sevo
Fokutorendaburando
The finder image on the G1 is smallish, which gives it a reasonably high eye point. The G2 has a bigger magnification, which makes it a bit worse in terms of eye point, but its wider aperture mostly makes up for that. The finder can be set from -2 to +0.5 dioptres, and the eye point is generously high on the former setting, so anybody myopic should be fine. Only the G2 can add extra compensation lenses, and as the eye point shrinks towards positive dioptres, the G1 finder won't be fully visible if you are hyperopic to the point of having to combine the +0.5 with glasses.
In a nutshell, both should be fine if you are myopic - if you are astigmatic or strongly farsighted, get a G2 and have a custom eyepiece fit.
As to noise: AF and transport are not not louder than the average all manual SLR - possibly a nuisance to yourself in silent environments, but hardly noticeable to another party at normal distance. Personally I find the parallax mask motor more annoying as that will start to whirr around at surprising moments.
chilohm
Jack Sloan
I shoot an M6 and a G2 and use them at different times.
The G2 is brilliant for portraiture, for street shots and for general use. It is built like a tank, the lenses are REALLY fantastic, and it is less valuable than my Leica. I really like how fast it is to use. The focusing is, for me, faultless even with the 90mm lens mounted. It meters properly and is idiot proof in terms of loading, using in all but the most unusual of conditions, and takes pin-sharp photos. Where it fails for me is in very dark conditions, or where I need more control. Although you can "manually" focus it, you still have to trust the display (there's no rangefinder alignment in the VF).
The M6 is lovely to use. It is also extremely well made, has a wider range of lenses available, and is less battery dependent. I use the Leica when I need to be more discreet, to be more creative with focus/exposure or when I can take more time with my composition. I like the fact that it makes me think and slow down, and I feel in control. I often zone focus which works fine, but it is hard to focus with longer lenses (75mm+).
I couldn't call which is better for you. I agree that you will need to try them all. I do know that I reach for the Contax more often in situations where I need to get a shot quickly, but that may be more of a reflection of my ability than the capabilities of the camera. I don't think you would be able to notice a difference in terms of IQ, but I have masses of pics from both in my Flickr photostream if you want to see.
Cheers,
Jack.
The G2 is brilliant for portraiture, for street shots and for general use. It is built like a tank, the lenses are REALLY fantastic, and it is less valuable than my Leica. I really like how fast it is to use. The focusing is, for me, faultless even with the 90mm lens mounted. It meters properly and is idiot proof in terms of loading, using in all but the most unusual of conditions, and takes pin-sharp photos. Where it fails for me is in very dark conditions, or where I need more control. Although you can "manually" focus it, you still have to trust the display (there's no rangefinder alignment in the VF).
The M6 is lovely to use. It is also extremely well made, has a wider range of lenses available, and is less battery dependent. I use the Leica when I need to be more discreet, to be more creative with focus/exposure or when I can take more time with my composition. I like the fact that it makes me think and slow down, and I feel in control. I often zone focus which works fine, but it is hard to focus with longer lenses (75mm+).
I couldn't call which is better for you. I agree that you will need to try them all. I do know that I reach for the Contax more often in situations where I need to get a shot quickly, but that may be more of a reflection of my ability than the capabilities of the camera. I don't think you would be able to notice a difference in terms of IQ, but I have masses of pics from both in my Flickr photostream if you want to see.
Cheers,
Jack.