nonot
Well-known
I think there's really two camps on the Contax G (1&2) experience, the ones that love it and the ones that love it with a caveat which made them get rid of it.
I like when people claim that they have more out of focus shots with a G1 than they do with their Leica M - and I would probably admit that myself, but for every 10 missed opportunities TO shoot my leica, I probably had one or two with the G2.
I like when people claim that they have more out of focus shots with a G1 than they do with their Leica M - and I would probably admit that myself, but for every 10 missed opportunities TO shoot my leica, I probably had one or two with the G2.
_mark__
Well-known
I really wanted to like this camera as an alternative to the M but the viewfinder coverage killed it for me,must be around 75% I did some comparisons with the F4 and it was very telling. Plus the manual/auto focus system was not to my liking.
Moriturii
Well-known
Now if only they could make Contax G3. Bigger viewfinder á Leica, I think Zeiss Ikon and Hexar RF would be too big, Leica is smaller but works well.
Silent mode like Hexar AF, where when you still hold down the shutter it doesn't advance to next frame.
Silent mode like Hexar AF, where when you still hold down the shutter it doesn't advance to next frame.
mathomas
Well-known
I like the cameras a lot, but was shocked to discover the same issue regarding VF coverage (with the 28mm, anyway). I mean, they go to all this trouble to create a auto-zooming-masking VF, and then get the masking wrong? I can live with it, but it was very surprising how inaccurate the coverage is.
gavinlg
Veteran
I think the closest thing to this might just be the fujfilm x series camera due early next year with interchangeable lenses. Not film, but I don't think you'll see solid technical development on film cameras anymore.
Field
Well-known
My camera works great without any issues. Focus is always on, always wicked fast. G2 is a fine machine. You just have to know things like the 90mm can only have so much in focus at f2.8. One face may be in focus but the one next to it a couple inches back may not be. Nothing new, always been this way in photography.
Jim Evidon
Jim
I owned a G2 and three lenses. I loved the camera but didn't like the autofocus. It was slow and not too accurate unless you really took you time and let it do it's thing. I then began to manual focus. I got sharper images, but the focus wheel was just too slow.
So I bought a Leica M8 and never looked back. The lenses on the G2 are really incredibly good, but the auto focus wasn't. It was a nice idea that needed further development.
So I bought a Leica M8 and never looked back. The lenses on the G2 are really incredibly good, but the auto focus wasn't. It was a nice idea that needed further development.
Field
Well-known
How was everyone trying to autofocus? Mine is really fast. I just press the button on the back at whatever I want to take a picture of, then click the shutter as I need too. We are talking fractions of second. Focusing a SLR takes enormous amounts of time by comparison, and my GSN I had was not any faster. This is one of the reasons I like it... faster focusing than manually.
If you guys are trying to autofocus by pressing the shutter button first, meh... yeah it does not serve you well at all.
If you guys are trying to autofocus by pressing the shutter button first, meh... yeah it does not serve you well at all.
Photog9000
Well-known
Wish I had seen this before selling the G2 to see if it worked for me. :bang: Sadly, it is already gone. Lenses were nice but I also like my Nikkor primes for my "vintage" D2H bodies.
Photog9000
Well-known
Actually, I find my "vintage" D2H bodies (I have owned one since its first introduction in 2003) have a fantastic AF system. I won't keep up with the G2 in total darkness but it is not a short-range IR system either. I do own and shoot with a Electro35 GS that is a lot of fun but find my D2H will shoot rings around it. Now that I am no longer working fulltime as a newspaper staffer, I am looking to lighten my load from the pro DSLR bodies and maybe transition back to film....
BikoBikoBiko
Member
Perhaps I'm one of those 'younger users' but I've never had any problems focusing my G2, simply point the centre at what you want in focus and then recompose. It's not that different from what I do with a DSLR and in many ways I prefer the single focus spot on the G1 to the 19 spots on my 7D.
The thing is, I'm quite happy to use cameras with high levels of automation. For example, I don't see much difference in using an external meter before shooting with my Rollei and using the internal meter in my D7. Both methods (usually) result in a well exposed photo and that's what I'm trying to produce. I even have a Minolta 7xi with auto zoom, you simply let it do it's thing and then manually adjust to get the shot you want.
The thing is, I'm quite happy to use cameras with high levels of automation. For example, I don't see much difference in using an external meter before shooting with my Rollei and using the internal meter in my D7. Both methods (usually) result in a well exposed photo and that's what I'm trying to produce. I even have a Minolta 7xi with auto zoom, you simply let it do it's thing and then manually adjust to get the shot you want.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
I'm also one of the 'younger users' - and I sincerely miss my G2. I can't complain about the autofocus, my shots came out perfectly focused about 95-97% of the time. I always used the thumb technique which I really liked. But the viewfinder is too small for what it is. I think that's my biggest complaint. My Olympus Epic's viewfinder is at least the same size, if not bigger, and it is 1/15th of the price (and I like the photos I'm making with it more). If I could only have one camera and it had to be 35mm, I would seriously reconsider the G2...but, I spent the money I got from my G2 on a Mamiya 7, and that camera is much more suited to me. Big viewfinder...real rangefinder...semi-automatic exposure...big negatives...
the lenses aren't Zeiss but they're probably nearly as sharp per amount of film covered. They have a nice rendering.
filmfan
Well-known
Edited. Love the camera.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
I ADORE the Lenses for The G1/G2 ...Stellar Zeiss glass & Cheap !
but the ergonomics and that open & retracting sounds that came out of the Camera would make me cringe...hence I sold it
but the ergonomics and that open & retracting sounds that came out of the Camera would make me cringe...hence I sold it
froyd
Veteran
I think the ergonomics are quite good on the G1 (never held a G2). The weight is right, the edges are smooth and don't dig into my palm, the grips in the front and back make the camera a pleasure to hold, the shutter dial feels solid and offers the right amount of resistance. A VERY nice come to have in the hand.
Granted I've had the G longer than the M, but so far I prefer the way the G feels over the M4 with it's tiny, sharp levers digging in my fingers.
Of course, the G's viewfinder sucks and manual focus is not pleasant, so the M is actually more pleasant to use.
Granted I've had the G longer than the M, but so far I prefer the way the G feels over the M4 with it's tiny, sharp levers digging in my fingers.
Of course, the G's viewfinder sucks and manual focus is not pleasant, so the M is actually more pleasant to use.
Field
Well-known
The viewfinder is not perfect but it is worlds better than looking through a DSLR....
G2 is a little bigger but ergonomics are great. The way it is meant to be held it works awesome with the grips. It is not too heavy like I found my old Nikon F to be (even though I liked it a lot). It weighs less than the Leica M9, but more than an M7.
G2 is a little bigger but ergonomics are great. The way it is meant to be held it works awesome with the grips. It is not too heavy like I found my old Nikon F to be (even though I liked it a lot). It weighs less than the Leica M9, but more than an M7.
furcafe
Veteran
If modern glass is too contrasty for your B&W, then you just have to adjust your development.
I wouldn't call the Hexar AF far superior. Its more of a specialist/niche camera. The VF is not much brighter than the G2, the framelines make a Leica's look accurate in comparison, & there is a total lack of useful information (e.g., shutter speed) in the VF. It is smaller & much quieter, but @ the cost of a fixed lens & slow shutter.
I wouldn't call the Hexar AF far superior. Its more of a specialist/niche camera. The VF is not much brighter than the G2, the framelines make a Leica's look accurate in comparison, & there is a total lack of useful information (e.g., shutter speed) in the VF. It is smaller & much quieter, but @ the cost of a fixed lens & slow shutter.
Ibraar
Newbie
You guys are obviously doing something wrong, the 45 and 21 and 28 lenses work flawlessly, fast, accurately and I've NEVER had focus problems with these. The 90 is almost perfect, I have had the odd shot having problems eg. focus on nose instead of eyes etc - - thats only when shot wide open, and so rare I have forgotten the last time it happened.
The G is almost perfect, I could only wish for a Contax T2 sized VF
The G is almost perfect, I could only wish for a Contax T2 sized VF
raid
Dad Photographer
I now do much better with focusing my G1. It is an amazing camera.
jazzwave
Well-known
For me nothing wrong with G1 auto focus, is fast enough.I use G1(green sticker+Zeiss 45/2) ..my first roll film deliver accurate focus.
Yes compare to Nikon DSLR AFs lens, the G1 Af liitle bit slower.But the G1 AF is good enough for street photo.I didn't tried to shot action/sports photo with this camera.
Yes compare to Nikon DSLR AFs lens, the G1 Af liitle bit slower.But the G1 AF is good enough for street photo.I didn't tried to shot action/sports photo with this camera.