Camera Talk

Very easy to operate, even without its battery.



Four months to get it tested, way above average.







Lens resolution is decent. Look at this close-up of the last one, scanned at 2400 dpi. Grain is evident.



Film was FP4+ about 15 year expired, developed in Beutler, which is not especially fine-grain. The film was found in a closet. Film manufacturers are conservative.

Very very nice, Julio!

Your Canonet must have passed its test. Details and tones of boats, gear, and water all show up well. The ropes and rope work in the second photo stand out especially--even light and interesting geometry, even a little mystery (what's going on at the other end of the ropes?) make it a fine photo.

Bill Delehanty

Nice shots. They will deliver fine color images as well. Of the few compact 35mm fixed lens rangeinders I've used, The QL-17 always struck me as the most desirable: Very good optics, fairly wide field of view, fairly fast, compact, manual operation, and nicely made. Prices for them seem to be going up though. For me it's "competition" would be a Rollei 35, even though Rollei's lack a rangefinder.

I've used the QL17 GIII and it was an excellent camera! I think the lens on the Yashica GSN is better, but you don't get full manual control like you do with the Canonet.

It was the Canonet QL17 GIII that weaned me from my addiction to SLRs thirty years ago. And for about fifteen years it was the camera I used 90% of the time, reverting to SLRs and bigger-film cameras when I needed them. In those years, I went through I think a half-dozen Canonets. As much as I loved them, they were fragile and two jammed when I dropped them. The others I had as backups but I gave two of them them away to a young relative and a friend. I still have a couple or three and -- despite my present addiction to half-frame -- I use them frequently. They were a really good design (but for that fragility). I think, over the forty-odd years I have been taking pictures, the Canonet is my favourite.

.

Thanks for the comments!

I can see why these are so popular. Excellent handling, must be a breeze in autoexposure.

According to the Canon Camera Museum, this was the first compact Canonet model, if I understand correctly. Launched in 1965. It is definitely not the G-III version which seems more desirable.

Canonets have a special feel, maybe it is the excellent ergonomics. They feel light and smooth. And maybe fragile too, as Philip said. I have used so far the original Canonet and now the QL17, and you can see the design progress between the two models. They were really thinking hard about the user experience. I had just used an Exakta of about the same vintage - what a world of a difference.

My favorite compact RF is still the Olympus 35SP, but now I have something to cheat it with.

The "New QL17" was a nice follow-on to the original, larger model (which I had, then gave to rentavet). I'm not sure what the improvements were to the G III, but some comments I've read from other owners is they like the lens on the New QL17 better. Could just be a perception thing though. I really liked the results from my original model, and wondered if I'd like the G III. RonB gave me one last year, but I need to put seals in it (along with a few other cameras). I do like the handling of it. Your photos show the New QL17 is no slouch, Julio (and neither is the photographer).

PF