RoBBo, I went through the exact same thought process you did a few years ago. I borrowed a G1 for a few weeks and thought that while it looked good on paper, it was disappointing in actual use, and I didn't see what the big deal was. It was a close-but-no-cigar thing for me. While the lenses are truly great and relatively cheap, the AF was slow and persnickety. Since it's a mainly AF camera, it's an important issue and was a deal-breaker for me.
Then I went to a camera store ad played with a G2. While it does have some additional features that are nice (x-sync at 1/200 instead of 1/100, faster shutter, higher fps rate, etc., full chart
here), they nailed the AF. It's also got active IR that focuses very accurately in extremely low light (only works up to 12 feet or so, but it still make a huge difference). And it all WORKS in actual use.
Most people I've heard or read complaining about AF accuracy with G2s (I'm not saying this applies to you, Roger, this is just a general observation) seem to not fully understand how the AF system works. It's not a point-and-shoot, and its focusing system doesn't work like one: it doesn't automatically focus on the closest object or use any fancy subject detection algorithms. There are a pair of brackets in the viewfinder (looks like [ ]) that indicates the AF point, and it works a lot like an optical rangefinder focusing patch: you aim the bracketed area at the point you want to focus on, lock focus (configurable as half-shutter or rear button), and recompose. If you understand how contrast detection AF works (like knowing that you can't point it at a blank white wall), fast and accurate use should be no problem whatsoever. However, if you just frame the shot the way you want it and fire the shutter, you and the camera will have a mismatch of expectations, because it will focus on whatever the AF point happens to be looking at while you're expecting it to automagically do the "right" thing.
Money-wise, I'm sad to say that while I'm ecstatic with the G2--to the point where I bought a backup body and set of lenses, because they're out of production and I never want to be without one--the G1 just didn't cut it for me. I'm sure that in time I could have learned to deal with it, but for me, the G2 is noticeably and significantly better in real-world use. While the other improvements are (for me) in the nice to have category, the difference in AF performance is what makes the G2 and breaks the G1, at least for the type of shooting I do with it.
Obviously there are loads of people who get along just fine with manual focus rangefinders, and I'm not saying they're wrong. (Hell, I've got a Canonet QL-17 Giii, an Olympus XA, a Kodak Retina, a Zeiss Super Ikonta, and a Hasselblad XPan myself, and my first real camera was my grandfather's 35mm Zeiss folder.) But unless you're using hyperfocal pre-focusing, the G2 is pretty much inarguably faster to operate (maybe not even then, because the G2 has a fast-advancing motor drive and most manual focus RFs don't) (and you can also use the G[1/2]'s manual focus mode to set and lock hyperfocal). Obviously not everybody shoots this way, but there are of course times when hyperfocal just isn't a practical option, like in normal-sized rooms with low light. The G2's IR AF can accurately focus in light that I have a really hard time seeing a normal RF focusing patch in.
What works for me may of course be a train wreck for you, but I was looking for a fast, reactive RF I could use in low light (and didn't have to be taken half-way apart to load) that disappeared in my hands, and I found it in the G2. Sadly, nothing else comes close for me, including the G1.
BTW, I have a Hexar AF. The lens is great, but you obviously only get one choice. The interface is notoriously quirky, but you can kind of get past that. However, the AF is comparatively slow, and I do find its top speed of 1/250 to be somewhat limiting. It is
freakishly quiet, though! When all is said and done, I reach for the G2 over it every time, though.
