How do viewfinders of Contax G2 and Leica M6 compare?
Gary Glen Price
No local shop has a Contax G2 for me to examine. Consequently, I would
appreciate comments from persons who have handled both the Contax G2 and
an M2, M4, M5, or M6 Leica.
Does the Contax G2 have frame boundaries that are as clear as those of a
Leica M6? Is the lower right corner visible at close ranges? When one
changes from a 28mm lens to a 90mm lens, does the finder zoom to greater
enlargement, or (like the Leica M6) does it show a small box in a large
field?
In general, how do the Contax G2 and Leica M6 compare in their ease and
accuracy of framing?
Appreciative of comparisons,
Gary Price
John Hicks
Gary Glen Price <ggp...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>No local shop has a Contax G2 for me to examine. Consequently, I would
>appreciate comments from persons who have handled both the Contax G2 and
>an M2, M4, M5, or M6 Leica.
The Leica easily beats the Contax viewfinder overall except perhaps
if your primary lens will be a 90mm. IMHO at that length the zoom
viewfinder Contax view can often be quite a bit better than Leica's
piddly little postage-stamp bright frame for the 90.
Generally speaking, the Contax viewfinder image is still rather
small but at least with the G2 the eye doesn't have to be in exactly
the right place.
For other reasons, though, I greatly prefer the Contax G series to
Leica M; fwiw I've been using M Leicas off and on for about 20 years.
John's Camera Shop
Platypus
The Contax G2 has a very similar viewfinder to the G1. These cameras in
my opinion, function more like point and shoot cameras than a classic
rangefinder. The viewfinder on the G1/2 is rather small. This is
especially true when compared to any M series Leica. I don't believe the
G2 "zooms" in when the framelines change.
Jim Williams
>No local shop has a Contax G2 for me to examine. Consequently, I would
>appreciate comments from persons who have handled both the Contax G2 and
>an M2, M4, M5, or M6 Leica.
>
>Leica M6? Is the lower right corner visible at close ranges? When one
>changes from a 28mm lens to a 90mm lens, does the finder zoom to greater
>enlargement, or (like the Leica M6) does it show a small box in a large
>field?
>
>In general, how do the Contax G2 and Leica M6 compare in their ease and
>accuracy of framing?
>
>Appreciative of comparisons,
Let me start out with my usual disclaimer that, IMHO, the Leica and the
Contax are different *types* of cameras and shouldn't be directly compared
(any more than you'd compare, say, a Leica and a Sinar P2.) Having said
that, though, I'll try to compare the viewfinders, which use completely
different types of optical system.
The Leica M6 viewfinder is an afocal "inverted telescope" design and has
considerably larger magnification than the Contax G2 viewfinder (about
0.78x vs. 0.57x -- the Contax figure is for the 45mm lens.) As you noted,
the Leica finder's magnification is constant whatever lens you mount; the
fields of different lenses are delineated by white framelines projected
into the view by a separate optical system. These framelines appear in
pairs -- typically, the lines for one wide-angle lens and one tele lens
appear together.
This system has several advantages. The view through the finder is very
bright and almost totally free of distortion. As you note, the framelines
are sharp and clear. They also move diagonally as you focus, to compensate
for parallax error (the fact that the viewfinder "sees" a slightly
different area from the lens at close distances.) With longer lenses, you
can see considerable area outside the frameline -- some people find this
makes it easier to shoot action pictures, as you can see a moving subject
approach the boundaries of the picture area.
There are also some disadvantages to the Leica system. Some of the frame
"lines" (such as those for the 75mm lens) aren't really lines, just
corners; I always had trouble visualizing the actual boundaries of the
picture with such a sketchy reference. The 28mm frame is at the very edges
of the finder's field of view; eyeglasses wearers may not be able to see it
at all. And as you note, the frames for the 90mm and 135mm lenses are only
a small percentage of the total finder area, so it can be hard to
concentrate on details of the subject with these lenses. The finder has no
built-in diopter adjustment, but can accommodate add-on diopter correction
lenses.
The Contax, on the other hand, has a zoom viewfinder -- the actual
magnification changes according to the lens that's mounted. The optical
system is a real-image type similar to those used on the old Leitz Imarect
and Zeiss turret finders. This system provides a sharply-focused outer
border for the image, so the field of view is as clearly delineated as in
the Leica finder. There are no projected framelines -- the outer border
defines the field of view of the lens in use, and also moves diagonally to
compensate for parallax error.
The advantages and disadvantages of this system are pretty much the
opposite of the Leica's. Because there are no projected framelines, you
can't see objects outside the lens' field of view (although with the 90mm
lens, the finder magnification is so close to 1:1 that you can view with
both eyes open, which helps.) As noted, the view isn't as large as the
Leica's, and because of the more complex optical system, it's not quite as
bright. Some people also find it difficult to keep their viewing eye
centered accurately behind it; if your eye drifts off center, the viewing
image can darken or go out of focus.
However, the view through the Contax finder is less confusing, especially
to users accustomed to SLRs. What you see looking through the finder is
pretty much what the picture will look like -- there are no extraneous
framelines, and the view is magnified to match the magnification of the
lens. The only distractions within the image area are a pair of unobtrusive
black brackets that define the autofocus area. The finder has built-in
diopter adjustment covering a range of (if I remember correctly) +2 to -3,
and the G2 also accepts supplementary diopter lenses if necessary (the G1
does not.)
As a longtime rangefinder camera user AND a G1 owner since late 1994 (plus
recently-acquired G2) I feel at home with both types of viewfinder system.
It took me a while to adapt to the G finder (mostly in learning to keep my
eye centered behind it and finding exactly the right diopter correction
setting for my vision) but now that I've done that, I can view through the
camera comfortably for hours without strain. I still prefer a conventional
RF camera when shooting action with a medium-tele lens (because I can see
the subject before it moves into the frame) but the trick of using the G
with both eyes open makes it almost as good.
In short, I feel that most users would eventually be happy with either
viewing system (the Leica is probably more immediately comfortable, while
the Contax takes a little experience.) To me, if you HAVE to compare these
two cameras, it makes more sense to decide between them on the basis of
such differences as the range of lenses available (Leica is stronger here,
especially in the area of super-speed lenses) or the range of built-in
conveniences (the Contax is far ahead here with motorized advance,
autofocus and autoexposure in a very compact body) or other features for
specific needs (for example, it's important to some users that the Leica
can function without batteries; it's important to others that the Contax
has TTL autoflash while the Leica does not.)
Sorry for the long post, but I'm trying NOT to be dogmatic and just saying
"X is better than Y"...
Jim Williams
>No local shop has a Contax G2 for me to examine. Consequently, I would
>appreciate comments from persons who have handled both the Contax G2 and
>an M2, M4, M5, or M6 Leica.
As an addendum to my previous (already too long!) post, I've gotta say:
Even though I like my Contaxes a lot, I would *never* recommend buying one
sight unseen! Some people's eyesight seems to be such that they just never
get really comfortable with the viewfinder image, and this is one of the
leading causes of dissatisfaction with the camera (although others are
delighted with the viewing image and find it very easy to adapt to.)
I always suggest that you take time to make sure you're really comfortable
with the view before committing to this camera. If you can't thoroughly
examine one in the store, at least make sure you order from a dealer that
will allow you a return privilege if you find you're one of those whose
eyeballs just aren't Contax-compatible!
Of course, back when I had a Leica M3 (which I felt had a superb view
through the finder) I'd sometimes hand it to someone (often an SLR user)
who'd look through it and say, "Bleah! How do you see through all that
mess?"
Gary Glen Price
John Hicks <j...@magicnet.net> wrote:
> For other reasons, though, I greatly prefer the Contax G series to
> Leica M; fwiw I've been using M Leicas off and on for about 20 years.
What are those other reasons?
Gary Price
c.b...@bmsg.de
John Hicks <j...@magicnet.net> wrote:
> For other reasons, though, I greatly prefer the Contax G series to
> Leica M; fwiw I've been using M Leicas off and on for about 20 years.
>Gary Price
>What are those other reasons?
In my view there is just two reasons to use the M6: slightly better lenses (at
same aperture) or better apertures like f1.0/50, f1.4/75 for available light
applications. The fact that slightly better lenses seem to double the price
is another chapter.
christoph blaue
--
"I [..] am rarely happier then when spending an entire day programming
my computer to perform automatically a task that it would otherwise
take me a good ten seconds to do by hand. Ten seconds, I tell myself,
is ten seconds. Time is valuable and ten seconds' worth of it is well
worth the investment of a days's happy activity working out a way to
save it". -- Douglas Adams, "Last Chance to See"
Nick Silva
> John Hicks <j...@magicnet.net> wrote:
>
> > For other reasons, though, I greatly prefer the Contax G series to
> > Leica M; fwiw I've been using M Leicas off and on for about 20 years.
>
> >Gary Price
> >What are those other reasons?
>
> In my view there is just two reasons to use the M6: slightly better lenses (at
> same aperture) or better apertures like f1.0/50, f1.4/75 for available light
> applications. The fact that slightly better lenses seem to double the price
> is another chapter.
>
Well, here's one more, which takes us back to the start of the thread: the
VF of the M6 is considerably better than that of the G, longer lenses
notwithstanding. Personally, I think of the M cameras as 21-35mm only,
maybe 50 in a pinch. Beyond that I can't get into seeing so much and
capturing so little. If longer lenses are involved, the G has a decided
advantage, but for 28mm & 35mm work, the G lacks the M's size and
brightness.
Nick Silva
________________________________________________________________________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
n...@inamess.vip.best.com
________________________________________________________________________________