nonot
Well-known
First post here:
I finally got a G2 kit (body, 21/28/45/90/TLA140) after a lot of mulling it over and looking at other options. I've done a couple test rolls on each lens now and the focus issues really are user issues, and perhaps I can admit this because I'm not professing to be anything more than someone who likes to take photos. The 90mm is kind of finicky, but getting the hang of it isn't so hard. The other lenses have lived up to their reputations so far for me, mind you I've put about 10 rolls of film through the camera.
I don't get the noise complaint, and it's unfair to compare it to a leica in this respect, but hey if noise is a concern that's going to tip the scales for you, grab a leica instead, some people have enough money to enjoy the burden of choice.
Viewfinder - yep, smallish, not super bright, could be better but like someone else said, it could be far worse, I don't think I've shaken my fists in the air about it yet but time will tell.
I'd definitely give it a shot if you can, I was able to get my complete setup for a song off of craigslist from an investment banker who was selling it due to a spousal "one out, one in" policy.
I finally got a G2 kit (body, 21/28/45/90/TLA140) after a lot of mulling it over and looking at other options. I've done a couple test rolls on each lens now and the focus issues really are user issues, and perhaps I can admit this because I'm not professing to be anything more than someone who likes to take photos. The 90mm is kind of finicky, but getting the hang of it isn't so hard. The other lenses have lived up to their reputations so far for me, mind you I've put about 10 rolls of film through the camera.
I don't get the noise complaint, and it's unfair to compare it to a leica in this respect, but hey if noise is a concern that's going to tip the scales for you, grab a leica instead, some people have enough money to enjoy the burden of choice.
Viewfinder - yep, smallish, not super bright, could be better but like someone else said, it could be far worse, I don't think I've shaken my fists in the air about it yet but time will tell.
I'd definitely give it a shot if you can, I was able to get my complete setup for a song off of craigslist from an investment banker who was selling it due to a spousal "one out, one in" policy.
Phantomas
Well-known
Focus hunts, but I never have any misfocused shots, so ^^^ is right. Simple really, keep the focus-bracket on the subject, focus, wait for the lens to freeze (and the little squire to stop flashing), recompose, shoot. I do it that way with all my cameras anyway.
I just remembered something that never occurred to me - I shoot G1 like an RF, but looking through the finder is like looking through an SLR, with a crappy finder, really really crappy finder
It ain't RF that's for sure.
But oh well, at the end of the day it's an awesome camera with super awesome photo capabilities and even nice ergonomics/handling. I can dismiss crappy finder and focus hunt because at the end I get lots of other stuff (and some of the best in class results). Or otherwise i'll take one of the other cameras out, which I most often do anyway
I just remembered something that never occurred to me - I shoot G1 like an RF, but looking through the finder is like looking through an SLR, with a crappy finder, really really crappy finder
It ain't RF that's for sure.But oh well, at the end of the day it's an awesome camera with super awesome photo capabilities and even nice ergonomics/handling. I can dismiss crappy finder and focus hunt because at the end I get lots of other stuff (and some of the best in class results). Or otherwise i'll take one of the other cameras out, which I most often do anyway
Papa Smurf
Established
Hi, i think the focus issue is the main problem on g1.
If i try to select at full aperture a subject, many times i end focusing on anything else.
With a manual rangefinder, i can focus on the head, eyes, whatever i want, but with the g1 when i do that, i end focusing on the back wall or mountains owe
Beside focus, the camera is quick, lightwieght, small and the 28 2.8 is incredible!
Changing rolls in the middle is easy as i do it a lot.
The price is very convenient!
Bye!
Both of these posters reflect my early experiences with my G1. I purchased the supplemental user's guide which discusses the focus issues. After reading and heeding its advice, I have had very little issue with focus. I am sorry to disagree, but my G1 focuses my 90mm just fine. Again, its up to the real brain to determine if the electronic brain is thinking along the same lines. A quick check of the viewfinder LCD screen tells the story. Usually, just rotating the camera 90 degrees and partially depressing the shutter release, hold, and recompose will lock focus on the intended portion of the scene.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
VF again. An SLR-like view, but one gets less of a view than many SLR's- 85% or something if I'm remembering correctly. That said, I shoot a G2, mostly with the 21 and 16, but I'll throw the 45 or 28 on there from time to time. Lenses are exceptional, among the very best ever made.
I much prefer the ergonomics of the G2 over the G1, and have no issues with focus- 21 or 90. One of my best images was shot with the G2 & a 90:
Crisp detail right out to the edges in this one, even at 16x20".
I much prefer the ergonomics of the G2 over the G1, and have no issues with focus- 21 or 90. One of my best images was shot with the G2 & a 90:
Crisp detail right out to the edges in this one, even at 16x20".
arseniii
Well-known
1. Yes, noisy but you won't really hear it on the busy street. If in theater, or gallery - you will be noticed
2. AF is satisfactory on both G1 and G2. G2 is faster however. It depends on your shooting techniques but I usually pre-focus and it much easier with G2.
3. Lenses are superior. I like both bokeh and sharpness of them.
In addition, if you ask if I would buy G1/G2 at the moment my answer would be NO. It is a dropped series of cameras. And they are getting older and there are not much parts available as well as the technicians who will worked on it. The common problem is LCD leaks I had 2 G2a and 2G1s 2 of them developed the problem (blame beautiful, cold winters in Canada :0) Another thing you will notice compared to manual RF is the lagging, with leica I take a picture instantaneously, with Gs it's a bit slower. But overall both are very good, reliable cameras.
Good luck!
2. AF is satisfactory on both G1 and G2. G2 is faster however. It depends on your shooting techniques but I usually pre-focus and it much easier with G2.
3. Lenses are superior. I like both bokeh and sharpness of them.
In addition, if you ask if I would buy G1/G2 at the moment my answer would be NO. It is a dropped series of cameras. And they are getting older and there are not much parts available as well as the technicians who will worked on it. The common problem is LCD leaks I had 2 G2a and 2G1s 2 of them developed the problem (blame beautiful, cold winters in Canada :0) Another thing you will notice compared to manual RF is the lagging, with leica I take a picture instantaneously, with Gs it's a bit slower. But overall both are very good, reliable cameras.
Good luck!
I have been doing of research into the G1 and G2 over the past week or so, as I have an opportunity to purchase a kit (both bodies and 28,45,90). No chance to fondle first, so a bit of risk
I am after a 35mm to complement my Hasselblad. Previously I have shot Nikon 35mm but have 'lost' most of the kit due to damage and robbery so have an 'opportunity' to start again. I like the idea of something more automated, quick, compact... I was thinking of an F100 with a couple of primes (well it's kind of compact) but have always liked the idea of the G series. I might shoot the odd wedding again in the future, so would like something relatively quiet and stealth.
The only consistently negative things I her about the G series are:
Can be noisy
Somewhat slow to AF (mainly G1?)
Lenses are sharp but bokeh is a bit harsh
For the people using this stuff, how true are those comments? I don't expect Leica M quiet, or F6 autofocus speed of course... but in real use, how is it? I find my Zeiss 80mm on the Blad fantastic but wouldn't rave about it's bokeh either... I assume the 45mm would exhibit similar properties?
Sorry for the "should I buy" thread but I really need a bit of honest advice.
Thanks very much,
David
daveywaugh
Blah
Fantastic info - very much appreciated. Thanks for your honest appraisals.
These cameras are still serviced and will be for many more years by TOCAD. LCD bleed sometimes occurs but seldom completely obscures the info. I haven't noticed any shutter lag, of course, it does take time to focus, just like it takes time to manually focus.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
LCD bleed is a problem with any LCD camera, and I've never seen it bad enough to make the camera un-useable. I had a Nikon F4 with LCD bleed, but yet with that and a cracked shutter blade the camera worked 'perfectly'. I'd not be overly concerned with LCD bleed.
wayneb
Established
I purchased a "LCD bleed" G1 from Keh, it was significantly cheaper. Yes the edges of the already tiny LCD are bleeding, no it does not stop you from reading the film counter.
I've had another G with LCD for several years, does not seem to get worse. Really the only LCD I care about is the one inside the finder.
I've had another G with LCD for several years, does not seem to get worse. Really the only LCD I care about is the one inside the finder.
charlesfoto
Established
I'll jump in here, a little late. I've used the G2 for over 10 years now, and after going through many gear changes, the G2 always stayed. Quirky ... viewfinder takes some getting used to, the focus brackets need to be understood, manual focus relies solely on the camera...other than that, the superb lenses make up for these and any other shortcomings with the camera. Mine has worked perfectly, and I don't think you'd have trouble getting it serviced, from Tocad and even reliable places like keh.com. Good luck.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
Regarding the focus...
I have one photo, in particular, that demonstrates the difference between using the G2 and the ZI (which is what I replaced the G2 with). It is of a lone apple in a leafy tree. Taken with the 90 wide open. I was positive I had focus on the apple, but the camera was actually focused on a leaf in front of it, throwing the apple out of focus. This type of shot is a crap shoot with the G cameras. Perhaps with any auto focus system. With the ZI I know I've nailed the apple.
Another example...when I got my 90 I took it out for a test run. Try focusing on a swing set from a distance. Good luck. The camera hunted and had great difficulty finding focus on the chain. IIRC it never did.
I'm not suggesting that these issues make the camera useless. Far from it. It's still a great camera and a very good bargain. And for maybe 98% of what you shoot it's going to be fine. I'm just saying they exist and that they don't with a real rangefinder.
I have one photo, in particular, that demonstrates the difference between using the G2 and the ZI (which is what I replaced the G2 with). It is of a lone apple in a leafy tree. Taken with the 90 wide open. I was positive I had focus on the apple, but the camera was actually focused on a leaf in front of it, throwing the apple out of focus. This type of shot is a crap shoot with the G cameras. Perhaps with any auto focus system. With the ZI I know I've nailed the apple.
Another example...when I got my 90 I took it out for a test run. Try focusing on a swing set from a distance. Good luck. The camera hunted and had great difficulty finding focus on the chain. IIRC it never did.
I'm not suggesting that these issues make the camera useless. Far from it. It's still a great camera and a very good bargain. And for maybe 98% of what you shoot it's going to be fine. I'm just saying they exist and that they don't with a real rangefinder.
uhligfd
Well-known
re arseniii: if you learn to focus with your thumb on the button in the back, focus is instantaneous and this is no problem.
What mastering a G takes is its biggest drawback. It is so different from Leica, SLR, DSLR etc work that it will take about a dozen films or more to be comfortable and a good hundred to do it automatically and well in your mind.
Of course, once I was adapted, I could fly and the pics flew as well. But that original learning curve, reading the manual, searching advice columns here and on phnet ... takes a strong soul.
The rewards: IMMEASURABLE!
RE Paddy C,
I followed a swallow around the house with my 90 mm lens in continuous focus mode. The outcome: A razor sharp swallow over the lawn in front of a tree.
Granted, even seasoned sports photographers sometimes goof. But the G2 did better than all my Nikon gear (F100 300mm/4 etc ) in this respect. No disrespect for paddy c, but maybe a bit more practice and experience might help use CF successfully. It is often the operator who does not know how to get the last gain out of the system ... , see my learning curve comments ... above.
What mastering a G takes is its biggest drawback. It is so different from Leica, SLR, DSLR etc work that it will take about a dozen films or more to be comfortable and a good hundred to do it automatically and well in your mind.
Of course, once I was adapted, I could fly and the pics flew as well. But that original learning curve, reading the manual, searching advice columns here and on phnet ... takes a strong soul.
The rewards: IMMEASURABLE!
RE Paddy C,
I followed a swallow around the house with my 90 mm lens in continuous focus mode. The outcome: A razor sharp swallow over the lawn in front of a tree.
Granted, even seasoned sports photographers sometimes goof. But the G2 did better than all my Nikon gear (F100 300mm/4 etc ) in this respect. No disrespect for paddy c, but maybe a bit more practice and experience might help use CF successfully. It is often the operator who does not know how to get the last gain out of the system ... , see my learning curve comments ... above.
Last edited:
Papa Smurf
Established
I was also in a difficult situation when I first received my G1. I had sacrificed dearly to get it only to have the aforementioned problems with focus, a hit or miss proposition. Then I read how to determine just where inside the brackets the camera wanted the subject to be so it could focus properly. Here is what you do: find location that has a post or other substantial, but not large vertical object. It should be 3 to 10 meters from your position and there must be a clear area behind it for another 20 meters or so. Now get comfortable, as in sit on a bench. stool, chair, etc. Brace your arms and aim the camera at the post. Check the LCD inside for the distance marker. If it reads the distance to the post, you have nailed it. Now pan the camera slowly and watch when the focus shifts to the distant object. O.K you have that limit marker, now pan in the other direction until you first regain focus on the post and then on the distant object. Do this several times until you know exactly on which object the camera is focusing. Repeat this for horizontal objects and you will soon learn just where to put the brackets to acquire the correct focus even with the 90mm lens.
The same procedure can be used in determining the exact location of the spot meter's sweet spot. Choose a scene with high contrast. Meter the scene with a hand held or another camera with a known accurate light meter. Knowledge of the Zone System is required in order to properly determine what part of the scene you want to be Zone 5. Set the G1/ or G2 appropriately. Now point the Camera at the scene and note any over or under exposure indicators. Pan around the scene watching for the LCD display in the camera to indicate a change in exposure. Repeat this until you can point the camera at the scene and know in advance the exposure reading that the camera will displayed. After a little practice, you will be able to lock the exposure with confidence that the camera is reading that part of the scene that you have chosen as Zone 5.
Mechanical manufacturing tolerances and electronic component variations between like components make this necessary. Just think of it as calibrating your camera to your eye. After I did this little experiment, I have had very little difficulty in focusing on that part of the subject I have chosen as the focus point the first time without any of that focus hunting that is so annoying.
I do not mean any negativeness toward anyone that disagrees with me, only to share my solution to a common problem. :angel:
Paddy C
Unused film collector
I read up on it before I bought it. Took some test rolls and used it a lot over the course of a year. No question, however, that it could be user error. But there is a line between something that is user error and something that could just work better.
BTW...I'm not suggesting I had "problems" with the G's auto focus. Almost everything I shot was in focus. There were simply difficult shooting occasions where, IMHO, the auto focus cannot or is very difficult to rely on. And with the G you have no option to switch to manual (ok well you do but please don't even go there).
Papa Smurf
Established
You are correct, the auto focus on the G1 could be better, but then again, it was and still is a landmark camera. Everything made by man can and is improved upon in time. When Minolta brought out the Maxxum 7000, it set the photo world on its ear. By today's standards, it is pretty lame even though it still is great camera, capable of taking pictures with the best of them. I know, because I have one that was my daily carry camera until it was replaced by the Contax G1 that has now been replaced by a Canon A-1 (I have gone through an agonizing reapprasial of my photo interests and goals
).Everything equal, the G1 is a very good camera, not with out faults, but with the ability to render some very good images when used to its best possible performance capabilities. Actually my old Canon L-2 will do that, too! Just maybe we should not focus on what a particular camera cannot do but, rather concentrate upon what it can do well? There is no debate that the 28mm and the 45mm G lenses are some of the best ever made by the hand of man.
Phantomas
Well-known
Exactly! I know I posted the criticism of the viewfinder and focusing (hunting, not misfocusing) but I said it before and will say it again - these minor shortcomings pale in comparison with the benefits of the use of the camera and most importantly the absolutely beautiful results the lenses provide. I wouldn't hesitate to wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone.
Ted2001
Established
I liked just about everything about the G2 and all the lenses. I never had an issue focusing any of the lenses, had no problems with the viewfinder (it never fogged in Cambodia at 90+ degree F and 90 % humidity), auto exposure was accurate, it always felt quiet and unobtrusive, I just want a digital version.
If you want to continue with film, get the G2. I have 4 bodies and have had no problems at all.
If you want to continue with film, get the G2. I have 4 bodies and have had no problems at all.
steamer
Well-known
Perhaps the biggest drawback of this camera the way it makes me lust for the 21mm Biogon. I've managed to avoid buying one so far, but it is the one lens craving that never goes away.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I want one too. Someday...
There is still a little tiny part of me that holds out hope for a revival of the system, with a new Contax DRF and new lenses that will work on both digital and film. Hell, if Oly brought back the Pen, nothing's impossible...
There is still a little tiny part of me that holds out hope for a revival of the system, with a new Contax DRF and new lenses that will work on both digital and film. Hell, if Oly brought back the Pen, nothing's impossible...
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
The only negative with the G2 is the viewfinder. If they had continued the series, the G3 would have been perfect.....
Bokeh is quite nice: 'graphic' with the 45mm. Sonnar-ish with the 90. The 28 is pretty smooth. I recently acquired the 35, and don't have any of my own results to assess, but from what i've seen from other people, the 35 Planar renders like an older summicron.
Bokeh is quite nice: 'graphic' with the 45mm. Sonnar-ish with the 90. The 28 is pretty smooth. I recently acquired the 35, and don't have any of my own results to assess, but from what i've seen from other people, the 35 Planar renders like an older summicron.