An out of production manual focus camera will work just fine, but the G2 is a far better buy, essentially Leica ASPH quality for little cash. 😉
Leica M4-P or G2 ?
- Thread starter mrisney
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 76
- Views 13K
GoodPhotos
Carpe lumen!
FWIW, I miss my Nikon FM2n more than I miss my M4-P.
If you are loving the Mamiya 6, why are you even looking at a 35mm though?
As an aside, the shop I work for still has a Mamiya 6 NEW in the box, ever used out back on a shelf. The owner is an eccentric and won't sell it for less than what it sold for originally even though it has been discontinued for nearly a decade.
🙂
If you are loving the Mamiya 6, why are you even looking at a 35mm though?
As an aside, the shop I work for still has a Mamiya 6 NEW in the box, ever used out back on a shelf. The owner is an eccentric and won't sell it for less than what it sold for originally even though it has been discontinued for nearly a decade.
🙂
Fuchs
Well-known
Go for the G2. The lenses quality is fantastic, and on par with the much more expensive Leica ones.
cidereye
Film Freak
Try before you buy, simple as. 😉
I'm both a Leica & Contax G user and to be fair and frank the Contax G2 is the best thing that has happened to me photographically speaking. It woke me up!
Yes the VF is tiny (worse still on the G1 mind!) but it is far more sophisticated than any Leica VF as it adapts to each lens fitted without the need for lines. Yes the AF can be a problem, but *only* if you don't read the manual and don't understand how it works. Understand & respect that part and you will take great photos guaranteed. The lenses are to die for and cheap as chips, I paid £120 for my 28mm mint boxed, £135 for my 45mm mint-. Now go compare that to Leica glass prices ?!?!?!?!?!
Sure I love my Leica's loads too, the VF is far brighter on my M8 and makes the G2 VF look like a toy, Leica glass is fantastic too with a slightly different look to the Zeiss glass. End of the day both systems have their + & - if one is being fair but when it comes down too it I wouldn't part with my G2 system for anything.
Again, try one first before forming a decision.
I'm both a Leica & Contax G user and to be fair and frank the Contax G2 is the best thing that has happened to me photographically speaking. It woke me up!
Yes the VF is tiny (worse still on the G1 mind!) but it is far more sophisticated than any Leica VF as it adapts to each lens fitted without the need for lines. Yes the AF can be a problem, but *only* if you don't read the manual and don't understand how it works. Understand & respect that part and you will take great photos guaranteed. The lenses are to die for and cheap as chips, I paid £120 for my 28mm mint boxed, £135 for my 45mm mint-. Now go compare that to Leica glass prices ?!?!?!?!?!
Sure I love my Leica's loads too, the VF is far brighter on my M8 and makes the G2 VF look like a toy, Leica glass is fantastic too with a slightly different look to the Zeiss glass. End of the day both systems have their + & - if one is being fair but when it comes down too it I wouldn't part with my G2 system for anything.
Again, try one first before forming a decision.
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
The G2, is indeed a nice camera, capable of wonderful results. However- nothing in the world could compel me to invest in one. The AF is (by many accounts) difficult to get along with, having no real exact indicator. The lens mount is unusual and unique to a few (admittedly fine) lenses. The Leica, on the other hand is still in production, with lenses still being made- by three different brands. Add compatibility with screw-mount lenses, and your choices are even greater.
But you seem to answer your own question, talking about how much you like your Mamiya 6, enjoying larger negatives. You go so far as to say it does everything you need from film- so is this just a big GAS attack? If you have some money burning a hole in your pocket, buy some film, donate to charity, do something, but think hard about what you really need and want in terms of photographic capability.
But you seem to answer your own question, talking about how much you like your Mamiya 6, enjoying larger negatives. You go so far as to say it does everything you need from film- so is this just a big GAS attack? If you have some money burning a hole in your pocket, buy some film, donate to charity, do something, but think hard about what you really need and want in terms of photographic capability.
thomasw_
Well-known
Do as you want of course, but in your shoes, I think you have it pretty damn good, so I'd stay with the Leica RF and 2 lenses. The reason: the lowlight ability and the look of the lenses.
Since the G2 body and 2-3 lenses are often much less than even a single comparable Leica lens, it's no risk to try it out. 🙂 Don't take our words for it, check it out. If you don't like it, sell it...
Also, the look of the lenses is exactly why I use a G2.
Also, the look of the lenses is exactly why I use a G2.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
FS Vontz
Aspirer
I have a G1 and I have to say my bottom-of-the-line-4-models-out-of-date Nikon D40 has a marginally better viewfinder, I understand that the G2's is better, but I've never used one. Of course, the vewfinder doesn't matter as much now that you're using autofocus, but it's still annoying.
Also, the much maligned Ken Rockwell has a pretty good article on the G system, and an article comparing it to the Leica system.
Also, the much maligned Ken Rockwell has a pretty good article on the G system, and an article comparing it to the Leica system.
MCTuomey
Veteran
has your M4-P kit produced shots you love? if not then, sure, try the G2 system.
i like the idea of keeping the M4-P and 40/1.4 as a nice complement to the mamiya for lowlight and other things not so well suited to it.
i like the idea of keeping the M4-P and 40/1.4 as a nice complement to the mamiya for lowlight and other things not so well suited to it.
Yep, there are many reasons. They were always cheaper than Leica lenses when new, for one. Similarly as the ZM lenses are now.
They'd cost a lot more if Kyocera hadn't orphaned the system. A digital G3 would have been nice, but since film still works better with rangefinder wides compared to half-frame digital RFs, and is essentially free compared to full frame digital RF, the G system remains a tremendous value.
If the lenses weren't great, people wouldn't be spending hundreds of dollars to convert them to M mount.
mrisney
Well-known
I think you are right. I always felt foolish considering spending $1200 + for a 28mm Elmarit, yet I prefer wide angles for a rangefinder. The G2 lenses have legendary quality, and affordable. The m4-p doesn't have that much value, maybe $700 on a good day , but I think i will sell off the 90mm sumicron and my Motor M winder and give the G2 a try . yet hold onto my good old M4-P. Although, as previously suggested the Mamiya 6, makes it seem that deliberating alternative 35mm systems a waste of time , the Mamiya 6 is really an amazing system, that makes 35mm seem quaint
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
ToCAD is still servicing the G2.
I started with 'RFs' with a G2. Since then, i've been back and forth between G2s and Leica M7s and a Zeiss Ikon. Currently have a black G2 kit. I would suggest that you don't just buy a G2 without somehow using one briefly to acquaint yourself with the viewfinder. The VF is the camera's weakpoint, and if you're not comfortable with it, you won't enjoy the experience. Note, though, that you might not immediately know if it's for you. As much as i love the G2, i dislike the viewfinder - hence my sporadic ownership of them.
Also, be aware that the G2 may need to have its AF calibrated. My first three were fine, but my current one didn't focus precisely. I sent it to ToCAD (sometime around September 09?) and had that fixed.
I don't, though, understand this statement:
"but I cannot afford German Leica lenses."
Why does it matter where they're made? Why do the lenses have to be Leica? Does it matter that the Contaxes aren't German-made either?
I started with 'RFs' with a G2. Since then, i've been back and forth between G2s and Leica M7s and a Zeiss Ikon. Currently have a black G2 kit. I would suggest that you don't just buy a G2 without somehow using one briefly to acquaint yourself with the viewfinder. The VF is the camera's weakpoint, and if you're not comfortable with it, you won't enjoy the experience. Note, though, that you might not immediately know if it's for you. As much as i love the G2, i dislike the viewfinder - hence my sporadic ownership of them.
Also, be aware that the G2 may need to have its AF calibrated. My first three were fine, but my current one didn't focus precisely. I sent it to ToCAD (sometime around September 09?) and had that fixed.
I don't, though, understand this statement:
"but I cannot afford German Leica lenses."
Why does it matter where they're made? Why do the lenses have to be Leica? Does it matter that the Contaxes aren't German-made either?
mrisney
Well-known
I haven't had a chance to use the lenses that make Leica so acclaimed. From my point of view, I am more interested in lenses then bodies , M4-P was the cheapest that had 28mm lines , yet I could never afford that lens, out of reach . Truthfully I feel like I am done with 35mm film, my digital cameras suffice.
120 negatives are another story, when scanned with a Nikon Coolscan 9000, the quality is higher than 35mm FF digital, and film, so the only reason to continue on 35mm is fast lenses and convenience. I did consider a Yashica T4 , but I will give 35mm another go, since I haven't used Zeiss lenses on rangefinder before . Again - this could be a waste of time and money, since I am thoroughly satisfied with the Mamiya for a film rangefinder system - the Leica and it's lenses are not in the same league
If the lenses aren't Leica then I would consider a Bessa R3A or something, If your implying there isn't much difference between CV or Canandian Leica maybe your right. I am honestly of the opinion that there isn't but at this point having not used Carl Zeiss lenses, and they are affordable, the venture into that system isn't nearly as expensive
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Unless you're unhappy with the results from your CV Nokton (?) and Summicron, why the need to get Elmarit or Summilux?
I tried Contax G2, and like some others, I cannot stand the smallish viewfinder, especially when compared to that of the M4-P (or worse, M3 🙂 )
japro
Member
I never actually owned a Leica but always wanted one. But since my main reason for wanting one was to be able to use modern wide angle lenses that don't suffer from the "slr-drawback" the cost of leica glass kept me from actually buying into the system.
So when I found out about the G Contaxes and their prices I immediatly got a G2 with the 28mm and 45mm lenses. It didn't take me long to get the 90mm and 21mm lenses as well as a G1 to complete the system. Yeah, it's a "dead" system and is a little bit wierd/unique to use (on the other hand, I always found the claims about it being noisy and "too electronic" etc. ridiculous), but the whole outfit cost me less than even a used Leica 28mm of the latest generation.
The point is, the camera doesn't care about beeing discontinued and possibly nonservicable in the near future, it takes pictures anyway. I'd rather take pictures now with a contax G than saving money for a Leica lens that theoretically is a better investment. What makes the whole "non servicable"-business even more irrelevant is the fact, that buying another used 28 biogon or G1 body is barely more expensive (if at all) than repairing/servicing a Leica lens or body...
If getting a G gives you the lenses you want then go for it. 🙂
So when I found out about the G Contaxes and their prices I immediatly got a G2 with the 28mm and 45mm lenses. It didn't take me long to get the 90mm and 21mm lenses as well as a G1 to complete the system. Yeah, it's a "dead" system and is a little bit wierd/unique to use (on the other hand, I always found the claims about it being noisy and "too electronic" etc. ridiculous), but the whole outfit cost me less than even a used Leica 28mm of the latest generation.
The point is, the camera doesn't care about beeing discontinued and possibly nonservicable in the near future, it takes pictures anyway. I'd rather take pictures now with a contax G than saving money for a Leica lens that theoretically is a better investment. What makes the whole "non servicable"-business even more irrelevant is the fact, that buying another used 28 biogon or G1 body is barely more expensive (if at all) than repairing/servicing a Leica lens or body...
If getting a G gives you the lenses you want then go for it. 🙂
larmarv916
Well-known
Ok...I have had an M4-P and I currently have both Contax G1 & G2. As well as Leica M3 , M5 and traded my M6 to a RFF member for his Contax G system. I take zero effort to get great results from the Contax. The meter is better than the M6TTL was. All the lenses from 21-90 are great. In either MF or Auto Focus it works in all situations. Contax has motor drive.
The meter in the Contax G system is so much better than M6 or M7 as well.
I look for lenses that have creative thumbprint that gives me stylistic signature and some leica lenses do that...all Zeiss lenses do that. I am a big fan of the ZM lenses out now. I never liked the M4-P viewfinder as it had glare problems. M3 or M5 are my favorites of the Leica bodies.
If you keep the Leica body...switch to the Zeiss ZM lenses. 50 Sonnar, 25 Biogon, 35 Biogon F2, all amazing and cost 1/3 of ASPH Leica lenes. I think they are better all the way around. But it's your money..good luck
The meter in the Contax G system is so much better than M6 or M7 as well.
I look for lenses that have creative thumbprint that gives me stylistic signature and some leica lenses do that...all Zeiss lenses do that. I am a big fan of the ZM lenses out now. I never liked the M4-P viewfinder as it had glare problems. M3 or M5 are my favorites of the Leica bodies.
If you keep the Leica body...switch to the Zeiss ZM lenses. 50 Sonnar, 25 Biogon, 35 Biogon F2, all amazing and cost 1/3 of ASPH Leica lenes. I think they are better all the way around. But it's your money..good luck
elmer3.5
Well-known
Focusing
Focusing
Hi, the only issue with contax system is focusing, check the attachment, i was nearly 5 minutes trying to get the exact focus! 90 mm 2.8 @ 2.8
Needs a lot of experience to get proper focus!
The lenses of the contax are superb and cheap enough!
Bye
E
Focusing
Hi, the only issue with contax system is focusing, check the attachment, i was nearly 5 minutes trying to get the exact focus! 90 mm 2.8 @ 2.8
Needs a lot of experience to get proper focus!
The lenses of the contax are superb and cheap enough!
Bye
E
Attachments
Last edited:
Frontman
Well-known
Yes, because the G2 is appreciated by regular photographers, and not wealthy, pretentious fan-boys who carry a camera more for it's nameplate than for it's actual capability. Can you tell me why a Leica D-lux 4 sells for 1/3 to 1/2 more than it's identical twin with the "Lumix" nameplate?
I have an M4 and a G2. The G2 is a better camera, simple as that. It can be focused automatically or manually, it has a wider range of shutter speeds, film loading is much easier, and the camera is more durable than you might suspect. A friend of mine has carried a black G2 for a decade, most of the black paint is now worn off, showing the brass (yes, the G2 body is made of brass). This camera has shot thousands of rolls of film, and keeps on ticking. The G2 lenses are simply phenomenal, and you can get the whole lot for less than the cost of a new Summilux.
The G2 is definitely under-priced for what you get. I can get two G2 camera bodies for less than the cost of a used M4-P. This isn't because the G2 is half the camera an M4-P is, it's because PT Barnum's view of humanity was correct.
Last edited:
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I'm an M Leica man, ultimately, I think. But the G2 is special. Especially the 45.
Similar threads
