Why didn't the Contax G1/2 make it?

Thanks, Guys. It seemed to me like the perfect specs and I was ready to buy the system. Then I picked it up and it felt like a heavy lump of misformed lead. It was the most un-ergonomic camera I've ever held. From reading your comments, I think that if I'd gone ahead and bought it anyhow that I'd have hated it.<P>PS, my favorite RF camera for street shooting is the Konica S3 which, in a sense, was the end of the line, and didn't make it either.

I was new into photog when the G1 came out and I recall little information on it. Leica didn't have alot of info either but it did have a history and a great many shooters whom I liked used it. So I went with Leica.

 

I recall shortly after the G1 came out shooters were complaining about the camera. By the time G2 came out I was hestitant about buying into it.

 

I wanted something I could rely on and for me that meant a Leica, Nikon F3, and a Hasselblad.

No forward compatibility to digital, is a real killer these days.

Who would want one when they could get equal lenses and viewfinder in a far more quiet IIIC, without all that autofocus and meter obstruction ?

I agree with John. While the optics were no doubt superb, the crappy viewfinder and AF made

it an amateur, ungainly piece of equipment. I considered it once, for a few seconds - till I

held it up to my eye....

I use it often and get great results! Kyocera awakened to the business reality that many other companies have . . . digital is the new paradigm. Film cameras are passe! Many companies are in it for the profits . . . go figure! :-) <p>

For many, the G1/G2 system was limited in its features, quirky in design, and totally wrong for Leica purists. OTOH: I find the G2 outstanding in quality, sufficiently full featured for much of my 35mm work that does not require a telephoto. The glass is excellent+, the camera can be controlled on auto or fully manual . . .even some spotmetering capacity! It's a solid piece of camera technology that can deliver up to 5 frames per second when I need it and all perfectly focussed and exposed! For group & party candids it rocks! With the 45mm Planar or 21mm Biogon, it rocks! Thus, my Leica MP sits in its box gaining value as a collectors piece!

To much electronics

If it had a standard RF and MF lenses but with auto winder like the Hexar RF then maybe it would have worked out. Wait the Hexar is also gone, skip that thought...

Well, my own thoughts are that Kyocera dropped the ball and the G series was an unlucky casualty.

 

A few comments brought up by others, with my own opinions tacked on.

 

Too loud: Honestly, I think the G2 is quieter than my M6TTL. With one simple trick it is damn near silent and perfect for street (ie, where you want one shot at a time). You select multi exposure, then you cap it and hit the next shot to do the rewind. The G1 is louder, but is still very quiet.

 

Focus Lock: Honestly, I rarely have had a G2?s focus miss anything. It is fast and sure. And honestly, it is one of the few cameras with zero problems focusing when it is dark. Has been a life saver when doing some wedding shots on a monopod. Your at the reception, and you simply set it to a wide aperture and auto shutter and click. Simple.

 

Fighting with the camera: The G was NOT an M. It is a rangefinder, but it is a modern marvel. I have had SLRs with less features. Hmm, actually most SLRs can?t compete with it?s top shutter speed and FPS. Nor with three film speeds. But it isn?t something that can have all electronics fail, and keep on working. Personally I keep a G1, G2 and M6TTL in the same case. It goes with me when I am shooting film (probably 30% of the time).

 

It is sad really. The camera that everyone talked about was the Contax G2D? a camera I wonder if was even developed.

 

Oh well? I think Kyocera just up and dropped the ball.

You really can't compare the G2 to the Leicas as they are quite different. Similarities are the high cost and the quality lenses, but there it stops. I had the Gs for quite a while, and, like others have said- I tried like hell to make them work for me. The lenses are superb. The 90mm would not autofocus quickly enough to shoot any action shots of my kids playing sports. By the time I had fiddled with the focus point and "played" with the AF, the shot I wanted was gone most times. If you shoot only portraits or landscapes it will be fine.

 

Plus, many people, including myself pointed out the fact that the camera was basically a very expensive P&S, and not a "rangefinder" like a Leica.

The G1 & G2 passed away for the same reason as the Hasselblad 500 and other niche market cameras. The shift to digital brought so many used cameras to the marketplace that production of new ones became uneconomical. And Kyocera didn't see the return on investment from them going into digital.

 

I've used a G1 & a G2, plus five of the lenses for about six years. Great system for me. But I bought everything used.

 

Leica and Hasselblad had no option but to try to make it in digital. Kyocera had the option and passed. It will be interesting to see if Leica and Hasselblad survive. It looks tough to me.

 

For years, I've thought about Leica, then either the Zeiss Ikon or Voitlander systems. I always come back to the realization that the Contax lenses are great and the AF has always worked very well for me.

 

The Contax G system is far from dead. It is just no longer in production. But there is a long list of great cameras in that same situation.

 

Kyocera did pull of one great marketing feat in convincing people that the G2 was better than the G1. I've owned both for years and pick up the G1 almost every time. It does the same thing just in a smaller, lighter, and cheaper package.

I concur with those who have said we can't really count the Contax G-line as a failure. It's a little like watching a ship sink with one lifeboat still tethered to it and concluding there must have been something wrong with the lifeboat because it didn't float like the other lifeboats. The Leica was introduced in the 1920's (they weren't actually rangefinders until the 30's) when the idea was revolutionary and their success was enough to propel Ernst Leitz's company to a whole new level. By the time the Contax G1 was introduced 70-some years later the 35mm rangefinder was a niche market dominated by established (indeed, in the case of Leica, iconic) names. The company responsible for its introduction had a lot of other pokers in other fires. Though the DSLR era hadn't quite dawned the writing was clearly on the wall (perhaps not for Kyocera, but most of the rest of the world.) There was little threat of these new cameras turning the company (or at least the Contax name) around or even keeping it viable on its own. The best Kyocera could realistically hope was that the G-line would make positive contribution to Contax's bottom line, and for all we know it did. Had Contax gotten some other things right through the digital trasition years we might be talking about the features of the new G5 right now.

I too considered a G until I brought it to my eye...squinty. Built-in density, read, false quality, does not a good camera make.

<p>Oh good grief!<br>

I am tired of seeing posts that totally dismiss the Gs as not rangefinders but only point-n-shoots. A P&S camera you are only using the VF to <em>frame </em>the photo while the camera focuses the lens. The Gs are not<strong> manual</strong> rangefinders, but do operate as rangefinders, albeit electronically:<br>

1-In a manual RF, two windows bifocally see the image and the user <strong>manually </strong>turns the lens until a tiny mirror triangulates/aligns the images in the the windows onto a small RF patch. When the images selected in the RF patch are aligned as one, the lens is in focus.<br>

2-In the Gs, the camera uses two windows bifocally see the image, shoots out a beam, triangulates the distance, <strong>automatically </strong>turns the lens until the images in the the windows are triangulated/aligned as seen in a small patch. The user must <strong>select</strong> the focus point in the small patch (as in a manual rangefinder) and this is the mistake people make: if they use a G as a P&S and not use the focus patch (as in a manual RF) they will mis-focus. If they use the patch to select the point of focus (again, as in a manual RF), that is what will get focused, barring the usual AF issues such as flat walls (which won't manually focus either): you just then pick a clear focus target and hold the focus (like in a manual RF!). As with an AF SLR, you must carefully select to point of focus...or are you also saying an AF SLR is not a <em>real </em>SLR but a only fancy P&S?</p>

<p>One is automatically done, the other is manually done.</p>

<p>AFs can miss the focus or have issues, true...but as we get older and as bright as the FV can be, we may not clearly see the RF patch and on those very fast lenses Leica fans love, will not have a perfectly focused shot. Also, Leica recommends the RF in their cameras be CLA'd every 3-5 years as the RF system can get out of alignment, especially if knocked around.</p>

<p>One you must trust the AF system, the other you must trust your eyes/RF system.</p>

<p> I contend the G IS a rangefinder...just not a manual rangefinder.</p>

 

<p>After years of wanting one of these, I finally pulled the trigger since prices are so low and got a G1 and 28/2.8 just yesterday. As to why it "failed", I'd say 1) Kyocera getting out of the camera business, and 2) digital. <br>

I look forward to using this camera, but I have to agree w/some of the previous posters...the thing is quite a bit louder than I remember/expected it to be.</p>

<p>by the time yhe g-system had become known, respected, digital photography was building mpmentum.<br />as a niche market brand, contax was trapped by insufficient brand presence, a competitor: leica, the most respected camera system in the world+brand fierce global brand marketing from jap brands.<br />with 20/20 hindsight, kyocera had too many camera brands. yashica and kyocera brands had too many models. the total marketing spend across all this too thinly. same for technical resources.<br />imo rhe G2 is an excellent camera. i used it alongside an m-system. different, brilliant. i am sure kyocera knew there was a market for a G3 digital. timing and resources needed, meant the end.after the N digital disaster, too big a risk. had they not tried to compete in the non-niche reflex market, used resources for a g3 unstead, we might have an ex[anding G system today.kyocera's then president, had to priorize shareholder value. just 1 year before his decision in 2005, he stated plans to double contax production. build new production in china for all kyoceras camera brands. predating the 2007 start of the current downturn, it was prophetic. less choice for camera-users. sad, of course.</p>

<p>it wa</p>