Zeiss Ikon Z1 vs. Contax G2: What would you prefer?

[Jpeg]

At this time I am planning to sell all my Leica gear, Which is a Leica R 6.2 and lenses. My new Sony NEX-7 is it's replacement but I found through testing that my Carl Zeiss Panar lenses to be sharper, lighter and smaller.
However I still want to keep my finger on film photography, -it's my old age and growing up with film, -I guess. My very first camera was a Zeiss Ikon bellows 220 film camera, -which I still have and I bought it used while in high school.
Anyway, I've always been very partial to Carl Zeiss.
So I'm thinking of the Zeiss Ikon Z1 (which Ken Rockwell prefers over the Leica M's) or the Contax G2. (which Ken Rockwell goes ape about as well)
So, which would you prefer?
Maybe I'm answering my own questions but:
Likes of the Z1; (1) still being made and can be gotten new. (2) Incredably clear veiwfinder. ( 3) fully manual, (I prefer manual over automatic) (4) doesn't eat up batteries. (5) large assortment of 'M' lenses (which I can also use on my NEX-7)
Dislikes: I don't know, you tell me.
The Contax G2: Likes; I don't know, maybe because Ken Rockwell likes them. You tell me, but supposedly it can take very good pictures and has very good lenses.
Dislikes: From Ken Rockwell's review mostly(1) Very, Very poor viewfinder. (2) supposedly has problems with AF. (3) You can only get them used, but still expensive. even the lenses are more expensive.(4) Eats batteries like mad.( Completely automatic, which I consider a disadvantage.
What it comes down to is which of the two cameras takes the best pictures. I want to hear some arguments for the G2 that might steer me away form the Z1.:bang::bang::bang::bang:

 

[Moriturii]

Sounds like you want the Zeiss Ikon ZI. Pretty unanimously.

 

[Shutterspark]

Firstly I'd say to not take Ken Rockwell's opinions too seriously. He goes ape about all sorts of cameras and then mocks them later. A lot of his tests etc. are fabricated too (he says so himself).

Neither camera will take technically better photos than the other, lens wise, unless you plan on investing in the newest Leica ASPH lenses.
On the surface similar cameras perhaps, but they're fundamentally different enough that the choice should be obvious if you think about your own preferences and needs.
Choose between an electronic camera with autofocus or a mechanical camera with manual rangefinder assisted focus. ZI viewfinder is vastly superior, but the Contax system is better value for money.

The Contax AF is a love or hate thing really. It's hard to tell whether you're focused on what you think you are, as there is no confirmation. That's my biggest beef with the system, but the lenses are top notch.
On the other hand, the ZI doesn't really have any negatives aside from higher overall price. I think most users here will favour the ZI, and all the Contax users I know simply "make do" with the camera, because they enjoy the results. Results that can be had on the ZI, albeit at considerably higher cost.

You can use Contax lenses on your NEX too, by the way.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Well, I don't know about Ken Rockwell. His opinions seem a little "shoot from the hip" if you know what I mean. But I'll play.

Choose the ZI. No question. You have hundreds of M and LTM mount lenses manufactured over 7 decades to choose from. G2? Five or six lenses. It is a no-brainer, photographically.

If you want a plug for the G2, in spite of this, here goes. I have a G2 and it is a fine camera, no question. And the 45/2 is such a sweet lens that I bought a second one and converted it to M-mount, I like its look so much. You get program modes, option of a second-trailing shutter for flash photography, TTL flash with the Contax's in-house twinklers, built-in motor drive. Construction is robust, it is covered in titanium -- definitely a design from the last great era of film cameras. I can also tell you that the program modes are robust and produce great results. It is true though, if you have gotten a look through an M viewfinder (or even the ZI), the Contax VF is looking at a piercingly clear postage stamp at the bottom of a well.

But: back to reality. Two pieces of advice. 1) Take everything Ken Rockwell says on his website with a grain of salt. He's not really in the business of helping you make good decisions, he's in the business of Ken Rockwell. There is nothing wrong with that, but seriously. 2) Get the ZI.

or get a used M6 for around $1K, the camera has a 20 year track record.

 

[froyd]

If you like MF stay away from the G system. I find their AF just fine, no issues here and I shoot a G1, however, the only forms of manual focus I use on this system are either zone or hyperfocal, and even that can be a litle convoluted due to lack of DOF markings on the lenses (you'll need to either memorize most common distances or use a number of other well publicized work around--search the forum).

In terms of "best picture", both cameras and matching lenses are so highly capable that the quality of your images will be mostly affected by how comfortable you are with either. If you are used to more traditional cameras the G's might take more effort on your part than the ZI, resulting in poorer images.

My experience was that of an easy transistion because I had been exposed to other single-point AF systems (Nikon F4) so I was right at home with the G. The viewfinder, however is truly a dismall thing, and while usable, it does get in the way of my enjoyment of the system.

Other than that, the Gs feel wonderful in my hands. I even prefer their handling to that of my film M.

 

[j.scooter]

I have had the G2 for over 6 months, shot quite a few rolls with it and haven't had to change the batteries. just saying.


They are both great cameras, it comes down to do you want AF or not.

 

[Nelson Tan]

I own both, so I can summarize my experience with the Z.Ikon and Contax G2. I love the automation that the G2 offers, and it's virtually aim and squirt with it's autofocus and auto exposure. It has great lenses as well, and I've not faced any autofocus issues with any of them. The biggest downside are probably the compact camera style viewfinder and the "zzzrrrr" sounds made when focusing and advancing the film. The Zeiss Ikon offers accurate autoexposure (just like the G2), but it offers a great viewfinder which you'd need for manual focusing.

If you love the convenience of auto focus and don't mind the "zzzzrrrr" of the motorized focus and film transport, the Contax G2 is a great system with fantastic lenses which can be picked up at a good price as a kit of 3 lenses. If you are looking for the contemplative nature of manual focusing and the quiet "snick" of the shutter, then the Zeiss Ikon will be more suitable for you.

 

[sepiareverb]

I currently shoot with G2 bodies (& the G16/21/28) and did shoot a ZI for a while.

G2 Positives:
• The lenses are exceptionally good, especially the wides and the 90. Among the best 90 and 21mm lenses ever computed for film.
• Handling is fantastic. Layout of controls is really very well done IMO. Exposure compensation is simple, auto bracketing even.
• About all the functionality of a Nikon F4 (sans the SLR dependent stuff) in a fine compact package.

G2 Negatives:
• Noisy AF with all but the 16mm.
• Kinda loud shutter, but not terribly so.
• The VF really does bring it down. 90% at best with the 28~90 lenses.

ZI Positives:
• The mount opens up tons of lens choices.
• VF is wonderfully bright and snappy. It is a Zeiss VF afterall.
• Controls are well placed.

ZI Negatives:
• Readout in the VF can be hard to see at times (not everyone agrees here, but I found it difficult from time to time- enough to be annoying)
• Noisy shutter and wind-on compared to an M, sorta "clacky" shutter.

I've never had trouble with the G2 and focus beyond the occasional hunt and peck- no more often than I have trouble manually focussing an M on a patterened subject. I don;t hesitate to recommend the G2 for those using the wide lenses- but for use with the built-in VF I really just don;t like it.

The ZI brings a much larger palette of lens choice, which can be both a blessing and a curse - and the VF really is vastly better for everything in the 28-90 range. And if you really love any particular G lens there are several options for getting it adapted to M mount these days too...

I've put a lot of film through 4 different G2 bodies over the years, two I got new and 2 (the current 2) I've gotten used. I had one in need of a repair (a light leak in the shutter) while it was under warranty and TOCAD made short work of it. It shot beautifully from then on. TOCAD still does repair these.

 

[kdemas]

At the risk of being cast out as a leper I'll point out one other cool thing about the G2. You can get the only zoom lens ever made (tri-elmar doesn't count) for a "rangefinder style" (that should keep some of the boo-birds away) camera. The 35-70 is slow but outrageously good if speed isn't an issue.

I have both Ms and G2s, love them both for different reasons. Both offer superb glass and are fine tools, your style and comfort with auto-focus is really the critical component.

Whatever you choose, enjoy!

Kent

PS- Tocad will basically repair anything and everything on the camera for $175. Film Transport and shutter gone, $175. Glass neds cleaning, $175 🙂

 

[torn]

both of them if you can afford, i doubt they will go down in value over the next decade/foreseeable future..

 

[gavinlg]

If you want a more 'point and shoot' experience and the cheaper/better value lenses, get the G2. They're really lovely. Biggest con of the system is that the 35mm f2 is the black sheep of the lens family, it's not particularly sharp wide open, or in the corners until stopped way down, unlike all the other lenses which are sharp everywhere all the time.

If you want a more manual and involved process, get the ZI.

I use a G1 with 28/35/45, and I'd probably get the ikon if I could afford it.

 

[Sam N]

3 things:
1) Do NOT listen to Ken Rockwell.
2) It's ZI, not Z1.
3) The ZI is an excellent camera. I have one and I love it. I've only used the G2 once, but I was not crazy about not knowing exactly where I was focusing.

 

[gavinlg]

... and all I can say is that I rarely used the G's due to the "It's hard to tell whether you're focused on what you think you are, as there is no confirmation" as mentioned by Shutterspark.

... but I was not crazy about not knowing exactly where I was focusing.

So basically the camera is center point autofocus with 1 point. So where you place that point, and half press the af button or shutter, is where it will focus. Also down the bottom of the viewfinder is a focussing scale that indicates at what distance the camera has locked focus.

The AF on these things is actually really fast and really accurate. I can't remember the last time I got a mis-focussed photo with my G1, and that includes a lot of wide open/near pitch black conditions. The G2 is more accurate and faster again! Just have to trust it!

 

[dct]

+1 for the grain of salt on the well informative Ken Rockwell site. It is a starting point, but you find more impartial information on the ZI and G2 in this forum and other sources.
Did you mention why you narrowed down the RF camera choice to only the Zeiss ZI and Contax G2? If this wasn't intentionally and you accept both new and used metered cameras: What's about the Leica M6 models (used)? Or M7 with AE (also available new)? Did you have a look at the (new and used) Voigtlander Bessa models R2,R3,R4 M or A? Or Konica Hexar RF (used)?
Just opening your mind to more options than only the ZI and G2...

 

[jazzwave]

If you don't have problem with manual focus, ZI is the better way (good looking and built, many M lens available).

Contax G is nice and easy to use RF , just like point & shot, I'm happy with G+Planar 45/2. but sometimes AF problem occur in lowlight condition.

My wishlist : 1 Leca MP +1 small AF camera like Contax T3 and bunch of Kodak films in small bags..🙂


Happy shopping...

 

[Nelson Tan]

My wishlist : 1 Leca MP +1 small AF camera like Contax T3 and bunch of Kodak films in small bags..🙂

Sounds like a plan! I should do that someday!