Neare
Well-known
There were and still are plenty of commercial photographers who would disagree with you. The G is no rangefinder per se - that is, the type of ones most on this forum are used to. You cannot compare it to other cameras because there isn't actually anything else like it.
It served as one of the most versatile non-slr cameras in fashion and magazine photography before digital. There are plenty of people who love using the camera and use it very well. You do not speak for everyone when you claim that
kuzano
Veteran
No... I do not speak for anyone....
No... I do not speak for anyone....
My observations are personal and I speak only for myself. I may be pointed and seemingly inclusive to all in my comments, but that is not the case at all. I presume the popularity of the Contax G is high based on it's fanboy following. However, it shows me nothing that would cause me to keep one in the bag. The lenses.... well, I also commented on those. They are definitely keepers, and had the mirrorless digitals been around when I had the full set, I'd still have them.
Thank you for your comments.
No... I do not speak for anyone....
There were and still are plenty of commercial photographers who would disagree with you. The G is no rangefinder per se - that is, the type of ones most on this forum are used to. You cannot compare it to other cameras because there isn't actually anything else like it.
It served as one of the most versatile non-slr cameras in fashion and magazine photography before digital. There are plenty of people who love using the camera and use it very well. You do not speak for everyone when you claim that
My observations are personal and I speak only for myself. I may be pointed and seemingly inclusive to all in my comments, but that is not the case at all. I presume the popularity of the Contax G is high based on it's fanboy following. However, it shows me nothing that would cause me to keep one in the bag. The lenses.... well, I also commented on those. They are definitely keepers, and had the mirrorless digitals been around when I had the full set, I'd still have them.
Thank you for your comments.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
1. I never had focus issues with any of the three working G2s i owned. I did have one G2 body that needed to have its AF calibrated. I sent it to ToCAD and it was fine after that.
2. The focusing blog's suggestions are excellent, and anyone who has had a problem would be well advised to study them.
3. It's a silly thing, to denigrate the G for not being "a real rangefinder camera." It doesn't matter one bit what it 'really' is. It's a camera. An EOS isn't a rangefinder either. Nor is a Toyo or a Rolleiflex. They all can make amazing pictures. They can all make photographs that are better than those from a rangefinder. If one were similarly closedminded, one could wonder how wonderful a Leica M would be if it DID have AF.
4. Again, bad thinking: "the bodies are worthless." They do what they're supposed to do. If you don't like how they work, that's one thing. But, they're obviously of worth since so many people use and enjoy them, and make beautiful photographs with them. It's like saying a Deardorff is worthless just because i'm not willing to lug it around and i don't like using a tripod.
5. "Bad photography." Well, the G works the same way as a Leica M. You have to first focus in the center, and then recompose if necessary. If that process equates to "bad photography," that process has 'accidentally' contributed to a lot of incidentally phenomenal photographs. In my experience, i do sympathize with the kernel of this complaint, and it's close to the reason i ultimately sold the last of my G2s. I found that with AF cameras, you raise the camera to frame and compose an image. But, with (single-point) AF and rangefinders, your first act is to put the center of the frame in the middle, and then move it to find the picture you really want to make. For me, it significantly changes my thinking, and the whole recomposition process then seems contrived. Sometimes like i'm then 'obligated' to move the camera in one direction or the other.
But, that's one of the reasons i sold my M7s. Same issue. Except with "real rangefinder photography," i also had to deal with the problem of finding the RF patch. RF devotees don't find that to be a problem, and they sometimes employ tricks to make sure the patch is already 'close' to focusing position before they raise the camera. By kuzano's logic, that would also make an M "worthless," wouldn't it? Bottom line, if you have AF issues with the G2, you're either not using it properly, or expecting too much. Same with a Leica, Bessa, Mamiya 6/7.....
Oh, and the "fanboy" comment? Seriously? Are you being purposefully offensive? That's about as ignorant a comment as i've seen in this forum in quite some time.
Last edited:
lxmike
M2 fan.
I really liked the 45mm but not the body it was attached to, my main carry everywhere combo at the moment is a leica iiif with cv 25/4 lens
jawarden
Well-known
If it had been manual focus I'd still own it.
Having said that, the body and focusing are good and functional and served me well for ten years as my only camera. Nowadays the G1 and G2 are the best bargain in quality 35mm photography.
Yes, I know I just stated my opinion as fact, but Hell, if you can do it so can I.
Archlich
Well-known
MS Optical calls.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I had a G2 kit once.
Very good feel and build (I like nice, solid cameras).
And I don't recall having a focusing problem, one thing I can't stand is the small viewfinder that always leave me squinting and concentrating hard just to compose and shoot.
Sold it.
If you want Zeiss glass, the Contax C/Y SLR system is both cheaper (or not, depends on which camera body and which lens focal length) and much more pleasant to use.
Very good feel and build (I like nice, solid cameras).
And I don't recall having a focusing problem, one thing I can't stand is the small viewfinder that always leave me squinting and concentrating hard just to compose and shoot.
Sold it.
If you want Zeiss glass, the Contax C/Y SLR system is both cheaper (or not, depends on which camera body and which lens focal length) and much more pleasant to use.
Steve M.
Veteran
As mentioned, make sure your batteries are fresh, and the contacts clean. Same w/ the lens mount on the camera and lens. This area has a tendency to get blue/green oxidation on the contacts, and it will cause the camera to mis focus and sometimes not fire the shutter. Every link in the electrical path has to be clean on these cameras, and S mode is better to shoot in. You'll have to allow for the time to stop and lock focus, and keep your eyes on the distance readout.
Just sitting in the room pointing the camera, and paying attention to how it wants you to lock focus, is one of the best things you can do.
Just sitting in the room pointing the camera, and paying attention to how it wants you to lock focus, is one of the best things you can do.
froyd
Veteran
I'm surprised with all the issues people have with the G system autofocus. I find it pretty reliable even with the G1, which uses the "press and hold" approach to focus lock rather than a separate button like the G2. The few out of focus shots I get are due to my working too fast and getting ahead of myself.
Does the maligned AF on the G work terribly differently than the much praised Hexar AF?
My gripes with the G bodies are instead:
-the dim and small viewfinder
-the lack of depth-of-field markings on the lenses
-the infinity reset of the lenses that causes a slight lag even when using the hyperfocal technique
Does the maligned AF on the G work terribly differently than the much praised Hexar AF?
My gripes with the G bodies are instead:
-the dim and small viewfinder
-the lack of depth-of-field markings on the lenses
-the infinity reset of the lenses that causes a slight lag even when using the hyperfocal technique
kuzano
Veteran
bensyverson
Well-known
The G1 uses an active AF system like the Hexar, so it should be in the same ballpark. The G2 should be much better, as it uses the active system to get the focus "in the ballpark," and then a more precise passive AF system takes over and does the fine focus.
I've only used the Hexar, and find the autofocus very good. It's not as accurate as the extremely advanced passive system on a modern SLR, but that's one of the trade-offs you make to get a smaller camera.
pbhome
Member
After using my new to me G1 for the last 3 days, I have to agree with froyd.
Will see if the pictures worth the hassle.
Will see if the pictures worth the hassle.
shyoon
Well-known
I recently acquired a G2 with the 28mm Biogon and whilst there are shortcomings, the overwhelming feeling is how much fun the camera is. All the benefits of a modern-ish SLR with the compact dimensions of a traditional rangefinder.
franswa
Orbiting
Also acquired a G1 recently and I am getting a high ratio of in focus shots...say 90%...the other 10% is most likely user error. This is with the 45/2. Great little combo! Wish it was quieter.
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
I sold my first G1 body because of silly faulty autofocus and got second G1 from KEH. The same story I could not get shots in focus after several rolls of film. I returned it back to KEH and they confirmed the defect and returned my money back. It seems like I did not have luck with that system...I should have tried G2 before selling all my lenses but....Leica M6 is enough for me...
Photog9000
Well-known
Giving it a try
Giving it a try
I, like others on this thread, have had some problems with the autofocus on my "new to me" G2. I recently sent it to TOCAD for servicing ($176) and, according to the invoice, the autofocus was adjusted.
I do believe part of the problem is me.:bang: After spending the last decade with AF SLR/DSLR bodies (two decades before that with Olympus SLRs), I think a good part of the problem is I am still learning to understand what the passive autofocus system needs to accomplish its purpose. I researched the G2 before buying, saw this thread, and read several reviews including Ken Rockwell's as well as others. I knew going in that an adjustment would be necessary to my shooting style and I am trying to work my way through the learning curve.
But, that being said, I have also returned to using prime lenses on my "vintage" D2H bodies and find I can accomplish my street shooting with this big pro body and a tiny lens as easily as many folks say they do with smallish rangefinders. I do find the lenses of the G2 very nice but my Nikkor primes work well for the images I am getting. I will continue to try and understand the G2 as I enjoy the light weight of the system and I'm not getting any younger.
Giving it a try
I, like others on this thread, have had some problems with the autofocus on my "new to me" G2. I recently sent it to TOCAD for servicing ($176) and, according to the invoice, the autofocus was adjusted.
I do believe part of the problem is me.:bang: After spending the last decade with AF SLR/DSLR bodies (two decades before that with Olympus SLRs), I think a good part of the problem is I am still learning to understand what the passive autofocus system needs to accomplish its purpose. I researched the G2 before buying, saw this thread, and read several reviews including Ken Rockwell's as well as others. I knew going in that an adjustment would be necessary to my shooting style and I am trying to work my way through the learning curve.
But, that being said, I have also returned to using prime lenses on my "vintage" D2H bodies and find I can accomplish my street shooting with this big pro body and a tiny lens as easily as many folks say they do with smallish rangefinders. I do find the lenses of the G2 very nice but my Nikkor primes work well for the images I am getting. I will continue to try and understand the G2 as I enjoy the light weight of the system and I'm not getting any younger.
keoj
Established
Never had an issue with my G2. Practice yields a focus rate of 95% (about the same as my Contax SLR gear). The optics of the G kit blow my Contax SLR optics away. They are very, very sharp.
keoj
keoj
Haigh
Gary Haigh
I took some really crisp shots with my G1 but that was of something that stood still. For street shots the autofocus was far too slow. Nice camera for scenery, but bye bye G1.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
No, you are misunderstanding your issues. The autofocus is fast, given the small lenses and heavy duty drive motor it is noticeably faster than on most consumer SLRs and lenses, and quite considerably faster than on any compact.
What the G series has are AF handling issues. It has spot autofocus, and that makes it much less a point and shoot device than any current DSLR. Even less so in a street setting - properly pointing a narrow spot autofocus is near impossible to do while the photographer is in motion. This issue is not unique to the G1, contemporary AF SLRs acted quite the same. It is bad enough in the latter, but on the G1 or G2 with their lack of visual confirmation it grows into a frustratingly steep learning curve. The G series would really have needed a visual rangefinder spot for focus feedback...
ianstamatic
Well-known
Prefocus and keep your finger or thumb locking the af in till the right moment.
Then there is no lag.
The G1 is a most capable camera it just needs some time soent getting to know how to work it .
Then there is no lag.
The G1 is a most capable camera it just needs some time soent getting to know how to work it .