# Yashica IC Lynx 14E VS. Canonet G-III 17



## Compaq (Dec 19, 2011)

Would anyone venture into comparing them and eventually recommend one over the other?

Obviously the lens of the Yashica is a big selling point, but the 40mm focal length of the Canonet will suit me better than the 45mm of the Yashica.

Any thoughts


----------



## compur (Dec 19, 2011)

They're both great cameras but I think the GIII is more practical.  The 14E is a big and heavy camera by comparison and the 1.4 vs 1.7 lens advantage is too small to be worth the size and weight difference for general shooting in my opinion.

Also, if you use filters, the GIII's meter sensor is within the filter mount so meter compensation will be automatic.  Not so with the 14E.

But, whatever camera you choose, be sure it is in good condition.  One down side to the GIII is its light seals.  If they haven't been replaced they will certainly need it before the camera can be used.  But, you might get away with not doing this on the 14E.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 19, 2011)

Compur--What about batteries? What is the most current status on batteries for the Canononet, and the Lynx? Are both cameras mercury battery based? I no longer recall.


----------



## Compaq (Dec 19, 2011)

http://www.cameraquest.com/canql17.htm

It says here that batteries to the Canonet is hard to find. The yashica also uses mercury batteries, but I don't which type. I've read one can put in alkaline batteries and compensate by setting a lower ASA value, but I don't know how that works, exactly...


----------



## compur (Dec 19, 2011)

Yes, they both use mercury batteries.  The GIII uses one PX625 and the Lynx uses 2 of these.

On my GIIIs I have simply used the alkaline version of the PX625 with no problems (shooting mostly B&W neg film). They are easy to find -- I buy them on eBay usually.  There is also an adapter that allows using a smaller battery and it provides voltage correction. See here. And, you can also use the zinc-air Wein Cells. 

The Lynx batteries are harder to find but are still available in alkaline form.

Now if you want a camera that is better than both of them (my opinion of course) get an Olympus 35 SP. (same battery as GIII).  That is my current favorite camera in this league (bought one recently).


----------



## Compaq (Dec 19, 2011)

I've looked at the 35 SP. How do you regard this as better? Seeing as it's your own opinion, I mean?


----------



## compur (Dec 19, 2011)

- the GIII has an odd quirk: the meter only works in auto mode.  When you switch to manual mode the meter turns off.  
But, that's the time I want a meter the most!  The 35SP's meter works in both modes.

- the 35SP has both spot and average metering.  The GIII is average only.

- both have very good lenses but I think the 35SP's is better corrected. The GIII lens does tend to have some noticeable 
falloff at the corners in some circumstances.

- the GIII shutter only goes down to 1/4 second but the 35SP's goes down to 1 full second (I do like to use long shutter speeds
at times so it matters to me).

These differences are not huge and I think both cameras are very good -- I just give the nod to the Olympus.


----------



## Compaq (Dec 19, 2011)

I see. You actually mention points that would matter to me. I'm planning on using it in manual... hmm.. Maybe I should pick up the Olympus. I don't know much about the different models, I just know what I want 
The 42/1.7 is nice on the specs, and I read it's supposed to be sharp.
And the camera looks the part. Thanks for the help!


----------



## Proteus617 (Dec 19, 2011)

Pecker used a Canonet.  That should count for something.


----------



## Compaq (Dec 19, 2011)

Never heard of Pecker before 

I'm open for small and compact SLRs as well, with a fast lens around 30-45mm.


----------

