M or G?

[Bill Liss]

I know there's some experienced people on here, so I want you to share some of your expertise.

If you had to rely on one camera and two or so lenses to get you by while traveling and day to day, would you go with the Contax G2 and the lenses or a film M and their lenses?

I imagine most will say M, but I'm interested to hear what people say about the G stuff.

Matthew

 

[Pablito]

g has terrible viewfinder and is battery dependent.

 

[aizan]

take away leica's faster lenses and i could easily go with either, though i do also prefer the leica's viewfinder and repairability. the contax viewfinder is about the same size as a 1.5x dslr. tocad and keh still repair the g2, but i'm not sure how long they can keep it up.

 

[sepiareverb]

Another 2¢:
Depends on a couple of things for me- 1 is safety, if I think I might be in really dicey places shooting I would lean toward the G only because it is cheaper to replace. 2 would be lenses needed- I have wides with the G and not with the M, so I sometimes have to choose accordingly. 3, for any flash work I prefer the G, but I've not spent the time yet to test the M for flash work- so I don't have all the info there.
Think also about noise- the M is much quieter than the G- if you'll be shooting places where noise is a concern the M wins hands down. If you own both you know the limitations of the VF in the G, I can live with it when I pick the G, but some obviously can't. I also find I work a bit slower with the M, and shoot much less 'from the hip'. A lot to consider. I rarely find myself wishing I'd brought the other, but it does happen, and then I almost always end up wishing I had the M's.

 

[payasam]

That I know nothing about the G does not matter because, whichever system I have used for One Opportunity Only work, I have almost always carried a second body.

 

[Mike Richards]

I own both. The Contax G2 is an engineer's dream, but a photographer's nightmare.
- Small viewfinder, as already mentioned.
- Autofocus looks for straight lines and focuses on them regardless of position of subject. No straight lines -- no shutter release.
- Manual focus is cumbersome and difficult with a knob on the front of the camera and still depends on straight lines for proper focus indication.
- Fast shutter is nice, but very flimsy. Touch it one time, and you have a $350 repair.
Having listed the gripes, I still keep the G2 for occasional use when I want the shutter speeds or some other auto function. By and large, the Leica M's are sturdier, smoother, and more reliable. A little practice, and the focus is quick and easy in the large bright viewfinder.
As for lenses, the most useful sets for me are the 45 and 28 with the G2, and 50 and 28 with the Leica M. Depending on one's style and subject, the 35mm can be a very useful single lens with the M.

 

[Socke]

Don't know as much about the technicalities as others do, in 6 years with the G2 I had no fault, never ran out of batteries and it always focused where I pointed it. This was a wall a couple meters behind my subject more than once, but I learned it.

The small viewfinder is for real, but it stays as small with any lens from 28 to 90. You can't see outside of the frame and it covers some 95% only, but that's not much of a problem for me, i.E. I got used to it.

It can be used as a P&S and it can be used in full manual, call it rangefinder assisted scale focus if you want to.
With the 35-70 zoom you have a hell of a P&S and with the TLA200 flash a very capable TTL (fill)Flash system as good as that of most SLRs. You can use up the last frames on yesterday evenings roll Fujipress800 in bright daylight without ND filters.

But, you are restricted in your travel choices, you need a place where you can get batteries in case you forgot to bring some. I get some 20-30 36exp rolls out of two batteries, so I have a spare set with every 20 rolls I take with me. Then I have the bad weather kit with external batterieholder which takes AA cells.
And I've never been tempted to visit a place where those where unavailable, at least I didn't stay longer than my supply lasted.

Oh, the noise, yeah, a real problem. I shot at ballet performances where photography was prohibited and didn't get caught, it is slightly quieter than a F22s sonic boom 🙂

 

[DavidH]

If you had to rely on one camera and two or so lenses to get you by while traveling and day to day, would you go with the Contax G2 and the lenses or a film M and their lenses?

I bought the G2 for fun use - I have an arsenal of Nikon gear for work - but now tend to use it in preference on work shoots where baggage space is an issue.

Never had any issues with the autofocus or viewfinder. Find it remarkably quiet compared to everything except my T3...love the auto film loading... Fast shutter speeds are a joy - and the T200 flash is great. The metering is so good I rarely have to think about it. Results are excellent.

But nobody talks about the G system with as much passion as the M. Guess there's a reason for that...

Leica stuff is very tempting - I've spent many evenings mulling over buying an M4P...but sooo expensive - I can't justify the cost. My entire Bronica ETRSi system cost less than a used M4P body...

In fact, I got my G2 with 21, 28, 45, 90 lenses and T200 for around the same price as a used M6 body (at dealer prices here in UK).

I'd hazard a guess that you won't know for sure which to go for until you've bought both... 🙂

 

[sepiareverb]

Speaking of batteries- I just changed batteries on my 2nd G2 body- FOR THE FIRST TIME! I couldn't believe it. Battery icon came up, pulled out the new energizers and when the batteries popped out of the camera they were the original Sanyos! This camera has seen quite a bit of use- all autofucus obviously and these batteries were three and a half years old. My M7's tear through batteries (yes, they are physically smaller)- I've put new batteries in the .72 three times this year- and I'm shooting it just like I shot the G2 before the M arrived in Feb. of '06.

And since we are talking about the VF- I'll pose this again- has anyone tried filing down the mount of the G lenses to alter the VF view? It appears to be a simple thing to do, but I am a little scared to take a file to a lens mount. I have a 40 'cron that was altered (byan apparently homespun method-chisel perhaps?) to bring up the 35 framelines- seems like this could be something of a fix for the G- the VF doesn't get wider than 90% of 28mm f.o.v., but this has the potential to really help with the 35, 45 & 90 lenses.

I keep my eyes out for a junker 35 or 45 to test this on- but no luck yet.

 

[jpressman]

I have the G2 right now, and until recently a ZI (close enough to a M). For me, I got more accurate focusing with the G, even though the ZI has a way better viewfinder. Once you get accustomed to how it focuses, it's great. Also, keeping my eye on the subject, shooting multiple times, and letting the camera autowind is a great thing.

 

[RF-Addict]

The G2 is a strange beast - I love and hate it at the same time. It is one of the best P&S cameras out there - the metering is extremely accurate which makes shooting slide film a real joy. The lenses are superb - sharp and contrasty and cheap compared to the Leica lenses. The autofocus is something you get used to very quickly - the camera will indicate in the VF whether is has achieved focus or not - really not that difficult to operate. I alos found that I got used to the noise of the autofocus system - after a while I don;t hear the sound of the motor anymore. If you like auto features and if you shoot slides the G2 is the camera for you. If you are more into manual controls then this camera is a nightmare.

 

[uhligfd]

g has terrible viewfinder and is battery dependent.

I disagree completely: Leica has the terrible viewfinder:

I wear glasses and need high eyepoint. So for me Leica has terrible viewfinders that get worse at wide angle viewfinding and also worse at longer lenses with their pinhead size frame lines.

So if you shoot with only one 50mm lens and wear glasses, Leica viewfinders are better, brighter. etc. But if you deviate from the "normal lens" much of the time, better get a G2 which always shows the same size image. And incidentally this image is not too small for me.

However, I could simply not ever use any leica (I did try and Leica failed me), except with an about normal lens. Sorry leica, you make horrible viewfinders for glass wearers like me. And your framelines do not help either.

The AF system of the G2 takes about 10 films to get used to, like any new gizmo one learns quickly how it works. Once learned, it competes with the best SLR AF systems around.

 

[furcafe]

I've used & owned both systems for almost 7 years now & agree w/Socke. I have no problem w/the G2's VF; it may be smaller & darker, but in terms of field of view, it's actually more accurate than the framelines in any modern Leica M body. I personally find the often-cited advantage of being able to see outside the framelines to be vastly overrated; when I shoot w/non-frameline RFs, it's easy for me to simply shoot w/both eyes open to see outside the frame.

I definitely use my manual focus RFs, like the Leica M stuff, more often, but that's mostly because I prefer traditional manual focusing & do a lot of low-light shooting, where the G2 can easily focus, but I can't frame/compose as easily because the VF is not as bright as the Leicas. When I do need autofocus, however, the G2 has it & it's a godsend. The only other reasons I use the M system are the ability to use faster glass (f/1.4 & f/1), which is critical if you do a lot of available darkness shooting, & the compatibility w/a wide variety of lenses dating back over 70 years, which is an important aesthetic factor if you like the look of vintage glass. Even after many years of practice w/Leica M's, when shooting in daylight conditions, I can still focus & frame more quickly w/the G2 than I can w/any M body (unless I use zone/scale focusing, which isn't really focusing & isn't a great option when shooting @ large apertures).

To answer your specific travel-related questions, I have never experienced any battery-related issues w/the G2. The batteries may not be easy to find in remote locations, but it's easy to pack spares before you go. Nor have I experienced any reliability issues w/my G2, despite it having been banged around quite a bit. Whether the lenses are good enough would depend entirely on whether you need speed; optically, they're great. If you're fine w/f2 as your fastest lens, then the G system is fully up to the task.

Don't know as much about the technicalities as others do, in 6 years with the G2 I had no fault, never ran out of batteries and it always focused where I pointed it. This was a wall a couple meters behind my subject more than once, but I learned it.

The small viewfinder is for real, but it stays as small with any lens from 28 to 90. You can't see outside of the frame and it covers some 95% only, but that's not much of a problem for me, i.E. I got used to it.

It can be used as a P&S and it can be used in full manual, call it rangefinder assisted scale focus if you want to.
With the 35-70 zoom you have a hell of a P&S and with the TLA200 flash a very capable TTL (fill)Flash system as good as that of most SLRs. You can use up the last frames on yesterday evenings roll Fujipress800 in bright daylight without ND filters.

But, you are restricted in your travel choices, you need a place where you can get batteries in case you forgot to bring some. I get some 20-30 36exp rolls out of two batteries, so I have a spare set with every 20 rolls I take with me. Then I have the bad weather kit with external batterieholder which takes AA cells.
And I've never been tempted to visit a place where those where unavailable, at least I didn't stay longer than my supply lasted.

Oh, the noise, yeah, a real problem. I shot at ballet performances where photography was prohibited and didn't get caught, it is slightly quieter than a F22s sonic boom 🙂

 

[foto_fool]

I own both (M6 and, well, a G1) and end up using them about equally.

The M6 is a tank and has great lenses, but there are places I just don't want to take it becasue of the replacement cost. And heck, I'm liable to fignt back and end up in the hospital or worse. Actually, I hope I never have to find out.

The G is the finest point-and-shoot I have ever used. Inexpensive - compared to the M anyway - with incredible lenses for the money. There is a lot of yada-yada out there about the VF, noise, and autofocus "problems" but you get used to them.

my two cents - John

 

[photophorous]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you trying to decide which camera system to buy in to, or do you already have both and want to know which one to carry on a trip?

If you have neither, you need to decide whether or not you want manual or auto. That was the deciding factor for me when considering G vs Bessa. The rest is just details.

If you already have them both, take which ever one you are more comfortable shooting with. If you don't have a preference, take the one that is easiest to replace if it gets lost or stolen.

If you want manual, but you're worried about carrying such an expensive camera, do what I did and buy a Bessa.

Paul

 

[BigSteveG]

I am a former G2 user and current M (MP/M2) user. The G2 is a great system camera. Everything postitive said about is true. I'm sure the lenses are sharper than the older Leica lenses. It is quirky and those quirks will reveal themselves at in-opportune moments. My battery usage was terrible for some reason. I averaged maybe 12-16 rolls per set. The auto focus did tend to hunt and for some reason the lenses wouldn't mount properly sometimes. Instead of working on the issues, I decided to sell the system and go M. It made sense because Contax is no longer anyway and getting it fixed would be a hassle. I took the G on a trip to Europe and took quite a few nice shots, but also missed quite a few as well. For reliability nothing beats an M.

 

[keoj]

Over the last 5 years, my G2 has never let down. I bought it because I could get a new body, a new lens (45) and two other lenses (the 28 and the 90) used with a used flash, a GA-1 adapter so I can use my C/Y Zeiss glass, a couple of other items for a total investment of ~$1500. For the money, I couldn't come close to Leica gear. The optics are phenomenal and the meter accuracy and distance accuracy is dead on. I don't think that I've vere had a improperly exposed slide from this camera. My two gripes are that it tends to hunt for focus sometimes and I can't the fstop info in the viewfinder. I'll stand up and say that I'm passionate about this camera. And yes, I've banged it around the last couple of years and it looks like it it just came off the line.

keoj

 

[Socke]

This is from the Contax G2 with 90/2.8 in full auto on Sensia 100 around 9 o'clock in the morning at the Plaza Mayor in in Madrid in April

IMHO not bad for a not so decisive moment 🙂

 

[sepiareverb]

two images- 45/2 & 90/2.8

two images- 45/2 & 90/2.8

So these two are from the G- the wall 45mm lens on HP5+ at 800 developed in microphen. This is printed at 14x18 without any lack of sharpness.

the fence is shot with the 90 on FP4 in HC-110b, and is sharp right into the corners. Glass is not the issue here I find the lenses fantastic.

I'll agree that the G can be the finest p&s camera- have one loaded with K64 in the kitchen drawer- the 28mm and the tla200 flash on it. Simple and precise as can be.

I went through my reasons for choosing one over the other, and will agree that the one you are most comfortable with is the better choice when in situations you can't return to easily- better to get the shot when you see it- and I know when I'm travelling I can feel rushed by the others to just 'hurry up and just take the darm picture already'. If you can shoot faster with one kit over the other that might be the best choice.