Contax G system

I don't know what the problem is with the viewfinder -- the fact it zooms is very nice, and I don't see the "tunnel vision" issue as significant, really. But opinions vary.

The one thing the G1 cannot do (assuming it's one of the green label cameras) is take the 35-70 zoom -- but that lens is awfully slow and I wouldn't find too much use for it anyway.
 
The viewfinder 'tunnel' can be an issue if you wear glasses.
However it is worth remembering that, unlike other rangefinders, you do not use the viewfinder for focusing, just composing so it doesn't have to be as big.

If I'm being totally honest, my biggest issue was the whirring of the lens motor every time you half depressed the shutter. Not for stealth reasons - it just got on my nerves.




ETA: I think the OP has long since given up on this discussion! ;)
 
Gianluke said:
Hello every body..
I'm coming to buy G2 with 28-45-90 Contax TLA 200 flash for light travel shooting .....]

I have recently built that same kit plus a 35, which I don't really need but they are so cheap because they don't seem to have as good a reputation as some of the other lenses. I find it a joy to use. The Af makes it feel quicker than my Bessa3a - it probably isn't but it does feel like it is.

The Zeiss glass is phenomenal. At those prices .... well...
Click to expand...
 
I bought into the G2 system BECAUSE of its viewfinder: I could easily see to its edges WITH glasses, something that I could NOT with any Leica model and since I could not find any ZI anywhere in European stores to test it out.

Now there. I am far sighted (eyes).
 
The VF does have problems, even though it could have been a 100% coverage VF it isn't. You get 90% +/- as memory serves me. I long wanted to hack the mount for the 45mm lens to turn it into a 100% VF, but the 28 would still have only been cropped. The lens engages a pin in the mount which zooms the VF- seems it could have been simple enough to have made it 100%. :bang:

A shame really, because the 45 & 90 are truly excellent lenses, up there with the Leica glass, and so a real bargain for what they can do. It is the VF that made using them less than pleasant for me. Buzzing aside, the AF was always quite good, it was on or it couldn't focus in my experience, so you knew when it wasn't happy.

With the 90- crisp right to the edge even in a 16x20" print.
43privacyfence.jpg
 
Last edited:
KoNickon said:
The one thing the G1 cannot do (assuming it's one of the green label cameras) is take the 35-70 zoom -- but that lens is awfully slow and I wouldn't find too much use for it anyway.
Click to expand...


35-70mm is slow, that's ture. However, it is a darn sharp lens! On MTF chart, its 35mm end even outguns 35mm f2.0 lens (although for real shots you can't tell). My point is, when you go travel and shoot a lot of outdoors shots, you won't go wrong with this lens. I tried a few slide test shots with this lens vs. 35mm f2.0 & 45mm f2.0, at the same focal lengths and same apertures, respectively. I can testify that you won't be able to see any differences between this zoom and other G series primes.

In the past, I carried G2 + 28-35-45-90 four lenses. Now, I only carry G2 + 21 & 35-70 two lenses. This saves a lot of time & hassle on changing lenses! :)
 
sepiareverb said:
...the AF was always quite good, it was on or it couldn't focus in my experience, so you knew when it wasn't happy.
Click to expand...

That was my experience also. I never had focusing problems.

I always wanted one of the wide G lenses with an external viewfinder. Still do in fact. It's a killer combo.
 
I want to get the 21 and then I'll be truly set. These don't seem to have come down in price at all, though -- there's one for sale here at RFF currently for $550. Considering I got the G1 with the 28, 45, 90, 140 flash and case for $900, that's a large price comparatively.
 
Hi folks,

I have been enjoying this informative thread and at this page: http://contaxg.com/document.php?id=2

it is said that
"The G2 finder also has +/-2 diopter correction built-in to the eyepiece surround."

Could anyone comfirm this ?

Cheers,
Ruben
 
I agree totally, I have been at this game since 1964 and the only better photos I have shot were from a view large format using ASA 25 color positve sheet film. Not even my 120 Hassies or Mamiyas had the G2 images beat.

The G's are ridiculously under rated and thusly under valued!!!!!!
 
I have switched to a complete G2 system about 2 years ago. Gave up long teles and macro, so what ...

Last night I was looking for pics of a certain subject area and I decided to look through 6 albums of 100 8 x 12 inch enlargements each taken during the last ten years. The majority was shot using a F100 and Nikkor lenses. Seeing my "old Nikon pics" again felt very uneasy: Some were as good a shot/composition as ever, some had won prizes and I was still proud of their capture. BUT, even the prized ones were not up to my current results and and I was floored and disappointed. Then I came to my recent G2 enlargements and they made me happy again: the dynamic range, color clarity, detail clarity, sharpness, just aliveness was what I have become to expect now. And my Nikon pics in comparison reminded me a bit of the step up from of my brownie boxes of 50 years ago. Just not good enough. It was a true discovery of one right decision I had made.

Yes, many former G users have or could never master(ed) the system and have sold out. But for best rendition photographically, it is worth all the learning pains with a G2. Otherwise, I could have stayed not-knowing, Nikkor shooting and been happy. Or maybe not.
 
Last edited:
I love G2, 45, 21, 90...
I hate the noise of the focus system, the autofocus system, and the rangefinder that doesn't allow to see a bit more than the image...

Why didn't they make the body simpler....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom