Canon QL17 vs Minolta 7sII - compare?
Has anyone had the chance to (seriously) use both the Canonet QL17 GIII and the Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII?
Since these seem to me to be among the best of the tiny, fully-manual, battery-independent, RF-coupled, fixed-lens bodies with 40mm lenses faster than f/2, I thought a serious comparison may be warranted for which is the better "toss in my pocket for gorgeous snapshots when I'm too lazy to haul along the Leica M / Canon P / Nikon SP (take your pick)".
For the record, I used to own a 7sII, but have never seen a QL17. I would like to own a 7sII again, but am considering the QL17 as a competitor.
I'd rather not involve the Olympus RD in this discussion because, having owned one, I consider it to have inferior build quality compared to the 7sII. This becomes especially noticable when running a lot of film through the camera, fast.
Here are the criteria I'm especially interested in comparing. A killer CLA is assumed for each camera.
* Brightness of viewfinder and visibility of rangefinder patch and framelines, especially in awkward lighting situations such as very low light, strong backlight, or low-contrast situations
* Sharpness/resolution of the lens
* Precision and reliable long-term consistency of shutter speeds (after calibration in the course of a CLA)
* Camera's handling of the film (inconsistent spacing between frames; difficulties advancing or rewinding film; ripping the sprocket holes)
* Body compactness (exactly *how* much bigger/heavier is the QL17?)
If you, like me, only have experience with one of these cameras, feel free to post your opinions anyway.
Recommendations on where to get a killer CLA for each of these cameras would also be appreciated.
"Itís marvellous, marvellous. Nothing will ever be as much fun. Iím going to photograph everything, everything!"
Jacques-Henri Lartigue, 1901 (age seven)
my photos on RFF