Similar Shots
Cameras: Canonet QL17 G-III vs. the Sure Shot (AF35M II)
What, you say? How dare I compare shots from the covetted QL17 G-III rangefinder with shots from a mere Sure Shot. While I was not surprised to get great images from the former, I was litterally blown away by the quality of the images I got from the Sure Shot.
Above: taken with a Canonet QL17 G-III Rangefinder w/40mm f1.7 lens
Above: taken with a Canon Sure Shot (AF35M II or Autoboy 2) w/38mm f2.8 lens
Above: taken with a Canonet QL17 G-III Rangefinder w/40mm f1.7 lens
Above: taken with a Canon Sure Shot (AF35M II or Autoboy 2) w/38mm f2.8 lens
With the first comparison above, the lighting is very similar while the composition is slightly different. In my humble opinion, it would seem the image from the Sure Shot is very close in quality (perhaps even on par) with the shot from the QL17 G-III. The second comparison isn't as easy to make conclusions from as the lighting was very different for the shots - a sunny day for the QL17 shot compared to a shot on an overcast dreary day from the Sure Shot. This would asthetically give the QL17 shot the edge, but if you compare the two shots for clarity and sharpness, again I feel they are on par with each other.
So, if you are reading this, you may be thinking that the QL17 G-III I own and used to take these shots may not be in the best of conditions. A worthy questions to be sure - how else could the lowely Sure Shot compete. But this is not the case. These QL17 shots were taken with a newly serviced camera that the shop told me is in beautiful condition with a nice sharp lens that 'cleaned up nicely'. The Sure Shot was not serviced, but arrived in what appeared to be mint condition - barely ever used I would guess.
If you look around on this site, it will be obvious I am a fan of low cost used film cameras that sport sharp fixed focal length lenses. In one hand here, I'm holding a rangefinder that I could sell off for $160 and in the other hand, I'm holding a point and shoot camera that I paid $10 for along with 2 other cameras and which didn't need any servicing. I'm hard pressed to justify the cost of the QL17 G-III. Of course If fully understand that with the Sure Shot you have no control over exposure settings like you do on a camera like the QL17, but I'm a cheapskate at heart.
Update note (5/23/08): I sold my QL17 G-III a few months ago, but just yesterday I found a fully working Olympus 35 RC - full manual control like the Canonet, but it only cost me $10.
