dmr
Registered Abuser
Actually, I know enough to be dangerous.
The Ronald image above is excellent! So are many of mine with the GIII (I have two of them now, one black, one chrome) in all kinds of situations. It's just that I'm pushing things to the point at which the Canon lens is starting to show some weakness, not that any other lens would do terribly better under the same circumstances.
Cameras of this vintage came out when film was typically much slower than it is now, so the normal lenses had to be fast, and they had to perform well when close to wide open.
A real "sweet spot" is the combination of that 60s-70s glass and 21st. century film. The two of them work very well together.
nzeeman
Well-known
here are my examples. my scanner slightly softens photos, but i hope you will get general idea. all photos are f1.7 at close range. sorry about the dust, but i dont know how to avoid it.
Last edited:
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Hi Ruben - You asked if I'd care to comment more on the Canonet glass, and you posted a link to one of my shots - First I have to admit to being a non technical amatuer who just likes taking photos. I find that almost without a doubt I can tell which of my rolls of film I'd taken at a session were in the Canonet and which not. I recently shot a lot in a cemetery with what I thought was a decent old SLR lens, a Quantaray 28mm. Compared to the Canonet, the frames are all worthless. All the Canonet frames were sharp (unless I was unsteady and shooting at a slow speed) and the contrast completely appropriate - neither too much nor too little. The rangefinder patch is nice and clear, making focusing easy and the throw is short. When the batteries died in the cemetery (I know, I know) I just used sunny 16, set the camera myself and I was fine. Had it been one of my Yashica Electro 35s, that would have been it, with a shutter speed locked at 1/500.
I have a Canon P and like the abililty to switch lenses - the Canon lenses are all pretty darn good, but when I'm rushed, the small size, relative light weight of the Canonet and extremely useful 40mm lens that's a fast 1.7, I'd say it's just about an all-around camera. I think it's pretty much my only take everywhere film camera. But I admit to occassionally dragging along a Canon Powershot A620 digi in case I run out of film.
I invite interested parties to check out my Flickr set dedicated to just this Canonet model - I have 1 chrome, 1 black, which I bought from a RFF member last year.
And while I'm not dirt poor, all my cameras are inexpensive purchases made over the years, some as far back as 1972. I do need to retire a few lenses, like that Quataray and a Kiron 24mm, as neither one has given me a great sharp photo in years.
I have a Canon P and like the abililty to switch lenses - the Canon lenses are all pretty darn good, but when I'm rushed, the small size, relative light weight of the Canonet and extremely useful 40mm lens that's a fast 1.7, I'd say it's just about an all-around camera. I think it's pretty much my only take everywhere film camera. But I admit to occassionally dragging along a Canon Powershot A620 digi in case I run out of film.
I invite interested parties to check out my Flickr set dedicated to just this Canonet model - I have 1 chrome, 1 black, which I bought from a RFF member last year.
And while I'm not dirt poor, all my cameras are inexpensive purchases made over the years, some as far back as 1972. I do need to retire a few lenses, like that Quataray and a Kiron 24mm, as neither one has given me a great sharp photo in years.
Bingley
Mentor
This is an interesting thread. Thanks for starting it, Ruben. I've also seen astigmatism from my Canonet GIII when shooting wide open in the direction of a light source. Nevertheless, I've been pleased with the results from this lens when stopped down a bit. Here are some examples; more on my flickr page.
Bingley
Mentor
I think this is an excellent observation, w/ which I heartily agree. Put Reala or Portra in a Canonet, and the lens sings!
Ruben asked about comparisons. I also have a Konica S2. The lens on that camera is amazing, but the ergonomics of the camera (mainly, its large size) are such that I rarely take it out. I shoot w/ the Canonet far more.
gordonb
Pierre get my snorkle
Bingley
Mentor
Hi Gordon -- It was GREAT! Loved Victoria, Butchart Gardens, just walking around (and shooting). The weather was perfect (we were there just before the tall ships race). I'm posting shots over at my flickr site. We also had a wonderful time in Vancouver -- what a wonderful city!
R
ruben
Guest
My impression from this thread is that the Canonet is not for f/1.7, but perhaps for f/2 and 2.8 for sure.
Now, there is no need to panic in case I am right, as this is the case of many cameras. But this tells me this is a daylight camera. In my case, since I wear 2 cameras one for daylight and the second for nightlight - there is no issue at all, and the Canonet could be the best friend of a Lynx 14, with a real capacity at f/1.4.
Still I ask myself if the Canonet 45mm f/1.9 may near at f/1.9 the Canonet 40mm at f/2. This will be very interesting.
Cheers,
Ruben
BTW nzeeman, the last image of your series is adorable.
Now, there is no need to panic in case I am right, as this is the case of many cameras. But this tells me this is a daylight camera. In my case, since I wear 2 cameras one for daylight and the second for nightlight - there is no issue at all, and the Canonet could be the best friend of a Lynx 14, with a real capacity at f/1.4.
Still I ask myself if the Canonet 45mm f/1.9 may near at f/1.9 the Canonet 40mm at f/2. This will be very interesting.
Cheers,
Ruben
BTW nzeeman, the last image of your series is adorable.
Last edited by a moderator:
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I've seen some very nice Canonet images. Like the one Ronald H posted above. But, i've not seen anything labeled as having been shot by a Canonet that made me stop and say, My lord, i gotta get one of those.
But, i have had that experience on quite a few occasions, with shots from the Yashica/Yashinon lenses. I've not seen MTFs or comparisons with other glass, but i have the impression that those Yashinons are BETTER than a lot of modern glass, including the Leica ASPH stuff.
What i see from the Hexanons seems to 'rival' non-ASPH Leica lenses, which is to say, "very, very nice." But, again, i don't have to have them. Olympus? Nice, in a different way, just like Pentax is nice, in a different way.
If they made the same Yashica 45/1.9 that's used on the GSN camera in an M-Mount, or Canon EOS or Nikon mount, i'd buy one in a heartbeat.
But, i have had that experience on quite a few occasions, with shots from the Yashica/Yashinon lenses. I've not seen MTFs or comparisons with other glass, but i have the impression that those Yashinons are BETTER than a lot of modern glass, including the Leica ASPH stuff.
What i see from the Hexanons seems to 'rival' non-ASPH Leica lenses, which is to say, "very, very nice." But, again, i don't have to have them. Olympus? Nice, in a different way, just like Pentax is nice, in a different way.
If they made the same Yashica 45/1.9 that's used on the GSN camera in an M-Mount, or Canon EOS or Nikon mount, i'd buy one in a heartbeat.
ruilebreiro
Member
ouch
ouch
ouch, this is outstanding capture
it almost convinces me
i've yet to see the not-so-good bokeh people talk about
ouch
Canonet GIII, 40mm f1.7 lens. 1/30th, f2. HP5+ in Diafine, one lightbulb overhead and a smidgen of daylight.
ouch, this is outstanding capture
it almost convinces me
i've yet to see the not-so-good bokeh people talk about
gavinlg
Mentor
The GIII is a nice little camera but I don't find the lens anything more than adequate.
bcostin
Well-known
It's nice to have f1.7 in such a compact and handy package, even with some limitations. Here are a few taken indoors on rebranded Agfa 100-speed color film.
This one I remember was at f1.7.
I'd say these others are around f2 to f4:
This one I remember was at f1.7.
I'd say these others are around f2 to f4: