maddoc
... likes film again.
Interesting statement based on what ? One week of ownership of the M4 ?
Frontman
Well-known
Yes, I've had the M4 for one week, but it's not my only Leica. Comparing the M4 (or any other M) to the G2 is like comparing apples to oranges. My dream camera for 2009 was the D700, and my dream camera for 2008 was a Nikon D300. I'm not yet sure what my dream camera for 2011 will be, but I'm considering the Hasselblad SWC.
japro
Member
I can only assume, but I think the system was too shortlived to gather enought "followers". The system isn't that well known and there are few people around wo "promote" it. Even if you search the internet most of the information you find is from "leica people", leading to all those comments about the Gs being essentially P&S cameras, their noisyness etc. which now seem all ridiculous for someone that's used to AF SLRs.
Most of the time the Gs are directly compared to something like an M Leica or SLRs. In the mindset of a devoted M user a G obviously can't surpass an M since quality is mainly measured in "M-ness". On the other side there are the SLR users that usually just discard the Gs as wierdo system and directly go to leica for RFs since that's what all the seemingly cool kids talk about.
So the Gs end up being and "insider System" that has only a small circle of fans. Also G systems tend to be sold as whole kits. Often you buy a G1/G2 with like three lenses and that's all you'll ever need. That sort of eliminates the whole chasing-after-rare-stuff-business that is often the driving force behind high prices on the used market.
Last edited:
larmarv916
Well-known
I would be willing to venture the reason the Contax G system was never as expensive is indirectly because Leica has a 50 tradition of always being the highest priced rangefinder and 35mm camera system. nikon rangefinder system was never as expensive as Leica.
Also Contax was a black sheep to a lot of rangefinder users just because it had auto focus at time when even the best 35 SLR's were not doing it well.
So lets add to this list...also the fact that Zeiss has never been committed to promotiong it's brand and it's photographers as superior. Leica has always tried to play the game that if a photo was taken with a Leica the "user" was also a superior artist or professional. While other companies like Nikon did try to support clients as industry leaders or artistic icons. they did not really make a serious effort pubically year after year.
So when the Contax company died...again the Contax G system toook a real hit in the market place. So also remember that now Zeiss Ikon is what could be considered the rebirth Zeiss Rangefinder or reinvention of legacy of the old Contax industrial DNA. I have spent most of my life shooting with my M3's and did not get an M6TTL until just before the M7.
The Contax is such a better platfrom than the M6 or M7..is almost crazy. But again Contax did not chase the ASPH...or contrast craze. Or the ultra fast lens craze either. Zeiss lenses have a distinct thumbprint and as such give a dramaticly different feel to any image over the Leica lenses. APSH lenses now are so high contrast it seems crazy. The 90 ASPH we no where near as contrasty as these new ultra contrasty ultra wide lenses that Leica makes.
So My love of Leica's and Leica lenses is clearly real and defined...but no more so than the Zeiss lenses and Contax G system.
Also Contax was a black sheep to a lot of rangefinder users just because it had auto focus at time when even the best 35 SLR's were not doing it well.
So lets add to this list...also the fact that Zeiss has never been committed to promotiong it's brand and it's photographers as superior. Leica has always tried to play the game that if a photo was taken with a Leica the "user" was also a superior artist or professional. While other companies like Nikon did try to support clients as industry leaders or artistic icons. they did not really make a serious effort pubically year after year.
So when the Contax company died...again the Contax G system toook a real hit in the market place. So also remember that now Zeiss Ikon is what could be considered the rebirth Zeiss Rangefinder or reinvention of legacy of the old Contax industrial DNA. I have spent most of my life shooting with my M3's and did not get an M6TTL until just before the M7.
The Contax is such a better platfrom than the M6 or M7..is almost crazy. But again Contax did not chase the ASPH...or contrast craze. Or the ultra fast lens craze either. Zeiss lenses have a distinct thumbprint and as such give a dramaticly different feel to any image over the Leica lenses. APSH lenses now are so high contrast it seems crazy. The 90 ASPH we no where near as contrasty as these new ultra contrasty ultra wide lenses that Leica makes.
So My love of Leica's and Leica lenses is clearly real and defined...but no more so than the Zeiss lenses and Contax G system.
mrisney
Well-known
OK, first week of using the G2. So this is a first impression of sorts,
I just sent off 5 rolls of Portra 400 NC to the lab, and will put up a few
soon. It's all about the potential of the lenses. So this post will be about
gear, and usability
The viewfinder reminds me of my mother's old Olympus Stylus point and shoot.
It's tiny and dark. Again if anyone has had the chance to use a Mamiya 6 or 7,
the rangefinder lines in these camera's are quite good, better than Leica M.
So against the Mamiya rangefinder, its no contest - since I always thought the
M4-P was OK, I agree with the most common complaint against the Contax G's
- The viewfinder is crap.
The manual focusing is awful compared to my Leica and the Mamiya 6.
It's really meant, in my opinion, to be used in auto focus mode.
But, it's actually works well, when I discreetly want to take a candid
of people, I can hold it down near my waist, depress the button slightly, and
assume that the camera is going to pick up the subject, I like that.
The motor winder is nice, I like it, and I was able to shoot 5 rolls of film this week
much faster than I typically do with my Leica M. It's seductively simple, and
the camera is very well designed. The lenses look like very good glass, sharp,
when I hold them up to the light. That was the whole point,
to pick up a 35mm RF system, that I could shoot quickly with, but have excellent optics.
This could really work, I am impressed. The M4-P requires me to dial in the
aperture and speed according to what the Voigtlander II meter suggests, which,
requires fiddling with it's small dials, then holding it up to my eye, focus in the image,
and when people see me holding a camera up to my face the moment is gone,
their bodies and faces stiffen up, and the rather time consuming process of preparing
a picture is all for not, I end up catching a remnant of what I saw in the first place.
The same problem exists with the Mamiya 6, As great as the images both the Leica M,
and Mamiya systems produce, both cameras require far too much manipulation, IMO,
to catch a candid. So I think that the Zeiss Contax G people have been onto something
all along, this camera has it's warts, for sure.
Funny, because when I think it about it, rangefinders are a cult camera, and the Contax G
is like a subculture within that cult.
But I am quickly being won over,by its strengths. The acid tests are the images though,
that will be the deciding factor.
To be continued, when I post more images ....
I just sent off 5 rolls of Portra 400 NC to the lab, and will put up a few
soon. It's all about the potential of the lenses. So this post will be about
gear, and usability
The viewfinder reminds me of my mother's old Olympus Stylus point and shoot.
It's tiny and dark. Again if anyone has had the chance to use a Mamiya 6 or 7,
the rangefinder lines in these camera's are quite good, better than Leica M.
So against the Mamiya rangefinder, its no contest - since I always thought the
M4-P was OK, I agree with the most common complaint against the Contax G's
- The viewfinder is crap.
The manual focusing is awful compared to my Leica and the Mamiya 6.
It's really meant, in my opinion, to be used in auto focus mode.
But, it's actually works well, when I discreetly want to take a candid
of people, I can hold it down near my waist, depress the button slightly, and
assume that the camera is going to pick up the subject, I like that.
The motor winder is nice, I like it, and I was able to shoot 5 rolls of film this week
much faster than I typically do with my Leica M. It's seductively simple, and
the camera is very well designed. The lenses look like very good glass, sharp,
when I hold them up to the light. That was the whole point,
to pick up a 35mm RF system, that I could shoot quickly with, but have excellent optics.
This could really work, I am impressed. The M4-P requires me to dial in the
aperture and speed according to what the Voigtlander II meter suggests, which,
requires fiddling with it's small dials, then holding it up to my eye, focus in the image,
and when people see me holding a camera up to my face the moment is gone,
their bodies and faces stiffen up, and the rather time consuming process of preparing
a picture is all for not, I end up catching a remnant of what I saw in the first place.
The same problem exists with the Mamiya 6, As great as the images both the Leica M,
and Mamiya systems produce, both cameras require far too much manipulation, IMO,
to catch a candid. So I think that the Zeiss Contax G people have been onto something
all along, this camera has it's warts, for sure.
Funny, because when I think it about it, rangefinders are a cult camera, and the Contax G
is like a subculture within that cult.
But I am quickly being won over,by its strengths. The acid tests are the images though,
that will be the deciding factor.
To be continued, when I post more images ....
Last edited:
250swb
Well-known
I think you made the right choice with the G2. I only fully appreciated it after I sold my body and lenses to buy another Leica. The G2 can be maddening at times, but its a special camera that I really wish I still had.Steve
jmilkins
Digited User
Mrisney - lovely kit. "a subculture within a cult" - well said.
I think you will be very impressed with the photographs from the G2 and those wonderful lenses.
Mamiya 6 for MF image quality and the zen of a considered image. G2 for superlative 35mm and a whole lot of convenience. Awesome.
I bought a G1 becasue they are so cheap, to pair with the G2 - I really like it too - lovely heft but compact.
I think you will be very impressed with the photographs from the G2 and those wonderful lenses.
Mamiya 6 for MF image quality and the zen of a considered image. G2 for superlative 35mm and a whole lot of convenience. Awesome.
I bought a G1 becasue they are so cheap, to pair with the G2 - I really like it too - lovely heft but compact.
John, I hope you enjoy your Contax G as much as I like mine! I'm very pleased with what it can do, and so conveniently too. Here are a few B&W shots to whet your anticipation, all done with the 35mm Planar...
Ok, the camera is capable of color too. 
Here are two 28 Biogons and a selfie with the marvelous 21!
Have fun!
Here are two 28 Biogons and a selfie with the marvelous 21!
Have fun!
larmarv916
Well-known
I would comment..that the difference between the normal 45, compared to the normal 50's (Leica) creates a different "brush stroke"....thus a visible image difference. I have nothing but great things to say about 35/ F2 and both the 28 & 21 Biogon lenses. I also find that even with a 21 on the G1 or G2...I get accurate metering...I could never get with my M6 TTL ! As anyone who has used are read the manuals for Leica M6 or M7 they tell you upfront. that metering with a 21 is next to impossible.
The Leica is great with lenses that actually the original 28mm version 1...which was not a ASPH lens. Just like the 35 summicron version 1. I still see as a better lens. Now days the contrast levels of newer ASPH lenses is almost "cartoonish". For me...you have so many choices in the 50-135 range.
what your looking for are lenses that delivery a perfromance that makes people ask..is that 35 or 6x6 ?? I think that the Contax G series lenses all do that. The auto or manual focus...what a choice. No M7 or M6 can do that..in low light a infra red assit for G2. For me...the Leica 90 APSH being the First ASPH lens was better designed and not a gimick. The 135 APO lens is still one of the most amazing lenses ever. The 50mm range the 50 ASPH is a dedicated design that is on target...but the Zeiss Sonnar a better deal and you can not tell which is which at F2 or F2.8 when you see a enlargement of 11x14 the Zeiss for my money shows more fine details...the Leica more contrast.
Doug's photo's are a great example of how well the Zeiss lenses grab every ounce of detail and make it stick...nice shots Doug.
The Women's skin is a text book example of details.
The Leica is great with lenses that actually the original 28mm version 1...which was not a ASPH lens. Just like the 35 summicron version 1. I still see as a better lens. Now days the contrast levels of newer ASPH lenses is almost "cartoonish". For me...you have so many choices in the 50-135 range.
what your looking for are lenses that delivery a perfromance that makes people ask..is that 35 or 6x6 ?? I think that the Contax G series lenses all do that. The auto or manual focus...what a choice. No M7 or M6 can do that..in low light a infra red assit for G2. For me...the Leica 90 APSH being the First ASPH lens was better designed and not a gimick. The 135 APO lens is still one of the most amazing lenses ever. The 50mm range the 50 ASPH is a dedicated design that is on target...but the Zeiss Sonnar a better deal and you can not tell which is which at F2 or F2.8 when you see a enlargement of 11x14 the Zeiss for my money shows more fine details...the Leica more contrast.
Doug's photo's are a great example of how well the Zeiss lenses grab every ounce of detail and make it stick...nice shots Doug.
The Women's skin is a text book example of details.
Last edited:
Neare
Well-known
This is something i've been searching for a while...
A example of the auto-focus sound.
I've see one once before but cannot find it again, no one has one handy they can post up to let us all hear the 'noisyness' of the camera do they?
A example of the auto-focus sound.
I've see one once before but cannot find it again, no one has one handy they can post up to let us all hear the 'noisyness' of the camera do they?
The AF uses an in-body motor to drive the lens helical, same as my Pentax dSLRs. The sound is not loud but it is high-pitched and audible nearby depending on ambient noise of course. Hard to say without direct side-by-side comparison but I think it's quieter than the Pentax. I use the sound to clue me that the camera has found focus and is ready for the exposure.
By the way, FWIW, the 45mm Planar is actually 47mm (46.9), a bit longer than marked, as are the Leica 50mm lenses too.
By the way, FWIW, the 45mm Planar is actually 47mm (46.9), a bit longer than marked, as are the Leica 50mm lenses too.
Last edited:
Issy
Well-known
Owning both (Leica and Contax G), I completely agree. They are very different animals, not better or worse, but different.
Personally, when I stopped thinking of the G2 as an AF Leica, and more like a P&S with interchangeable, tack sharp optics, a hot shoe, and manual exposure over-ride, the whole viewfinder and noise thing went away. A G1 and a planar is my Uber-Yashica-T4.
-- the focusing methodology and thought process is no different than a T4.
Indeed. The G viewfinder is not as bright as a Leica, but then again, it doesn't have to be, since it's an AF system. The positives about the G viewfinder: no distracting framelines (impossible to frame using the wrong framelines), LCD display of shutter speed, exposure compensation, etc.; auto zooming (very cool to see a magnified view with the 90mm, without compromising the wide angle views), parallax correction, variable diopter.
For those who want a hybrid of the Contax and a Leica, try the Hexar RF.
For those who want a hybrid of the Contax and a Leica, try the Hexar RF.
jawarden
Well-known
I think you're right on with the manual focusing. It's finicky for sure. I use manual focusing only to set the lens at the hyperfocal, and for that it's fine - anything else takes too long.
I assume you've already read this in the manual, but you should practice focusing with your thumb. Instead of half-depressing with your trigger finger, lock the focus using your thumb on the focus lock button (rear of camera). That way the lens is parked where you want it and there is no lag when you fire. Give it a whirl and let us know how it goes.
Looking forward to seeing your test images!
nonot
Well-known
I'm sensing the sarcasm here, but that complaint about the lenses mounting "funny" seems to pop up so much it makes me wonder if the people criticizing them had more than one finger per hand and the requisite motor skills to line up two red dots and turn?
There seem to be five points that make up the pentagram of contax g purgutory:
1. Small, dark viewfinder - yes, it is both of these things.
2. Hair pulling-ly frustrating lens mount - take a deep breath.
3. "They don't make them anymore!!!" - they don't make a lot of things anymore, but you can still use them.
4. Noisy - yeah it's an af camera with a motor in it, go figure. Put yourself in front of the lens and that noise is a lot less than you think it is.
5. It's not a Leica - and there's nothing anyone can say to that.
The camera is great for me personally, it has it's quirks which are documented ad nauseum all over the internet, you truly have to use it to figure out if you love it or hate it. For me it revived photography again, I personally love the thing and wouldn't consider selling it. I'm excited to see what results you got from your test rolls.
mrisney
Well-known
Yeah, I am really liking this camera. Like I said, the Mamiya 6 is classic rangefinder, with good parallax lines, and a well lit viewfinder - and the 120mm 6x6 images - I feel like I am making art, every time I take a picture with it.
But for 35mm, this is a pretty good camera. It's lenses are something. I am pretty much sold, like I said, I am not a gear hoarder, I try not to have more than 4 cameras, and I don't think it makes sense to have both the M4-P and the Contax G2, one has got to go. The M4-P is going. Again, the G2 is not perfect, but for all it's issues, I quickly realized how I could use it. I have never had Zeiss lenses before, and I think I am going to aim for a Zeiss ZE for my Canon 5D. But for film, my true love, this, and the 3 lenses are perfect for what I want to do with 35mm rollfilm. Loving this camera, brilliant.
But for 35mm, this is a pretty good camera. It's lenses are something. I am pretty much sold, like I said, I am not a gear hoarder, I try not to have more than 4 cameras, and I don't think it makes sense to have both the M4-P and the Contax G2, one has got to go. The M4-P is going. Again, the G2 is not perfect, but for all it's issues, I quickly realized how I could use it. I have never had Zeiss lenses before, and I think I am going to aim for a Zeiss ZE for my Canon 5D. But for film, my true love, this, and the 3 lenses are perfect for what I want to do with 35mm rollfilm. Loving this camera, brilliant.
nonot
Well-known
I'm interested in trying a leica, but for me (I'm not alone here) it's really about the lenses and the subject matter, with the G2 I was able to get a basically unused body along with the 21+vf, 28, 45 & 90mm lenses for under $1300 cdn. A leica body and lens, or even a cv body with a leica lens presents a financial situation I'm not comfortable with, and while aesthetics are purely in the eye of the beholder, there's not many cameras that I think rival the sexiness of a g series setup.
***edit***
I'm actually way more interested in a Mamiya 7 than any Leica product.
***edit***
I'm actually way more interested in a Mamiya 7 than any Leica product.
Last edited:
mrisney
Well-known
Agreed, Elmarit 28's are close to a $1000. Too much, and 35mm film is something I question, if it's worth it. The convenience and IQ that 35mm FF digital - I am using a 5D MarkII, really make me doubt I would spend more than $1500 on a 35mm film kit. A Leica 90/50/28 and body that meters -probably M6, that's close to 5K.
I limped along with a M4-P, and it's a nice camera, and even with my CV Nokton 40, I took some images that are keepers for sure.
These days 120mm film is still superior than digital for tone, dynamic range, and sharpness. I agree about the Mamiya 7, I have the 6, and the Mamiya rangefinders are amazing, and keep me in film for a while longer.
But for 35mm , the G2 is probably my last 35mm film system, and it's an amazing one at that.
parsec1
parsec1
If you are interested in shooting pictures buy the G2 with the wonderfull 21mm a 35mm and a 90mm (if you cant hang a Nikon body with an 85 or 105 over the other shoulder).
If you need to impress the ignorati buy the Leica.
If you need to impress the ignorati buy the Leica.