Canonet QL17 GIII - A Review

[@WoodNasher]

Great to see a review where the reviewer makes an honest judgement based on their own practical experience with a camera, instead of just regurgitating what has already been said about it. Very helpful, thanks for posting.

[@Narsuitus]

Over the decades, I have owned and used the following 35mm rangefinder cameras: My first was an Argus C3 with 35, 50, and 100mm lenses. My second was a Minolta Hi-Matic 9 with fixed 45mm f/1.7 lens. My third was a Canon Canonet QL17 G-III with fixed 40mm f/1.7 lens. My fourth was a Contax G1 with 21, 28, 45, and 90mm lenses. My fifth was a Leica M6 with 21, 35, and 90mm lenses. All five were great cameras that produced excellent images. In my opinion, the Canonet, also known as the poor man's Leica, was a great camera provided you did not need interchangeable lenses.

[@aperturecollect]

This camera has a great lens and there are work arounds for the drawbacks you mentioned. I also like it for street photography best, however I usually use the Minolta X700 with a 28mm for that as far as film cameras go, also of course the many Canon EOS style cameras make things so easy and pleasant.

[@winslow_j]

You recommended the exact camera that I'm looking for, for my exact reason LOL someone with an SLR already, that wants my first rangefinder to practice zone focusing with street photography. Thank you.

[@abovemadness]

Good video, I feel that you can get amazing portraits, but overall I’m in the streets with this bad boy! Awesome camera definitely overlooked.

[@thomasluk1913]

Hey thanks for the very in depth review. I got a couple of questions for you if you have the time: 1) in your experience, is it more effective at obtaining sharp images if you use manual mode and set to a higher F-stop number or roll the dice with rangefinder focussing+automatic meter? 2) would you recommend this camera for lower speed film? Everyone seems to say 400 ISO is pretty much optimal 3) Do you feel this camera renders pictures better on color negative film stock or B/W? Thanks again for the personal review

[@zachpav1]

You’re welcome! 1: I’ve gotten sharp images both ways, in the correct conditions, as long as you set the shutter speed to something fast enough (1/125-1/500) the camera will stop down enough for you to get sharp images while zone focusing or regular focusing. 200 iso film in a sunny day was my go-to for this. 2: yeah 200-400 is perfect 3: no preference either way, both look great

[@randallstewart1224]

(1) If you can keep the lens aperture in the sweet spot of 5.6 - 11.0, you are getting the best of the lens (in this case, extremely good quality), which is only diminished by camera shake or subject moment at slow shutter speeds. This camera's auto-exposure system lets the user set the speed and the meter sets the aperture, so you either watch the readouts carefully in auto mode, or you manually set the aperture and shutter you want. (2) The lower the rated film ISO speed, the better quality it will give you. The only people saying ISO 400 film "is optimal" are those who are ignorant. 400 speed film presents a good compromise between loss of quality and management of aperture and shutter speed in a wide variety of lighting and weather conditions. Use the slowest film which will work well in the conditions which you expect. (3) Why would you expect a difference?

[@Juanitoooooooooooooooooo]

hello, thx for the review useful thoughts and very honest. I have the canonet 28 and was wondering if with the ql17 camera we can zone focus and avoid low/high exposure lock efficiently on manual mode? otherwise since i'm getting more and more into street photography which affordable rangedfinger would you recommend me? Thank you !