Canonet GIII and Leica IIIg

[mike_wagner6]

<p>No, I am not comparing them, just killing two birds with one post.<br>

(1) I have several nice Canonet GIIIs. I despair of ever finding a Canon lens hood for them, and I worry that a generic screw-in one would interfere with the light meter. Any suggestions?<br>

(2) What is the recommended Wein-air battery to use and are there any right sized hearing aid cells I can use?<br>

(3) I visited a camera shop today that used to be a treasure trove of used gear. One of the old timers there used to own his own shop, concentrating on developing and printing and digital changed all that. Anyhoo, he wanted to show me a Leica IIIg he had just taken in trade. Very nice condition, some rubbings, and the only flaw was that the black plastic thing around the VF/RF had a chip out of it one the edge, abut 1/8 inch, which is not all that easy to spot and doesn't affect the function. I had never held a IIIg before and it was beautiful, body and vulcanite an easy ex++ and it would come with a warranty. It comes with a very clean Summicron 50mm f/2.0 and the total price was $1700.00 which makes it close to $1900 wth tax. I thought about it, and said no, because I already have very nice IIIcs and IIIfs. I am not sure about the rules of posting such info here, and I don't want to violate them, but IIIg's in nice condition don't pop up every day, and the seller is completely reliable.</p>

[gnashings]

<p>To my knowledge the Canonet pens hood is missing a corner not to interfere with the viewfinder, no so much the meter. I would suggest that a cheap generic, as long as you can see the cell above the lens, will not get in the way - chop off what gets into your viewfinder and voila :) But, I still want one of the original hods just because I have all the other "original" do-dads for it. But I am not willing to pay the prices they fetch the few times I've seen em. Still, would be nice, I guess a black GIII would be too, but again, not nice enough to compete with the collectors.</p>

[winfried_buechsenschuetz1]

I tried several screw-in filters as well as screw-in filter adaptors on the GIII and they ALL affected the meter. The problem is that the meter window is very close to the thread mount, and anything screwed in there would have to be VERY thin not to obscure the meter cell partially.

 

Concerning the batteries, it might be possible to use a 675 zinc-air hearing aid battery since the battery contacts go on the top and bottom side of the battery - anything with similar thickness as a 625 battery (and proper voltage, of course) can be used. To avoid rattling of the battery inside the compartment you can use a suitable o-ring seal around the battery.

[paul_wheatland]

<p>Find a generic rubber lens shade, trim it back so the meter cell shows and you are good to go.<br>

Use silver button batteries and change ISO back one stop.<br>

IMHO opinion leave the Leica IIIg to the collectors as the price is way too high but the market seems to demand it.</p>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>Why don't you get a push on hood that goes over the outer side so it won't block anything?</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

#675 zinc/air cells always worked fine for me, maybe with a small rubber plumber's O ring from Home Depot stretched around it to center it in the cavity. I don't remember the O ring number but the customer have usually mixed up the stock so much that actually fitting it to your battery is the best way.

[mukul_dube]

<p>Tom Cheshire has already spoken of what I was about to suggest. If you find something whose diameter is too great, felt is a good way to make it fit.</p>

[fred_c1]

<blockquote>

<p>I tried several screw-in filters as well as screw-in filter adaptors on the GIII and they ALL affected the meter. The problem is that the meter window is very close to the thread mount, and anything screwed in there would have to be VERY thin not to obscure the meter cell partially.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is true. But it's perfectly OK if you shoot negatives, because a little erring on the side of overexposure never hurts.</p>

<p>Otherwise just shoot a test roll/frame and compensate with the ASA dial.</p>

[darin_cozine]

<p>I thought I remember seeing aftermarket hoods on ebay with the cutouts for rangefinders. Not sure if they are the right size.<br>

Regarding the filters: ..not sure about interference with the meter. I assume you are talking about the rim of the filter encroaching on the meters cell? I know that most filters are made differently so I imagine some of the rings being thinner than others. But if it is a real problem, you could compensate by adjusting the ISO. Or even take the glass out of a filter, dremel out a portion, then replace the glass. ..I dont know ,just ideas.</p>

 

[darin_cozine]

<p>..And for what its worth, I dont know why they make hoods that are larger than the barrel of the lens. At least for normal-tele lenses, I dont think a straight hood would cause vigineting.<br>

I bought a hood for my contax iiia that is metal, only slightly larger in diameter than the lens barrel (1-2mm?)<br>

It does not interfere with the rangefinder at all.</p>

<p>i would much prefer this to the over-sized hood that was made for the canonet. Even though it has a cutout, I can still see it in the rangefinder and it bothers me.</p>

 

[david_barts2]

<p>So far as the IIIg goes: do you simply want a camera to use, or do you want to add a IIIg to your collection?</p>

<p>If it's the former case, forget about the IIIg and get a used M body (such as an M2, M3, or M4) instead. The IIIg is the price it is because collectors lust after it. That price is really not justified if you consider it to be merely a photographic tool. An M body will let you use a full selection of more modern lenses, and you can find a used one for less than a IIIg.</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

Just for the record, Sales posting is in another area. We seem to be talking more about batteries and filters for 'Canons though!

[awahlster]

<p>WOW never had a problem with a Canonet hood. I use a 48-49mm step up ring and a metal 49mm screw in hood. Never had any trouble with the meter if anything it helps keep the meter from seeing light not within the scene being photographed.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I shot infrared with my Canon GIII QL17 on a trip through California in 1996. I used a #87 IR filter (only lets IR light through, you can't see through it) on the Canon with a 48-52mm step up filter. The only problem that came out of that setup was the reflection that occurred on each frame at the top, a round dark shadow. Other than that the images came out pretty well! I can't remember if I set the exposure manually, or if I focused at any kind of infinity mark. Was very nice having a rangefinder to shoot IR with. I have one more IR roll of film in the freezer, and may use my Leica IIIc if I can find a way to mount the 52mm IR filter on my Nikon 5cm f2...</p>

[jeff_guthrie]

The Canonet uses the Canon Lens Hood 4, which is a rare item. It is an excellent hood, and it doesn't interfere with

the view any more than the Leica 12585/6 hoods do. It is always good to use a lens hood, even at night.

 

Between a GIII and a IIIG, the Canonet is a better tool. It's easier to use, has a better viewfinder, and a built-in meter.

That said, i would rather carry the Leica (simply because I like them).