHO.

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>the XA is a funny beast to me. I quite like it and yet I find the rangefinder nearly impossible to use (and the one I have is pretty clean). The little yellow patch is almost invisible. I love how quiet it is and I have heard from quite a few people that the lens is very sharp. Mine is in desperate need of new seals and I have been toying with selling it. It is in a box with a working flash and all the paper work still in plastic so I think I could get enough to fund the purchase of something I might use more like a Vivitar 35ES or a Konica Auto S1.6 (see my other thread). Still, I have to admit it has certain charm to it. It reminds me of an old brown P.O.S. Subaru wagon with 250K miles I used to have. Ugly as sin, slow as molasses but oddly endearing and the hardest car to give up of any car I have ever sold. </p>

<p>As for the Canonets...I hadn't noticed it before but it does seem to attract more than its share of twenty somethings. Why is that? They don't seem to give a rip about my Konicas...funny. </p>

[bill_delehanty1]

<p><<why is it that the Canonet Q17 GIII is so popular>><br>

I've had a Canonet (QL17, earlier than the GIII) for about 20 years and I've used it quite a lot, lent my backup to people who want to take pictures at some event, and bought one for another person (not a hobbyist) who wanted a camera to carry around. Some of the qualities that I've found that may contribute to Canonet popularity are: high quality results with slides, color negative, or b&w film; reliabiity; usability as a near point & shoot while having capacity for full manual adjustments; size and convenience in use (compared particularly to the larger FL rf cameras like Auto S-2, Hi-Matic 7s, and Olympus 35 SP); excellent dedicated flash, the Canolite D, which extends the capability of the camera while still being very convenient to use. I suppose this could be summarized as -- desirable combination of features.</p>

[bob oldendorf]

<p>I bought a GIII Canonet <em>new</em> back in 1983, and since then I've acquired a drawerful of various Canonets and various other compact rangefinders (XAs, Hi-matics, Konicas, etc.).</p>

<p>I've always looked upon it as a archetypical camera: and when you compare it side-by-side with another camera of its class, you notice that the Canonet has features that the other camera doesn't. Fast f/1.7 lens? Check. Full manual control of both aperture and shutter? Check. Automatic calculation of flash? Automated exposure if desired? Ability to keep going if the battery dies? Etc.</p>

<p>Plenty of other compact rangefinders come close, but very few match the complete package of features that the Canonet provides; those that do compare are either vanishingly rare, or comparably expensive, or both. And yes, I've had the same experience as noted above: when I've used it as a backup to my Nikons, it's difficult to tell afterwards which photo is from which.</p>

<p>To my mind, the reason for the Canonet's popularity is that it's the most firepower that you can carry in a single package. If you want <em>more</em> versatility or better quality, you'll need to carry an interchangeable-lens camera.</p>

 

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>

<p>I can see why the Canonet was popular. It was a good combination of features and as I recall it was pretty reasonably priced for what you got. That is not that different from say Canon Rebel DSLRs today. Because of their size Canon is able offer economies of scale vs other camera companies and give you a lot of "bang for the buck". I suppose it was just as true then as today. That being said I don't particularly care for Canon Rebel DSLRs either (and I have shot many hundreds of thousands of pictures with them through my work). With regards to the Canonet, they offered a popular combination of features for the price and they sold a ton of them. Given that they were so popular there are a lot of them still around I am puzzled as to why they are so spendy. Clearly the demand is high and for whatever reason people see them as collectable. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>To my mind, the reason for the Canonet's popularity is that it's the most firepower that you can carry in a single package. If you want <em>more</em> versatility or better quality, you'll need to carry an interchangeable-lens camera.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Is that true? The Hi-Matic 9 for instance can be operated shutter priority, aperture priority, full manual, has an automated flash system and IMHO just as capable a lens with a better VF and build quality. It is a good deal bigger though. I guess it just boils down to personal preferences. </p>

 

</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I bought mine back in around 1998 first I bought the Canonet 28 from a camera store in Dover, I liked it so much at the time I bought the QL17 GIII when I saw one for sell in another camera store in Plymouth. I did not know anything about Canonets at the time. I was working as a cruiseship phographer and wanted something smaller than my Canon EOS SLRs to carry around when I went ashore. I really wanted a Leica but could not really afford one so the Canonet was what I ended up with.</p><div></div>

[rustys pics]

<p>There is a very good reason why the Canonet QL17 is so expensive; it was featured in the movie <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0126604/">"Pecker"</a> about 10 years ago. If you have not seen that film, it's a fine comedy about a young "Lo Fi" photographer which really predated the film vs digital wars. Nonetheless it's relevant today because of the concept that a cheap camera and a sharp eye will beat an expensive camera and a mediocre eye every time.<br>

For me, I like the QL19. The two cameras are virtually identical except the 1/4 stop lens difference, and the QL19 is far cheaper. Either way you can't go wrong. The Canonet QLs were by no means cheap cameras for the masses. They were meant to be a lightweight, rugged alternative to the heavy SLR for people who liked to travel light.</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

I've been intrigued too .. why do these things command a high price when others deliver equally good results.

I think some posters have hit on the formula. I've had good fortune. MY brother simply sent me his! I remembered

he had a Cononet and I saw how they're reputation was grownming, I asked what happened to his.... we live quite far apart. HE told me, he'D forgottenm what model, but he had it soemwhere and would send it to me whne it runed up again. Whi8ch he id and it was the QIII 1.7 model. It's attractive! It'S appealing. While the features appear to be the same, how many of the other shutter priority RFs work in manual. and the focus lever and bright patch make it easy to use! It's fast! I won't carry the torch and it's one of only two Canons I own, but I think while I understand the appeal, I'm also underwhelmed by the result. I'll keep mind and maybe one day if the interests continue to rise, get the meter repaired.Still it'S a nice compact 35... it's the look!

[minhnguyen9113]

<p>I got my 1st QL17 40mm not GIII over 20 years ago at Golden West college flea market and loved it so much. Now I have many fixed lens RF cameras : Konica S, S2, S3 ; Yashica GSN, GTN, GX, 35cc ; Olympus SP, SPn ; Minolta 7S, 7SII and GIII silver and black. I think the Olympus SP and SPn are more expensive than the Canonet QL 17 GIII. The Minolta 7SII, the Yashica GX, 35cc and the Konica S3 are more expensive than GIII, too.<br>

But I think more people like the technical advantages, convenience and ease to use of the Canonet GIII specially when using with the Canolite D, that why they are so popular and in high demand...</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>True enough, the Konica S3, Minolta 7SII and Yashica Electro CC are more expensive but they are also a lot rarer than the QL17 GIII. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>But I think more people like the technical advantages, convenience and ease to use of the Canonet GIII specially when using with the Canolite D, that why they are so popular and in high demand...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe I just don't appreciate what the Canonet can do. IMHO the Q17 GIII is nice but not as nice as the larger bodied cameras like the Konica S2, Hi-Matic 7s and 9 or even the Canonet SE. Then again a small camera isn't a priority with me so that part of the Q17 GIIIs charm is lost on me. I also typically shoot available light so I'm sure I don't appreciate its flash capabilities. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is a very good reason why the Canonet QL17 is so expensive; it was featured in the movie <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0126604/" target="_blank">"Pecker"</a> about 10 years ago.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I saw Pecker. I think he was using a <a href="http://www.theothermartintaylor.com/moveabletype/archives/cameras/000010.html">Canonet 28</a>. I guess that could be contributing to popularity of the Q17 GIII but then again maybe it's just something that people have decided they want. I used to work in advertising and sometimes you cannot predict what will get people all worked up.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>As with most things Canon, there must be a lot of variation in the quality control. Mine has a very sharp lens which matches the lens on my Konica Auto S2 for sharpness. My last QL17-GIII was not as sharp by any means. I love mine and consider it to be one of my best performing classic cameras.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>Some have speculated that the reason they are in demand is because of a glowing review by Stephen Gandy on his Cameraquest website. In any case, you have to reality test what you mean by 'expensive'. User GIIIs go for $40 - 50 on the hated auction site, and excellent copies that have had a CLA are only about $150.<br>

<em></em></p>

[minhnguyen9113]

<p>I love the Canonet QL17 GIII after reading this article on Shutterbug magazine August 1991</p>

<p><img src="http://i35.tinypic.com/4uf49g.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://i35.tinypic.com/s4tkye.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://i37.tinypic.com/zsleh0.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[zane1664879013]

<p><a href="http://forums.popphoto.com/showthread.php?t=441288">This thread</a> is at least partially responsible for its persistent popularity. Seven years and still going...</p>

[awahlster]

<p>Wait until you handle a Black one!!!!! I have a very nice chrome and a very very nice black one and they will most likely be the last I'd sell of the noninterchangable lens rangefinders O have.<br>

My only whine is that they didn't put a frame around the viewfinder so an eye cup could be attached.</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>Nice article...glowing you might say. As I said before I don't have anything against it the QL17 GIII I simply think they are more expensive than they should be given how common they are. My experience has been that at auction (like eBay) they go for upwards of $75 if they are in decent shape and around $150 - $175 or more for freshly CLA'd versions. The black ones can go for $300 - $400 (although I suppose that is more understandable given how uncommon they are). The silver ones however were one of the biggest selling camera of its kind. There are tons of them out there. They are nice cameras but realistically they aren't THAT much nicer than other cameras out there. </p>

<p>Recently I went on a bit of a rangefinder buying spree. I bought THREE Minolta Hi-Matics (two 7s and a 9) for $18 a piece that arrived with working meters, nice clean glass and clear viewfinders. I picked up a Konica C35 for $20 and very clean Yashica GS for $21. The most I paid was around $80 for a pristine Konica S2 that looks like it was never used and $200 for a new in box Konica Auto S3. Heck, I can pick up a Canonet QL17 (the larger body version with a very nice sharp 45/1.7 lens) for less than half of what the QL17 GIII goes for. My point is that the Canonet is nice but I don't think it is nice enough to warrant the price difference between it and other cameras given the sheer number of those QL17 GIIIs that are out there. </p>

<p>If someone came to me asking for a recommendation as to which fixed lens RF to buy, I would certainly tell them to look at the Canonet but it probably wouldn't be at the top of my list because I think you can spend less and get something that is as good or better. FWIW The Minolta 7SII, Yashica Electro 35CC, Olympus 35RD and the Konica Auto S3 all fall into the "really nice but you could get a very good camera and spend less" camp as well. The thing with those cameras however is that I understand why they are spendy...they are hard to find.</p>

[rehan_hameed]

<p>I am looking to buy my first rangefinder and have been reading a lot about the fixed lens 35mm RFs recently. At first it seemed to me that Canonet QL17 GIII is expensive compared to the other great RFs. However now after many days of reading and ebay price tracking I now think the opposite - it seems that it is one of the LEAST EXPENSIVE ones in its class.<br>

A a buyer I am looking for two important features - first I need a fast lens (f2 or faster). For my intended uses f2.8 is just not fast enough. Thus most of the cheaper but excellent RFs like Olympus RC etc are out of the picture. Second I need manual exposure since thats the only way I shoot. That takes away the remaining cheaper options like yashica GSN.<br>

Pretty much all popular RFs which have these two features seem to go for $120+ on ebay (olympus RD, olympus SP, Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII, Konica S3 etc.) In comparison the canonet is 'only' $80 or so. So far Konica S2 seems to be the only one in this calss which seems to go for less than the canonet's.<br>

I will definitely be very interested in learning about other good fast-lens full manual RFs which are available for less than the Canonet's, but for now for me the only options seem to be the Konica S2 or Canonet.</p>