Is this Canonet from ebay as bad as I think it is?

I decided I want to try film. After hours of research, I decided on a Canonet QL17 (and Nikon FE2 but that's not the subject of this post). After seemingly more hours of pouring over ebay listings, trying to find a reputable seller, I came across one in good condition - CLA'd, light seals replaced, light meter recalibrated for 1.5v batteries - and so I ordered it. $235 ($253 plus shipping).

Finally came in today. After a look over the body, everything was looking good. Couple small fungi on the front element, was gonna take a picture and post here to see if it was worth sending back.

...

Then I shone a light through the front and took a look a the rear element.


Petri dish

I still consider myself new to the whole photography thing. But TO ME this is horrendously, even laughably, bad. Like "insult to your intelligence" bad.

I'm not blowing this out of proportion am I? This is an instant return and negative feed back right?

He didn't techincally specify the condition of the lens. But I'll leave the original item description for reference:

Member said:

Canon Canonet GIII QL17 35mm film rangefinder camera. Made in Japan. Serial # 425793. Early model made in Japan. Very popular compact rangefinder film camera with sharp FAST built-in Canon 40mm f/1.7 semi-wide angle standard lens. "Cult Classic" 35mm rangefinder camera for film shooters today. This camera is appreciated for it's sharp fast 40mm f/1.7 lens, bright rangefinder focusing, manual shutter speeds, and manual lens aperture setting. Great all around, full featured 35mm compact camera with quality build. This Canonet QL17 camera is in Ex+ or 8.5 out of 10 cosmetic condition. Good working order. No dings or dents. Some small signs of prior use around. Camera has been CLA'D in 2022 to good working order best as possible for a vintage camera. New light seals on the back door, and the light meter has been adjusted to give correct exposure with 1.5v batteries. Don't miss this nice Canonet QL17 35mm rangefinder camera that has been serviced to G.W.O. to do your creative film photography shooting. Comes with original Canon eveready case, strap, lens hood, and lens cap. Sells with no reserve at a price of $235. I have more Canon cameras, lenses, accessories, 35mm Rangefinder cameras and lenses, Medium and Large Format cameras, on my other Auctions, web page and eBay Store.

Click to expand...

Probably most of that will come off with a Rocket Blower.

Don

D Cox said:

Probably most of that will come off with a Rocket Blower.

Don

Click to expand...

The stuff on the front element looks like dust, which I have more tolerance of since it's an older camera. But to me looks like the entire rear element is covered in fungus on the inside.

You're saying if I get inside I can rocket blower it off?

I wouldn’t expect a camera which has been recently CLA’d to have significant dust on the lens - the shutter in the Canonet is within the lens. Are you sure the dust won’t detach with a blower as D Cox suggests ? And that your illumination isn’t making the dust look worse ?

If it’s fungus on the rear element then it will take more than a blower to kill / remove it.

Overrank said:

I wouldn’t expect a camera which has been recently CLA’d to have significant dust on the lens - the shutter in the Canonet is within the lens. Are you sure the dust won’t detach with a blower as D Cox suggests ? And that your illumination isn’t making the dust look worse ?

If it’s fungus on the rear element then it will take more than a blower to kill / remove it.

Click to expand...

I rocket blowered the front and rear elements, still looks the same. I do realize shining a light like this will make things look way worse than they are, so who knows maybe this is par for the course and I just need to accept it. But man it just seems like an excessive amount of fungus for something that was listed as good condition and CLA'd from a seemingly reputable seller.

kevin159 said:

Overrank said:

I wouldn’t expect a camera which has been recently CLA’d to have significant dust on the lens - the shutter in the Canonet is within the lens. Are you sure the dust won’t detach with a blower as D Cox suggests ? And that your illumination isn’t making the dust look worse ?

If it’s fungus on the rear element then it will take more than a blower to kill / remove it.

Click to expand...

I rocket blowered the front and rear elements, still looks the same. I do realize shining a light like this will make things look way worse than they are, so who knows maybe this is par for the course and I just need to accept it. But man it just seems like an excessive amount of fungus for something that was listed as good condition and CLA'd from a seemingly reputable seller.

Click to expand...

I’ve started doing this - https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65557104 - it doesn’t make the lens look worse than it is.

Overrank said:

kevin159 said:

Overrank said:

I wouldn’t expect a camera which has been recently CLA’d to have significant dust on the lens - the shutter in the Canonet is within the lens. Are you sure the dust won’t detach with a blower as D Cox suggests ? And that your illumination isn’t making the dust look worse ?

If it’s fungus on the rear element then it will take more than a blower to kill / remove it.

Click to expand...

I rocket blowered the front and rear elements, still looks the same. I do realize shining a light like this will make things look way worse than they are, so who knows maybe this is par for the course and I just need to accept it. But man it just seems like an excessive amount of fungus for something that was listed as good condition and CLA'd from a seemingly reputable seller.

Click to expand...

I’ve started doing this - https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65557104 - it doesn’t make the lens look worse than it is.

Click to expand...

Ok thanks, I'll start using this method.

Just tried it on this camera (little different cause it a rangefinder obviously), fungi still visible on the rear element, so I'm still concerned it'll affect picture quality.

Probably just going to return it because it was supposed to be CLA'd and all. Thanks for the help!

kevin159 said:

Overrank said:

kevin159 said:

Overrank said:

I wouldn’t expect a camera which has been recently CLA’d to have significant dust on the lens - the shutter in the Canonet is within the lens. Are you sure the dust won’t detach with a blower as D Cox suggests ? And that your illumination isn’t making the dust look worse ?

If it’s fungus on the rear element then it will take more than a blower to kill / remove it.

Click to expand...

I rocket blowered the front and rear elements, still looks the same. I do realize shining a light like this will make things look way worse than they are, so who knows maybe this is par for the course and I just need to accept it. But man it just seems like an excessive amount of fungus for something that was listed as good condition and CLA'd from a seemingly reputable seller.

Click to expand...

I’ve started doing this - https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65557104 - it doesn’t make the lens look worse than it is.

Click to expand...

Ok thanks, I'll start using this method.

Just tried it on this camera (little different cause it a rangefinder obviously), fungi still visible on the rear element, so I'm still concerned it'll affect picture quality.

Probably just going to return it because it was supposed to be CLA'd and all. Thanks for the help!

Click to expand...

I think I would have returned it, probably the best call.

There are other rangefinders than the QL17 available that don’t cost quite the same premium. You might want to try the Film Forum ( https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1072 ) for some ideas.

The seller has avoided describing the condition of the lens and made a big thing of all the other bits to distract you.

There is fungus there and plenty of it.

kevin159 said:

... so who knows maybe this is par for the course and I just need to accept it.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't.

kevin159 said:

But man it just seems like an excessive amount of fungus for something that was listed as good condition and CLA'd from a seemingly reputable seller.

Click to expand...

Yep. I consider any fungus that wasn't described and shown in the listing to be sufficient justification for a refund.

Overrank said:

kevin159 said:

Overrank said:

kevin159 said:

Overrank said:

I wouldn’t expect a camera which has been recently CLA’d to have significant dust on the lens - the shutter in the Canonet is within the lens. Are you sure the dust won’t detach with a blower as D Cox suggests ? And that your illumination isn’t making the dust look worse ?

If it’s fungus on the rear element then it will take more than a blower to kill / remove it.

Click to expand...

I rocket blowered the front and rear elements, still looks the same. I do realize shining a light like this will make things look way worse than they are, so who knows maybe this is par for the course and I just need to accept it. But man it just seems like an excessive amount of fungus for something that was listed as good condition and CLA'd from a seemingly reputable seller.

Click to expand...

I’ve started doing this - https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65557104 - it doesn’t make the lens look worse than it is.

Click to expand...

Ok thanks, I'll start using this method.

Just tried it on this camera (little different cause it a rangefinder obviously), fungi still visible on the rear element, so I'm still concerned it'll affect picture quality.

Probably just going to return it because it was supposed to be CLA'd and all. Thanks for the help!

Click to expand...

I think I would have returned it, probably the best call.

There are other rangefinders than the QL17 available that don’t cost quite the same premium. You might want to try the Film Forum ( https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1072 ) for some ideas.

Click to expand...

For a number of reasons, I do RECOMMEND the QL17 (GIII) ... but apparently not with this lens fungus/issue.

You got burned by an unscrupulous ebay seller. In the words of the old Tom Jones song, "It's not unusual ".

kevin159 said:

I decided I want to try film. After hours of research, I decided on a Canonet QL17 (and Nikon FE2 but that's not the subject of this post). After seemingly more hours of pouring over ebay listings, trying to find a reputable seller, I came across one in good condition - CLA'd, light seals replaced, light meter recalibrated for 1.5v batteries - and so I ordered it. $235 ($253 plus shipping).

Finally came in today. After a look over the body, everything was looking good. Couple small fungi on the front element, was gonna take a picture and post here to see if it was worth sending back.

...

Then I shone a light through the front and took a look a the rear element.


Petri dish

I still consider myself new to the whole photography thing. But TO ME this is horrendously, even laughably, bad. Like "insult to your intelligence" bad.

I'm not blowing this out of proportion am I? This is an instant return and negative feed back right?

He didn't techincally specify the condition of the lens. But I'll leave the original item description for reference:

kevin159 said:

Canon Canonet GIII QL17 35mm film rangefinder camera. Made in Japan. Serial # 425793. Early model made in Japan. Very popular compact rangefinder film camera with sharp FAST built-in Canon 40mm f/1.7 semi-wide angle standard lens. "Cult Classic" 35mm rangefinder camera for film shooters today. This camera is appreciated for it's sharp fast 40mm f/1.7 lens, bright rangefinder focusing, manual shutter speeds, and manual lens aperture setting. Great all around, full featured 35mm compact camera with quality build. This Canonet QL17 camera is in Ex+ or 8.5 out of 10 cosmetic condition. Good working order. No dings or dents. Some small signs of prior use around. Camera has been CLA'D in 2022 to good working order best as possible for a vintage camera. New light seals on the back door, and the light meter has been adjusted to give correct exposure with 1.5v batteries. Don't miss this nice Canonet QL17 35mm rangefinder camera that has been serviced to G.W.O. to do your creative film photography shooting. Comes with original Canon eveready case, strap, lens hood, and lens cap. Sells with no reserve at a price of $235. I have more Canon cameras, lenses, accessories, 35mm Rangefinder cameras and lenses, Medium and Large Format cameras, on my other Auctions, web page and eBay Store.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I doubt that the camera was CLA'd and they missed all that fungus. If you wnat to actually use the camera, I would send it back. While it is possible to clean it up, you paid for a cleaned camera and that one is not. I would not expect that amount of fungus on a camera in GWO.

The seller might offer a discount, but ebay policy discourages requesting one. First point out the problem to the seller, and let them suggest a solution. If that doesn't work out for you, then request a return.

I agree with the others here: That's fungus, and it should have been disclosed in the listing.

If the condition was listed as "used", that's one definite out -- eBay's definition of used is "The item may have some signs of cosmetic wear, but it is fully operational and functions as intended." I would say that a lens covered in fungus arguably is not fully operational and functioning as intended. That makes this an INAD -- item not as described -- and that's an automatic return with the seller paying shipping, whether they accept returns or not.

If they do offer a refund with no trouble, I would consider neutral instead of negative feedback, btw.

As for the FE2 -- nothing wrong with it, though I personally own a few Nikons (including a now-defunct FE) and think they are overpriced and a bit overrated. I've always preferred Pentax myself, and for beginners on a budget I usually recommend Ricoh -- particularly the KR-10 (not KR-10 Super or KR-10M) or XR-2. Great cameraa, if a bit plasticky and unrefined, and you should be able to get a working one, with a 50mm lens, for under $100 (and very likely under $50). Sears-branded versions (KSX/KS Auto) are even cheaper. I just bought a KS Auto (my second), supposedly working, for $15 + shipping.

We can make many more recommendations on the film forum, but we can also cause a lot of confusion!

Aaron

sybersitizen said:

kevin159 said:

... so who knows maybe this is par for the course and I just need to accept it.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't.

sybersitizen said:

But man it just seems like an excessive amount of fungus for something that was listed as good condition and CLA'd from a seemingly reputable seller.

Click to expand...

Yep. I consider any fungus that wasn't described and shown in the listing to be sufficient justification for a refund.

Click to expand...

But please let the seller know what you found. They may not be aware of it, or realize how bad it is.

MarkInSF said:

sybersitizen said:

kevin159 said:

... so who knows maybe this is par for the course and I just need to accept it.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't.

MarkInSF said:

But man it just seems like an excessive amount of fungus for something that was listed as good condition and CLA'd from a seemingly reputable seller.

Click to expand...

Yep. I consider any fungus that wasn't described and shown in the listing to be sufficient justification for a refund.

Click to expand...

But please let the seller know what you found. They may not be aware of it, or realize how bad it is.

Click to expand...

Good advice because many that do have fungus on their lenses do not know it is there.

But in this case it does put a doubt on the CLA claim.