Contax G1...why so cheap?

V

vfrazz

vincent
Local time
4:51 PM
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
54
If it is too good to be true, it probably isn't...as we are often told. So why are the G1 and its various Zeiss lenses selling so low (on its own or compared even to the Hexar RF, and certainly an M4)--am I missing something? I'm looking to replace my Rollei 35s as my constant walk-around and street camera. I probably won't be doing much AF, and I want a better meter (than the Rollei), plus the benefit of RF focus (vs zone for the Rollei). The G1 with a 35mm lens looks like it has all the right stuff (the G2 is larger, so...). So what's "wrong" with these cameras that are so cheap?

ps: if I do spring for the G1, where can I get the body upgraded for the 35mm lens?
 
one of the reasons why its so cheap could be the fact that these cameras aren't really collectibles.. compared to the various leica bodies. the differences between leica based bodies and the contax g system are widely documented around the internet and reading up on it would give you a clearer picture.. there are numerous things that certain rf users dont like about the contax such as noise.. poor manual focusing.. lousy viewfinder etc etc.. for your needs if you prefer manual focusing i would suggest any of the bessa bodies as budget options or the hexar/leica bodies if you have a bigger budget.. the bessa cameras are cost effective and take most screwmount or M bayonet lenses depending on which model you buy. the contax doesnt feel as connected while you are focusing manually and its main convenience i feel is the autofocus..at least thats why i bought it.. the lenses though are as good as any of leica's.
 
This is true. Fine camera. BUT: autofocus is slower than on the G2, and I think this is really the issue. If you look at all film cameras, even super cameras like the Nikon F5, they are selling for a fraction of what they sold for new. IMHO, this is because of the move of pros to digital. The G1 is not particularly collectible, has a faster, more capable older sibling (G2) and is part of an orphaned system that was aimed at amateurs in the first place. Don't get me wrong: I owned one and thought it was a great camera. In particular, the G-series glass is just great. If you are infatuated with one, by all means buy it. There are few lenses, if any, with higher image quality than the 45/2 Planar. I think the modification for the 35/2 lens has to be done at the factory.

Ben Marks
 
I can think about several reasons:
1. G system: orphaned. No digital support.
2. Electronic design, not mechanical.
(The above reasons applied to both G1 & G2)
3. Contax had stopped to supply G1 parts since 12/2007. It will at least continue to supply G2 parts until 2011.
4. Green & silver labels have confused people, and they heard about the compatibility issue, but do not know exactly what it is (not everyone is as genious as Rangefinderforum people :D)
5. Even green label does not support 35-70mm lens
6. G2 is also very widely available, that natually drives G1 price down.

Nevertheless, G1 is still an excellent camera. And I have been benefited by its low price to get one for myself!! :p
 
...well, thanks for the speedy replies...I did Google the heck out of the subject, and as you might expect, the pros and cons were all over the place and contradictory--which is why I wanted to see what RF Forum had to say. If this were another era, I'd go down to my local camera store and just try out that focusing and the viewfinder, but that's a whole 'nother subject. I must admit I am looking more kindly toward the G2, which is about the same size as Bessa (not thrilled with that, though). I did have an earlier Bessa which quickly developed an alignment problem, so I am reluctant to ever go there again, and the small M4 isn't even under consideration ($). The Hexar RF is just barely over the border of my budget. But...what I am gathering from the replies so far is that the cameras have some cranky problems or drawbacks, but they're still good users (sort of like my Rollei).
 
I've got one. The glass is stellar. The AF will cause you no end of lost shots or shots OoF. If you want to take shots of plants in controlled light.. the glass shines. Otherwise if it's got to be an RF, go for a Bessa R3a (used or new) and some good CV glass or cheap but tasty FSU glass .
 
I still like the G-system for more than 10 years now. For me the only drawback is the noise of the af.
 
At the risk of inviting flames...

Possibly it's cheap because it's not a very good camera?

Nice lenses, yes, but I wasn't all that impressed by the G2, which is generally reckoned to be a far better camera than the G1.

Cheers,

R.
 
I've owned a G2 and now own a recently acquired G1 after having sold the G2 and finding myself missing the quality of the 45/2 lens. Although it's certainly true that these cameras are quirky and aren't perfect, to suggest that either is "not a very good camera" is really unfair, don't you think, Roger? The glass isn't just good, it's spectacular. The camera itself is easy to operate, if you don't mind being careful about where you point the center focusing grid. If you anticipate moving subjects, then switching to manual focus is a pain but still no big deal. At current prices, the G1 is a great buy.
 
sooner said:
I've owned a G2 and now own a recently acquired G1 after having sold the G2 and finding myself missing the quality of the 45/2 lens. Although it's certainly true that these cameras are quirky and aren't perfect, to suggest that either is "not a very good camera" is really unfair, don't you think, Roger? The glass isn't just good, it's spectacular. The camera itself is easy to operate, if you don't mind being careful about where you point the center focusing grid. If you anticipate moving subjects, then switching to manual focus is a pain but still no big deal. At current prices, the G1 is a great buy.
Click to expand...

Well, quite a lot of people must agree with me, or the lenses (which we all agree are very good indeed) would carry the day. If you're never in a hurry, and don't mind a manual focusing system which even you, as a fan, agree is 'a pain', sure, buy a G1. Otherwise, well, you've explained very well why the bodies are cheap.

Cheers,

Roger
 
If you want to stay small and you were thinking of only using a 35mm lens anyway, why not just buy a fixed-lens RF or a high-end point and shoot? These will be well within your budget and the nicer ones can give very good image quality. They will mostly have better meters than the Rollei. The P&S cameras won't give you RF focus, but neither would the G1.
 
Okay, here's the deal. I was using one for about 6 months. The glass as we all agree is wonderful. However perhaps it's just me but I lost a tonne of shots due to the focus apparatus. The noise is some kind of RFF bugbear that I could care less about, it's not the issue. The issue is the AF sux and sux badly. I gave up using the camera a due to that. Frankly I've found my R3a and CV Heliar 50mm every bit as sharp and tasty as the G series 45mm lenses. My hit average is not comparable.

If I have to shoot and rely on the camera to deliver I reach for the R3a/CV 50 Heliar not the G series and AF lenses.

(the manual focus... it's arcane and beyond normal peoples use and patience levels)
 
I have a G1 for years and really love it. To me it is an AF camera. The manual focus works reasonably for occasional use (e.g. hyperfocal distance, on a tripod), but if you want a manual focusing camera look else were. This is an area where the G2 is vastly improved.

In contrast to what other people write, the number of out-of-focus shoots I had from mine is small. In that respect clearly better than anything else I own. I have the 90 and use it wide open if needed and I judge sharpness on 2900dpi scan. Moving subjects with the 90 are tricky though. With the 35mm these are complete non-issues.

Considering the price, the G1 where not that expensive when they were new (£600 incl 35 lens, which is as much as a Nikon F80 with 35 lens was back then). The same goes for most of the lenses. The 28, 35, 45 and 90 when new were available at a price you expect to pay for a similar lens in the Voigtlander range. As others discussed with the system now being orphaned and the change from film to digital the prices dropped. At least here in the UK the G1 sold quite well, so there is a lot of supply on the used market now. The G2 used prices have also come down recently and, so it seems to me, did Leica M4 and M6 bodies. This puts pressure on G1 prices.

Considering the electronic, repair and part situation, I take it this will be similar to what Minolta CLE users are facing. These are pretty popular here, but now being 20+ years out of production, they become increasingly hard to fix, if things go wrong. If that is 15 years more out of my G1, that should be ok. If I am unlucky and mine gives up earlier I can always hunt down another G1 or G2. Considering the green sticker (upgrade for the 35 and 21 lens), the easiest is not to buy a silver one.

In summary I think there is nothing wrong with the G1, in particular not for it's price. Have a look what you need to pay for an auto-exposure and auto-winding M body.

Hope this helps.
 
Well, I wish these cameras and lenses get even cheaper, because right now I can't afford the 16mm and 21mm lenses in the lineup.
 
jan normandale said:
Okay, here's the deal. I was using one for about 6 months. The glass as we all agree is wonderful. However perhaps it's just me but I lost a tonne of shots due to the focus apparatus. . . .
(the manual focus... it's . . . beyond normal peoples use and patience levels)
Click to expand...

Dear Jan,

No, it ain't just you. The only thing I'd add to your post is that I had a G2 on loan for a year, not just 6 months. So maybe it was twice as bad...

If the image quality hadn't been so good, I'd have returned it a lot sooner.

Cheers,

R.
 
I've owned about a half dozen of the G1's over the years. I had no problems w/ the AF using the 45mm lens. The AE lock is a joy to use. Noise of AF is not an issue unless you are shooting in a church or something. Lenses are great. Itty bitty viewfinder. If it breaks it's toast, as good luck finding a shop to repair it, but they're pretty sturdy cameras. The 90 lens is just wonderful, but I gave up trying to use the AF w/ it. The manual focus is fine, but it takes getting used to. The whole system is peculiar to use, but I found it to be a great camera for fast candids ( w/ the 45mm lens).

If you want to get the king of the AF rangefinders, grab a Konica Hexar AF. I almost never had a shot out of focus w/ mine. Unfortunately the top shutter speed of 1/250 was a problem since I shoot 400 speed film, and I am not a wide angle shooter.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom