|
Post by belgiumreporter on Nov 13, 2019 10:17:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by John Farrell on Nov 14, 2019 1:57:42 GMT -5
Have you ever used the early model canonets?
|
|
|
Post by belgiumreporter on Nov 14, 2019 2:24:24 GMT -5
Have you ever used the early model canonets? No, i've got them, never used them, so many camera's so little time
|
|
|
Post by julio1fer on Nov 15, 2019 19:05:43 GMT -5
I agree with your evaluation, these are great shooters. I have used the original 1.9, with selenium cell around the lens, and the more modern QL17 (which I like best). I did not find any difference in sharpness, but handling of the newer models is far better.
Will be interested in your comparison with the much more expensive Hexar. I found my Canonets in the same class as the Minolta Himatic equivalents, for instance the Himatic-9, which is larger and heavier.
|
|
|
Post by belgiumreporter on Nov 18, 2019 5:13:07 GMT -5
I agree with your evaluation, these are great shooters. I have used the original 1.9, with selenium cell around the lens, and the more modern QL17 (which I like best). I did not find any difference in sharpness, but handling of the newer models is far better. Will be interested in your comparison with the much more expensive Hexar. I found my Canonets in the same class as the Minolta Himatic equivalents, for instance the Himatic-9, which is larger and heavier. Here's two Minolta's wich could have been Canonet challengers, the main problem with the Hi-Matic E is it's fully automatic, s battery dependable with no manual override. The 7s is a lot bigger and heavy and though the body feels solid, the lens is fiddly to use and has a "tin can" feel to it.
|
|