Leica M6 or Contax G2: Your advice
Andrew Lau
experience/opinion on Leica M6 or Contax G2.
After keeping my finger away from the shutter for years, I wish
to shoot pictures again. My basic interests are portraits,
landscape, buildings and people taken during trips. I'd like to
find a quality camera which I can enjoy using for years. I'd
rather have a good combination than buy a few bodies and lenses
over the years. I am now considering the two combinations:
1. Leica M6 TTL, 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH, 50mm f/2 Summicron-M,
90mm f/2 APO-Summicron-M, SF 20 flash (or 28-35-50mm f/4
Tri-Elmar-M ASPH to substitute the above 24mm and 50 mm lenses)
2. Contax G2, Biogon T 28mm f/2.8, Planar T 45 mm f/2, Sonnar T
90mm f/2.8, TLA 200 flash
Brochures about most of the above equipment have been read. But
experience and practical opinion from users about the cameras and
lenses will certainly help me decide. Any suggestions of other
combinations will be welcome too.
Regards,
Andrew
Fred Whitlock
the main reasons to buy a rangefinder camera in the first
place. The Contax is quite large in comparison. The
advantage of the Contax is the inclusion of some additional
electronics as well as lower price. My opinion, though, is
that if you are going to buy a camera as large as the Contax
G2, you should just buy a more versatile SLR. Good
shooting.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
Andrew Lau wrote in message
<37258F8A...@cuhk.edu.hk>...
Joe McCary
have several M4s and lenses). With that said, I would like to caution
you about the Contax G2 and viewing. The diameter of the eyepiece of
the G2 is small and I found hard to see through. This would be even
more pronounced IF you wear glasses (I do NOT). You should check this
before considering which to buy. As with most expensive camera
purchases, you might seek a place to rent them for a weekend and try
them beofre spending lots of cash. Another note regarding the Leica
24mm, that lens will require a seperate finder to work, this may be a
hassel since it lives on the hot shoe connection and would prohibit
the use of flash there. Also you can not focus and view at the same
times. These may be small hassels but you should know. As for
thinking about the Tri-Elmar, that is reported to be Leica's sharpest
M lens to date, that is the "rumor" I have heard/read. I wish I had
one but it is a bit pricey for me just now.
Joe McCary
Photo Response
http://www.erols.com/mccary
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 18:20:58 +0800, Andrew Lau <andr...@cuhk.edu.hk>
wrote:
|I'd appreciate it if you could share with me your
|experience/opinion on Leica M6 or Contax G2.
|
BOSTER33
:>I'd appreciate it if you could share with me your >experience/opinion on
Leica M6 or Contax G2.>
I have owned both and found that the G2 and M6 found them each to be first rate
camera systems with superb lenses and capable of producing wonderful images.
However, I also found that they are very different kinds of camera systems.
The strong suit of the G2 system is its automation: autofocus, automatic
exposures and auto film feed. It is a very easy camera system to use and you
can (if you so choose) operate as a point and shoot. Its biggest shortcoming
(for me) was the fact that its autofocus system always parks the lens at
infinity so that, if you remove your finger from the shutter button or focus
lock button, there is a time lag when have to refocus -- which I found to be
troublesome for the kind of candid street photgraphy I like to do.
After using the G2 for about 18 months, I borrowed an M6 and found (to my
surprize) that I could get a better focus "hit rate" with its rangefinder
focusing system than with the autofocusing of the G2 . This was largely because
I could prefocus on my subject (usually by distance guessing) and then rely on
depth of field to give me an acceptable focus when the "decisive moment'
occured. I should add that I generally use a 35mm lens on the street, which
facilitates this kind of focusing.
I also found the (black) M6 attracted less attention on the street than the
titanium G2 and that its quietness permits me to take photos, virtually
unnoticed, even when standing a few feet from a subject.. It was largely for
these reasons that I swallowed hard and took the costly plunge by trading up to
an M6 system.
After using the M6 for some time, I am delighted with the choice I made for the
kinds of photography I do. However, For other kinds of photography, say travel
photography or scenic work, the G2 might be a better choice.
If you can, try using both systems before choosing . The feel is very
different. For me, the difference is between using an automated photographic
machine (in the case of the G2) and a manual tool (with the M6).
Bill O
Lotusm50
"Fred Whitlock" <a...@cl-sys.com> wrote:
> Basically the advantage of the Leica is smaller size-one of
> the main reasons to buy a rangefinder camera in the first
> place. The Contax is quite large in comparison. The
> advantage of the Contax is the inclusion of some additional
> electronics as well as lower price. My opinion, though, is
> that if you are going to buy a camera as large as the Contax
> G2, you should just buy a more versatile SLR. Good
> shooting.
>
> Fred
> Maplewood Photography
> http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
>
>
I think I have to disagree. The Contax G2 is about the same size and
weight (possibly lighter) as the Leica M6, the shape/dimensions are a
little different. The Contax G2 is much more compact than an SLR, and
with lenses it is even more compact, light weight travelling set. There
is fact no comparision with an SLR. You can take along a G2 and 4
lenses in less space and weight of a similar quality SLR and single
zoom - and the SLR and zoom won't deliver the picture quality of the
G2. If you want a compact rangefinder your choices are the M6 or the G2
and they are very different cameras. The Leica traditional, manual
exposure, manual focus,etc. The Contax auto exposure, auto focus, and
nearly full info viewfinder. Contax viewfinder auotmatically adjusts
the viewfinder for lenses betweem 28 and 90mm and for parallax. lens
quality between the Contax and Leica is comparably. Some Leica are
better, some Contax are better - more a matter of taste. Both cameras
are very solidly and well built. Perhaps are greater selection of
lenses with Leica, particularly lenses with larger (e.g. f1.4)
aperatures - but you really pay for that. Contax much more reasonably
priced. Can probably buy G2 and a few lenses for the price of an M6
body. Electronics make the G2 a bit more flexible, and it has a neat
data back. The only things the G2 is not useful for is macro, astro and
long tele work. Outside of that, nothing will provide a better 35mm
image (compared to an SLR there is no mirror shake, and you can hand
hold the G2 at least another stop slower) yes the viewfinder is a bit
small and take a little getting used to, but isn't bad once you get used
to it (it is a rangefinder after all). The Contax G2 is a great compact
camera, packed with innovative technology, that saves quite a bit of
space over an SLR while providing superior picture quality.
----- Posted via Deja.com, The People-Powered Information Exchange -----
------ http://www.deja.com/ Discussions * Ratings * Communities ------
DHen1922
the G2. To my taste, the color rendition of Leica glass is unique- not better
than the Zeiss glass, but distinctive especially with available light. The M6
has made me a better photographer because it makes me think. I can't say that
manual focus is that much of a disadvantage for the types of pictures I take.
I can tell you that using the 90mm is a pain to focus, especially if shooting
wide open with no depth of field to cover minute errors in focusing. The
camera syncs at 1/50 sec, so flash is a royal pain, especially if fill flash is
desired. So if 35mm and 50mm lenses with available light are your
"thing", this is the ultimate camera. If you don't mind the weight, check out
the R8. True Leica fans say the ranefinder glass is better- not me. The
camera is really versatile, and you get to use the Leica lenses for what that
is worth. Good luck. Bill
Daniel Rocha
>I'd appreciate it if you could share with me your
>experience/opinion on Leica M6 or Contax G2.
The M6 & G2 are very differents ! First of all you should try them at a
store. If I have to bought one of them I'll choose the G2. The Contax lens
are cheaper than the Leica's ! Some lens from Leica are really too much
expansive. And the cost is not motivated by a better sharpness in comparison
with other brands.
The M6 offer less features. The G2 is more modern....
It's you choice :)
--
http://www.drgfx.wsc.fr http://photonet.citeweb.net
http://synchrox.citeweb.net
R. Saylor
wrote:
>The M6 offer less features. The G2 is more modern....
>
This is true. The M6 offers control over focus, aperture, and shutter
speed. The G2 offers control over focus, aperture, and shutter speed,
but if you wish, you can fiddle with it more to do the same thing.
Richard S.
Jim Williams
>experience/opinion on Leica M6 or Contax G2.
>
>to shoot pictures again. My basic interests are portraits,
>landscape, buildings and people taken during trips. I'd like to
>find a quality camera which I can enjoy using for years. I'd
>rather have a good combination than buy a few bodies and lenses
>over the years. I am now considering the two combinations:
>
>1. Leica M6 TTL, 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH, 50mm f/2 Summicron-M,
>90mm f/2 APO-Summicron-M, SF 20 flash (or 28-35-50mm f/4
>Tri-Elmar-M ASPH to substitute the above 24mm and 50 mm lenses)
>
>2. Contax G2, Biogon T 28mm f/2.8, Planar T 45 mm f/2, Sonnar T
>90mm f/2.8, TLA 200 flash
>
Well, you've certainly heard from the Leicaphiles, so I'll try to offer a
balancing (not necessarily opposing) point of view, from my position as a
current G2 owner and experienced ex-Leica-owner.
(Brief detour for plug: check out my 'Contax G User Pages' site at
http://www.novia.net/~jlw/contax/ for lots more G1 and G2 info.)
Now, then:
-- Whomever said the Leica M is a lot smaller than the Contax G was leading
you astray. The overall "pack size" of the G2 is about the same as the M6,
and remember that it includes an integral motor. The M6 plus M Winder is a
LOT larger. On the other hand, for portraits, landscape, and other fairly
static subjects, a motor isn't really needed, so it's kind of a wash.
-- The Leica M does have a much more wide-ranging lens line than the Contax
G, especially if you need wide-aperture lenses. Note, though, that
wide-aperture lenses are larger and heavier -- this might be important if
you do a lot of traveling. The Contax G system you mention probably would
be somewhat smaller and lighter than the three-lens Leica M system, mostly
because of the 90mm APO-Summicron. You could equalize this somewhat by
choosing one of the smaller-aperture Leica medium tele lenses.
-- You just plain aren't gonna see any significant lens quality differences
between the two: either outfit would give you superb optics, about the best
you'll find in 35mm, and the differences people talk about at such length
are microscopically hair-splitting at best.
-- Yes, the Contax G system would be substantially less expensive than the
Leica M system. On the other hand, if you can easily afford either one, who
cares? Likewise, I'd ignore such considerations as "future value." After
all, you're buying the thing to USE, not trade on the commodities market...
right?
-- The best advice you've gotten is to try them. Do it!!! What it comes
down to is that these are two very different types of camera systems, both
in concept and in handling. You've simply GOT to spend some time with both
before you can decide which you'd prefer as a long-term companion.
The Contax is much like a modern, convenience-featured SLR except for its
viewing system, which (as others have noted) is somewhat quirky; I like it
and am very comfortable with it (despite wearing glasses) but have
corresponded with other people who just plain couldn't adjust to it
(possibly because of differences in eyesight accommodation or personal
taste.) I always tell people that they should NOT buy a G2 without first
spending time at a camera store, viewing through it with various lenses and
at various distances, to make sure their eyes are suited to it.
On the other hand, the Leica M has quirks of its own. The film-loading
system can be downright inconvenient -- you've got to stash the removable
baseplate during film changes, and once in a while (especially in cold
weather) you may encounter a roll of film that simply WILL NOT load. The
metering system is slow and fiddly, too. And while some people love the
projected-frame viewfinder, others find the frames confusing and
composition through them difficult to visualize.
In short, it's a question of WHICH set of quirks best fits your own
preferences, and the only way to decide that is to handle both extensively
and see which one you like! Good luck...
Les Bonser
I own a Nikon FM2 also and choice the G2 while looking for a point & shoot.
Yeah, I know there's a big difference between the G2 and a generic P&S. I
didn't like any of the P&S cameras I looked at. While talking with the
saleslady, she handed me the G2 and I loved it at first touch.
I find the G2 and FM2 to be similar in size; they fit nicely in the camera
bag together. My eyes can't seem to focus quite as fast as they used to and
I love the fully automatic capabilities of the G2. I can set the aperature
to set the depth of field I want and let the camera do the rest. My only
"complaint" is the damn thing eats through the film faster than ever. :-)
The built in motor drive is very nice. The top speed is only about 4 fps,
but that's more than fast enough for me.
I see from this thread that some people who wear glasses don't like the G2
viewfinder, but I like it. I adjusted the diopter setting a tad and it
seems brighter and clearer than any other camera I've ever tried. I
particularly like the fact that being a rangefinder the view doesn't
"blink" every time I press the shutter. I was quite used to that with SLRs
but didn't realize until after I bought the G2 how much of a pain it is.
I've recently shot some bike and road racing for a company newsletter and
it was easier to track along with the runners and riders without having the
mirror block of the SLR.
I find the Zeiss lens to be very nice. It has a very nice look that I like.
It's a bit contrasty, but I like that particular look. To be honest, I
never enlarge more than 8x10, so I don't see much real difference between
the Nikon and Zeiss optics that I have. I don't have any experience with
Leica.
I'm experimenting with a "minimalist" approach to photography as a
creativity exercise. One camera, one lens, one film, one developer, one
paper. So far, the G2 works best for this. I don't do any macro, astro, or
other funky stuff, so this camera works well for me.
Les
In article <37258F8A...@cuhk.edu.hk>, andr...@cuhk.edu.hk wrote:
> I'd appreciate it if you could share with me your
> experience/opinion on Leica M6 or Contax G2.
>
> After keeping my finger away from the shutter for years, I wish
> to shoot pictures again. My basic interests are portraits,
> landscape, buildings and people taken during trips. I'd like to
> find a quality camera which I can enjoy using for years. I'd
> rather have a good combination than buy a few bodies and lenses
> over the years. I am now considering the two combinations:
>
> 1. Leica M6 TTL, 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH, 50mm f/2 Summicron-M,
> 90mm f/2 APO-Summicron-M, SF 20 flash (or 28-35-50mm f/4
> Tri-Elmar-M ASPH to substitute the above 24mm and 50 mm lenses)
>
> 2. Contax G2, Biogon T 28mm f/2.8, Planar T 45 mm f/2, Sonnar T
> 90mm f/2.8, TLA 200 flash
>
lex...@ibm.net
I think for the long run the Leica M6 is the way to go.... It consists
of a much better lens lineup (well way more expensive..., too). I sold
my G2 after a year, I used to have their 21,28,35,45,90. In fact I
think all of them are very sharp, my favorite was the 21. But the G2's
smart viewfinder is small and quite difficult to see thru. The body is
heavy, almost or even heavier than a decent SLR, therefore it rested in
my cabinet all the time. Well the M system is still sharper than
Contax's, and the M system's value will hold up much better than
Contax's. If I were you I wouldn't substitute the 24 2.8 for the
28-35-50 ASPH. The 24 2.8 is one hell of a lens. Based on a lens test
conducted by ASAHI camera, the 28-35-50 's light pass thru rate is only
78.5% versus the Nikon AFS 28-70 2.8's 85.7%. Quite low for a Leica
lens, though the lens' resolution is still high, and the report said the
lowish light pass thru rate might be caused by the use of high
refractive index glasses.
The G2 would be more convenient when using flash, so it will be better
for party photos.
Yes, it costs a lot more (diminishing returns really kicks in here), but
it's worth it.
Alex
lam
Andrew Lau <andr...@cuhk.edu.hk> wrote:
>I'd appreciate it if you could share with me your
>experience/opinion on Leica M6 or Contax G2.
>
i would like to add that you shd consider the Mamiya M7
( granted this is a medium format RF )
but it is stated to function like a slightly larger M6 ?
i was just looking at my 67 slides just thought i shd add this to the tread
:-)
I also heard that Mamiya stuff are going way lower ( price ) in HK :-)
Andrew Lau
It's a great news group. About ten members have shared with me their
experience and opinon which will help me find my camera for the
coming years. A big thank you to you.
Andrew
Andrew Lau wrote:
> I'd appreciate it if you could share with me your
> experience/opinion on Leica M6 or Contax G2.
>
Daniel Rocha
>>The M6 offer less features. The G2 is more modern....
>This is true. The M6 offers control over focus, aperture, and shutter
>speed. The G2 offers control over focus, aperture, and shutter speed,
>but if you wish, you can fiddle with it more to do the same thing.
Oh yes, I have not mentioned the kind of features I'm talking about, it's
the shutter speed of the M6 (1/1000) & the G2 (1/6000)
vaz...@my-dejanews.com
objectives is a state of the art photographic instrument. The image quality
created by this combination is unsurpassed. The M6 is the only camera I can
take pictures hand held @ 1/8 ". To focus manually the G2 is not easy.
The image quality of the Zeiss lenses are good, but by my conception nothing
special. 1/6000" shutter speed,even if it is true 1/6000" ,is irreverent in
every day photography. For me the M6 is a clear winner.
I also admit, the first Leica was purchased by my family in 1931, and it is
still working like new.
Regards.
Frank
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Nick Fiduccia
If you like the Leica, do consider the Hasselblad XPAN camera.
Check out the review at http://hawk.foto.no/pinhole/nikon/
The only disadvantages I can think of over a Leica are:
1) Only two lenses 45/4, 90/4. They are planing a 35 and a 135.
They will probably be slow, however.
2) Total reliance on battery power.
3) Does not have the viewfinder level that will change the
framelines without the need to change lenses. This helps
when judging what focal length is best.
4) Physically the camera is wider and a bit heavier than a M6.
But, the advantages are many:
1) Autowinder
2) Exposure compensation
3) Much less expensive. You can get the XPAN with 45mm lens for the
price of an M6 body.
4) Two film formats to chose: normal 35mm (36 x 24mm) and panoramic
(56 x 24mm). This format can be switched on the same roll of film.
Check out the April edition of Pop Photo which had a good review
of this camera.
Good luck!
Daniel Rocha
<7g806n$v48$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> I think we are comparing apples wit oranges. The M6 with the new Asp. and
Apo
Hey ! I love apples & oranges ! :)
>every day photography. For me the M6 is a clear winner.
>I also admit, the first Leica was purchased by my family in 1931, and it is
>still working like new.
Well... I know perfectly that the M6 and the G2 have not the same
"philosophy", but if somebody are asking questions about that 2 bodies, is
because they are close in the buyer's use.
But some lens are really to much expansive for the quality compared with the
other brands. too much is too much...
>1/6000" shutter speed,even if it is true 1/6000" ,is irreverent in
>every day photography.
Well It's quite strange... A Minolta owner have told me that the 1/12.000
shutter speed is a real advantage, and know you are telling me that the
1/1000 shutter speed is an advantage ! :) Quite strange ;)))
But Leica is Great... :)
MDeeA
If u want an unadulterated opinion on the Contax G cameras, they are crap. I
owned the G1 for a couple years and never really liked or used it that much.
It is one of those things that conceptually seems great but in practice just
DOESN'T work.
Main problems:
AF is VERY noisy, esp. when compared to Canon AF cameras with USM lenses. It
is also slow-moving and "hunts" for focus quite often, especially indoors or
with low-contrast subjects.
Manual focus is a joke; you can't turn the lens to focus it and there is no
central-viewfinder focusing aid like on the Leica.
Others are rite about the viewfinder; it IS very small. Also it does not read
out apertures, only shutter speeds.
Bottom line: while the lenses ARE very good, the camera is a compromise at
best. You'd be much better off with a high-end point/shoot, like Contax TVS,
Leica Minilux, etc.
If u must have a rangefinder, go with the Leica, or as others suggested
consider the Hasselblad XPAN or Mamiya 7/7 II as alternatives.
ALSO consider the Canon EOS-1N RS. It's an incredible AF SLR with a great lens
lineup (esp. the L / USM lenses) that gives the same effect as the rangefinders
(ie., the mirror does NOT move) and is loaded with features for the same price
as the Leica and about the same weight as the Leica with motordrive.
Best of luck either way.
Mark the Sharpshooting Shark
Anthony
news:92546331...@bagdad.magic.fr...
> Well It's quite strange... A Minolta owner have told me that the 1/12.000
> shutter speed is a real advantage ...
Great for photographing nuclear detonations on Kodachrome, for example.
-- Anthony
MoonHawk50
-----------------------------------------------------------
It does everything faster and a bit better, but is the G2 still an instant
classic like the G1?
When Contax announced the landmark G1, the first new interchangeable-lens
rangefinder 35 in decades, and the first ever with autofocus, back in late
1994, few would have expected them to come up with a significantly improved and
upgraded companion model a scant 25 months later. But that is precisely what
they have done. Not surprisingly, the new Contax G2 bears a close family
resemblance to the G1, is also built on a cast-alloy chassis with stylish
titanium outer body, uses the same breech-bayonet G mount, and is a serious
enthusiast's camera that incorporates many of the conveniences built into the
latest SLRs and sophisticated point-and-shoots. These include autofocus,
through-the-lens (TTL) aperture-priority autoexposure, built-in two-speed motor
drive, power rewind, and TTL auto flash via a dedicated hot shoe.
In its own way, the G2 is just as attractive as its posh, elegant, and pricey
predecessor, but it's bigger-1/4 inch wider and 1/8 inch taller, as well as a
tad over 31/4 ounces heavier than the G1. And with a list price of $2,250, it's
also $40 more expensive than the G1, which continues in production. Despite
these moderate increases in size and cost, we predict that most G-series Contax
buyers will opt for the G2 and many will be tempted to trade in their G1's to
acquire the new model. No, the G2 doesn't blow the G1 out of the water, either
in picture-taking ability or convenience, and taken individually none of its
enhancements may seem to strike a decisive blow, but when you add them all up,
the inescapable conclusion is that the G2 is a much improved machine.
Improvements
Let's begin our comparison by looking through the G2's finder. While it's still
not as big and bright as today's best SLR finders, it is a bit larger,
brighter, and contrastier than the G1's finder, and affords better eye relief
as well. Even more important, its parallax-compensation system has been
improved. It now shifts the bottom and right-hand borders of the frame outward
and downward, as well as moving the left and top edges inward as you focus
closer (the G1 only does the latter), and this provides noticeably improved
framing accuracy with all lenses (28 to 90mm) that couple to the finder.
The second major improvement is in autofocus performance. While the G1's
single-line sensor, passive-only autofocusing is more than adequate for general
shooting, it's not in the same league as that of current high-tech SLRs. The
G1's AF system tends to hunt, and occasionally fails to achieve focus with some
low-contrast subjects, especially in low light. The G2 doesn't have such
problems and focuses about as fast and consistently as a good AF SLR. The
reasons are simple. Not only have its AF sensors been upgraded, it also
incorporates parallel active and passive AF systems, so when the passive (phase
detection) system can't find the focus point fast enough, it defaults to the
active (infrared ranging) system. This ingenious idea did not originate with
Contax (we first noticed it on the Chinon Genesis IV and the Fuji GA645), but
it's apparently an effective way of upgrading the performance of
rangefinder-type AF systems. As a result, the G2 has four autofocus windows
nestled among the optical array above the lens-two passive AF windows, plus a
window for the IR emitter and another for the IR receiver. Neither the G1 nor
the G2 autofocuses through the lens like an AF SLR, but this poses few
difficulties as neither is designed to autofocus with long tele lenses where AF
system parallax might prove problematic.
Another significant set of improvements on the G2 is in the area of control
placement and separation of function. The most obvious change was moving the
manual-focusing dial from the top of the camera (on the G1) to the front, where
it is reminiscent of the famous focusing wheel of the great German-made Contax
rangefinder cameras of the '30s to the '60s. To focus the G2 manually, set the
focus-mode selector on the back to M (manual focus), and turn the focusing
wheel with your right index finger until only a single dot appears above the
focusing index arrow on the illuminated LCD panel below the image area in the
finder. Your set distances (in meters only!) are read out on the top LCD.
Manually focusing the G2 is still a finicky procedure because the system is so
sensitive, but it is easier than with the G1. It's still accompanied by
interesting little ratcheting noises as the system moves from one closely
spaced focusing zone to the next.
More important by far than its slightly easier manual focusing is the G2's
improved separation of function. To set drive modes on the G1, you press a
little button and note the settings on the top LCD. Set S, and you get
single-shot advance, but only focus-priority AF, which is to say the camera
won't fire until focus has been achieved; set C and you get continuous framing,
but only with continuous AF, which means that the camera will keep
autofocusing, but you can fire the shutter at any time. With the G2, you have
separate drive-mode and focus-mode control dials, so you have the flexibility
of setting any combination of AF and framing you wish. The little milled,
click-stopped dial located where rewind knobs used to reside is the drive-mode
selector, which has settings for S (single frame), CL (continuous low-speed
drive to 2 fps), and CH (continuous high-speed drive to 4 fps), as well as
self-timer and multi-exposure settings. The focus-mode selector on the back has
settings labeled CAF (continuous autofocus), SAF (single-shot autofocus), and M
(manual focus). The conveniently placed thumb button in the center of this dial
is the focus-lock button, which works in either AF mode.
Moving the manual-focus dial to the front on the G2 has had another beneficial
effect-it freed up space for a separate exposure-compensation dial (it's built
into the shutter-speed dial on the G1). The new dial is not only more
convenient, it also can be used to input compensation when setting manual
shutter speeds, which can't be done on the G1.
Despite all these improvements, and the G2's somewhat larger dimensions,
shooting with both models is, functionally and tactilely, remarkably similar.
One reason is that the right-hand grip and rear thumb rest are virtually
identical on both models-a good thing since they're both very comfortable and
secure. General control placement, back and interior configuration, and finder
readouts are also quite similar. So is the overall balance, which remains
excellent no matter which lens or lens/finder combination is fitted.
The lensmount, and the lens switching procedure are likewise identical-press in
the lens-release button, and get used to removing the lens by grabbing and
turning it by the milled collar on the barrel, right behind the aperture ring.
Peer through the exquisite stainless steel lensmounts on both models and you'll
observe two fascinating differences. While the G1's shutter curtain is a
uniform shade of gray, the G2's has a wide gray band in the center, but is
painted black at the top and bottom. And just inboard of the bottom of the
mount, you'll notice that there are seven pin-type, gold-plated electronic
contacts on the G2 and only six on the G1.
Based on the info we've received from Japan, the seventh contact is used to
"speed up autofocus by increasing the rate of focusing-information transfer
between body and lens." The system obviously works, since the G2 definitely
autofocuses faster than the G1, but we're not sure how much of this improvement
is attributable to the extra contact, and how much is due to the addition of
active autofocus components. As for the G2's two-tone shutter curtain, only the
central two blades are painted gray because the meter cell nestled in the top
section of the chassis has been moved slightly, and now reads off a more
central section of the curtain. The SPD cell was moved slightly primarily to
accommodate the G2's new higher-speed shutter unit, but this has also had the
effect of altering the G2's meter sensitivity pattern somewhat. According to
our tests, the G2's pattern is considerably wider, quite top-weighted, and
shifted slightly to the left compared to the G1's. Despite these changes,
overall exposure accuracy is virtually the same for both models.
Other similarities and differences between the two models? Because the AF-mode
selector/focus-lock control now occupies the space on the back where the G1's
threaded cable-release socket is located, the G2's has been moved to the
camera's right-hand side. The G2's midroll rewind button has also been moved to
the left-hand side, where it's more accessible than the G1's, which is on the
bottom. The battery compartment cover, and shutter-release collar tab with
settings for on, off, and AEL (autoexposure lock) are identical on both models.
So is the shutter-release button itself, and that's a good thing because the
electromagnetic release on both Contax G's is as smooth and predictable as any
in current production, with just enough force required to initiate autofocus
without making unintended exposures.
Carrying forth such a large number of detailed improvements without adversely
affecting the refined and elegant character of the original G1 must have been a
formidable undertaking, but the Contax engineers have executed the task with
intelligence and panache. What the G2 gives up in terms of larger size, is more
than adequately recompensed in terms of function, and both cameras exude a
jewel-like precision and a visual fascination that is sure to ring the chimes
of any connoisseur of fine machinery.
Because of its noticeably enhanced AF performance, upgraded specs, and slightly
improved viewfinder, the G2 is, on balance, even more pleasant to shoot with
than the G1. Its higher (1/200 sec) flash-sync speed helps minimize ghosting
when shooting flash pictures in high ambient-light situations, and its faster
two-speed motor and quicker AF certainly made it easier to shoot high- and
low-speed action sequences.
Downsides? Not many.
We did manage on occasion to dial in unwanted exposure compensation while
setting the autobracketing control, which is right underneath the exposure-comp
dial, but the flashing plus sign in the finder warned us of our error before we
shot any bad exposures. Still, they might put a lock on the dial. To say that
the G2 (like the G1) requires a separate shoe-mounted optical finder for lenses
below 28mm or above 90mm, or that its finder is smaller than an SLR's and
doesn't have framelines like a Leica M6's is all true, but these aspects are
not due to any defect. They are inherent characteristics of this unique design,
and every design has limitations. On the whole, the G2 must be judged as
remarkably successful in advancing the whole concept of the
interchangeable-lens rangefinder camera.
Tallying a High Score
The upsides, of course, are numerous. Shutter speed accuracy is excellent and
the through-lens exposure system performs very well even though it has no
multizone or spotmetering mode. We were slightly surprised that the G2's
centerweighted averaging meter pattern is slightly off center, but this seemed
to have little if any noticeable effect on our test pictures, over 95 percent
of which were right on the money. As with any meter system of this
configuration, when shooting in tricky lighting situations, we recommend
locking in a closeup reading taken off the main subject. Fortunately, this is
very easy to do with the G2.
Then there are those Carl Zeiss lenses. In a word, they are superb, and the
three we tested with the G2 are as outstanding as the three we tested with the
G1. Of particular interest to Contax G fans is the 21mm f/2.8 Biogon, which is
not only a very useful focal length with this type of camera, but it also
offers the best image quality of any 21mm lens we've ever tested.
It goes without saying that quality and sophistication of this level, not to
mention titanium-clad metal chassis, ingenious design, and first-rate optics,
do not come cheaply, and a Contax G2 outfit can easily rival the cost of a pro
SLR rig. But if you want a modern autofocus classic that's almost as easy to
use as a point-and-shoot camera, and is made and finished as well or better
than the classics of yore, there really is no other game in town than the
Contax G's. And, of the two, we'd unhesitatingly choose the Contax G2.
><}}}}}}}^><^}}}}}}}><
Bernard
> > Well It's quite strange... A Minolta owner have told me that the
> 1/12.000
> > shutter speed is a real advantage ...
>
> Great for photographing nuclear detonations on Kodachrome, for
> example.
And for shooting in bright daylight at full aperture, which is likely to
occur more often in a photographer's life.
Bernard.
Lotusm50
vaz...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> I think we are comparing apples wit oranges. The M6 with the new Asp.and Apo
> objectives is a state of the art photographic instrument. The image quality
> created by this combination is unsurpassed. The M6 is the only camera I can
> take pictures hand held @ 1/8 ". To focus manually the G2 is not easy.
> The image quality of the Zeiss lenses are good, but by my conception nothing
> special. 1/6000" shutter speed,even if it is true 1/6000" ,is irreverent in
> every day photography. For me the M6 is a clear winner.
> I also admit, the first Leica was purchased by my family in 1931, and it is
> still working like new.
> Regards.
> Frank
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
This is an interesting response. Yes, SOME of the Leica lenses are state of
the art, but then so are the Zeiss lenses for the Contax G. The Zeiss lenses
are indeed wonderful. Most leica owner, exceptt for the most biased, are
probably willing to go along with that. Leica has nothing that compares to
the Hologon, the 21mm and 28mm lenses are comparable, the understand that the
Leica 35mm is better than the Zeiss 35mm/f2, but the Zeiss 45/f2 is better,
and only the latest Leica short telephoto can just nudge aside the Zeiss G
90mm. I have handheld the G2 and G1 at 1/8 sec with excellent results. I
also don't find manually focusing the G2 to be difficult at all. I suppose
if you you were used to something else it might be difficult at first, like
anything else new. But it really works well, once you get over that it is
different. In fact, for some it is an old way of focusing, Early Zeiss
Contax rangefinders features a similar focussing wheel mechanism. For those
used to those cameras the G2 would be easy. A camera with a 1/6000 sec
shutter speed is a big advantage. That why they build cameras with fast
shutters. It allows you control over depth of field and aperture selection
in more lighting condition and film selections in addition for action
photography. I have regularly used higher than 1/1000 on the G2, and am
grateful for it. I am please than Contax saw the value in the faster speeds
and boosted shutter speeds on the G2 to 1/6000 from the 1/2000 on the G1.
Finally it is precisely for "everyday" photography that features like
automation and electronics were adopted. It makes everyday photography
simpler and faster. Clearly the G2 is the "everyday" photography camera. It
can do everything from quick grab action, point and shoot to the most
carefully controlled and designed exposures. If you've used Leicas and
nothing but Leicas for a long time, you may have a long period of adjustment
to the G2. But if you are coming from any other direction, the G2 will prove
to the easier to use, more flexible, and more convenient camera to use -
and it will provide images just as spectacular (if not more so) than the
Leica.
Koji Kawakami
> I'd appreciate it if you could share with me your
> experience/opinion on Leica M6 or Contax G2.
>
> After keeping my finger away from the shutter for years, I wish
> to shoot pictures again. My basic interests are portraits,
> landscape, buildings and people taken during trips. I'd like to
> find a quality camera which I can enjoy using for years. I'd
> rather have a good combination than buy a few bodies and lenses
> over the years. I am now considering the two combinations:
>
> 1. Leica M6 TTL, 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH, 50mm f/2 Summicron-M,
> 90mm f/2 APO-Summicron-M, SF 20 flash (or 28-35-50mm f/4
> Tri-Elmar-M ASPH to substitute the above 24mm and 50 mm lenses)
>
> 2. Contax G2, Biogon T 28mm f/2.8, Planar T 45 mm f/2, Sonnar T
> 90mm f/2.8, TLA 200 flash
>
> Brochures about most of the above equipment have been read. But
> experience and practical opinion from users about the cameras and
> lenses will certainly help me decide. Any suggestions of other
> combinations will be welcome too.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andrew
Half jokingly but half seriously speaking, why don't you buy the both systems
and use them a while then decide which to dump if you have a deep pocket?
You can enjoy finicky TTL meter of Leica's and at the same time AF-errors
of Contax's. This is a great fun of amature photogaphy, isn't it? I have the
both
systems and enjoy the later system slightly more.
.../koji
Joe McCary
wrote:
| Half jokingly but half seriously speaking, why don't you buy the both systems
|and use them a while then decide which to dump if you have a deep pocket?
|You can enjoy finicky TTL meter of Leica's and at the same time AF-errors
|of Contax's.
FINICKY meter of the M6? I have had an M6 since 1981 and that meter
has been as accurate as any meter I have ever used (Minolta hand
helds, Nikon F100). When it says correct exposure it is the correct
exposure. I haven't used the Contax though I have picked one up and
played with it. I found the eye piece a bit small but usable. My
biggest complaint about the M series and the M6 is the flash sync
speed. That eliminates the use of fill flash outdoors when you must
be shooting above 1/50th of a second. I have never seen lenses any
sharper than the Leitz lenses (some may be as sharp but NONE sharper).
Joe McCary
Tom Alaerts
Now in this price region there is one alternative which will give
objectively better (in the technical sense of the word) pictures:
The Mamiya 7
It is a 6x7 camera, hence 4 times the negative size. If you make large
prints, the comparison with 35mm cameras becomes futile, so obvious is the
difference in quality.
Otherwise it looks and handles like a big Leica.
It has downsides: to keep it easily portable, the lenses are slow (f4, but
you can use Delta 3200 film with good results) so it's not really for
available light, and esp. with the telephoto, it doesn't focus close enough
for heads and shoulders pictures.
Otherwise it's one of the great camera's...
Tom
MoonHawk50
From: md...@aol.com (MDeeA)
Date: Fri, Apr 30, 1999 12:05 AM
Message-id: <19990430010552...@ng-cm1.aol.com>
Andrew,
Main problems:
Mark the Sharpshooting Shark>>>
I am not in agreement with your assessment of the Contax G series cameras. What
you say about the G1's slow AF may be true, but it isn't true with the newer
G2. The G2 employs both a passive and active AF system. I get crisp results
every time, and fast, too. As far as the viewfinder's size is concerned, I
admit it is not huge, but it has never impeded my shooting. As for the aperture
not showing in the viewfinder, I agree, it is a design flaw, but never a
hinderance to my photography. I just look on the lens barrel and know what
aperture I am shooting.
No camera is perfect for all types of shooting assignments. Even the ones you
suggested have their downsides.
><}}}}}}}^><^}}}}}}}><
Sean Chan
apples to oranges.
--
Sean H.Y. Chan ICQ# 28162308 se...@tsm.com.au
IT Consultant http://www.tsm.com.au/~sean
DSM Group Pty. Ltd. +61 412 246-889 (M)
PO Box 1493, West Perth, 6872, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
MoonHawk50
Date: Tue, May 4, 1999 09:58 PM
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.3.95.990505...@dns.tsm.com.au>
But you're comparing a rangefinder to an SLR?? That's like comparing
apples to oranges.
Not so. Both of the aforementioned cameras are rangefinders. Leica's SLR
cameras are R series.
><}}}}}}}^><^}}}}}}}><
Sean Chan
I was referring to the comparison to Canon silent focus, and the
mention of the 1-n(RS), and more - which you brought up.
Sean
Charles E. Dunlap
http://www.novia.net/~jlw/contax/index.html
I own a Leica M6 system (21/2.8; 35/2 Aspherical; 50/2; and 90/2.8).
I looked into a G2 when I was deciding to get rid of my Nikon (a good
decision in hindsight).
The G's are nice: very beautiful in my opinion. I tested the 45/2 against
my 50/2 in everyday shooting (at f/5.6 and smaller apertures). They are
comparable, with the G lens having a different color rendition than the
Leica Summicron. Photo Techniques also compared the two lenses and found
the Summicron superior until about f/8 when everything evened up. Although
the Leica was better in resolution and contrast, the magazine noted the
fine color renditions of the G lens. Both Contax and G were clearly ahead
of the equivalent lenses from Canon and Nikon. This has been my experience
also with the Nikkor 50/1.4.
Contrast and resolution are really two of the most boring lens properties.
The quality of tonal reproduction and the quality of the out-of-focus
regions in near wide open photographs are far more interesting to me. A
Nikon lens may show you one shade of green where a Leica or Contax lens
may show you 3. The resolution will be the same, but the appeal of the
photograph will be very different.
The smooth blur in the out-of-focus region is also something that is very
helpful in portraits or low-light photographs. It makes the difference
between an ugly and beautiful photograph. My Nikkor 50/1.4 was abyssmal in
this respect. The out of focus areas were so jarring that the whole photo
lost its appeal.
Another comment: although the original Popular Photography review of the
Contax G 90/2.8 states that it is the best med. telephoto that they've
ever tested, to my knowledge they've never tested the Leica M 90/2.8. I
have a 20x24" print hanging on my wall taken with that lens near wide open
that is incredibly detailed.
Regarding the lenses: 1) The Contax lenses are not better than the Leica
lenses, but at normal apertures are comparable and 2) Leica offers a much
wider range of lenses and is constantly improving them. Leica recently
introduced a 90/2 that is apochromatic and contains an aspherical lens
element. Leica also offers a 75/1.4, 50/1.4 and 50/1.0, 35/1.4, and
24/2.8. Nothing is available in these focal lengths/apertures in the
Contax G system.
Which is better? The real question is which is right for you.
I'm considering purchasing a G2 since I occasionally feel the need for
autofocus in moving people situations. I could never return to the lens
quality of Canon or Nikon, and so the G is a good choice.
Although I don't own a G2 yet, my feeling at this point is that if I only
had to have one 35mm camera it would be the M6. Maybe I'll feel
differently in a year.
A final comment: You will learn a lot more about photography with an M6
than a G2. The M is an excellent teacher. Of course, it requires you to
make all adjustments manually, but it also gives you insight into the
essentials that other cameras don't. First, it shows you the area of the
scene around what will be in the frame. I find my composition of the photo
with the M is much faster and better than with an SLR which, like the G,
masks out the surrounding scene so you have to move the camera around to
make sure you're getting what you want in the frame. Second, the M lenses
have clearly engraved depth of field markings, and so shooting at
hyperfocal distances or using the rangefinder to place the elements of the
scene within the zone of acceptable focus is very simple. On a G you need
to carry a depth of field table with you to accomplish this, and so
realistically you won't use this technique often.
Of course the G is much less expensive than the M, and so you need to make
rational budget decisions as well.
Good luck, and happy shooting.
-Charlie
Acer Victoria
1200mm f/5.6 [that's no typo], 14.5Kg, US$100,000. <G>
--
"Let us go then, you and I / When the evening is spread out against the
sky / ..." --/Prufrock/ Wow, what a work....
MoonHawk50
><}}}}}}}^><^}}}}}}}><