Contax G1 Experiences?

[mod2001]

What was your favorite gear to use during your "Two Rivers" photo shoots?

Most of the work was shot with a Canon digital camera with small, fixed lenses. Near the end, I also used a 4x5 field camera and a Mamiya RZ.


Weird, which version should I follow?

The equally excellent Next Door was definitely shot on digital with flash.

Ups, then misinterpretation on my side, sorry. Saw a photo of here with 2 G2's around her neck in combination with an article about Two Rivers.

Juergen

 

[narsuitus]

I have used the Contax G1 and the Leica M6. Love them both. They work well together or separately.

The Leica M6 is better for manual focus and the Contax G1 is better for auto focus.

Since I have never used the G2, I cannot comment on it.


35mm Rangefinders by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[splitimageview]

Great cameras, with relatively poor viewfinder relief (i.e., a very narrow exit pupil) make sure your eye is *exactly* in the center of the viewfinder, not off-center to the slightest degree.

Learn what the cameras want and you'll not have focus problems.

I prefer the G1 as it's smaller/lighter.

For G2 users, try this:

http://www.botzilla.com/gearhead/2005/02/28/Fastest-Thumb-in-the-West.html

Fantastic lenses!

 

[Bolo Kukus]

My G1s (I own four) are the best rangefinder cameras I've owned, and I've had Leicas (M2, M3,iiif and iiig) . Superb beasts, the Gs, but quirky...

Others have summed up the comments I intended to write, in other threads, and better than I could have.

I bought into the G1 in the late '90s, and over the years I've added four others (I had five, but a family member begged and begged me to part with one and I did, in 2005 - she still uses it, so I'm relieved to say it was a good one!) with the lenses 21-90.

The G system has few accessories, so while the prices for those truy beaut lenses may seem high, one sort of makes it up by not spending on other fiddly bits. Lens hoods, UVs - that's about it. Apparently Contax made a few filters for B&W, but I've never found one for sale - a friend in Melbourne had one, a K2 yellow with all the distinctive Contax markings, so I know they exist.

I agree that the Gs perform best with 'static' situations, but with a bit of practice and careful reading of the manual one can easily learn to capture action scenes as well.

In this digieverything age I no longer use film as much as I did, but I take heart in a poster's comment that good-quality adaptors are now available to use the G lenses on a limited range of digitals.

My eyesight is now fading with age, and I find rangefinders are easier to view and focus with than SLRs. This may be another plus.

Yes, buy a G1 (go for a green label model which will let you use a greater range of lenses, the 21 and 35) and give it a good workout before deciding if you want to go on shooting with it or not. This is what I did, and my once-beloved Nikkormats soon became my 'second' lot of cameras.

If the G1 isn't for you, Ebay will find you a very fast sale.

 

[FujiLove]

I feel I should write a follow-up/apologetic comment to the ones below posted in November...

A few days after writing the comments below I dug out my G1 and G2 negatives and realised what great cameras they were (or more accurately, what great lenses). A week or two after that a nice G1 and 45mm came along for a price I couldn't turn down.

I took the G1 to Marrakech a few weeks ago and absolutely loved using it. I was very ill with the flu for most of the trip and it was a relief to have such an easy to use system with me. It allowed me to concentrate on the compositions without worrying about exposure, focus or even winding on. I've just finished processing the negatives and every single frame is in focus. Static subjects, moving subjects, crazy guys driving mopeds at break-neck speed through the Medina...all in focus.

So it looks like the bodies I had before (and/or the lenses?) were not working properly. Apologies for bad-mouthing the little Contax 🙂

I used to own a Contax G system: G1 and G2 bodies, plus 45mm and 28mm lenses. The cameras were an absolute joy to use: light but solid, beautifully made, quiet for AF cameras, full-featured, compact and very ergonomic. The lenses produced superb photos, especially on colour film.

But...

I ended up with lots of photos from the G1 with missed focus. I was quite surprised and disappointed with this because I was well aware, having read a ton of reviews, that I needed to be careful with the focus point. I found if there was any movement at all, that the camera would only hit focus less than half the time, so it was only reliable for static subjects.

Anyway, I read that the G2 was 'better'/easier to focus, so I picked one of those up in the hope that would improve things. It didn't. I had exactly the same focus issues.

Next, after only a couple of months of owning it, the G1 stopped focusing the lenses altogether. It just made a grinding noise and had to be switch on and off a few times to take a shot. After a day or two of this it wouldn't focus at all.

It went on eBay for parts.

A few days later I switched on the G2 and some of the lights inside the viewfinder didn't come up. I cycled the power switch a few times and everything was fine, but that was the last straw with the system for me. The G2 and lenses went on eBay and that was that. I spent the money on an xpan. Another electronic brick that will die one day, gives the same incredible image quality, but one which I can focus accurately every time, and offers a unique experience that no ordinary 35mm camera can match.

Maybe I just had bad luck with my Contax G? To be honest, if I was rich and had cash to waste, I'd buy another full set (G1 body, which I preferred) and take the risk. It was a cracker of a system that lives up to it's hype in terms of image quality.

Before I bought into the G system I must have read just about every review and comment about them online. I also read the manual several times. Despite that, both my Contax G cameras missed focus many times in the handful of months I owned them. I hoped the dedicated focus button on the back of the G2 would remedy that, but it made no difference.

I currently own several autofocus Minolta SLRs, a Minolta XD7, an xpan, a Fed 4, Rolleicord, Mamiya 6, Olympus XA3, Hasselblad CX, Pentax 67, and there's several Holgas and crazy lomo cameras tucked away somewhere. In the past I've owned Rolleiflexes, a Mamiya 7ii, several DSLRs, film Leicas, and too many autofocus compacts to name. Some of them I only used after studying the manual for hours. Some of them I took straight out and just snapped away like crazy. None of them ever produced out of focus shots unless I made a massive user-error such as forgetting my XA3 is a scale focus, not auto-focus camera!

Maybe both my G bodies were already broken when I bought them. Maybe Contax G cameras require special skills to operate. Maybe I'm a dimwit who can't operate a camera or read a manual. Or maybe the autofocus system on the G is primitive and easily confused.

Whatever the truth, I have a whole bunch of negatives which tell me, that in my hands, Contax G cameras are best suited to static subjects.

I agree that the OP should just buy the camera and see what they think. Definitely the best advice, no matter what camera you're thinking of buying...unless it's a new and expensive digital camera.

Regarding the comments about these cameras being all over the map: I think that's probably because the Contax G is tricky to use, it's electronics are starting to decay and as a whole, they're therefore becoming less than reliable. Those two facts will make some people love them, some people hate them, some people able to take reliable photos and others left with loads of duds.

It's better to be aware of those facts before, rather than after buying.

 

[Darthfeeble]

I've had both, though I had more experience with the G2 I liked the 'feel' of the G1 better. They are a little quirky, I didn't have either of them long enough to master them. The only thing I could consider "inferior" about the G1 would be the case of the white label version's inability to go the super wides. The green label G1 would be my preference if I were to get one today.

 

[ThreeToedSlothLuke]

Many years ago I was looking for a new camera. One dealer tried to have me buy a G1 but, alas, it was way out of my price range. I ended by buying a Nikon 8008s with 70-210 AF zoom, the better to take photos at dog shows. And when some of those dogs move around the ring they move pretty fast!

All in all, the 8008s acquitted itself admirably. It would sometimes 'miss' but the manual did say it needed some contrast to accurately focus.
The camera is still working but nonetheless I bought a used F100 two or three years ago. Its AF is faster, seems quieter and less prone to missing. But it does from time to time. Again, I think it's more me than the camera's AF system.

I still think about getting a G1+45mm. I feel the G2 is still rather pricey but the form factor and Zeiss glass of these cameras is first rate (in my opinion).

If I were in the OPs shoes I'd just go for it. Figure out how the camera likes to work with AF and have a blast.

 

[splitimageview]

I've had several of the green label in the past, now I have a silver and just the 45. I got the body for free, so wasn't going to quibble about silver label. 🙂 I don't anticipate getting the 21 or 35 anyway; at most, maybe pick up the 28.

I've had the 35 in the past, it's very underrated.

 

[Steve M.]

They are marvels of engineering and design, but quirky to use, and I never held onto my G systems very long. The lenses are tack sharp, but I prefer the way Nikon, Canon and Leica lenses draw. Seems I almost never printed my G pics.

The viewfinders are small, squinty and dark too. I can't find the VF coverage info anywhere, but do remember that a few times there were surprises at the edges of the film. The 90 Sonnar is great for portraits, but again, I preferred a 90 Elmarit or Summicron for that.

Keep in mind that these cameras are in a sense disposable. I had one w/ shutter problems, and it was a lot cheaper to sell it as a parts camera and buy a replacement than it was to get the shutter repaired/replaced. That was probably 15 years ago, and I'm not sure anyone services them anymore.

Like ThreeToedSlothLuke, I'm a fan of the Nikon n8008s cameras too. The metering is fantastic, especially the spot. Viewfinder is as bright and big as any camera I've ever seen. Mine is always used w/ manual focus lenses. In the past it was Leica R lenses w/ an inexpensive adapter, and now I have a Makinon 135 2.8 that takes great portraits. Think I paid $25 for the camera.

 

[splitimageview]

http://nipponphotoclinic.com services them, but they are cheap enough, just buy an extra G1 body or two. The lenses really don't fail unless they are abused.

Those of us that are Zeiss fans will love the rendering, of course. 🙂 I can live with the viewfinder given all the other positives, they have parallax correction and focus much closer than any other rangefinder.

 

[karateisland]

The viewfinders are small, squinty and dark too. I can't find the VF coverage info anywhere, but do remember that more than a few times I had surprises at the edges of the film. The 90 Sonnar is great for portraits, but again, I preferred a 90 Elmarit or Summicron for that.

Keep in mind that these cameras are in a sense disposable. I had one w/ shutter problems, and it was a lot cheaper to sell it as a parts camera and buy a replacement than it was to get the shutter repaired/replaced. That was probably 15 years ago, and I'm not sure anyone services them anymore.

Nippon Photo Clinic still services them--I sent my G2 in last summer and they fixed a weird shutter problem and gave it a full once-over, repairing all parts that needed it for about $400. Some might find that too expensive, but knowing that my camera is going to keep working for a while longer means its feels reasonable to me.


And FWIW, depending on what kind of viewfinders you're used to, the VF might not bother you at all. I switched from a Minolta CLE to a G2, which many would consider a downgrade, but it made literally no difference to me in my day-to-day shooting. The composition is easy enough (as long as you're not thinking about the viewfinder instead of the shot), and the magnification hasn't made it difficult at all to get the facial expressions I want.


I know it's not easy to try these things out, and I desperately wished I had had a friend with one for me to try before I took the plunge, but I don't regret the purchase one bit.

 

[jawarden]

So, every review online talks up the G1 as being near perfect, but I think you fine folks here at the RangefinderForums are very honest, so I'd like your takes. I'm seriously thinking about getting one, as the form factor of the body, the looks and the GLASS have me lusting. I'm mainly a documentary-style, spur-of-the-moment kind of shooter.

What do you like about it? What do you dislike? Do the pros outweigh the cons in your opinion? Is focusing a hassle?

Thanks for any input!

What did you decide to do? Lots of typing here suggests you should get a G1 and a lens and just see if it's for you, and I agree. I used a G2 and G1 for ten years and they're both splendid cameras. Good luck!

 

[splitimageview]

I hesitate to say this as I might be flamed 🙂 but as long as you can see where you want to focus, (i.e., the focus brackets) and can see the LCD readout in the VF to confirm the distance, and can frame, the viewfinder is usable.

Sure, it could be brighter and have a wider exit pupil, no doubt.

But unlike a manual focus RF camera where critical focus requires a contrasty RF patch and subject detail, these cameras can nail focus quite well, just pay attention to the readout and practice quickly centering your eye within the exit pupil when you bring the camera up to your eye. I find them to be far more accurate with focus than I can ever do manually.

Even the G1 can focus accurately practically in the dark, the G2 can do this even better. No way I can do this with any other manual focus RF.