Contax G2 Rangefinder 35mm Film Camera

cliveh

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
7,524
Format
35mm RF
I have never used one of these cameras. Are they any good and how would I appreciate this camera in comparison to a Leica M2?
 

Pieter12

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
7,596
Location
Magrathean's computer
Format
Super8
Wonderful lenses, easy camera to use. Not a real rangefinder. Manual focus is ridiculous. Totally battery-dependent, and there is no indication of battery level so you should carry a spare. Viewfinder window is more toward the middle, not to the side of the camera so switching between the G1/G2 and a Leica can get confusing at times.
 
Last edited:

btaylor

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
2,254
Location
Los Angeles
Format
Large Format
cliveh said:
I have never used one of these cameras. Are they any good and how would I appreciate this camera in comparison to a Leica M2?
Click to expand...
I had a G1. I bought it because my dream rangefinder, the M2, was out of my price range. I picked up the 28, 45 and 90mm lenses as well. The G1 felt good in the hand, nice solid feel, but I did not like using it. For one thing, it is not a rangefinder. It is a sophisticated point and shoot. I found the autofocus hard to use, didn't trust it. Sold it all and bought the M2, which I absolutely love using. I should have saved up a little more to begin with. I wanted a fully manual traditional rangefinder, and the G series are not that. Great lenses though, no complaints there!
 

Down Under

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
The universe
Format
Multi Format
Posters #2 and #3 make relevant points about the Contax Gs. However, the OP is sort of comparing apples to oranges.

The differences between a Contax G2 or G1 and a Leica M2 are vast. The Gs are fully automatic and do not have a rangefinder focusing patch. The M2 is entirely manual. So they are two entirely different beasts, similar only in that they use film, which I believe in still available in many parts of the world (warning = bad joke alert).

I own four G1s and I use them all, usually two at a time, one loaded with B&W film and the other with color neg. They are 1990s automatic cameras. Yes, they are an upmarket Point And Shoot (the titanium bodies make them stand out in a crowd of film shooters) with many nifty features. As most old cameras do, they can malfunction in time. None of mine have as yet, and I don't baby them.

They are quirky cameras, and it took me a while to get used to using them. Not being able to eyeball the focus in the viewfinder was a drawback for me for a while, but I eventually got used to it. The only lens I have had problems with is the 90/2.8 Sonnar, and even then if I pay attention to the focusing my images are 99.5% always sharp enough. It isn't a lens I use a lot anyway.

The Contax G lenses are truly superb, to me they are the best thing about the G range. Made by Cosina to Carl Zeiss standards. The 45/2.0 Planar 'standard' is the sharpest lens I own, but I tend to use the 28/2.8 Biogon more, then the 35/2.0 Planar, and now and then the 45. The 90 takes some getting used to. There is also a 21/2.8 Sonnar - I have one, but it sees little use as I am not a super wide shooter. That 21 cost me big bucks in 2009 (I bought it on a whim) but even now is still worth more than I paid for it.

G1s are the humble older brother of the line. There are many around and the bodies are cheap - I paid full price for my first G1 in the mid-'90s when it came on the market and I had the credit to buy it. The other three I bought in the late 2000s when film camera prices were at rock bottom. I paid no more than AUS$125 for each.

They go on shooting and shooting. If (or more likely when) one passes away, I will just go on using the survivors. G2s have held their value to an amazing level in the secondhand market but G1s are as cheap as chips and you can buy either from online dealers. If your G pops off, get another body or sell your lens(es) for a good price and maybe the deceased body for spare parts. So win-win..
 
Last edited:

narsuitus

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2004
Messages
1,813
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
cliveh said:
I have never used one of these cameras. Are they any good and how would I appreciate this camera in comparison to a Leica M2?
Click to expand...

I cannot compare the Contax G2 to the Leica M2 because I have never used either.

I can, however, compare the Contax G1 to the Leica M6 because I own and use both.

The Contax G1 is an automatic/electronic camera. The Leica M6 is a manual/mechanical camera. I prefer manual/mechanical cameras.

The Contax is less expensive than the Leica. I was able to buy two G1 bodies with 28, 45, and 90mm Zeiss lenses for less than one Leica M6 body with no lens.

The Contax G1 is auto focus rangefinder. The Leica M6 is manual focus rangefinder.

The G1 has manual focus that is next to useless. The M6 has excellent rangefinder manual focus.

The G1 lenses focus closer than my M6 lenses.

When compared at the same aperture, the optical quality of my G1 lenses and my M6 lenses are both excellent.

I prefer the G1 hinged back to the M6 removable back.

The G1 has a built-in motor drive that shoots 1.6 shots per second in continuous shot mode and a built-in auto film rewind. The M6 does not.

The G1 has a viewfinder that automatically changes the angle-of-view to match the lens mounted. The M6 viewfinder automatically changes frame lines when the lens changes.

The angle-of-view through the G1 viewfinder changes each time the lens focal length changes. The angle-of-view though the M6 viewfinder does not change when the lens focal length changes. Instead, frame lines change.

G1 flash syncs at 1/100 second. The M6 flash syncs at 1/50th second.

M6 has depth-of-field scale on lenses. G1 does not.

M6 has a large selection of lenses available. G1 only has about 7 lenses.

The M6 is quiet. The G1 is noisy. This is important for me because I use rangefinders for stage work.

When I need to shoot with a film rangefinder under good lighting conditions, I prefer to use the auto focus G1 with the 21mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 45mm f/2, and 90mm f/2.8 Zeiss lenses.

When I need to shoot with a film rangefinder under low light conditions, I prefer to use the M6 with 21mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, and 90mm f/2.

35mm Rangefinders by Narsuitus, on Flickr
 

Craig75

Member
Joined
May 9, 2016
Messages
1,234
Location
Uk
Format
35mm
Hate them. Absolutely nothing like an m2. Imagine a point and shoot but the size of an m2. Thats a contax g series.
 

film_man

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
1,575
Location
London
Format
Multi Format
Compared to the M2 you go from manual focus and unmetered to autofocus (with no manual focus) and metered.

I had a G1 briefly with the 45/2. The camera had autofocus issues so had to send it back after a roll. My impressions: it is a nice autofocus camera, feels nice in the hand, the controls are nice but manual focus is pointless, you basically guess where you're focusing. So treat it as autofocus and you're good. The motor was noisy on mine, then again it didn't work half the time so I can't say if it should have been that noisy. On the half roll it did work the results with the 45/2 were superb. In my opinion the G series is a P&S with superb interchangeable lenses. By the way you can get most of those lenses in M mount: they are effectively the Zeiss ZM lenses.

If you can live with the risk of permanent failure then they can be great travel cameras. But it is a very different experience to a Leica M.
 

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,041
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
cliveh said:
I have never used one of these cameras. Are they any good and how would I appreciate this camera in comparison to a Leica M2?
Click to expand...
They are excellent quality cameras, but force a love-it-or-hate-it method of taking pictures. If you're sold on getting one I'd recommend trying a cheaper G1 first to see if you're on the love it side or hate it side.

I used G1 and G2 cameras for 10+ years and loved them until the electronics started to go. I replaced them with a far simpler manual focus Zeiss Ikon ZM camera and guess what? The electronics failed twice as fast. Sometimes you can't win for losing. ;-)
 

Vonder

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
1,237
Location
Foo
Format
35mm
The real reason for owning the Contax G2 is the same as the Leica. The lens quality. The lenses are superb.
 

Chan Tran

Subscriber
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
6,816
Location
Sachse, TX
Format
35mm
cliveh said:
I have never used one of these cameras. Are they any good and how would I appreciate this camera in comparison to a Leica M2?
Click to expand...
Unlike the tittle said the Contax G2 is autofocus cameras and the Leica M2 is a rangefinder.
 

Huss

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
9,058
Location
Hermosa Beach, CA
Format
Multi Format
Quote from a well known blogger...

I prefer the Leica's precise manual focus to the Contax' inconsistent, but fast, autofocus. The Contax can focus as close as 0.5m for normal and wide lenses, while the Leica's close focus is never better than 0.7m.

The Contax is autofocus. The G1 has an awful AF system, and the G2 has a less bad AF system. Each is fast, but not always accurate. The Contax G2 also can focus in complete darkness out to about 10 feet (3m).

The Contax has a manual focus feature that doesn't work. It's horribly inaccurate. The best way to do manual focus on the Contax is to use the AF-lock feature, or to set a distance using the digital scale. The manual-focus indicator bar works horribly, which means that it seems OK while you're shooting, but the results are often not in focus.

The Leica uses a traditional superimposed-image rangefinder for manual focus. It is more precise and more consistent than the flaky Contax AF system.

The Leica lenses have distance and depth of field scales, while the Contax lenses have nothing! The only distance indicator on Contax is a digital display of distance on the camera body. With Contax, you have to do any depth-of-field calculations in your head, making the Contax much less convenient for landscape photos.

Contax' autofocus system is almost instantaneous, while Leica's manual rangefinders take more time.

Sadly, the AF system of the Contax G2 is barely good enough for the 90mm f/2.8, and the AF system of the G1 is worse.

Because of Contax' inconsistent AF system, for careful shooting at large apertures with the 90mm lens I have to fiddle around and try several times to get the AF locked-in correctly with the Contax G2.

The Contax reads distance differently by about 5% every time it measures distance, so for the 90mm lens I try a few times until I get the distance which seems to pop up the most often.

I don't even want to think how bad the G1 might be.

For careful work with 90mm lenses, I can shoot faster manually with the Leica, since I only have to set it once.

Leica's manual-focus distance scales are perfect for careful depth-of-field calculations, while the Contax system has no focus scale: just a numerical LCD display. You've got to be really good at math with the Contax G System to measure the near and far distances, and calculate the optimum midpoint distance in your head to set manually into the Contax AF system.

With Leica you always know you're in focus, but with Contax, I'm always wondering. Contax has a digital distance readout in the finder, but it's never as reassuring as the manual system of the Leica.
 

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,041
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format

this correspondent sounds pretty upset that the Contax was not good at doing something that it clearly was not designed to do. I think he or she simply bought the wrong camera.

The 90 mm lens on both of my cameras was in fact challenging to focus for me, but all of the other lenses were a piece of cake.
 

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,041
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
Huss said:
Did you try using manual focus for the 90?
Click to expand...
I imagine but it's been quite a while. I didn't like manual focus on these cameras like most people, although it was possible to set the 28mm at hyperlocal manually and go for a walk in the city without worry for instance.

The focus issues for me with the 90 involved missing the target (focusing on the wrong object) or difficulty locking on any object, which I attribute to user skill and a tricky single point focusing system. The wider the aperture the easier it was to see the missed focus. Focusing a wide open 90mm lens on a film Leica is no piece of cake either though, and on the whole I bet my focus was more accurate with the G cameras than my manual focus cameras.
 

Leolab

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
52
Format
35mm
i have both M2 and G1/2 systems

I am always amazed at the output of my Contax G system, all of the lenses are top drawer, bar none.
I also have not really experienced AF issues with the 90mm.

what others have said is true in my experience, the M2 is a mechanical marvel, while the Contax G is an electrical marvel.
The focusing differences alone should sway you one way or the other, let alone the AE, higher shutter speed...
My G’s have proven durable and are beautifully built like the M2.

i originally had ZM lenses for my M2, but i dont think they are at the same level as the G lenses
28mm ZM noticeably worse than G28
50 ZM planar pretty close but quite as good as G45
there is no direct 90 2.8 competitor in ZM line (too bad)
the 35 f2 ZM is about the same as the 35mmG
the 21mm ZM is noticeably worse than the 21mmG

in short I think the G has the best bang-for-the-buck around, and is small, beautifully built...just know that it is not good at MF
 

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,041
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format

After divesting from the G system I collected some ZM lenses as well and I agree they may not be quite up to the G standards in some cases, and they're much more expensive as well. The ZM 28 is close but no cigar as you say, but if you don't mind slightly wider the 25 mm ZM is outstanding actually, and significantly better than the 28 mm G lens.

And I also agree about overall bang for the buck of the G system, 100%.
 

k.hendrik

Subscriber
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
684
Location
The Netherlands
Format
Multi Format


I don't get the problems about the 90mm(or any other lens) auto ?! page 96 of the manual 'using SAF; focus/shutter 'halfway'/compose image/shoot!
These pics are 'auto'
 

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,041
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
k.hendrik said:
I don't get the problems about the 90mm(or any other lens) auto ?! page 96 of the manual 'using SAF; focus/shutter 'halfway'/compose image/shoot!
These pics are 'auto'
Click to expand...
I’m a rtfm guy, and I did, every page. ;-)

100% of my pictures with the 90 that are like yours (a patient adult, motionless, in the center of the frame) are properly focused. But my life wasn’t like that all that often when I owned the G cameras.
 

k.hendrik

Subscriber
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
684
Location
The Netherlands
Format
Multi Format

gone

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
5,504
Location
gone
Format
Medium Format
They're very good. The 90 Sonnar is as good as a Leica for portraits. Maybe better. However, the downside is you have to shoot it on the Contax cameras. I've owned plenty...... back in the day you could get a kit quite cheaply compared to that other rangefinder maker. But you had to put up w/ some aggravations, and for me the deal killer was the tiny, darkish viewfinders. I could have even lived w/ that, but too many shots were cropped in "surprise" type ways. I had a grab shot of this beautiful 40 Ford hot rod that was ruined by the back bumper being cut off on the neg, when I knew for sure it was OK in the viewfinder. When you have to work quickly, the auto RF is not your friend.

I did like the sound of the camera when it was hunting for focus, something it liked to do on the 90 when it was wide open. Rrrrrrr, Grrrrrr, Rrrrrrr.
 

Down Under

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
The universe
Format
Multi Format
As so many have confirmed, the big plus with the Contax G line is the lenses. They are, in a word, superb.

The trick is to buy the bodies cheaply (not as I did, buying two G1s when they were just out on the market and paying top dollar for them, ha!) and put your money in the outstanding Cosina-made Carl Zeiss lenses.

Even now, 20+ years after they came out, G2s are still too expensive for my budget but G1s are selling for bargain prices. Even in hyperexpensiveforalmosteerything Australia a good functional G1 can be picked up cheaply. Two camera retail shops in Melbourne currently have one each on sale for <A$250 with 'used' warranties. Good deals.

Then invest in the lenses. At the end of the day, those Zeiss beauties can still be sold for good money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…