Contax G1...why so cheap?

I'm the differing view once again. I think the bargain price of the G1 bodies is two factors:

1) Everyone became convinced the G2 must be better because it costs more. Additionally, people thought the "idiosyncrasies" of the G system must be more pronounced in the G1 than in the G2. After all since these "idiosyncrasies" are "bad" and the G2 must be better than the G1, it all makes sense, right? (actually wrong)

2) as film photography and RF cameras became more of a niche market, the G1 appeal to those who just wanted to make good photos went away as they shifted to digital. Most film / RF users now tend to be very brand / feature specific.

I'm just seem to be the odd guy who has had a G1 and a G2 for about 6-7 years, prefers the G1 to the G2, and finds they focus spot on perfect 99% of the time.

Now I did come back to photography about 6-7 years ago with a wide open mind and no preconceived notions. I found the Contax G system works well. But that was just from personal observation. I probably would have had a different reaction if I'd been shooting a Leica RF for the 20 years I was using a simple AE/AF point and shoot.

I must say that I have never been able to reconcile the number of people who had problems with the Contax G auto focus with my good experience. Years ago, someone told me that keeping the viewfinder window clear and free from smudges did wonders for the autofocus. That tip did wonders for me. I wonder if it would have helped everybody else who had focus problems?
 
You say you want the benefit of RF focusing? Keep in mind, the Contax doesn't have an RF patch at all. You won't be able to visually see what the camera is focused on in the viewfinder, there's just a little arrow that points to a distance on a scale. Personally, I find this the most irritating thing about the G1. I've been drooling over the Ikon for months, but I just can't bring myself to spend that much money for a body and new lenses when I got the whole G1/28/45/90/TLA200 for about $800, and I don't expect M-mount lenses to be noticeably better.
 
I'm a G1 owner and it's a great camera.

Weighing in on autofocus versus manual - I would say I "miss" more shots from manual focus on the M system, me not being fast enough, versus the AF on the G1 not working well. It just seems more frustrating when it's the camera at fault rather than human speed. So I don't think it's fair to hold this issue as the main reason to not get this system.

Regarding the price issue - what always seems crazy to me is how expensive Yashica T4s and Contax Tvs and other high quality p/s cameras are. Not to knock those cameras, which are best of their breed, but the basic Contax G1 with 45mm is a far better camera for your money.

I haven't used the G2, but from the times I've looked through the finder, it's not that much better looking than the G1, but better autofocus is going to be important to some people. Reading this thread makes me think about getting another G1 body just so if my current one craps out and needs repair, I'll have a back up.
 
...this is the original poster--many thanks to all who have replied...I take my photography seriously, so this is all very important. I am surprised at what JT said about the arrow focus (no patch), which I somehow missed in all my Google reading. Jeez, that might take some getting used to--I can envision my eye moving away from the subject to check the arrow, and losing something in that moment--and me with glasses, yet! I am not a typical street shooter looking for people situations where stealth is important, but rather I'm into spotting quirky features, interesting patterns, visual contradictions, etc, with manual focus, aperture priority for DOF control, a 35mm lens (my Rollei has a 35 lens, and I like it), and the optional yellow or orange filter (I use only B&W film)--but I do need a good in-camera meter and the RF focus (vs zone). The Zeiss lenses are splendid, of course (I'm a little spoiled by the Rollei Sonnar). The reason I prefer a small camera is for ease of carry, and the no-intimidation feature for the rare occasions when people are part of the composition. Given the above, any other comments are welcome...thanks again to all...great gang...
 
Roger Hicks said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good image quality with a such bad (auto focus)camera hmmmmmm.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Yes -- WHEN I got an image (which was nothing like as often as I do with a manual focus camera).

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


Roger I am at a complete loss why you had problems with the AF system.

I own your book "Perfect Exposure". Judging from the images you choose for this book, I can not see why the AF system of a Contax G would not work for the majority of them. You are sure that the camera wasn't malfunctioning?

As I wrote earlier, I have next to no rejects due to out-of-focus problems on the simpler G1.
 
joachim said:
Roger I am at a complete loss why you had problems with the AF system.

I own your book "Perfect Exposure". Judging from the images you choose for this book . . .
Click to expand...
Dear Joachim,

Well, yes; that was it. For publication, I choose sharp pictures. The fact that there were no G2 pics in that book may suggest to you that I prefer cameras with manual focus that DO reliably give me sharp focus. At least I cannot see any from going through it quickly -- I had forgotten the exact details.

Overall, remarkably few of my published pictures came from the G2. This is mostly because the more I grew accustomed to it, the more I carried other cameras, so most of the pictures published came from the original test or the year I took it to photokina.

Ask yourself this: why would I lie about the lousy autofocus? Especially given that so many others report exactly the same problem?

Cheers,

Roger
 
Last edited:
vfrazz, as you can see people either like or don't like this camera. A couple of us say "nyet" more say "da". At this stage I'd say buy one, use it, then you'll know. You may find out that the people in favour are totally correct and people saying no are blowing smoke. One last thing.. G1 focus is thru an IR beam and in low light it shouldn't technically be a problem however my experience was poor in such situations. If you only purchase the 45/camera combo it's still a lot compared to some fixed lens RF's out there. Like you mention there are other fixed lens RF's which perform admirably for less.

My camera bag was packed today, it didn't include the G1.
Good luck what ever you decide. I've exhausted my comments.
 
The problem with the G1 AF isn't that it's terrible, it's that it's unpredictable. You don't lose too many shots, but you don't know which ones they're going to be. And so as you're shooting you're slightly worried all the time. That's my experience.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Ask yourself this: why would I lie about the lousy autofocus? Especially given that so many others report exactly the same problem?
Click to expand...


Hi Roger,

Thanks for the reply. I didn't suggest you lied. I said I am at at loss why it doesn't work for you, when it does for me and suggested your cameras might not have been up to scratch.

The pictures you choose are not the once I identified as problematic. And as you claim you are not to only one who had problems, I can do the same. Even in this thread there are more users than me who claim not to have problems.

Actually I have seen bodies (I returned three G1 (1 used 2 new) for this reason until I had my present sample) that focussed differently on lines which cut the RF patch like

[ / ] or [ \ ]

My present body doesn't do this (you can read it to the nearest cm on the body). I always take it as the Contax equivalent of the vertical rangefinder alignment problem. If your camera suffers from this, the AF becomes a bit of a Roulette, I agree.
 
The G2's af is very very very accurate. The point is that it can mis focus without knowing it. Ther's no confirmation. You have to know when it gets tricky to get the focus right. So you can take precaution measures. Really the distance measuremant is more accurate then any other manual range finder!
 
joachim said:
Hi Roger,

Thanks for the reply. I didn't suggest you lied. I said I am at at loss why it doesn't work for you, when it does for me and suggested your cameras might not have been up to scratch.

The pictures you choose are not the once I identified as problematic. And as you claim you are not to only one who had problems, I can do the same. Even in this thread there are more users than me who claim not to have problems.

Actually I have seen bodies (I returned three G1 (1 used 2 new) for this reason until I had my present sample) that focussed differently on lines which cut the RF patch like

[ / ] or [ \ ]

My present body doesn't do this (you can read it to the nearest cm on the body). I always take it as the Contax equivalent of the vertical rangefinder alignment problem. If your camera suffers from this, the AF becomes a bit of a Roulette, I agree.
Click to expand...

Dear Joachim,

Sorry: my response came across as more aggressive than I intended. But I think enough people have had enough problems that it's not just chance.

As I've said elsewhere, ANY camera and lens can be used for brilliant pictures in the hands of the right photographer, for the right subjects. Unfortunately I fitted neither category, and I was not alone.

Cheers,

Roger
 
I suppose, like anything else, it's horses for courses. I've not found the AF on my G1 unpredictable at all. It works just like my Nikon AF SLR 's - make sure the object of focus in the central brackets, half press the shutter, recompose if necessary and shoot. So far no major problems. As well as the distance scale in the viewfinder, I've found keeping an eye on the movement of parallax frame helps to make sure the focus isn't way off. Like wayneb, I'd say I've missed more shots using manual focus RF's than the G1.

My only real bugbear is the viewfinder - I just find it awful wearing glasses. But the sharpness of the images I've got from the 45mm Planar make it worthwhile, to the degree that I'm considering getting contact lenses again in an attempt to improve matters 😱

Gav
 
One thing I can say I really like about the G1--its AF system got me into the habit of focusing and recomposing with AF. So now when I use my DSLR, I have all the focus points turned off except the center, and it's much, much faster and easier. I had been turning the little jog wheel, moving the focus point around the diamond (this is a Canon 40D) like a moron, when all I had to do was move the camera.

If I'd thought about this for one second I would have realized. But I didn't until I started using the G1.
 
joachim said:
Actually I have seen bodies (I returned three G1 (1 used 2 new) for this reason until I had my present sample) ....... I always take it as the Contax equivalent of the vertical rangefinder alignment problem. If your camera suffers from this, the AF becomes a bit of a Roulette, I agree.
Click to expand...

I am curious now.. I read Jaap's comment about this camera being more accurate than a traditional RF patch.. not sure how he arrived at this but let it ride. My question is after three camera bodies you now are on the fourth. So the chances of getting a good one are hit and miss. I say this because I've two bodies... and the focus issue is present on both so now we have one in six that are working... that would be enough to scare me away and probably lots of others. I think this is why that camera has such a low price. Consistency is important to me. I've lost G1 shots and there's no going back to get them.

The 'working' body you now have... have you ever had any repeat 'focus issues' or is this one 'bullet proof'?
 
I am a G 1 & G 2 owner, since they first came out--I bought one because I couldn't swing an M at the time.

Very FEW frames from either G1 or 2 are OOF--EVEN the ‘notoriously’ problematic G1 & 90mm combo. It has a funky AF system, but it has been reliable for me. I think a lot of people misuse the AF, as it is rather unconventional in its execution.

Yes, if it breaks there is dwindling support for it, and it won't hold any resale value, but from what I can tell, the G1 has one of the highest 'bang for your buck' values in image quality at the moment...Where else can you get a CZ T* & a compact titanium body to attach it to for under $400?
Just my 2 bits///
 
jan normandale said:
I am curious now.. I read Jaap's comment about this camera being more accurate than a traditional RF patch.. not sure how he arrived at this but let it ride. My question is after three camera bodies you now are on the fourth. So the chances of getting a good one are hit and miss. I say this because I've two bodies... and the focus issue is present on both so now we have one in six that are working... that would be enough to scare me away and probably lots of others. I think this is why that camera has such a low price. Consistency is important to me. I've lost G1 shots and there's no going back to get them.

The 'working' body you now have... have you ever had any repeat 'focus issues' or is this one 'bullet proof'?
Click to expand...

When I put it on a tripod, and let it repeatedly focus, it comes back with a fluctuation of at most +/-1 unit at the last digit (e.g 1.67 or 1.66) on the distance read out.

Did you try to focus on lines cutting the rangefinder at 45 degress? Does it give same distance at +45 degrees as it does at -45 deg?

Joachim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom