Which one should I get? Leica Cl or Canon QL 17 [Archive]

View Full Version : Which one should I get? Leica Cl or Canon QL 17

caodanuw

04-02-2009, 15:55

kbg32

04-02-2009, 16:09

Well, the CL is somewhat more versatile in that it can use various lenses. If you're fine with one lens, 40mm or so, the Canon is a great option.

Frank Petronio

04-02-2009, 16:54

I've had a couple of QL-17s and I've never liked the sloppy, wobbly feel of the shutter release, after using a Leica (even a CL). So while the QL-17 will make fine photos for not much money, don't ever try a CL or other Leica or you will be heartbroken.

rodinal

04-03-2009, 08:10

I own both and like the CL very much, but have to admit that the QL-17 is much more practical. The CL lacks an automatic mode and its high price is a psychological barrier to use it in "risky" situations. The lens of my QL-17 GIII is incredibly sharp, not at all inferior to the 40mm Summicron-C.

Also, have in mind that most CLs have a non-working meter due to CDS cell exhaustion (weird but true) or electronics failure. Mine had to be opened, contacts cleaned, and completely recalibrated in order to get the meter working.

Get the Canon ;-)

caodanuw

04-03-2009, 08:29

gb hill

04-03-2009, 08:33

Get the Canon & save your money. When I was looking for my 1st rf the salesman behind the counter pulled out a CL. Just wasn't right for me. I spotted a QL17GIII over in the corner in the Canon section of cameras & we have been friends ever since.

gb hill

04-03-2009, 08:36

There is a battery for the Canon PX625. With Print film a stop off is no problem. The meter doesn't work off the A setting anyhow so I wouldn't worry about it.

rodinal

04-03-2009, 09:56

Both cameras use the same battery, the extinct 625 mercury cell, so this is not an argument in favor of any of them.

There are several solutions for this (google for them), but I would recommend the following: if you use the camera everyday, go for an (mechanical) adapter to use hearing-aid zinc batteries, these batteries die after 2-6 months even if you don't use your camera but the adapter and batteries are dirt cheap.

If you use your camera unfrequently, to avoid dead-battery surprises, I recommend the C.R.I.S. adapter plus a common silver or lithium cell, this adapter is a little more expensive (~US$30) but the battery (also not as cheap) will last longer and in proportion to the real use of the camera.

vrgard

04-03-2009, 10:22

My vote is for the CL (and yes, I have both). The argument for the lower cost of the QL-17 is mooted by the op's comment that budget is not a consideration. As for comments about the CL's meter, many still work just fine and if not then Sherry Krauter (Golden Touch) can either fix or replace whatever isn't working.

Ronald_H

04-03-2009, 10:38

Never held a CL, but a small camera that can use different lenses is appealing.

But I DO own a GIII and that camera is so much better than it has any right to be. With an alkaline replacement the meter works well enough for print film. If you want accuracy I'd recommend an adapter so you can use SR44 silver oxide cells. This will in all likelihood work for the CL as well.

jorgef2002

05-03-2009, 20:20

Rodinal please explain to me about those adapters,and where to get them, thank you.

jorgef2002 :bang:

David Hughes

05-11-2009, 04:23

A lot of adapters can be nothing more than a washer that fits round a hearing aid battery. They work well, btw, and the batteries are dirt cheap.

Or there's Wein cells (also a battery and a washer) which are dearer but they last longer.

Or you buy a Wein cell and when it dies push the cell out of the washer, cut a slot diagonally across the washer and tighten it a fraction with pliers and stick a hearing aid battery in it.

Both Wein and hearing aid batteries have little holes in the metal with a sticky cover on them. Remove the stick patch, the air gets in and the cell starts working but runs down when in use or in store. Wein cells have less holes and run down slower.

You can buy the aapters (like a washer, nicely machined from brass) and a Vartra battery from www.paulbg.com

Hope this helps.

Regards, David

Joe Leung

05-11-2009, 06:23

Hi guys, I owned a Leica D Lux 3 which is my current camera and would like to get my first rangefinder. And I cant make a decision between Leica CL and Canon QL 17. Since those 2 cameras have higher rank from RF user, thus, could anyone helps me to analysis or advise which one should I go for?

p.s. budget is not consideration and I will use it for couple years.

I owned both and I strongly advise you to get the Canon QL17 ( I still have one) especially when it is now much cheaper than before. The QL 17 is much more robust and has a faster lens which is every bit as good as, if not better than, the 40 'cron. I hate the CL because (1) the top plate is thin and easily dinged; (2) the piece of glass in front of the viewfinder is easily detached. If you like the Leitz glass, get a user M 2 and you'll have a life long companion. Otherwise, the QL17 is the best small rangefinder camera that you'll definitely enjoy. Good luck.

breathstealer

05-11-2009, 06:29

I'd get the CL, or any other interchangeable lens RF if you'd consider those over the Canonet. Being able to try out different lenses is a massive advantage.

dnk512

05-11-2009, 06:59

If price in not an issue then get the CL. It costs more for a reason.

Mephiloco

05-11-2009, 08:09

I'd go with the Canonet. I have one and its a great camera. I take it out when I want something small and discreet. The shutter is quieter than the CL, and any leica that I've ever heard, and the lens is very sharp and fast.

Although you said price isn't a consideration, at the CL price point I'd get a M2 or a M3. The Canonet is a really low risk investment and offers great quality. If you find yourself liking the canonet you'll love a Leica.

Even though I have a M2, I can't see myself ever getting rid of my canonet, mostly due to the practicality of it.

f16sunshine

05-11-2009, 08:31

The Canon is every bit the photo maker as the CL. But, since this is your first RF and price is not an issue, I would suggest the CL. The RF contrast spot of the CL is much more usable and accurate IMHO. You of course also have the a choice of lenses that now includes the CV 1.4/40 which is what my CL wore until I let her go last year. If you think that Rangefinder photography is something you will stay with. You should get a proper introduction to the potential. Having a clear RF/RF and interchangeable lenses is much more indicative of what to expect as you upgrade to a future camera.

JohnTF

05-11-2009, 08:43

Price not an issue? Buy both. After a while, you can either keep both, or sell one. Price for the Canon should be low enough to not be much of a factor in the CL purchase

Prices for the CL do not seem to be going anywhere, so you should be OK there.

I have a CL in for service, and meter adjustment to the voltage of the alkaline cell is included, or so I am told.

I saw something recently as well that showed a circle of copper wire fitting around a 1.4 volt hearing aid battery as a spacer to work in place of the mercury cells, the guy claimed the hearing aid batteries are cheaper and work well in cameras? Any direct experience here?

Any idea what a reasonable price for meter repair, or adjust should cost?

Regards, John

ps, just got a price on the repair for mine, am not delighted, but camera should be good to go, and it belonged to Sonny Bono. ;-)

tritiated

05-11-2009, 09:47

I liked my canonet until I managed to break it(shutter speed ring got stuck in B,then pinged), I loved it too much -good starting point and nice lens for the price (paid £45 for my excellent cond. one). Having decided film was for me, my bessa r3a setup surpasses the canonet enormously (not surprisingly considering the comarative prices!). I had a go on a CL and it was really solid and nice, but the bessa viewfinder is much nicer and for a bunch of other reasons I bought that new over the CL.

I guess you can just resell the more expensive CL for the same price rather if RFs aren't for you. skip the cheaper things.

edodo

05-11-2009, 23:37

Get the CL, it is better build, will work without battery though maybe the canon could too. If the price is not an issue, the CL is the winner here. The 40mm lens is beautiful and you enter the leica glass range which is nice.

SimonSawSunlight

05-12-2009, 00:00

I have both and both are cool, but very different. I think on the long term the CL is the better choice, but also a lot more expensive. the ql17 gIII is a very cool compact camera though with an incredibly sharp lens and a very... individual bokeh.
get a cl and if you find a good deal on a ql17, get that one too ;) (I paid like USD 15 for QL, 1/11 of the CL body price :D)

David Hughes

05-12-2009, 01:12

Hi,

I'll vote for the CL. Almost every time I've bought a screw thread or M bayonet lens I've tested it in the CL as the CL gets most films through it. The metering is great in the Cl being a large spot and the view in the VF of the speed set is useful.

Regards, David

PS Shouldn't mention it here but there's enough around to have a wide choice and even a choice of technicians if things go wrong.

Palaeoboy

05-12-2009, 06:06

I owned both and I strongly advise you to get the Canon QL17 ( I still have one) especially when it is now much cheaper than before. The QL 17 is much more robust and has a faster lens which is every bit as good as, if not better than, the 40 'cron. I hate the CL because (1) the top plate is thin and easily dinged; (2) the piece of glass in front of the viewfinder is easily detached. If you like the Leitz glass, get a user M 2 and you'll have a life long companion. Otherwise, the QL17 is the best small rangefinder camera that you'll definitely enjoy. Good luck.

I collect 40mm lenses and fixed lens rangefinders with 40mm lenses and as good as the 40mm lens in the Canon is for the money its in no way superior or equal to the 40mm Summicron. In fact there are other fixed lens 40's that are optically superior to the Canon but still below the Summicron.

It may be true the top plate of the CL is more easily dented than that of the Canon but on the flip side the camera back of the Canon is not as well made in comparison to the CL's and is very prone to light leaks from the constantly deteriorating sponge seals. The CL has a reputation for meter failure with age but one camera that has more meter failures are the Canonettes. You just dont hear about it because a million of the things were made and you simply toss them away and buy another. The shutters are not as reliable as the CL's either and prone to seize. As mentioned by another poster the focusing patch is also superior to that in the Canon.

At the end of the day though they arent cameras really in the same price point or compete with each other as one is fixed lens and the other isnt. The CL is a system camera that can be added too. Since price isnt an issue get the CL and should you develop a taste for rangefinder photography and want to move to a Leica M or Ikon the CL makes the perfect compact backup body.

Steve Bellayr

05-12-2009, 06:35

mradams

05-12-2009, 09:31

there is a source that carries batteries for most old cameras, even the one that dont seem to be produced anymore:

http://www.weincell.com/

i buy all my canonet batteries there. 1 battery is good for 1-2 years of shooting if you always close the lens cap after shooting!

mradams

05-12-2009, 09:31

JohnTF

05-12-2009, 11:57

I would recommend the Cl. I was in a camera store last week and we were discussing a Cl. There are no spare parts available for them. Repairs/parts are taken from unrepairable Cls and they are expensive and the turn around time is long. The Canonet is a good beginer and if it goes bad you are not out a lot of money. Another camera is the Yashica GSN; it is less expensive. It is larger but the lens sharper (IMHO).

There are a number of places to have a CL serviced properly, plus when it is serviced, it has some value.

Is the build quality as good as an M6? No. But neither is the M5.

I have a dozen or so fixed lens RF's which are not worth the CLA to get the shutters back to reliability. OTOH, I have a Petri and Ricoh RF which both are working well (no meters).

Prices? I know one is getting an overhaul, with a replacement mirror, RF rebuild, full shutter clean, and meter adjustment for the alkaline battery, $80 dealer cost, hardly expensive. The lenses on them are bringing good coin now for whatever reason. I was really surprised at the price, especially since mine will cost me more. It may also depend on the age, I have been told the early ones had more problems with the meters.

Turn around time, couple of weeks.

If the price going in is too high and you still want an M mount, I would say find a good user M6, if not, you are not likely to lose much to give it a try.

Regards, John

bluelight

06-29-2009, 17:28

Hi John,

Just got a CL that require the overhaul you mentioned. $80 is a good price. Would you mind sharing the contact for teh dealer?

Thanks,

Ed

Brian Sweeney

06-29-2009, 21:58

>I collect 40mm lenses and fixed lens rangefinders with 40mm lenses and as good as the
>40mm lens in the Canon is for the money its in no way superior or equal to the 40mm
>Summicron. In fact there are other fixed lens 40's that are optically superior to the
>Canon but still below the Summicron.

I have the Canon QL17L and the Ql17GIII. I've had four "L"s and more than 10 GIII's. In my experience, The lenses on the Ql17L are better than those on the later GIII. The L's are a bit earlier, and quality control was probably tighter, or just produced on lower numbers. Some elements on the GIII are cheaper than the Ql17L, more use of plastic. Still a solid little camera with a great finder and soft shutter release. There were many more GIII's made, so maybe it was shere numbers or transferring production out of Japan.

My CL with the Summicron is better.

$80 rebuild for a CL was stated as dealer cost. I suspect that translates to $120 or more for consumers. KEH charged $120 for my CL, and i am happy with the work. No work was required on the prisms.

Vincenzo Maielli

07-11-2009, 13:02

My personal problem solving; i own both...
Ciao.
Vincenzo

outfitter

07-11-2009, 13:37

who is kidding whom, the CL (and the later Minolta CLE) and the lenses it takes are in a different class. I like the Canon only because it is dirt cheap and easy to pop the top to clean the rangefinder etc. (and I sold my CL and CLE long ago), the lens is OK to very good but not fall down on your knees good (while the Leitz glass is). As to batteries, 675 zinc-oxide hearing aid batteries, about a buck apiece from Walmart are basically the same as Wein batteries at a fraction of the cost; just use o-rings, aluminum foil, wire etc as spacers (Wein puts washers on theirs I just save some and press fit them to a hearing aid battery).

Roger Vadim

07-12-2009, 13:10

I collect 40mm lenses and fixed lens rangefinders with 40mm lenses and as good as the 40mm lens in the Canon is for the money its in no way superior or equal to the 40mm Summicron. In fact there are other fixed lens 40's that are optically superior to the Canon but still below the Summicron.

Being a 40mm fan, could you ellaborate which 40mm fixed (and nonfixed;) lens you like best?
Truly interested. I never was a friend of the canon lens either, compared to my Revue 400 1.7/40 it is boring.

Michiel Fokkema

07-12-2009, 14:19

I used to have a Cl but sold it. I still have 2 q17's but don't use them either, they are just to cheap to sell them. BUt my oldest daughter showed interest in them:-)
In your case i'd buy both. Or when budget is really not a problem I'd buy a M6 with a CV35/1.4.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

Palaeoboy

07-14-2009, 10:19

Being a 40mm fan, could you ellaborate which 40mm fixed (and nonfixed;) lens you like best?
Truly interested. I never was a friend of the canon lens either, compared to my Revue 400 1.7/40 it is boring.

Well funny you mention the Review 400, because my pick of the 40mm fixed lens rangerfinders was the Minolta 7SII, which in turn is the same lens as that used in the Review. There is also a Vivitar 35ES equivalent but I have found there to be a bit of quality control variation with these. Remember however that compared to most of the AF compacts that followed in the 80's there isn't a bad 40mm lens just some slightly better than others.

I am also partial to the Rollei 35's if your not shooting close and low light situations where focusing can be hit and miss but lens quality non the less is great.

In interchangeable 40mm lenses again there isnt really a bad one but my preferences are;

1/ In SLR the Voigtlander 40mm f2 Ultron is truly an outstanding modern ASPH lens and hard to beat.

2/ In Leica mounts its horses for courses, if you need speed then the Voigtlander Noktons are the way. If you need LTM then the Rollei Sonnar 40mm f2.8 RF is the only choice, so too this lens probably has the best flare control of all the Leica Mount 40's and a saturated colour Zeiss look that some love. The Rokkors are simply the best value for a compact 40mm lenses. My favourite and most commonly used 40mm is one I picked not so much for its optical superiority as its similar to the Rokkors and thats the Summicron 40mm. Strangely though the reason I prefer this lens is often touted as its flaws. I like the hood/filter/cap arrangement of the lens. Usually when you add all 3 it makes a compact lens not so compact. But the way the series 5.5 filter fits into the collapsible hood (allowing me to have a UV filter always attached) and then the cap clips firmly on protecting it all like a solid clamshell unlike any other lens yet retaining its compact size makes it a winner for me. So too with all the other lenses I carry with it use 39mm filters which can be attach by a couple of threads long enough to do whatever is needed at the time.

At the end of the day though since all the Leica Mounts 40's are good, make your choice based on value, size, speed and filter size before you need to worry about them optically.