The answer to this question may not be as self-evident as it may seem. While the "G"s are generally called a rangefinder, and they do have one, they most often function like a point and shoot. Yes I know they can be manually focused, that is you can manually activate the electronic focus sensor which gives a stepped readout via an LED in the viewfinder, but I've always found it to be sluggish and the stepped indicator to be imprecise. (The latter here being a user impression rather than a functional reality.) Yet, to put this camera in the point and shoot category has always seemed an anathema. It is after all exceptionally designed and built with incredible lenses that rival or surpass almost all in the 35mm realm. But as shooter's we must resolve the user experience. In this regard the G is certainly not a rangefinder.
I was drawn into the Contax G world, fleeing the mediocre lenses in the SLR domain while returning to 35mm photography after shooting a medium format rangefinder for years. Not being able to afford the pinnacle (the big "L") I opted for the G as the next best thing (optically). Once in hand, though, I was so distraught by the focus difficulties of the G I went straight out and bought a little "L" (CL that is) just so I would have something to twist. But I kept saying "If only I didn't have to move the camera to wind it", and "the auto exposure on the G is more consistent than I am at setting it", and "If only it had auto DX reading", and "auto bracketing would be great here." So I kept going back to the G and as I used it more, and learned to work with it better, I began to appreciate it more and more. I still think that if only it had true optical focus it would be the perfect camera, but there's nothing else that comes as close to this mark as the G. I have in subsequent years acquired a full rack of lenses (sans the vario which would really put it in the P&S category). There are very few systems which have such standouts as the 16mm, 21mm, and the 45mm.
Why ask the question at all? Well it's sort of one those existential "Who am I?" explorations. We reach a point in life, or photography, where deep self examination is the only way to move beyond the doldrums of the everyday into a new realm of creative possibilities. And in doing so, we must shed the labels we have used to define ourselves, in order to discover the deeper truths that propel us forward on the path to becoming self-actualized beings. Part of this is being brutally honest about our cameras and how we use them. At some point there comes a reckoning: "My camera is what it is, I use it the way I use it, and the picture I make are the pictures I make."
Or maybe I reading a little much into it... 😉
John J.
