Canon QL17 GIII review

Cheap and cheerful little rangerfinder camera

Ah yes — Canon Canonet QL17 GIII. The poor man’s Leica. Before I got my Leica, I actually shot with a bunch of these things. Canonets were the very thing that got me excited about rangefinder cameras.

There are many reviews of this camera. Most of them go through pretty much the same specs, so I’m going to focus on some of the rarely mentioned aspects and the things I’ve personally found noteworthy.

It is almost impossible to discuss the Canonet without hearing the phrase “poor man’s Leica”. In all honesty, I don’t think it’s a fair comparison at all, but it says a lot about the camera. I wouldn’t get into buying one as an alternative for a Leica, but what you’ll be getting instead is a very cheap and cheerful little 35mm rangefinder camera.

---

---

---

Canonet QL17 GIII is a cool camera that has a lot of character

The nicest thing about QL17 GIII is that it’s a very cool camera. It has a certain charm and character. I don’t know why, but it just looks extremely nice. I know it’s just a metal box with a lens, but every time someone always asks about it and complements on it. It is cute and non-threatening as opposed to a big SLR or DSLR. It doesn’t try to look so damn important or pro. It is nice to carry around because it looks neat and almost acts as a clothing accessory. I wouldn’t care to throw a Canon DSRL around my neck just for the looks. It’s also compact, so it is just awesomely nice thing to carry around and to have with you when you need it. I simply always WANT to take it with me.

The lens and image quality are really good, which is worth mentioning. But I think that sharpness in itself is overrated so I don’t want to get into that any more than that.

---

---

---

---

---

The quirks

The shutter speed dial and aperture are all around the lens and they are hard to use. The entire build quality of the lens area doesn’t feel as solid as the rest of the camera.

The camera has an automatic over and under-exposure prevention, that most users tend to complain about. Basically when you’re on auto-exposure mode, the camera wont fire if it thinks there’s too much of too little light available. Sounds like a clever feature, but it always gets into your way.

The focusing patch inside the viewfinder is tiny. If you’re not aware how the focusing works, there’s basically two images that you have to align using the focusing ring. The problem is that the ghost image patch is just too small and sometimes hard to even see.

---

The shutter sound is a very unsatisfying little “click”. I’m a sucker for smooth and mechanical shutter sounds, which QL17 definitely doesn’t provide. Well at least it’s quiet, so you can sneak in pretty close to the subject and the shutter noise won’t give you away.

---

All in all, I’d say that the biggest problem is that the actual shooting experience isn’t the most satisfying, but other than that, it is a sweet and charismatic little camera. I paid 50€ for mine and that’s about 1000€ less than getting a Leica. Or even just a Leica body.

There are many more less annoying quirks as well… but hey, I think most old cameras have their own quirks as well. Sometimes I cannot say whether I don’t like some feature or is that feature just one of things that give it’s charm. QL17 GIII is a very popular item and it has a somewhat of a cult following, which is something that appealed to me too. Behind all the hype though, lied many less appealing features, that often are not mentioned in the reviews.

Reliability

I’ve had four different Canonets over the years. With that experience I can say that it may not be the most reliable camera in the word. In fact, most of them have failed sooner or later. If you find one from a junk store, it’s quite possible it’ll have a broken light meter or jammed shutter or aperture blades. Luckily these things are very easy to repair and once fixed, they’ll probably last many many years without any problems. It is just worth bearing in mind, just in case you were under the impression that Canonets are compared to Leicas for their build quality and reliability. In addition to sticky shutters, the ones I’ve had, typically had pieces just falling off every now and then. At least the film counter window just dropped off, the film advance lever un-screwed itself loose every once in a while etc.

As a bottom line I’d absolutely recommend these things just for their overall loveliness and cuteness. If you get one, don’t ever sell it! You might find even nicer cameras, but you’ll always end up missing the Canonet and wanting one back into your life.

---