My final verdict on Leica M vs. Contax G

Hey Matt,

 

Great to hear that you got it working for you. Maybe I will pick another G2 up at some point...

 

Oh, and who are you calling a "poser!!!?" ; )

<p><em>>>>the "battle of the giants," if you will, has been won<<<</em><br>

Darius, this battle really never took place. Only in your imagination. :-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Valery, you too exist only in my imagination, along with the entirety of space time, OJ Simpson, George Bush, the Pacific Ocean, and Kool-Aid. Can't be helped.</p>

<p>Darius, could you please post one picture? Just one that that illustrates your point?</p>

<p>Personally I have always gotten fantastic results with the G2. I bought the G1 when it first came out, and found the AF wanting, but I gave the G2 a try and to me it's incredible. </p>

<p>I have been using an M3 for 15 years, and I have just ordered a used G1 with three lenses. I am interested in the lenses and not in the camera. I am not deciding between which camera (Mr vs. G1) to use. Both cameras will be used, as they have different lenses. I only own vintage lenses for the M3, whereas the G1 has more modern Zeiss lenses. This was the only reason why I considered the G1. I am not worried about its AF quirks. There are some useful threads on how to focus correctly. It would have been easier for me if there had been an easy to use and accurate AF system and/or easy to use manual focusing possible.<br>

It is interesting that such a trashing of the G1/G2 system caused so many responses here. I would not worry about such threads and continue to use what you have liked to use so far. </p>

<p>Any thread that starts with My Final Verdict on... just makes me chuckle</p>

<p>Sp, I think it would be more useful if he posted a scan of a contact sheet made with the G body, you know, the one where 36 out-of-focus people are looking at him because of the noise his camera made.</p>

<p>Or, if he prefers Andy, the contact sheet from his Leica with "almost every shot on a roll shot...a keeper".</p>

<p>"but really among the cameras produced by Japan, since the 1950s can you find one that really stands out?"</p>

<p>Nikon F series, Canon F1, Canon EOS 1, Olympus OM-4, Olympus Pen F, Minolta XD-11, Pentax Spotmatic.</p>

<p>Each of these cameras showed distinctive and innovative design.</p>

<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." Darius, will you still be saying that when Iran's rockets are falling on western Europe, Israel, and the U.S.?<br>

<br /> The greed of individuals are more shameful then the weapons we build.</p>

<p>Darius, below please find a piece you may find useful for your focussing needs, I saved it on my computer 5 years ago (I deleted 1st part of e-mail address of the author to save her from spam):<br>

==========<br>

Meryl Arbing (xxxxxxx@sympatico.ca) <br /> Заголовок:Re: Feeling uneasy about Contax G<br /> Группы новостей:rec.photo.equipment.35mm <br /> I am not sure which G2 you were using but on mine I manually focus all the<br /> time. When I set the camera to manual focus, a focus scale appears in the<br /> viewfinder which tells me exactly whether I am in focus; focusing behind the<br /> subject or in front of the subject. I know exactly which direction to turn<br /> the focus wheel and when I have locked on. I don't worry about it. It is the<br /> same system as I have on my Contax RX SLR which is a manual ONLY focus<br /> camera.<br /> Including the old co-incident manual focusing would interfere with the<br /> motors moving the lenses since those manual focus setups actually move the<br /> lens as they are focusing. This would be quite a complex camera. On the<br /> other hand, it is no longer an option for a photographer not to understand<br /> how to use an AF system. Sure thaere are some people who resist technical<br /> advances. My grandmother would never think of getting into an airplane...she<br /> would take the train. There are those who don't use a computer, they stick<br /> with their typewriter. You have to know how to use both Auto and Manual<br /> Focus.<br /> Not only can I manually focus with the G2 but I frequently set the lens to<br /> its hyperfocal distance when I am out shooting on the street. I see hands<br /> waving frantically to remind me that the G lenses don't have DOF marks on<br /> them to set hyperfocal distance. This is true but it also is irrelevant. For<br /> example, if I mount my 28/f2.8 lens, all I have to remember is f8 and 5m...I<br /> set the manual focus to 5 metres and the aperture to f8 and everything from<br /> 1.9m to inf is in focus. For the 45/f2 it is f8 and 10m. Not so hard to<br /> remember.<br /> The G2 has a 4fps motor drive which is quite an advantage over manual film<br /> advance cameras. Also the G2's aperture priority mode must have something<br /> going for it or it would not have made its appearance on the new Leica M7.<br /> In the end, there is no need to be uneasy about the G2. There isn't anything<br /> that you can't do with this camera and...most important... the pictures you<br /> get are exceptional.</p>

<p>hey all you <b>contax ninnies</b>, all a-twitter about your silly little camera, <b>Leica rules the roost!</b></p>

<p> <b>getouttahere!</b></p>

I would post the shots but they are all pretty intimate, and I am not a big fan of spilling family images all across the internet. Having said that, I shot a friends concert recently, in incredibly difficult conditions for a non metered camera, and when I get the results I will scan some and post them. I remember doing a similar shot with the G1 or G2 and it was really hard to get any decent shots.

<p>opps! poser and poster are too close, i should review my postings carefully! sorry dude!<br>

another thing i dig about the g2 is the focus lock button on the back of the camera. i was at a wedding this summer that was outside, and it was so dark out i couldn't see the subjects through the viewfinder. this was a problem even with my f-100 which has a huge viewfinder. i had to use the red beam on the flash to get a focus with the nikon, and this is annoying. but with the g2 it doesn't shoot out beam of light, the active autofocus is dead on and all the images were in focus. i eventually just ended up using this and shooting much of the reception in b+w and the results were gorgeous.<br>

when i'm shooting and i ditch the nikon monster with the huge flash and battery booster and massive 24-70 2.8 and just carry the g2 i feel so free. i can get those photojournalist shots easier without an intimidating camera.i wish there was a way to use the 28 or 22 with a flash but you need the viewfinder in the hot shoe. the 35 f/2 is so perfect though. distortion free, razor sharp, and with a tiny little flash that's surprisingly powerfull. i wish there was a way to boost the flash though for speed.<br>

i don't think i could get those quick shots with a flash and critcal focus in the dark with an M6.<br>

one more thing. both camera's break if dropped! my friend has a m6 that he dropped while it was in the camera bag. (one of those tiny tamrac bags) and the winder broke. my assistant dropped my g2 and the 90mm needs to be fixed. it works most of the time but it will freeze at will for no reason. so i don't use it anymore.</p><div></div>

<p>Darius,</p>

<p>I wrote this short article on transitioning from M to G, about 9 years ago:<br>

http://contaxg.com/archive/articles/transitions.htm</p>

<p>Not long after, I sold my G2 and stuck with Leica M... Personal preference is all it is.</p>

<p>Darius,I'm sorry, I get it now. Those subjects you can't focus on and who are startled by your loud G2 camera are your family. <br /> Which raises a troubling new question:are you a squirrel?</p>

<p>I'm just glad to hear that this pressing issue has been settled once & for all.</p>

<p>Personally, I prefer to use manual focus RFs like the Leica M series, including some that make the M3 appear high tech, but have never had a problem using the G2.</p>

<p>Several years ago I got up at 4am with my R8 in Anaheim, CA, drove for 2 hours through traffic to Mulholland Drive to photograph the Angel above the "City of Angels" at sunrise. I setup the tripod and camera with a 180 apo and shutter release cable. Framed it all up. Hit the shutter release at just the right time and...................ker junk! It jammed! While I stomped around yelling obsenities, my friend Sam snapped away with his trusty Canon. Later, he sent me the pics to tease me. I sent Leica USA the camera with lens that would not come off because of the jam along with a not so nice note. They sent it back fixed(?) with no reply, sympathy card, or kiss on the cheek. Within a year of that jam up I had sold all my Leicas. </p>

<p>An interesting debate but the real problem is that we are argueing the merits of cameras that either are not made or may not continue to be made. Between April and september 2008 Leica camera had photographic sales of 30M Euros and a loss of 13.7M  this compares to sales a year earlier of 63M euros and net income of 6.5M. At this rate they may not be making the M series for much longer.  The real issue is that Contax, Zeiss et al have essentially gone and only Leica and Cosina (who make the Voigtlanders and Zeiss Ikon) are left.  Like it or hate it the Contax G was a brave attempt to update the rangefinder design and make it relevant to more people.  We can debate the automation of the Contax over the Leica (this is really a personal choice) but the fact is that they are both very high quality devices constructed to a very high level and having some of the best lenses made.  You can debate if the Contax is a true rangefinder but the fact that there is no mirror allows it to use the (superior) lens designs of a rangefinder.  I suspect that there is no one on thsi forum who can tell from two unmarked images which was made by a Leica and which by a Contax.  The Contax G1 has a number of problems - notably the AF but the G2 had fixed most of these. Even the G2 suffers from some issue - a very poor manual focus and small viewfinder being the main ones (I also find that the wheel that controls film speeds can also rotate causing the camera not to fire). the real tradgedy is that the Contax was not developed - a G3 or a G4 might have achieved the best of both worlds - we will never know.  Contax and Rollei at least pushed Leica to develop the M (the added TTL and aperture priority).  Now I am sure purists will decry TTL but the fact is that you get better flash results with TTL in 95% of situations - especially for fill in flash (with flash I always use my EOS bodies or T90 over the older F1s).  Unfortunately this breed of high quality, compact camera is dying - the mobile phone, point and shoot digital and bridge camera with EVFs are killing it. The M8 was a brave attempt to update the rangefinder but appears to lack commercial success. So rather than criticize the G2 accept it for what it is - an attempt to make the rangefinder relevant to a larger group of people that with more development could have become a classic. if you prefer M3 fine - but this does not mean the G2 is junk. It is a fine camera and lens system with some handling issues and flawed manual operation. Lets hope the rangefinder stays in production. If you think Leica is still a top quality vendor read this<br>

 <br>

http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QzFD</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, there is absolutely no logic in using the classic "two windows" external rangefinder system as the base of an AF camera...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course there is, and again it's common to all RF cameras. First is the potential for better than SLR focusing accuracy on wide angle lenses. Second, because there is no reflex mirror to clear, wide angle can be of a generally simpler symmetrical design (and hence potentially sharper, contrastier, etc.)</p>

<p>In reality the above is all academic anyways. The Contax G is a dead system and the Leica is so boutique that it might as well be. And at least be honest to ourselves - the 135 film format was always an image quality compromise.</p>

<p>Both systems are interesting, however, because the level of craftsmanship and material is so high that they rightfully become objects of lust in of itself. So, why does a buying into a Contax G system make sense today (for someone ridden with equipment lust?) Check the prices on the Leica equivalent of the Zeiss 21mm Biogon or 45mm Planar.</p>

<p>Of course, one can look always at the flip side and just spend. Lust requires no justification.</p>

<p>I was always hoping for that digital Contax G......</p>

<p>Well I am surprised at some of the opinions! Currently owning and using Contax G2, Bessa R3a, Leica MP among others, my G2 consistently produces sharp, near perfect exposures every time. The MP & Bessa do the same but the G2 does it faster. All 3 have their compromises and quirks. Noise? Minox 35 ML/GTE is stealthier but has a fixed lens. The R3a has a bigger, brighter finder than either Leica or Contax G etc. The Zeiss vs Leica vs CV Bessa lens arguments rage on. . . the brands have their stars and compromises. Most of the time, I am the single biggest limitation when attempting a visual masterpiece! :-)</p>

<p>Andy, that's hilarious. Really Darius, the G1 is a great camera..this whole thread is really a tempest in a teapot. For anyone who really cares..a secret..it's not really the camera. I've walked around with a D200, took this shot standing right over the guy's head...mirror slap etc. louder than a G1 ..guy never looked up. Point is, this "argument' about noise is absurd.<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3090/3231947399_4fa1904814.jpg?v=0" alt="" /></p>

My friend Henry swears by them.

 

This is what he had to say: "I have never abandoned the Leica, anything different that I have tried has always brought me back to it. I am not saying this is the case for others. But as far as I am concerned it is the camera. It literally constitutes the optical extension of my eye."