I have a G1 for years and really love it. To me it is an AF camera. The manual focus works reasonably for occasional use (e.g. hyperfocal distance, on a tripod), but if you want a manual focusing camera look else were. This is an area where the G2 is vastly improved.
In contrast to what other people write, the number of out-of-focus shoots I had from mine is small. In that respect clearly better than anything else I own. I have the 90 and use it wide open if needed and I judge sharpness on 2900dpi scan. Moving subjects with the 90 are tricky though. With the 35mm these are complete non-issues.
Considering the price, the G1 where not that expensive when they were new (£600 incl 35 lens, which is as much as a Nikon F80 with 35 lens was back then). The same goes for most of the lenses. The 28, 35, 45 and 90 when new were available at a price you expect to pay for a similar lens in the Voigtlander range. As others discussed with the system now being orphaned and the change from film to digital the prices dropped. At least here in the UK the G1 sold quite well, so there is a lot of supply on the used market now. The G2 used prices have also come down recently and, so it seems to me, did Leica M4 and M6 bodies. This puts pressure on G1 prices.
Considering the electronic, repair and part situation, I take it this will be similar to what Minolta CLE users are facing. These are pretty popular here, but now being 20+ years out of production, they become increasingly hard to fix, if things go wrong. If that is 15 years more out of my G1, that should be ok. If I am unlucky and mine gives up earlier I can always hunt down another G1 or G2. Considering the green sticker (upgrade for the 35 and 21 lens), the easiest is not to buy a silver one.
In summary I think there is nothing wrong with the G1, in particular not for it's price. Have a look what you need to pay for an auto-exposure and auto-winding M body.
Hope this helps.
