Contax G2 opinion please

[ksugden]

Hi I shoot using Minolta SLR's but there are times when something smaller and lighter would be nice. I have been thinking about a Rangefinder, I can't afford a Leica but could run to the Contax and couple of lens’s. If anyone has used one I would be grateful of your opinions.

Thanks Keith

 

[Peter Williams]

Hey Keith,

I haven't had my G2 for very long, but I absolutely love it. It has a wonderful feel and the lens (45mm is all I have for now) is great. I just printed from G2 negs for the first time last weekend and I am very impressed. I considered the Bessas, but as I already have a Mamiya 6, another manual focus rangefinder would have been redundant for me. I keep the G2 with me at all times - it's a wonderful travel camera. The shutter sound is music to my ears. I wanted a small camera that I could take anywhere that would deliver ease of use and had wonderful lenses - and I found it.

 

[Loose Gravel]

I've had one for some time. I bought it because I think 35mm should be fast, spur of the moment photography. The Zeiss lenses are wonderful. The camera is a do everything, fast 35mm. If you want to manual focus, it's a pain. If I have time to focus, I'll use a 6x7. If you need to save a few bucks, try a G1. It's almost the same thing.

 

[mawz]

Why not go with a Cosina Voightlander Bessa R2a or R3a and a couple of lenses? You can even go Zeiss for the lenses if you wish (Ziess ZM lenses in Leica M mount). They're cheap, good and still supported.

 

[df cardwell]

Only criticism I had of the G2 was the sometimes uncertainty of where it was focussing, although it seldom failed, unless I was up close and shooting wide open.

That's a common difference, though, between AF and M focus. You'll miss some shots you'd get with MF, and make some you'd miss.

I've been told more than once it was my fault, that I was too stupid to know how to compensate for the camera seeing one thing and me seeing another. Probably true.

Finally, from uncertainty, I parted with the camera. Probably much easier for someone to learn to use the camera on its own terms, than one constantly comparing it to another camera.

But the G2 is no worse than the best AF SLRs, and better in many cases. The lenses, as said before, are wonderful. All in all, a great camera.

 

[bjorke]

http://www.botzilla.com/blog/archives/000287.html (users)

http://www.botzilla.com/blog/archives/000378.html (focusing)

 

[tim elder]

I've used a G2 as my main camera for the last three years and really love it. The lenses are crisp and the color reproduction and contrast is superb. Like any other tool, it's not perfect, but a few rolls will get you through the quirks and the links listed above will be of help as well.

My caveat for the G2 is that it is an auto focus, automatic camera and if you are looking for a manual camera it isn't the one you want.

Tim

 

[Mongo]

The Contax is to 35mm rangefinders what the Fuji GA645 series is to medium format rangefinders...they're both auto-everything cameras that you must learn to trust, but that will reward you with great results when auto-everything is good enough. (In both cases you can manually focus and set the exposure yourself, but you really won't want to.) If you want a manual 35mm rangefinder that doesn't break the bank, consider the Voigtlander Bessa cameras. Plenty of people are very happy with them. Personally, I use an SLR when I want control, and the Contax when I'm willing to let the camera do most of the work.

I have a Contax G1 and haven't had any focus problems. The most common complaints are about the 90mm lens on the G1, but I've not run into problems with that combination. Both close up (head-and-shoulder portrait) and at a distance, the lens has focused well for me.

The "holy trinity" of lenses for the G series (the 28, 45, and 90mm) are absurdly cheap and are excellent performers. The 21 and 16mm lenses are too pricey to tempt me (although that 21mm does sing a Siren song...). The 35mm is reasonable, but too close to the other lenses to catch my interest...it might be the lens to buy if you're looking for a one-lens kit. If you want to get something strange, Zoerk actually re-mounts the Voigtlander 12 and 15mm LTM lenses into Contax G lens barrels. I'm sure the 12mm would be a fascinating lens to play with, but again these lenses are pricey. Finally, if you have the G2 you can consider the zoom lens, although I've never read a positive review of it. (I suspect that has as much to do with the high image quality of the prime lenses as with anything else.)

I'm off to Paris in early June, and the Contax will be my travelling companion. I've been to Paris numerous times and have shot plenty of manually metered images on larger film...this time I want to spend more time looking at the city rather than at my equipment. I expect that the Contax will perform as well as it always has.

As Tim notes, look elsewhere if you want a camera that you can control. Beyond simple things (choosing your own film speed, setting exposure compensation) it's best to allow the camera to do the work for you. Manually focusing the G1 is a nightmare, and I've read that the G2 is only somewhat better. There is a manual for the G1 online at http://home.comcast.net/~samius/CONTAX_G1.pdf - a quick scan through should give you a good idea of how the camera works. (I don't know of a G2 manual online.) The one thing you won't get from the manual is the feel of the camera...these things feel wonderfully solid when you hold them.

Best of luck.
Dave

 

[firecracker]

For another thought and an opiton, if you're concerned about the compactness and don't mind the AF&AE nature of certain rangefinder cameras, you may want to take a look at Contax T3. It's a point-and-shoot camera with a pretty sharp lens like any other camera. It might be too tiny for everyday use, but very reliable.

I think you can still find a used one for about 500 USD somewhere.

Just like G2, you might miss some shots if the focusing was your issue, but overall it's not bad at all. You can use MF setting to compensate that if you need. There are also the aperture-priority setting and the exposure-compensation mode to play around.

But what's really great about it is that no one thinks it's a real serious camera because it's so small, and the noise is very minimum.

Just by looking at some of the images by Christopher Anderson (ex VII, now Magnum photographer), he might have used it for his work along with other cameras. Or at least what he feld in his hand in the following page is the one:

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/TreePf_MAG.aspx?Stat=Photographers_Portfolio&E=29YL534E3E3E

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'd stick to the G2 unless budget is a significant obstacle. The G1, while a very nice camera, has several shortcomings in comparison to the G2 - the G2 has faster flash sync (a BIG deal if you need to do fill flash), faster film advance and faster top shutter speed. The biggest difference is in the autofocus - the G2's autofocus is much more accurate, much faster, and quieter. This is especially true as the cameras age. That said, I'd move heaven and earth to own a G2 system, for the optics if nothing else.

 

[Peter Williams]

They're cheap, good and still supported.

For the record, the G2 is still supported as well. ToCad handles all warranty repairs in the US. Their contact info is available from the Contax USA website.

 

[Sportera]

I had the G1 and T2 before my Leica M6.

I agree with everyone here. Focus can be an issue and the autoexposure and manual exposure was not fast or easy to use. The lenses were great, I had the " Holy trinity" and my entire G1 kit costs about what I paid for my M6. In the end the squinty viewfinder and lack of manual control left me wanting someting else.

The T2 was a great little camera and produced for me as well as the g1.

I do miss the G1 sometimes, namely for family pictures and when I want a pic of ourselves, no one can operate the Leica but most could use the g1.

 

[Vahid Naziri]

I have both G1 and G2. Great cameras with even greater lenses. The AF is not worse or any better than any other AF camera.

Vahid

 

[ajuk]

Only criticism I had of the G2 was the sometimes uncertainty of where it was focussing, although it seldom failed, unless I was up close and shooting wide open.

That's a common difference, though, between AF and M focus. You'll miss some shots you'd get with MF, and make some you'd miss.

I've been told more than once it was my fault, that I was too stupid to know how to compensate for the camera seeing one thing and me seeing another. Probably true.

Finally, from uncertainty, I parted with the camera. Probably much easier for someone to learn to use the camera on its own terms, than one constantly comparing it to another camera.

But the G2 is no worse than the best AF SLRs, and better in many cases. The lenses, as said before, are wonderful. All in all, a great camera.

Cant you see where its focusing from the rangefinder?

 

[Vahid Naziri]

Cant you see where its focusing from the rangefinder?

Actually, you can. It provides the distance to the subject it has focused on, which gives a good idea where the focus point is.

 

[Mongo]

The focus area is marked in the viewfinder...the little "brackets" that look like the focusing indicators on all modern AF SLRs. The distance displayed is a great double-check that you're getting what you think you're getting.

 

[naaldvoerder]

Why is it called a rangfinder if there is no rangefinder in it?

Jaap Jan

 

[Loose Gravel]

Because it is an electronic rangefinder.

 

[Peter Williams]

Why is it called a rangfinder if there is no rangefinder in it?

Jaap Jan

From Wikipedia:

A rangefinder camera is a camera fitted with a rangefinder: a range-finding focusing mechanism allowing the photographer to judge the focusing distance and take photographs that will be in focus. Most varieties of rangefinder show two images that when coincident give the proper focus distance. Older, non-coupled rangefinder cameras may display the focusing distance and require the photographer to transfer the value to the lens focusing ring. Most recent designs are coupled rangefinders - that is, the focus is adjusted both in the rangefinder and in the lens by the same control, usually a ring on the lens. In older designs the rangefinder is separate from the viewfinder; in most newer ones it appears at the center of the viewfinder.

It is not the viewfinder that classifies a camera as a rangefinder, but the method of focusing.

 

[Bruce Appel]

The G2 is as good as it gets for what it is. I have had mine a couple years now and the more I use it the more I appreciate it. It is fast, accurate, with lenses that are as good as any out there. My only concern is the long term reliability of the electronics. Will this rig still be working 50+ years from now like my Rollei, my superikonta and the like?

 

[ksugden]

Thanks you all for your input I have decided to try the G2 and picked one up on E-Bay with 45mm and 90mm lenses. I will let you know how I get on once it arrives.

 

[Peter Williams]

Congratulations on your new camera. I'll watch for thoughts once it arrives.

 

[Chan Tran]

I like both the G1 and G2 quite a bit except for the fact that neither of them has a rangefinder, that is you must rely on the AF sensors to focus even if you focus the camera manually.

 

[Michiel]

I have my G2 for a month now. Thanks to digital they are cheaper then ever, and the titanium on the outside lets it age graceful. If you buy one, keep an eye on the autofocus scale in the viewfinder, it will tell you what distance it is focussing on. Big mistakes will show up here very clear.
So far I only had one shot that was slightly out of focus ( barely visible at a 10x15 cm print) and a few pictures that are of an outstanding quality.
I think that with time I will better myself to take advantage of the full potential of camera en lenses.....And that is a lot!

Ps. Try looking thru the viewfinder before you buy. It is said to be a love or hate thing.

 

[ksugden]

Hi all I have had the camera about a month now and added a 28mm lens as I come from an auto focus SLR background I find the auto focus of the G2 to be intuitive if a bit slow compared with my Dynax 9's the viewfinder is a bit small and dim but you soon get used to it. The results are amazing sharper and better contrast than my Minolta G lenses, almost 3D but you have to think more about the metering in tricky lighting, but I will soon get used to it. Viewing slides it produces on the light box is far more satisfing than looking at digital files on a monitor.

The biggest advantage the G2 has is it's light weight and portability which means it goes every were with me. So I better buy some shares in Fuji. I am planning on trying some higher speed B+W film soon this will be my first serious venture into mono so if i get on with it I will be trying to talk the wife into a darkroom before the end of the year.