Canonet GIII non-scientific lens test

[dave_s]

<p>Gawd almighty, you guys have a lot of time on your hands . . .</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p><strong>Maciek</strong>, I do find your post interesting and thank you for taking the trouble to show your results and share your opinion. Like some others with experience with this camera, I was well aware it it's performance characteristics already. It would have been helpful to select an area without so much foreground activity since, until you explained your focus point a few posts after, I wasn't sure quite what I was looking at. When you told the camera was at infinity, I clearly saw the change in quality for the different f/stops and while I know this, someone not familiar with the camera might glean new information. It would have been nice to see some of the middle apertures well. </p>

<p><strong>Zane</strong>, I don't understand your post. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The attached images tell us nothing we didn't know before</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't you mean "tells <em>you</em> nothing didn't know before" One never knows who or when these posts will be accessed by individuals with no previous knowledge of this camera or what they will or will not find useful.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your sweeping statements based on small, compressed jpg files on a computer monitor are not authoritative</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In the first place, the OP has the negatives so it's not clear what he is basing his opinion on. In any case while not ideal, one can discern the quality change of the different images. As a single user, with a single camera, whatever my level of testing experience, why does my personal opinion of some results I achieved and shared have to construed as being "authoritative"? The guy is saying here are some pictures I took and here is what I think of the results. Regardless if whether or not his procedures and experience meet the litmus test of professional lens testing, his test and his opinion stand as valid. And they would still be valid even if they disagreed with controlled tests or decades of user experience, which they don't. They are his opinions and he should feel free to share them without recrimination. It's fine to disagree but not fine to chastise someone for not meeting your level of performance. To wit....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You want to do a valuable comparison? Go take some shots using the Canonet and some other camera, on tripods, at exactly the same time. Go make 12" or larger prints using best lab practices (being absolutely consistent between the two sets of prints), and THEN tell us how the prints compare. Repeat this exercise with three or four samples of each camera, ensuring each camera is functioning properly (you may need a camera repair expert to certify this). Then you'll begin to have some substance behind your opinions</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why are you badgering the OP with this? Did you read the title of the thread? The OP clearly states these are non-scientific tests. Do you mean to say if I go out and shoot a brick wall with my camera and formulate an opinion, that my opinion has no substance?</p>

<p>Look folks, we all come here with varying levels of experience and technical competencies. We all walked in novice shoes at one time. If a person takes the trouble to make a post, encourage them. If they need direction, guide them. Be kind hearted with your help because "they" are "we".</p>

 

[marek_fogiel]

<p>Maciek,<br>

1) Check the RF alignment - shoot a ruler at 45 degrees from 1 meter and see how much off you are, it should be no more than +- 1 cm from the exact focus point<br>

2) In the future avoid Kodak 400BW, if you have to shoot chromogenics, chose Ilford XP2, BTW, remember to expose all 400 ISO chromogenic films at EI 200.<br>

3) Get some Tri X ( or Arista Premium 400) and start developing yourself as soon as possible.<br>

4) Your Canonet is in the same league optically, as were the cameras of HCB, Capa, Ronis, Doisenau, etc... just go out and make great photographs !</p>

[ray .]

There's

certainly nothing wrong with shooting with a Canonet. However, pick up a Leica and the difference in feel of craftsmanship and handling is way significant. Hence, "poor man's Leica" is an apt

description.

[jason]

<p>very nice pix and ideas.test seems OK to me..i doubt you have the resources of Erwin Puts and they don't like him here, either.it's a great camera. thinking of how close to a Leica it was. Back then nobody made monster size boring prints.On slides it was a bit dull. Better investment than a Leica CL.</p>

[al_milano]

<p>Wow. Really amazing post. I also liked the mention of Astrophotography. I shall keep this info close to me, for a long time (not kidding).<br>

When I had my original collection of RF's (to test in my experiments in Astrophotography): As much as I did not want to believe it/face it - In my experience, my Yashica Electro 35 GSN always produced better astrophotos than the Canon Canonet. Better than <em>all</em> my other cameras in fact, RF's, or not. The fact is, I did lots of comparison tests. Astrophotos only, and kept meticulous notes throughout. As it turned out, the Yashica produced outstanding results. It even picked up faint nebulae, when the other cameras didn't. And, I was always able to make enlargements of the slides, as large as I pleased, without ever losing anything. It was amazing, but just <em>my</em> experience. <br>

Well, at least the Yashica can still be obtained for a low price. Unfortunately, the same isn't true for the Canonet. I sold all my film cameras quite a while back. And I'd like to buy a few more again...So, ever since being blown away by the results I saw - I think I may always keep an eye out for Yashica glass.<br>

I'm having a hard time finding a Canonet for under $300! It seems everyone is aware that it is in such demand.<br>

Just my $0.2<br>

Best regards,<br>

Al</p>

[maciek_stankiewicz]

<p>Thanks Al,<br /> Yes, <strong>Yashica Electro</strong> lens is excellent, I remember <strong>@ f1.7</strong> my <strong>GSN</strong> outperformed <strong>Canonet GIII</strong>.<br>

From f5.6 both lenses are excellent.<br>

M.S.</p>