Hi, i sold off my SLR system so that i could change to a rangefinder one. Although the contax g system is not really a true rangefinder, i like it's relatively small size and CZ lenses for a price that won't cost you a nuclear bomb (leica leica). Anyways, i'm still having second thoughts about getting the G2 with a 28mm, can any of u guys reassure me or have anything to say about the G system (esepcially those who have used it) thanks.
Your Say on the Contax G1/G2 (G system)
- Thread starter Patryk
- Start date
- Status
Patryk said:
I never use a Contax G-series camera before. But I did own Contax T3, till now I am still using it. The Carl Zeiss lens is fantastic!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
The G2 is abit over priced if u ask me. As long as u don't need ultra wides, the contax G system is about the most value for money system u can get.
The Contax G2 is the big brother of the fantastic T3, except that you get more manual overrides and better interchangeable lenses. The Biogon and Planar are two of the sharpest lenses that you will ever come across, so good that you get a somewhat 3D kinda effect, pleasent and soft bokeh while rendering the subject matter super sharp. See some samples on www.contaxg.com. For more info about G2 and the range of lenses plus accessories, see http://www.novia.net/~jlw/contax/ and independent views of the camera at http://www.photo.net/contax/g2, especially those found under the hall of fame tab.
The only advice I can give you is that the G2 is not a camera that you should only own as its use can be somewhat limited due to the small range of lenses, as such no close focussing or long telephotos. This is generally treu of all rangefinders. I sold my G2 some time back because of this, but have since invested in a digital camera that would supplement the G2, and have just procured a G2 again. Flash phtography with the G2 is a pain, but not impossible. If you love close quarter shooting, the G2 is the answer, with some of the best wide angle lenses ever made. Why did I buy another set? Because of the superb quality that I can get from the lenses, something you cannot easily get from any other camera setup.
The only advice I can give you is that the G2 is not a camera that you should only own as its use can be somewhat limited due to the small range of lenses, as such no close focussing or long telephotos. This is generally treu of all rangefinders. I sold my G2 some time back because of this, but have since invested in a digital camera that would supplement the G2, and have just procured a G2 again. Flash phtography with the G2 is a pain, but not impossible. If you love close quarter shooting, the G2 is the answer, with some of the best wide angle lenses ever made. Why did I buy another set? Because of the superb quality that I can get from the lenses, something you cannot easily get from any other camera setup.
Body wise, the Leica Ms or even the Nikon S3 2000 are overpriced. The Voigtländer Bessas are relatively cheaper. This is of course not a comparision of which is better or worse.
Parchiao said:
The Leica M camera & Nikon S3 2000 is expensive as it is small production run cameras.
I am really disappointed with the new Nikon S3 2000 as compared to the 50's original S3 2000 may looks nice on the exterior but uses many plastic gears inside instead of the original brass gears. A kind of cost reduction which increase the break-down rate of the camera. A japanese camera mag. that I once saw have shown all those S3 2000 with plastic parts!
I second the comments Parchiao has made.
I own a 2nd hand G2 with the 50mm Planar & 28mm Biogon.
Both are superbly sharp lenses.
No regrets buying.
I get better results from the G2 than Canon AF with L (both zoom & prime) lenses.
The G2 is beautifully made in titanium, making it a joy to hold & handle.
Aesthetics wise, the G2 system is hard to match.
Matching lenses, hood, flashes complete the set up.
Having said that, one has to live w the G2's quirks:
- limited choice in lenses : longest is 90mm
- flash photography is a bitch
- focus goes back to infinity after every shot
rgds, darkavgr
I own a 2nd hand G2 with the 50mm Planar & 28mm Biogon.
Both are superbly sharp lenses.
No regrets buying.
I get better results from the G2 than Canon AF with L (both zoom & prime) lenses.
The G2 is beautifully made in titanium, making it a joy to hold & handle.
Aesthetics wise, the G2 system is hard to match.
Matching lenses, hood, flashes complete the set up.
Having said that, one has to live w the G2's quirks:
- limited choice in lenses : longest is 90mm
- flash photography is a bitch
- focus goes back to infinity after every shot
rgds, darkavgr
If you're not a traditionalist, then the G2 is a good compromise rangefinder compared to the Leica M's. The G2 has great lenses and the 28mm definitely maintains the standards. I've used it with the custom flash and find the lighting very natural and easy to use. I simply set my shutter to 1/15 or 1/30, then set -1 1/3 on the camera exposure compensation dial and fire away. Perfect images everytime. You can use the exp compensation dial to control the flash. With the 28mm lens, the camera is very handy and quick. The focussing is not great or fast and the viewfinder is quite dim compared to the Leica's. However, with the depth of field of the 28mm, it's alright, since you don't need that precise focussing.
It's a great camera with a nice feel. Shutter is pretty quiet too.
Happy Shooting (if you get one)!
It's a great camera with a nice feel. Shutter is pretty quiet too.
Happy Shooting (if you get one)!
I was also faced with the same choice as you.
The advantage of the G series is affordability, AF (if you use it), electronic (read accurate) shutter, motorized film advance and AE.
The M is quieter, focuses better in dim light, and has a much bigger selection of lenses going down to f1.
If you use AF/AE and are content with the 28/35/45/90, get the G.
If you need f2 and below lenses and use MF you have no choice but to save $ to get the M. Take note that for the G, only the 35 and 45 are f2 lenses.
People will quibble over whether CZ lenses are equivalent to M glass, but they are both great.
I chose the M. No regrets. I'm sure others will say the same about the G too.
The advantage of the G series is affordability, AF (if you use it), electronic (read accurate) shutter, motorized film advance and AE.
The M is quieter, focuses better in dim light, and has a much bigger selection of lenses going down to f1.
If you use AF/AE and are content with the 28/35/45/90, get the G.
If you need f2 and below lenses and use MF you have no choice but to save $ to get the M. Take note that for the G, only the 35 and 45 are f2 lenses.
People will quibble over whether CZ lenses are equivalent to M glass, but they are both great.
I chose the M. No regrets. I'm sure others will say the same about the G too.
pipefish said:
Yes, both Contax G-series and Leica M-series are great! Actually it depends on what the photograher need.
I own and love the Contax G2 series. Great lenses, but can't say the same for the body. The AF selector switch always gets turned accidentally to Manual mode, so your shots go out of focus without you knowing. Of course, you can argue that I can check the focused distance in the viewfinder, but then do we really do that always when we're in a shooting frenzy? 
The worse thing is the darn viewfinder. Even my Ricoh GR-1 has much better viewfinder than the dingy hole they call a viewfinder. The already low contrast is lowered even more when dust gets into it. But after saying all that, I own 2 G2 bodies and most of the G-lenses (except the zoom lens and the obscenely-priced f/8 lens). Why? There's a special feeling about using the G-series that you don't find elsewhere.
The worse thing is the darn viewfinder. Even my Ricoh GR-1 has much better viewfinder than the dingy hole they call a viewfinder. The already low contrast is lowered even more when dust gets into it. But after saying all that, I own 2 G2 bodies and most of the G-lenses (except the zoom lens and the obscenely-priced f/8 lens). Why? There's a special feeling about using the G-series that you don't find elsewhere.
hi
everyone seems to be talking abt G2. how abt the G1 ? how does it compare with the G2 ? thinking of getting one
everyone seems to be talking abt G2. how abt the G1 ? how does it compare with the G2 ? thinking of getting one
Try not to get the G1... the focusing accuracy according to many users is not as good as the G2, and it has the tendency to keep hunting for focus. This might be due to the fact that it only has passive autofocus, compared to the G2 that has both passive and active AF systems.
Also, the G1 needs to be updated to use certain lenses like the tri-zoom and the 35mm lenses. G1 bodies that were already modified have a green sticker in the film chamber near the DX sensors.
Hope this helps!
Also, the G1 needs to be updated to use certain lenses like the tri-zoom and the 35mm lenses. G1 bodies that were already modified have a green sticker in the film chamber near the DX sensors.
Hope this helps!
actually, having used both at some point in time, i'd like to just mention that currently a 2nd hand g1 is quite abit cheaper than a g2. The focus hunting isn't that bad really. What erks me more is taht the viewfinder is rather dark. I used my G1 for indoor stage events and the AF worked all the time. Work within your costs lah. Also, i prefer the G1 due to its lighter wt and smaller size. the firmware upgrade can be done at the agent for something like 130 bucks i think.
- Status
Similar threads
