msakamoto
Luddite-at-Large
I understand that the internal focusing/lens mechanism is essentially a rangefinder setup, but in practice it's very hard for me to really call it one when there's no focus at all through the viewfinder. Seems like it should be called a (killer) AF POS with scale focus option. The fact that you can see the (VERY vague) numerical focal distance in the viewfinder is not very relevant to traditional needs for real focusing - AF, manual or otherwise. (Or am I just not tech-y enough?...) 
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Thinking out loud? Frankly speaking, a rangefinder is a rangefinder.
richard_l
Well-known
Some people are sensitive about this issue, so let's just say they're rangefinders, thereby avoiding confrontation. Like when Luke Skywalker was playing the board game with Chewbacca and Ben Kenobi says, "Let the Wooky win."
Because it finds the range and it's not an SLR?
F
Frank Granovski
Guest
It doesn't have the disturbing mirror slap, and you look through a viewfinder, not see through the lens.
GAS - gag and spew. (I finally found out what it means.)
GAS - gag and spew. (I finally found out what it means.)
W
wlewisiii
Guest
I look at it as simply the fact that they are closer to RF's than anything else. Good enough for me.
Of course that doesn't help the desire for a G2 and all 7 lenses...
William
Of course that doesn't help the desire for a G2 and all 7 lenses...
William
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
A lot of us DON'T consider it a rangefinder camera (and I'm very pro-G; I used to own both models, and operated a website about them for several years.)
I consider it a different category of camera: an autofocus non-SLR with interchangeable lenses.
It's somewhat defensible to consider it a quasi-rangefinder camera, though, because the principle of operation of its focusing system is exactly the same as with an optical RF camera; the only difference is that the coincidence of the images is judged by a CCD array, rather than by your eye.
I consider it a different category of camera: an autofocus non-SLR with interchangeable lenses.
It's somewhat defensible to consider it a quasi-rangefinder camera, though, because the principle of operation of its focusing system is exactly the same as with an optical RF camera; the only difference is that the coincidence of the images is judged by a CCD array, rather than by your eye.
schmoozit
Schmoozit good...
POS ? Piece of shit?
I love my G2 for many reasons, though I'm starting to wonder about the benefits because of the way it focuses. I'm going to run some no-brainer tests where I'll give the camera every possible advantage in attaining correct focus. If it fails my tests wide open with only the 90, I'll get rid of only that. If it fails wide open with the 45 also, goodbye G2! Initial tests would indicate that the 90 is on it's way out.
If I do get rid of the camera, it will be hard to bring myself to sell the 45. It is beyond question one of the best lenses available, period. I can only imagine one of the new aspherical Leica offerings to be it's equal or possibly surpass it. Since there is an option available to have it converted to an M lens, that's what I'll likely do in that scenario. I suppose the 90 could be done as well, as it is also one of the best 90s made.
I'm not a fan of the focusing system, but, beyond that, it is one heck of a camera indeed. If it should turn out to focus the 45 accurately wide open, then I'll stay with the normal and wide angles on the G, and use an M3 for some normals to telephoto stuff. Sounds good to me, anyway.
aizan
Veteran
they're all viewfinder cameras to me.
Huck Finn
Well-known
There a manusal focus SLRs & autofocus SLRs. While we're used to manual focus rangefinders, the G/2 just seems like an autofocus rangefinder to me.
Different people like different things about rangefinders. The thing that makes rangefinders special for me is the lenses. In fact, for me, it's all about the lenses. The lack of a mirror frees up lens design so that the engineers are not limited to retrofocus lenses. The G/2 offers this same rangefinder benefit: dompact lenses that are optically superb.
Huck
Different people like different things about rangefinders. The thing that makes rangefinders special for me is the lenses. In fact, for me, it's all about the lenses. The lack of a mirror frees up lens design so that the engineers are not limited to retrofocus lenses. The G/2 offers this same rangefinder benefit: dompact lenses that are optically superb.
Huck
Very good point, aizan! How about calling them "direct view" cameras as Roger Hicks suggests? Anything with an optical viewfinder that views the subject directly, not on a ground glass or LCD. The Contax G is certainly a special case, but fits the above "direct view" category. As does the Fuji GA645 series, and innumerable folding and non-folding 35 & medium format cameras of the past. Now, does that leave out the Voigtlander Bessa-L, with neither viewfinder nor rangefinder? I think not, as its viewfinder is simply interchangeable! And I believe the current Alpa is in about the same situation.aizan said:
Even if the camera DOES have a rangefinder, don't we at times ignore it, use zone or hyperfocal focus? At this point it's not much different in using any of that multitude of RF-less rigs... including my old Kodak Junior 620.
I've been acting as if RFF is a forum inclusive of "direct view" cameras. Now I don't mind other kinds of shots for "Camera & Coffee" and other such illustrative purposes, but I don't think it's appropriate to use the RFF gallery as a repository for a collection of SLR shots. There are other places for those. Still, total rigidity is not usually a good thing, as I have to admit yielding to the temptation to upload one, um, RF-wannabe non-direct-view type photo to my gallery!
Maybe we can agree to avoid the SLR/TLR/LCD stuff and not feel guilty about uploading and showing off our direct-view pics!
George S.
How many is enough?
msakamoto said:
Yes, technically it should have been called a point-and-shoot with interchangeable lenses.... But- put yourself in Contax's shoes for a moment- How do you get the photo buying public to actually spend thousands of dollars on a point-and-shoot system? Sounds like a marketing kiss of death to me!
John
Well-known
The first Barnack cameras and the first Cosina Voightlanders were focused by lens scale. I think they are considered to be rangefinderless rangefinders.
jaap
Jaap
George S. said:
The contax G2 is very very very far from a p.s. The g serie is def. a range finder camera. Because it has exactly the same distance measuremant principles as an original range finder. In the g serie measurement is done in an electronic way.
The viewfinder of the G serie has some advantice over other finders. There are no conterminations of otherlines then the focus brackets,so you can compose very easily. You always get i full frame few. Disatvantice the view finder factor that is a bid low 0,56 with the 45mm planar. So it doesn't has the viewfinder of a ps. It doesn,t has the shutter of a ps. The build quality is beyond compare. And oh yea i almost forgot. Those pieces of glass you attache to the camera are the best on the market to day
msakamoto
Luddite-at-Large
Oops, shoulda spelled it out...
Oops, shoulda spelled it out...
I meant point and shoot, don't know where POS came from! I agree with....EVERYONE!
Oops, shoulda spelled it out...
I meant point and shoot, don't know where POS came from! I agree with....EVERYONE!
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
msakamoto said:I understand that the internal focusing/lens mechanism is essentially a rangefinder setup, but in practice it's very hard for me to really call it one when there's no focus at all through the viewfinder. Seems like it should be called a (killer) AF POS with scale focus option. The fact that you can see the (VERY vague) numerical focal distance in the viewfinder is not very relevant to traditional needs for real focusing - AF, manual or otherwise. (Or am I just not tech-y enough?...)
POS is NOT what we all use normally for a Point-and-Shoot, that's P&S, so don't ry to take the piss outta the guys here !
This is a troll post made for one purpose only, to make the G1 users upset !
The G1 is surely not a piece of shit, no matter what it is called, RF, AF or XYZ.
I've read exactly this stupid nitpickin dicussion several times on other lists and it ended with calling other members names similar to the word you have chosen for the Contax.
Unfortunately again and again some members don't notice the big brown steaming thing they step in, maybe we should find some kinda agreement how we
deal whith this kind of provocation in furture ?
bertram
thpook
Squawkbox Delux
Bertram2 said:POS is NOT what we all use normally for a Point-and-Shoot, that's P&S, so don't ry to take the piss outta the guys here !
This is a troll post made for one purpose only, to make the G1 users upset !
The G1 is surely not a piece of shit, no matter what it is called, RF, AF or XYZ.
I've read exactly this stupid nitpickin dicussion several times on other lists and it ended with calling other members names similar to the word you have chosen for the Contax.
Unfortunately again and again some members don't notice the big brown steaming thing they step in, maybe we should find some kinda agreement how we
deal whith this kind of provocation in furture ?
bertram
Perhaps the best way is to not take another persons personal opinion on a camera that you love as a personal attack, and also realize that people make typos. Instead of getting angry about the POS part of the previous post, you could have posted "Hey, do you really mean that the Gx is a piece of crap?"
This was a typo that provoked you, and you flew off the handle. Instead of asking "How do we deal with this type of provocation in the future?" ask "Why do I care if someone else doesn't like the camera I like?"
R
Richard Black
Guest
Does it matter to the photos you take if it is taken with a RF/TLR/P&S/SLR? When working on a car, does the car care if you use a Craftsman tool or one from Snap-on? To those of you outside the US, I don't know if you have the same tools we do or have some with higher standards. I believe each of us look at the final product, the photo, unless one is a collector. I don't think I can tell if the picture was taken with a specific camera, can any of you? I enjoy them all and for my own reasons, regardless of what some one says about which camera I am using. I am old so I don't really care for others opinions, but I do learn from their shared experiences and that is why I enjoy this forum. Every one teaches me how to be a better photographer! Thanks!
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
thpook said:
I don't believe in a typo, the answer confirms it to me and the fact that he claims to own a G1 himself confirms to me the destructive intention behind such a thread . It's NOT about facts. I don't own a G nor do I love it btw , if so this would be the very last reason to answer to such a useless and worn-out question.
Some think it is smart to introduce themselves by throwing a rock into a quiet water and at he end it turns out it was all about a typo only, and then we have to admit how stupid we were !
I've seen enuff of this "G1-no-RF" stuff to know it's smell.
Even if I should be totally wrong with the initial intentions this kinda question anyway is exactly the right stuff to make people upset. I've seen how it works with the G issue, at p.net, at CVUG and elswhere. It' s not about a silly definition it's ending with the question if some are included or excluded from a community by owning the wrong camera :bang: . That's stupid , yes, but it's how the discussion runs always after a certain time.
Especially if you are a G1 owner yourself you must know this stupid argument and it's effect and therefore you should avoid this can'o worms at any price.
bertram
S
Socke
Guest
Actualy it is easier in german, you have "Sucherkameras" and "Messsucherkameras".
The first is a camera without any device to measure distance and the second is one with a distance measuring device integrated into a viewfinder.
So a Leica II and III or one of the copies qualify as a (view)findercamera as does the Leica I.
A rangefinder integrated into the viewfinder makes a Messsucher, this is a combined term made of Messen and Suchen, measuring and searching.
Some people claim that the Leica M is called so because of the integrated view/rangefinder which the Leica II and III up to F didn'T have.
Back to the Contax G question. It has a rangefinder, there is no doubt about it, and it has a viewfinder. The distance is measured by aiming the camera with the help of the viewfinder.
But compared to a Leica M or Konica Hexar RF or Canon P etc. etc. you don't need the viewfinder to measure distance. With the Contax G you can use an auxiliary finder and have a full working rangefinder without changing between finders.
So the Contax G may not qualify as a Messsucher as the view- and rangefinder operate independently of each other, you don't even need a lens!
The first is a camera without any device to measure distance and the second is one with a distance measuring device integrated into a viewfinder.
So a Leica II and III or one of the copies qualify as a (view)findercamera as does the Leica I.
A rangefinder integrated into the viewfinder makes a Messsucher, this is a combined term made of Messen and Suchen, measuring and searching.
Some people claim that the Leica M is called so because of the integrated view/rangefinder which the Leica II and III up to F didn'T have.
Back to the Contax G question. It has a rangefinder, there is no doubt about it, and it has a viewfinder. The distance is measured by aiming the camera with the help of the viewfinder.
But compared to a Leica M or Konica Hexar RF or Canon P etc. etc. you don't need the viewfinder to measure distance. With the Contax G you can use an auxiliary finder and have a full working rangefinder without changing between finders.
So the Contax G may not qualify as a Messsucher as the view- and rangefinder operate independently of each other, you don't even need a lens!