ITT:
>"guys is this $100 camera+lens ok?">"nah, that $600 bessa body with $300 lens is better, or that other antiquated $300 IIIf body and a $400 scratched af elmar from the late '30's"I can't even.
>>3489622>Can you tell me your opinion about the canonet ql17 giiiIt's a fine camera mate. The finder will be much much better than any camera previous to the M Leicas.
The lens is fine, again much better optically than lenses before the '50s, it's much closer to modern designs rather than the old tessars, sonnars and cooke triplets.
The metering is a great convenience. As an example, an external CdS shoemount meter for meterless cameras, is ~200$ for the meter alone. And the same applies for the convenience of shutter priority with aperture visible in the viewfinder.
If you found one within your budget, get it and have some fun taking photos.
If you decide to go for an interchangeable lens camera (ltm, M-mount, etc.), you will pay just for an equivalent lens (just the lens), twice the price of the Canonet if not more. And the more specialised lenses are even more expensive. Can you afford that? If not, there's no point een comparing them.
Lastly, there are many nice cameras in the range of Canonets, in terms of quality, price, features. Check the Minolta Himatics, the Yashica Electros, Konica Auto S2, etc. .
If you wanna go LTM, the canon P with the standard 50mm or the f/1.4 one is probaly the best value at ~250-350.
If you are fine with fixed lens and you want the best viewfinder you can get and the most mechanically solid camera, it's the Konica IIIA for around $200.
