parsec1
parsec1
Obviously, there not made by Leica !!!!!
Hi mrisney -- I agree medium format still gives wonderful results, and the gear is often no larger than a pro dSLR. But as a side issue, 120 is just a non-dimensional designation for the film size, a shorter strip than 220, virtually the same as 620, wider than larger numbers like 127... or 135, which we call 35mm film in referring to its width. 120mm film would be an impressive 4.72” wide! Ok, ok, I’ll shut up now!
Oh, and for gear names, wouldn’t “Zeiss” and “Contax” impress others as much as “Leica”? Should we compare the Zeiss swagger vs the Leica swagger?
Steve M.
Veteran
Seriously? I'd buy a Leicaflex SL SLR because it's a fantastic camera, and you can buy one and put together a kit w/ a 50 and 90 Summicron for well under under $1000. Try doing that w/ an M.
You probably couldn't have picked two more different cameras if you tried. I have had quite a few of The G1's (essentially the same as the G2, but smaller and cheaper) over the years and ended up selling them all. Still shooting the Leica R stuff, so that tells you something. The Contax lenses are excellent and very sharp, but they don't render images like a Leica (what does?). Still, they are really sharp. But the cameras are an adjustment. Squinty, dim viewfinders, and you'll never know what the autofocus decided to do until you get the negs back. 90% of the time I got accurate focus, which is probably as good as I do w/ a rangefinder camera, but just looking through that viewfinder and never seeing any change whilst focusing drove me nuts. Which is why I went from the M cameras to the R's. I just like seeing exactly what the lens sees, especially for wide open closeups.
You probably couldn't have picked two more different cameras if you tried. I have had quite a few of The G1's (essentially the same as the G2, but smaller and cheaper) over the years and ended up selling them all. Still shooting the Leica R stuff, so that tells you something. The Contax lenses are excellent and very sharp, but they don't render images like a Leica (what does?). Still, they are really sharp. But the cameras are an adjustment. Squinty, dim viewfinders, and you'll never know what the autofocus decided to do until you get the negs back. 90% of the time I got accurate focus, which is probably as good as I do w/ a rangefinder camera, but just looking through that viewfinder and never seeing any change whilst focusing drove me nuts. Which is why I went from the M cameras to the R's. I just like seeing exactly what the lens sees, especially for wide open closeups.
mrisney
Well-known
Portra 160 NC , scanned from the lab with a Noritsu Koki QSS, to 18mb .tiff files. Very impressed. The G2 is my 35mm rangefinder, time to sell a CLA'ed M4-P in excellent condition. The Contax is a better camera for my 35mm film usage. Faster to focus, good metering, and these images pretty much confirm what I suspected. The Zeiss lenses are remarkable.
Using the 28mm, sharp
Tricky metering, a little out of focus on the girl who I was trying to focus on, but good shadows, great color
Through the glass focusing, cool
The Portland house. looks great, but I always like Portra, sharp, very sharp.
This camera rocks, I'm sold, this is my first roll, and I get the sense there are a few things to learn.
But I'm a convert, great camera- and the lenses ? Oh man, something else ..
Using the 28mm, sharp
Tricky metering, a little out of focus on the girl who I was trying to focus on, but good shadows, great color
Through the glass focusing, cool
The Portland house. looks great, but I always like Portra, sharp, very sharp.
This camera rocks, I'm sold, this is my first roll, and I get the sense there are a few things to learn.
But I'm a convert, great camera- and the lenses ? Oh man, something else ..
Last edited:
Excellent. Did you give any special instructions to your lab for the Noritsu scans? Any Photoshop tweaking to the files?
Did you give any special instructions to your lab for the Noritsu scans? Any Photoshop tweaking to the files?
mrisney
Well-known
These are all straight from the CD, without any manipulation. I have heard that Kodak Portra and a commercial Noritsu scanner are a particularity well suited combination. I guess I am fortunate to have a lab, that offers C-41 processing and tiff scan to CD all for $8.00 in Portland, OR - Citizen Photo. When they go out of business I will have to break down and get a good scanner, but for now I keep sending them rolls, without any instructions.
I am pleased, this is a great camera and lens setup, and all for $1500. That's the value of my M4-P and Canadian Summicron 90mm, without a meter.
I am pleased, this is a great camera and lens setup, and all for $1500. That's the value of my M4-P and Canadian Summicron 90mm, without a meter.
jawarden
Well-known
Hey congrats on your camera! The shots look as clear and sharp as I would expect. Looks like I have a new film to try as well, so thanks for these examples.
Issy
Well-known
My local Costco (Nashua, NH) does develop-negs-only and medium level scans (4.5MB JPGs at 3,089 x 2,048) for about $5/roll.
Say what you want about Ken, but I agree with him on this one:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/free-digital-camera.htm
My local 1 hour guy can do the same, but only does lower res scans (1/2 the resolution?).... I can't talk him up to the higher level so I keep going to Costco.
Bill
mrisney
Well-known
Citizen Photo has a profile for Kodak Portra for their Noritsu scanner. Again - that's a $100K commercial grade scanner, that they can run 135 and 2 1/4 film through. It has a keyboard, a monitor, it looks like a giant Xerox printer, its a giant - probably the size of a baby grand piano, it's definetly not a desktop dedidcated or a drum scanner - I beleive its purppse is to scan and write to media - a CD or DVD, quickly, as the bulk of their business is mail order. I have no idea how they set their colors on the machine. I did ask once, whether I should use Velvia, truthfully I think slide film is too saturated for my taste, but anyways I was told that stick with negative film, there is a lot of latitude, it's a good film, with low grain - at least at the 160 ISO, and that they had a profile for it - for their scanner. So it takes very little effort on their part, to develop the film, and then run it through their scanner. I don't bother with prints, I prefer to get it back on a CD and print myself on my Epson R2880 - the keepers, the rest I put up on my Flickr page
They also do high resolution Imacon scans, but that gets spendy. I would do that for a particular image. If it was that good, I should check out Costco, but for now
http://www.citizensphoto.com works for me.
I do want to say, that I believe my Mamiya 6 - I get better detail, and the lenses are very differnt, but the end result I prefer, I think I am pretty much done with the 35mm film, so this is my last camera. It's a gem, convenient - the Leica M4-P takes too long for candids compared to the G2. If I am going to work a camera that much, I might as well haul my Mamiya 6 around. So in my mind, if I am shooting with a 35mm film camera- it shouldn't be tedious. It should be fast, and easy, and the results should rival medium format. Otherwise, I think that digital FF, is the way to go. I get that this forum is dominated by Leica users, I get it, I have had one for 2 years, they are cool. But my M4-P slowed me down to much. But I think what you can pay for - for a G setup, it's a no brainer. You still get the romance and look of film, but you can shoot faster, and it meters great, and the images are sharp, sharp, sharp.
In my mind, screwing around with meter less M film camera, is like trying to keep an old bathtub (356) Porsche running - yeah it looks cool. But a contemporary car is going to have more horsepower, and you spend a lot less time tuning a carburetor, or adjusting the compression.
I want to take great pictures, I get that with a mirrorless rangefinder camera, you have less vibration, and they are more discreet, and with the lenses available for a G2 - amazing.
Thanks for all your comments.
I just joined the Contax G club
They also do high resolution Imacon scans, but that gets spendy. I would do that for a particular image. If it was that good, I should check out Costco, but for now
http://www.citizensphoto.com works for me.
I do want to say, that I believe my Mamiya 6 - I get better detail, and the lenses are very differnt, but the end result I prefer, I think I am pretty much done with the 35mm film, so this is my last camera. It's a gem, convenient - the Leica M4-P takes too long for candids compared to the G2. If I am going to work a camera that much, I might as well haul my Mamiya 6 around. So in my mind, if I am shooting with a 35mm film camera- it shouldn't be tedious. It should be fast, and easy, and the results should rival medium format. Otherwise, I think that digital FF, is the way to go. I get that this forum is dominated by Leica users, I get it, I have had one for 2 years, they are cool. But my M4-P slowed me down to much. But I think what you can pay for - for a G setup, it's a no brainer. You still get the romance and look of film, but you can shoot faster, and it meters great, and the images are sharp, sharp, sharp.
In my mind, screwing around with meter less M film camera, is like trying to keep an old bathtub (356) Porsche running - yeah it looks cool. But a contemporary car is going to have more horsepower, and you spend a lot less time tuning a carburetor, or adjusting the compression.
I want to take great pictures, I get that with a mirrorless rangefinder camera, you have less vibration, and they are more discreet, and with the lenses available for a G2 - amazing.
Thanks for all your comments.
I just joined the Contax G club
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
mrisney
Well-known
John, your pictures are great. I too love my Lumix GH1 with the 20mm pancake. I think I am going to loose my Mamiya TLR, and trim down to just 2 film cameras. The Mamiya and the Contax G system. I think I am going to get the Canon 5D or rumored 3D system this fall, I've been using it for the past month, and its a very good system.
I have a special place for film though, and will keep shooting it for as long as Kodak and Fuji make it available. But having multiple film systems doesn't seem to make sense. The Contax G2 and the Mamiya 6 are - IMO - The best rangefinder film cameras ever made. They satisfy my photography needs for film. For macro, HD, even super wide - I love the 7-14mm Panasonic lens BTW, I think digital is pretty cool. But I don't bother printing anything off of the Lumix M43 system. It's not that good of IQ, its pretty much a flickr or email a digital file to people - camera.
Any attempt at fine art printing (11x14) on Hahnemuhle paper, or the Jon Cone inks for the Epson printers - IMO - are going to be made with medium format, and on a good day something , possibly off of the Contax G2, scanned.
My .02 cents
Marc
Last edited:
Ted2001
Established
I love the G2, have all the primes which are fantastic lenses, have never had any problems (4 bodies), don't mind the size of the viewfinder, have never had issues with auto-focus, have not had problems with the lens mount and the auto-exposures are perfect. If you want a film rangefinder, get the G2.
I dream of a digital G2.
I dream of a digital G2.
GaryLH
Veteran
Your last statement, I could not help but remember the funniest thing Ken Rockwell ever said on this site....
FYI I own both M and Contax G systems.. And I like them both and use them differently. I am waiting for the day he does this, will be first in line at the Goodwill store in his neighborhood
From this web page at the bottom:
http://kenrockwell.com/contax/g2.htm
The Contax G2 is a far better performing camera than the LEICA M9.
I welcome the day when Kyocera comes back from out of nowhere and astonishes us with the Contax G3 Digital full-frame camera.
Kyocera stills hold the trademark license from Zeiss.
My LEICA M9 would hit the big blue donations bin at Goodwill so fast that it would be deafening.
FS Vontz
Aspirer
The G1(which I will speak for as it is the only G camera I've ever used) has a poor viewfinder, and the autofocus is kinda loud. On all other fronts, especially price, the G1 is far better. And the lenses? Limited choice, but they're all great.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I totally missed this lovely compliment back in January--thanks so much! This thread reminds me I haven't shot with the G2 in a while...gotta load it up and get out there.
BTW, film scans printed on Hahnemule paper with dedicated B&W inks is a nice setup. I've been doing it myself for six months or so, with really sweet results.
Haigh
Gary Haigh
I have an old M4-P with a35mm Sumicron almost welded to it. Fantastic combination, however I find it very hard to read the lightmeter in low light conditions so I got a G1 and 28, 45, 90 Zeiss lenses and kept the M4-P. The G1 is certainly an eccentric camera but so are my other cameras. I also want longish time exposures at night and for me this was too hard with the Leica. I took the risk of the G1 body dying on me and being unrepairable but then I can sell the lenses if that happens. See if you can borrow a G2 before you leap. Apologies for talking about me but I hope it helps.
mpve
Member
I think you should not ask yourself equipment questions!
Ask: What sort of camera gives me the pictures I want? When answered, but that camera and stick to it.
A camera is for making the most beautiful pictures and not to showcase.
I own both the G1 and G2 as well as an Hexar RF and R4m and I think the decision you need to make should really be focusing on which camera serves your pictorial needs better. A RF and the Contax G's have such a different character that you cannot choose on equipment needs.
The CZ lenses for Contax are wonderful (for me back then the reason to buy the kit) but CV lenses are so too.
Ask: What sort of camera gives me the pictures I want? When answered, but that camera and stick to it.
A camera is for making the most beautiful pictures and not to showcase.
I own both the G1 and G2 as well as an Hexar RF and R4m and I think the decision you need to make should really be focusing on which camera serves your pictorial needs better. A RF and the Contax G's have such a different character that you cannot choose on equipment needs.
The CZ lenses for Contax are wonderful (for me back then the reason to buy the kit) but CV lenses are so too.