G2Fan
Member
Whatever label you want to put on it is fine with me. The simple fact is that is a great camera with second to none craftmanship and the lenses speak for themselves.
What can I say. If you never shot with a G, you just haven't lived.
GF2Fan
What can I say. If you never shot with a G, you just haven't lived.
GF2Fan
James Burton
Shoot into the light
G2Fan said:
Also they (both bodies & lenses) are REALLY cheap at the moment.
I just wish that I could convince myself that using AF without a manual override was sensible.
James
flipflop
Well-known
my favorite camera, buy one
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
James Burton said:
The Gs do have a manual override -- you can put the AF system into manual mode and then "scale focus" via a very precise distance readout on the LCD.
What you don't get is a visual confirmation of the focusing point, and that has proved to be a psychological barrier for many people.
F
Frank Granovski
Guest
I haven't seen any new bodies for sale except for this one E-bayer with a scary feedback history.
James Burton
Shoot into the light
Frank Granovski said:
I was thinking about the ones I've seen in the shops here. The G1s are about $AU700 with a lens and the G2s are about $AU1500 with a lens. The lenses appear to be about $AU500 each. ($US are about 1/3rd larger than $AU)
James
M
mojojones
Guest
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.
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.
S
Socke
Guest
I thought a lot about the way I wont to go photographicaly this month. Is the new ZI the next step or a well used but repairable M2 or M4, I want 35mm so a M3 doesn't cut it. Another option is a Canon 5D, not for the megapixels but for the viewfinder.
Looking through lots of old pictures taken with manual focus cameras, the G2 was my first aF camera and the D60 the second, I realized that I have far less out of focus pictures with AF then without. In the last three years I learned how to use AF and it just works for me. Same for aperture priority AE and TTL flash.
The G2 is allways the first camera I grab when I want a camera with me and the D60 when I go for a serious shooting, like my persian parties where I come back with 100th of pictures.
So a full manual camera without a build in meter is not for me. A camera without AE is not for me. A camera with manual focus might not see much use. I'm a snapshooter and I shoot from the hip, automation is good as long as I have the chance to override it, thats why I haven't shot more than one roll in the Yashica GX
Here is a shot which shows what I like to do, Canon D60 with 35/2 in program mode shot from the hip at the local train station after midnight, who needs a viewfinder if he knows his lens?
A bigger one is here
Looking through lots of old pictures taken with manual focus cameras, the G2 was my first aF camera and the D60 the second, I realized that I have far less out of focus pictures with AF then without. In the last three years I learned how to use AF and it just works for me. Same for aperture priority AE and TTL flash.
The G2 is allways the first camera I grab when I want a camera with me and the D60 when I go for a serious shooting, like my persian parties where I come back with 100th of pictures.
So a full manual camera without a build in meter is not for me. A camera without AE is not for me. A camera with manual focus might not see much use. I'm a snapshooter and I shoot from the hip, automation is good as long as I have the chance to override it, thats why I haven't shot more than one roll in the Yashica GX
Here is a shot which shows what I like to do, Canon D60 with 35/2 in program mode shot from the hip at the local train station after midnight, who needs a viewfinder if he knows his lens?
A bigger one is here
lynn
lynn
A question (veering slightly): I have also seen the Ricoh GR1s referred to as a rangefinder...could this be possible?
If it is, I may have to make a last-minute change to my RF2 submission!
If it is, I may have to make a last-minute change to my RF2 submission!
richard_l
Well-known
The Rollei 35 is also called a rangefinder, but it doesn't have rangefinder focussing. It's also called a point and shoot, but being an entirely manual camera, it has nowhere near point and shoot capability.lynn said:A question (veering slightly): I have also seen the Ricoh GR1s referred to as a rangefinder...could this be possible?
If it is, I may have to make a last-minute change to my RF2 submission!
The GR1s is a fine camera, and calling it a rangefinder may be a token of respect, but it is no more a rangefinder than any other point and shoot camera (IMHO, of course).
jaap
Jaap
A G2 is def. a rangefinder in really all possible ways amen!
ZeissFan
Veteran
"Another option is a Canon 5D, not for the megapixels but for the viewfinder."
Amateur Photographer, which rated the camera highly, wasn't impressed with the viewfinder. In fact, this is the one area in which they said Canon did a poor job.
Viewfinder magnification is 0.71x and shows 96% frame coverage. The reviewer said he thought eye relief was shorter than the quoted 20mm, and he also said the viewfinder image wasn't as bright as it should be or as bright as on the other so-called professional Canon cameras.
Amateur Photographer, which rated the camera highly, wasn't impressed with the viewfinder. In fact, this is the one area in which they said Canon did a poor job.
Viewfinder magnification is 0.71x and shows 96% frame coverage. The reviewer said he thought eye relief was shorter than the quoted 20mm, and he also said the viewfinder image wasn't as bright as it should be or as bright as on the other so-called professional Canon cameras.
S
Socke
Guest
ZeissFan said:
That's probably right, up to now I know the viewfinders in Canon D30/D60/20D/1DMKII and EOS3 and 1n. The worst is the 20d followed by D30 and D60 with a big jump to the 1 Series and the EOS3.
I expect the 5D to be less of a tunnel like the 1:1.6 models but not as bright and big as the 1Ds.
If Epson comes out with an improved RD-1 with a viewfinder and framelines for a 21mm I'll take that instead. With a 1:1.5 scaled sensor 28mm is just not wide enough for me. :bang:
Fred
Feline Great
IMHO the term rangfinder has become overloaded. Generally it's given to the visual focussing method with an RF patch. However it can also be used to describe anything that:
a) has to be focussed to achieve a sharp image of the subject
b) does not have a through the taking lens view to achieve focus
In other words to correctly find the focus, the distance has to be set from the subject to the lens. The RF patch is a way of achieving this, as is scale focussing or AF. So the G series can be classed as a rangefinder, just not in the same sense as RF focusing with a Nikon, Canon, Voigtlander or Leica etc.
The OT bit.
As for the 5D, following the review in the AP I looked at one against the 20D, the VF is larger in the 5D but not by the amount you'd think for a full frame sensor. Both are better than my D70 though, I'll wait and see what the D200 is like with a .9 mag and 19mm eye relief, that should be more like my old F80 view which is what I'm looking for.
a) has to be focussed to achieve a sharp image of the subject
b) does not have a through the taking lens view to achieve focus
In other words to correctly find the focus, the distance has to be set from the subject to the lens. The RF patch is a way of achieving this, as is scale focussing or AF. So the G series can be classed as a rangefinder, just not in the same sense as RF focusing with a Nikon, Canon, Voigtlander or Leica etc.
The OT bit.
As for the 5D, following the review in the AP I looked at one against the 20D, the VF is larger in the 5D but not by the amount you'd think for a full frame sensor. Both are better than my D70 though, I'll wait and see what the D200 is like with a .9 mag and 19mm eye relief, that should be more like my old F80 view which is what I'm looking for.
Last edited:
S
Socke
Guest
I know the term rangefinder describing a device to measure distance. Be it to aim a gun, focus a lens or build a bridge over a river
For cameras I understand it as a device independent from the lens to measure distance as oposed to turning the focusing ring until the image on the silk screen looks sharp.
SLR and most P&S AF works through the lens by finding the best contrast and the Gs AF has an independent rangefinder which triangulates the distance like the rangefinders in other cameras but with a contrast sensor instead of a human eye lining up ghost images.
With an electronic or manual rangefinder you don't have any focus confirmation like on a silk screen, you just hope that the lens and rangefinder agree on the settings found. There is no difference if you operate the rangefinder by rotating a ring on a lens, a wheel on the rangefinder or use a motor to do it for you.
In a sense the Contax G is more of a rangefinder than a Leica, Canonet etc.pp. is. You can measure distance without a rangefinder coupled lens.
I did this with a GA-1 adapter and a 135/2.8 Sonnar. You measure the distance and then set the lens to the value displayed on top of the camera.
For cameras I understand it as a device independent from the lens to measure distance as oposed to turning the focusing ring until the image on the silk screen looks sharp.
SLR and most P&S AF works through the lens by finding the best contrast and the Gs AF has an independent rangefinder which triangulates the distance like the rangefinders in other cameras but with a contrast sensor instead of a human eye lining up ghost images.
With an electronic or manual rangefinder you don't have any focus confirmation like on a silk screen, you just hope that the lens and rangefinder agree on the settings found. There is no difference if you operate the rangefinder by rotating a ring on a lens, a wheel on the rangefinder or use a motor to do it for you.
In a sense the Contax G is more of a rangefinder than a Leica, Canonet etc.pp. is. You can measure distance without a rangefinder coupled lens.
I did this with a GA-1 adapter and a 135/2.8 Sonnar. You measure the distance and then set the lens to the value displayed on top of the camera.