My final verdict on Leica M vs. Contax G

<p>I don't have anything to add to the comparisons or anything... but looking through the G's crappy VF made me cancel my intended purchase... didn't take 11 years. (I know the lenses are good and that you can take great photos with the G... I just didn't feel like I had to...)</p>

You can pick them up for a pittance here in Tokyo, and I often do. The lenses are sharper than a foxbat out of hell, and the titanium exoskeleton is to die for. The main reason I wrote this post though, was that I was so surprised how much better my shots were with a meterless totally manual M3, so I wanted to share.

<p>I never used a G of any kind so I won't comment on that. I'm only recently entered the Leica club with an M6 classic, but after having used manual (FE2) and automatic (F100) Nikons for quite some time, I can really appreciate the simplicity and singularity of purpose that the Leica possesses. I'll guess that that's one of the points that Darius is trying to make (vs. the Contax) and if so, it's one of the more valid ones IMHO. Getting rid of all the automation - even AP auto - and getting down to the most basic of basics is really liberating once you get the feel for it. Heck, even my M6 isn't as basic as the M3, albeit, I'm finding myself depending less and less on the little red arrows.</p>

<p>That whole "extension of the eye and hand" thing really rings a bell with the Leica and I don't know of any other camera with so few features, each designed and executed so well. I'm not, nor do I intend to become a Leica evangelist - even though I'll tell anyone who asks what a great camera it is - but I will say that once I got everything that was not absolutely essential out from in front of my eyeball, I started to see the photos that I was trying to make all along. That's without even mentioning the superior optics and the host of other plus column points that come along with the moniker.</p>

<p>I'm gonna jump the tracks a little here and comment on one more thing that I like about the Leica's simplicity. At it's most sophisticated, metering in a [film] Leica consists of a little white dot painted on the shutter curtain, a little CDS cell circuit and a couple of lights in the finder. That's it. I've never heard any photog with minimal experience (or brains) say that they can't manage good exposures with this elegant little device. I get such a kick out of the thought that anyone really thinks they need 492 segment, multi-color, phased array, super synchronous, master computer database scene coupled metering when one can easily, with a very little bit of practice, guess exposure in almost any situation within a stop - give or take, or at worst, should you shoot with an M2, 3, or 4, just get a little bitty handheld meter to check yourself against the back of your hand once in a while. Failing that, bracket a little, but if you think you need all that advanced technology to get your f-stop right, you're just justifying all those marketing and engineering dollars that the big guys are spending to get you to buy their latest and greatest. I'm really sorry if the above amounts to nothing more than a snobby sounding rant, but that whole metering thing in these new cameras really gets my goat! I can maybe see a high pressure White House PJ, who only gets one, split second crack at the right exposure - and I'll bet even he can guess and get it right - but anyone else? ...that's all I have to say about that... Get a Leica, dispense with all the unnessesary and counter-intuitive technology and start making real pictures.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have a contax g2 with heliar 15mm/4.5 modified by zoerk,21/28/35/45/90 zeiss lenses and a m6 titanium with 21 asph and 75 summilux.Sooner or Later I'll buy a 35 'lux asph (1800 euro used?).I have to say that the contax g2 is faster (af and AE and a really faster motor) smaller and lighter.The leica is more "classical"camera with a much better finder but slower to use and very expensive!!!For i.e. the 21mm elmarit asph (2400 euro+ very expensive lense for me) flares much more than my biogon 21mm(paid 600/700 euro new!)and the planar 45 is a great performer (paid 700 euro new with the new g2 body) maybe better than a classical summicron 50/2 I tried!just two diffent ways......</p>

<p>While I appreciate the assessment of the Contax G series, you are off the mark when you say that Bessa is a M replacement. It's not a replacement, they are taking a position in a different part of the market....the entry level. Nikon doesn't try to get you into the "Nikon system" by selling you a D3X... they start with the D40. <br>

It's really what Leica should have done years ago. They kinda tried it with the CL but they should have licensed their M mount to other manufacturers.<br>

As for that Fred Parker quote, although it is funny, it should be reversed. I use a 45 year old M3 that's been in my family since new. It's never broken down.</p>

<p>When the Contax G first came out I read a lot of positive reviews. So I went to a camera store to check it out for myself. I picked one up, took one look through that peep-hole viewfinder, and set it down again with the remark that it was one viewfinder short of being a worthwhile camera.<br>

I don't shoot film these day, but if I did, it would be with my Leica M3 and its wonderful viewfinder.</p>

<p>Next up: 1989 Toyota Corolla vs 1989 Honda Civic - the final verdict.</p>

<p><em>How does this photo taken with my lowly rated Minilux with the f2.4 Summarit look?</em><br>

Like every other 283 x 418 jpg on the Internet, only less interesting.</p>

<p>Very weak analogy Mark. Is that really the best you can do? A better analogy would be a 1950s Mercedes SL versus a 1995 Honda NSX. But you get the prize for most informative posting.....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A better analogy would be a 1950s Mercedes SL versus a 1995 Honda NSX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The NSX any day of the year.</p>

<p>I often carry and use a G1. Many have complained about viewfinder on the G bodies, but this really misses the point. An argument can be made that the G viewfinder is superior because the framing is about the most precise available on a RF body.</p>

<p>The G1, however, <em>is</em> deeply flawed in that the auto focus performance is lacking. The AF can actually focus faster than I can line up a RF patch, and it has trouble focusing on the same white wall that I do. Unfortunately, this isn't good enough. The AF needed to be superhuman because this camera design philosophy relegated manual operations to second class status - the automation needed to be flawless.</p>

<p>By the way, on the SL and NSX analogy, a more apt comparison is probably the Leica M to the Canon EOS-3. And yes, the EOS-3 any (well, most) days...</p>

 

<p>I shot with G2 and 3 lenses for the past 11 years, too, and with M3 + Lux 50 for the past 4 years. Each camera has its advantages and disadvantages, but I still keep both and recently bought Zorki-C with Industar-22 just for fun. They are all different and give different pictures due to different lenses. The process of shooting is very different with all 3 cameras.<br>

Sometimes I miss the focus with G2, too, but M3 is a bit slower to use. Right, G2 is a sofisticated P&S and M3 is a precision tool but who cares as soon and with either of them one is able to get excellent results.</p>

<p>And, Darius, it never occured to you that you just didn't know HOW to use the Contax G? Certain people just aren't meant to go with certain cameras. And it's very rarely the camera's fault. After all, this is one of the forums where you will more often read the classic «It's not the gear, it's the photographer.» I don't know, I've had a G2 for a few years, and I never had an out of focus or badly exposed photo. And I could make mediocre images with it as well as with my Leica M. No more, no less.</p>

<p>I don't know why people call the G series "Rangefinders' It would be far more accurate to refer to "Interchangeable lens AF Compact". The Leica M series does have classic status, but the system is VASTLY overpriced for what you get. They are a satisfying camera to hold and use. But the acid test of any camera is - can it take a good photograph? Undoubtably - but only as good as the photographer pressing the shutter release!!!!! - which goes for any camera you care to mention. Bottom line, use the tool you find personally best for you and get out, take some great pictures! Oh and just to add to the controversy, if Konica had taken up the Hexar range in anger, I personally believe it would have flattened the Leica. I owned one and sold it - and I now wish I hadn't, it was undoubtably one of the best 35mm cameras I have ever owned.</p>

<p>The G is not a rangefinder camera.</p>

<p>I'm a Leica user for many year who took a foray into the Contax G. I shot one event where the focus was way off on almost every shot with the G. Of course, I had no way of knowing at the time until I saw the negatives. I sent it off to New Jersey, and when it came back, it worked well. But I had lost confidence in the camera. Never again would I use it in a situation where I had to get the shot. Too bad, because the lenses were superb. Now you can get the lenses modified to fit the Leica M. www.japanexposures.com/lens/ But most of my shooting now is with the Canon DSLR system.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2067276">Darius Jedburg</a><br>

Thanks for posting your analogy. I always wondered about my G1 but was never quite sure what to make of it. It took nice photos if I did my part but that required a bit of effort from me, sloth that I am. But after reading your post I saw the light so tonight threw my G1 with 35/2 (my only G1 lens) in the trash can. Finally I am free of a camera that doesn't do anything well but capture contrasty colorful nicely saturated high resolution shots on chrome.</p>

<p>I think that you have to respect the difference between the two cameras. For lens quality there is lille to choose but the leica has a better range of lenses. If you want to take action shots e.g. ice hockey or ski racing the G2 is the better camera (AF and a motor) but you reakly should be using an SLR for this purpose. For manual shots the Leica is the best bet (MF on a G2 is terrible and the camera is best left in aperture priority with exposure comp or AEB). There are places where the G2 beats the Leica or any SLR in my experience. If you want to take shots while rock climbing (and using one hand to belay) the G2 has it over an SLR or Leica. For candid shots when not putting the camera to the eye and attracting attention the G2 is better (but how often do you do this). Put simply the G2 is (as was stated) an expensive point and shoot. But as the owner (co-owner with my wife) of two that is great with me. The camera takes great shots - I am sure that no-one on this forum can tell the difference between a G2 shot and a Leica shot. It may not have the same purity of purpose as the Leica and rely on a lot of electronics but you have to admit it takes fine photographs. I often hear about the AF issues but I have never had an issue with the G2. So long as you give it a good edge to focus on it is rapid and in focus - but does not compare to a Canon 1 series. I think Darius misses the point with his metering comment - of course an handheld incident light meter will beat the G2 meter - so what you can use one with the G2. Indeed the G2 meter beats the M3 meter (which since it doesn't have one is sunny F16). I wonder if Darius is a competent photographer as I rarely throw away a G2 image for Af or exposure. Indeed my wife who is not a photographer gets about 90% keepers with the G2 and her main issue is the viewfinder where she does not frame well (this is one area where the Leica clearly beats the G2). All of this misses the point which is a camera is about the pictures and there is no camera that excells for all purposes - each machine is a trade off. My Fuji GX680III takes great images with an incident light meter - all of which are superior to the Leica (the lenses are of similar quality and the 6x8 image is better than a 35mm one). The Fuji also has a better viewfinder - especially with an F3.2 lens, and even has full front lens movement. The point is "SO WHAT" the Fuji weight 10lbs, needs a tripod and the mirror vibration is such that you have to lock it up before shooting. There is nothing wrong with the G2 - it is a fine camera with great lenses. You may not like the trade off's they have made and that is also fine. The point is that the G2 takes great photographs - if you cannot do so then this is no fault of the camera. We all have personal preferences and I can understand why many people prefer an M series to the G2 but this does not make the G2 a bad camera and compared to Leica it is a bargain (KEH has the 90mm F2.8 in LN- for $126, compared to between $800 and $1400 for the Leica F2.5/F2.8 alternative).</p>

<p>Philip Roberts</p>

<p>>><em> Oh and just to add to the controversy, if Konica had taken up the Hexar range in anger, I personally believe it would have flattened the Leica. I owned one and sold it - and I now wish I hadn't, it was undoubtably one of the best 35mm cameras I have ever owned. </em> <<</p>

<p>I cannot agree more !</p>

<p>I still have mine and currently use M-Hexanon, Leica and Voigtlaänder lenses on it ! ...</p>

<p>The Hexar RF had almost everything the M7 missed, and the M7 had all what the Hexar RF missed!</p>

<p>A very strange situation about which a certain E Putts once gave an explanation : originallay it was envisaged by Leica and Konica to begin a joint venture to produce a new AE pro level rangefinder. The negotiation broke for an unspecified reason and eaxh would be partners developped their own product.</p>

<p>But had Konica really seased the opportunity to develop their model, correcting some flawed features (like the x0.6 only finder magnification) and the inhability to wind the film and re(-arm manually and silently and have added a more modern metering system (Matrix metering in AE mode, true spotmetering in manual mode for example and TTL flash) while keeping the price of the body as affordable as it was it would have been an M7 killer.</p>

<p>Times were to turn to the dominance of digital photography and no one was really in a position to produce a truly efficient DRF as the many shortcomings of the M8 unfortunately demonstrates, moreover at a reasonable price.</p>

<p>So Konica abandonned the model... for more profitable domains.</p>

<p>For film lovers, the Zeiss Ikon alternative seems to a far better alternative choice to a Leica M than any other candidate... I agree by the way the Contax G is nothing more than a glorified compact camera with interchangeable lens and not a true rangefinder. Even if its lenses are far above the average in terms of IQ.</p>

<p>Even with a bad AF (I have no personal experience with the Contax G), I sincerly doubt taking an incident reading on a hand held meter and tranferring the indications manually on an M3 can be faster than a TTL reading, including the eventaul compensation. The metering is most probably extremely accurate (if the situation allows, which is not ever the case with incident metering) but if the subject went away before the end of the operation, who cares about a perfectly acucrate metering !</p>

<p>I use hand held meter and incident reading to, but hardly when I use a small format camera... Generally this is reserved to my MF system when used on a tripod.</p>

<p>Beside, unless you have an old selenium meter, you are as dependent on batteries for the hand held meter as you are for a camera with TTL metering if you want more than a "guesstimation" under the sunny 16 rule. Contax G are dependent on hard to find batteries, the Hexar RF is not (nor to my knowledge the M6 or the M7).</p>

<p>Sadly, for someone active in the professional use of images, digital photography is nowadays almost a prerequisite. So this kind of comparison has become almost meaningless.</p>

<p>I'm going to sell almost all my film gear (but for sentimental reason my Rolleiflex F), including the Hexar RF and all the lenses to go with it...</p>

<p>I'd only whished I could have found a true digital successor for my RF lenses, built like a tank, full format and having all the present DSLR features related to the rangefinder concept for a decent price...</p>

<p>But I'm going to the DSLR world and I'm afraid there will be no turning back...</p>

<p>Times are changing.</p>

<p>FPW</p>

<p>Hi all, many thanks to all of you for taking the time to reply to my post. I would like to reply, but my kid has definitively rendered my keyboard in-op!! So, when I get the chance, I hope to reply later.</p>

<p>Cheers!!</p>

<p>You guys are to serious.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I agree by the way the Contax G is nothing more than a glorified compact camera with interchangeable lens and not a true rangefinder.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Would you say that a Nikon F6 is not a SLR because it has AF?</p>

<p>The G is a range finder. The mechanism works on the same principles as any manually focused RF camera ever made. It just so happens that the focusing loop is closed by machine (however unfortunate not one very well implemented.)</p>

<p>In any case, this is almost irrelevant. One distinguishing feature of the G is simply that it's not a SLR. The lack of a mirror box and reflex mirror subjects it to the same set of design advantages as basically any RF camera. This is what truly matters, and by significant measure accounts for the high performance of some G system optics.</p>

<p>As for batteries, CR123 is hardly difficult to find. It's not AA-cheap, but how can anyone whine about this triviality on a camera as imminently fondle-able as the G?</p>

 

<p><em>>> Would you say that a Nikon F6 is not a SLR because it has AF?</em></p>

<p>Sorry Robert, but it is an SLR because though the AF is deemed to focus automatically there is a mirror, and a ground glass to observe the image as transmitted through the lens.</p>

<p>Keep the AF, suppress the mirror and the ground glass and add an external accessory finder, and it is no more a reflex.</p>

<p>Will you call it a rangefinder camera because the AF principle is a sort of rangefinder ?</p>

<p><em>The G is a range finder. The mechanism works on the same principles as any manually focused RF camera ever made. It just so happens that the focusing loop is closed by machine (however unfortunate not one very well implemented.) <<</em></p>

<p>In the strict acception of the term rangefinder (and not rangefinder camera) your 100% right<em>...<br /> </em></p>

<p>However, there is absolutely no logic in using the classic "two windows" external rangefinder system as the base of an AF camera... This is proven time and again by a lot of compacts.</p>

<p>The beauty of a true rangefinder camera concept is to allow a very precise MANUAL focusing on the subject which is neither as subjective as the manual focusing on a ground glass nor to the technical limitations (and the stupidity regarding the point of the subject to be precisely focused) of an AF system, which will fail (though generally this has been considerably improved in recent years) just when its help will be of the greatest importance (low light, low contrast). Even the remarkable 51 points AF of the latest Nikon pro DSLR's (the best on the market today) is still submitted to these limitations.</p>

<p>So IMHO the very concept of the G was doomed from the beginning. It has neither the mechanical simplicity of an AF compact nor the still superior precision of a manual focusing rangefinder. By the way, I sincerly doubt the multipoint AF currently in use in modern DSLR's is transferable to a rangefinder camera. So the iteration of such a camera is more than improbable.</p>

<p>>> <em>As for batteries, CR123 is hardly difficult to find.</em> <<</p>

<p>>>> <strong><em>The G would almost always run out when I was far from a source for its special little batteries.</em> </strong> <<< (Darius Jedburg)</p>

<p>I repeat : I'm not and was never a G owner... As far as the battery availability is concerned, I just take into account what a user said.</p>

<p>I don't think they are as easy to find anywhere as AA or AAA ones... Neither my Hexar RF batteries are. But for me battery dependence is a non-issue anyway. Just keep a spare lot (or more) in the bag and nothing can really stops you.</p>

<p>FPW</p>

<p>Yeah, as if the RF on any Leica never goes out of alignment and is always 100% accurate. The same goes for the cam and helicoid of Leica lenses, albeit a little less so.</p>

<p>The truth is, whether it is manual RF, SLR or what-not, focusing accuracy depends on the entire focus system which consist of many parts. Some people have "back focus" problems with their Canon 5D(II) /50L/ 85L as well. Does that mean the Canon isn't an SLR and/or without proper "focus confirmation"?</p>

<p>Any type of camera can mis-focus, but more often than not, the cause is user error.</p>

<p>Simply put, the Contax G comes from a wrong manufacturer. That is why it is repeatedly called a P&S with a "pitiful finder" when it does not even have a Program mode, and when Barnacks have far worse finders. It's the same reason why the Leica M is also never maligned for its finder in comparison with the Zeiss Ikon.</p>

My post was mainly just me saying that through my subjective experience, the "battle of the giants," if you will, has been won, and the winner is the most basic Leica, the meterless M3 (well, it actually has the most complex RF mechanism, which is just gravy, on the cake).<p>

 

Like I said, I gave the G system many chances, I have owned a number of G1s and G2s, precisely because they are such beguiling cameras. For what I paid for my M3, and the 50mm Planar lens, I could buy a G2, a 45, 28, 35, 90 and 21mm lens and accessory finder, so there must be something really good about the M3 to make me keep it, and turn down the option of a huge very complete G system, instead.<p>

 

Those factors are, silence, very clear VF which disappears when I am shooting, sure and fail-safe manual focus, freedom from battery dependence. The fact that a 50 year old design is in terms of usability light years ahead of the latest technological wizardry of the Contax says a lot to me. <p>

 

It says that the modern camera manufacturers are still missing something. Maybe a design philosophy that really works. Maybe they don't realise how overdependent they are on technology.<p>

 

In any trade, one works as an apprentice to a master craftsman, one learns from the master and tries to improve on the master. I would think that as the acknowledged master of rangefinder cameras, the Leica M would be the one to beat. So, why is it that when these companies take on Leica, and try and make a modern version they sometimes miss part of the picture, or almost all of it?<p>

 

Where the Leica was silent, the Contax, relying on gears and motors is noisy. While focusing with the Leica is a simple matter of quickly turning the lens and matching up two images (like fire and forget), leaving one free to focus on composition, the Contax forces one to target something, hoping it has enough contrast to lock the camera's AF, then hold a button, while the lens is extended, try and recompose, go through all this malarky, which will all be lost if you let your finger be released from the button, and then in the process be so distracted by the contortions necessary to just focus, that one is focused on operating the camera and not on the subject or composition.<p>

 

Where the Leica essentially disappears between the photographer and her subject, the Contax makes its presence impossible to ignore, and insists you devote yourself to controlling it. To me the user interface is not that different to an infra red remote control. You point it at something and press a button. The thing that is so frustrating is that it is a non SLR, so it is compact, has incredible lenses, and is beautifully built. It is probably tougher than a Leica. But it failed in execution.<p>

 

Sometimes designers get things right. The Apple computer, or the Mazda Miata, or Google. And sometimes things just spin completely out of control. Sure, I am a critic, but shouldn't we all be? <p>

 

It drives me nuts to see my country pouring trillions of dollars down the drain every year on expensive weapons systems which are of no use to anyone. This is something that is clear as day, if you stop and take a look. Those trillions could have been used to build schools, or infrastructure, but were instead stolen, and the people sold a bill of goods they and their grandchildren will be paying for years. I am not trying to get a political argument going here, but I think it is worth having a critical eye. Of course this is not absolutely the case with the Contax. It is a great little camera, and if you like it, use it all the time and get great photos, well, more power to you. I am not trying to take away your joy.<p>

 

I was merely making a subjective observation. I think my critique is legitimate, but it does not invalidate the Contax. I am only frustrated that such obvious changes, or implementations of features were not made. It's frustrating to see people with a lot of resources at their disposal, dropping the ball. But then, I do not know what I would do, if I suddenly had all kinds of resources and could launch such a project myself. Maybe it is like writer's block.<p>

 

I think, though, that we need to protect Leica and its heritage. Leica is a precious treasure in the world of photography. The big Japanese companies are aggressive and continually bring out new technological wonders, but really among the cameras produced by Japan, since the 1950s can you find one that really stands out? I can't.<p>

 

I think the real issue, for people like me, that tend to get caught up in this kind of debate, is that there is a fear that the "craft" side of making cameras could be lost. That's the bottom line. The Japanese strengths, which are what killed the German industry, and what made Japan such a winner, are incredible teamwork, and fanatical attention to detail. This enables the Japanese to churn out endless new models of cars, cameras, you name it, that are all made to incredible tolerance, and feature incredibly complex engineering, brought to market very quickly. But, like so much, here in Japan, something is "lost in translation." They copy the Leica, but something is missing. It is like someone has made an incredible facsimile of the original, but forgotten or lost some underlying principle.<p>

 

The very fact that I am raking a Japanese company, that has done so many incredible things over the coals, is itself very Japanese. This nitpicking on some small mistake. Of course we should acknowledge Contax for singlehandedly starting the rangefinder rennaisance, and say, what a great job. But don't you think it woudl be even better like this?

 

More later.

<p>I worked at a photo lab that did dip and dunk processing back in the day (1998-2001). And we compared the M6 vs. the G2 and found that the image quality was the same. In some cases the G2 was more saturated in color. But they were just as sharp.<br /> I still use my G2 at weddings all the time. Once you have mastered (gotten used to) the autofocus I think its faster to use then my Nikon F100 or Cannon Eos 1n. Or a D300 for that matter. The autofocus on the G2 is amazing. The viewfinder does suck though...<br /> I've found that using a M6 can be a major burden while shooting weddings. Getting that roll of film in there can be a pain. I probably got more out of focus shots, and its not "quick" like the G2. The G2 is a rocket, and a very unique camera, there will probably never be another like it. I always have it on my side with the cool little TTL flash, 35 f/2, and a roll of 400 b+w while I'm shooting whatever monster Nikon I'm using at a wedding. The images out of the G2 look incredible. <br /> And I rarely run out of battery power. It seems to go forever on those little CR-2's.<br /> I dissagree with the poser on this issue. The image quality and the speed of those little cameras are too excellent to be slammed.</p>

<p>/\/\p</p><div></div>