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

[caodanuw]

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.

[kbg32]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by rodinal

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 ;-)

You printed out the major issue of CL. However, the batteries for both camera are no long producing, according to this fact, does Canon has the same problem of the meter?

[gb hill]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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


jorgef2002

[David Hughes]

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]

Originally Posted by caodanuw

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]

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]

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

[Mephiloco]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 )

[David Hughes]

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]

Originally Posted by Joe Leung

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]

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).

[mradams]

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!