My final verdict on Leica M vs. Contax G

sprouty · February 6, 2009

"My friend Henry swears by them."

Well there you go, hard to argue that point*.

* F@CT!

valery_yakushev1 · February 6, 2009

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.

</blockquote>

here you go:

http://www.photo.net/photo/5181417

http://www.photo.net/photo/5181415

http://www.photo.net/photo/5181414

that's true, these photographs are not in focus.

valery_yakushev1 · February 6, 2009

but this one (in the end of this thread):

http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00FmoV

is focussed in the center of the shot! probably, it was M3.

trex1 · February 6, 2009

Valery, those shots of mine you posted were taken with a Sony R1, another camera that snatched mediocrity from the jaws of greatness, and which coincidentally sports an amazing Zeiss lens. It also comes with an amazing unusable AF system. To shoot in the dark with an R1 is a real challenge.

As for the Leica shot in the last post, that is an amazing shot, and kind of proves my point. ; )

valery_yakushev1 · February 6, 2009

As for the Leica shot in the last post, that is an amazing shot, and kind of proves my point. ; )

</blockquote>

Yes, I overlooked that it was written 'Leica MP' in bold letters above the photo...

sprouty · February 6, 2009

"...and kind of proves my point."

I could have taken that shot with a Holga.

valery_yakushev1 · February 6, 2009

Just bought six CR-2 batteries, before echange rate will make them cost 50% more due to the current and further Ruble collapse, should buy 4-6 more soon to keep my G2 going for the next 3-4 years.

I experienced fast batteries exhaustion when I started to use G2 in 1998, when I had no experience to shoot with the camera -- I half-pressed shutter to focus, then depressed it back, and did it many times for every single shot, it gave lots of work for lenses mechanism, in particular when I shot with 90mm, and batteries were dead quickly.

Later on, I learned how to shoot correctly, and now the batteries last for very long time.

don_e · February 7, 2009

This issue is moot because The Master has compared them so now we all know The Verdict. Get with the program.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/vs-contax-g.htm

john_van1 · February 7, 2009

The G1 is not comfortable to hold. The grip leaves something to be desired. I have medium sized mitts and I could imagine how someone with larger hands could handle the camera comfortably.

ray_nieves2 · May 15, 2009

This whole thing is still going on? wow. Well, having owned and used both systems for many years I do have some views to add. But let me start with something told me by a NY Times photographer when he saw an M6 aound me neck in '07: "Boy, fine machine...too bad it will be a very expensive paper weight in the near future". While we argue which is the "Best" rangefinder, more and more pros are going digital. Journalists, feature photogs, documentary, etc. Most Magnum photogs have switched. Even Alex Webb, who used an M6, then a G2, is now into digital. Rather than repeat most of what has been said, I defer to Ken Rockwell's excellent on-line articles on the Leica vs. Contax wars. I had an M6, a G1 and G2 outfit but had to sell it when I lost my job. I still kept my Leitz CL and a Minolta CLE. I love the CL and that is how I first got into the crazy world of Leica. I went to the Leica Gallery often, bought many Laica books and used my CL/M6 more than my SLRs. I was convinced that Leica WAS God of all cameradom. But, in time I preferred my CL/CLE over the M6 as it was smaller and easier to use than the M6. I once was in Vermont, loaded some Velvia in my M6. Spent part of the day taking some great photos with a 21, 35, 90 and 135...only to find I kept shooting past 36! Yes, the film never caught due to the funky loading system on the M6. I had a friend who, while shooting a bike race, got bumped while changing film, dropped the bottom plate in a sewer and cursed leitz for such an crazy design. He gave up on it and never looked back. AND for those who feel the FV is better on a M, the reality is it is only brighter. The frames are an approximation of the view seen by the lens while the dim G finder is more accurate and does not flare like an M finder.

The point is while there is a manufacturing level that is amazing on the Leica, it is not a perfect design and people then justify their very expensive investment and accept design flaws as little idiosycracies that are easily overlooked. Lens quality? I agree with Ken Rockwell; optically both the Leitz and Zeiss optics are the same, but give a slightly different hue in color. Better than SLRs? I think so, but you will never convince a die hard Nikon or Canon owner of that (BTW, they think we RF users a strange lot, quaint in our passion for obsolete systems). Keep in mind that the CL, many Leicaflex's and almost all Leica R zoom lenses were in fact made by Minolta. So, back to this thread. Is a G1/G2 a rangefinder? yes, just as any autofocus SLR is still an SLR. Is the Contax comparible to the holy M series? I think so, as it is a truly modern and automated interpretation. Optical results is the bottom line outcome of any system and Contax can go toe-to-toe with Leitz. Is one the best RF? Well, that is a matter of what you want in a RF design and I would be damned if it can be proven my (previous) $8,000 M system is not the best. There are a lot of doctors and lawyers taking family shots with their M6, M7 or M8s and making prints at Wal-Mart who feel the same way. But is it the best? I don't know.

Now that I am working again, I continue to use my CL/CLE with 5 lenses for travel and street shooting, a Maxxum 9000 outfit for sport and other stuff. I now scan my film. What will I replace? Belive it or not, I am getting a G2 and 4 lenses as it fits what I want in a RF and will put away my CL/CLE. After all, if they are all to become expensive paperweights one day, I don't want to them to be too expensve.

doug herr · May 15, 2009

"Keep in mind that ... many Leicaflex's and almost all Leica R zoom lenses were in fact [sic] made by Minolta. "

No Leicaflexes were made by Minolta. The Leica R3 was made by Leitz in Germany and Portugal based on the Minolta XE-7, the R4 was co-developed by Leitz and Minolta and was made by Leitz Portugal using in part components also used in the Minolta XD-11, and the R5 through R7 were developed by Leica from the R4 and made by Leica (probably using some Minolta components).

The zoom lenses made partly or entirely by Minolta were the 35-70mm f/3.5, 80-200mm f/4.5, 75-200mm f/4.5 and 70-210mm f/4. Minolta had nothing to do with the 21-35mm, 28-70mm, 28-90mm, 35-70mm f/4, 45-90mm f/2.8, 70-180mm f/2.8 APO, 80-200mm f/4 or 105-280mm f/4.2

ray_nieves2 · May 18, 2009

Douglas:

I did say many...most may be a bit of a streach but I did not say all. From Dynux.com site on Minolta's lens history: "Leica, for whom Minolta made lenses, elements, prisms and focusing screens....;" and this might look familiar on another Photo.net blog: What actually happened is, several Minolta Lenses from the MD-Rokkor generation were taken as-is, given Leica R-mounts, and put through the Leica QA process, and branded Leica. I am certain that these lenses included a 70-200mm f4 zoom, the superb 24mm f2.8, and the 16mm f2.8 fisheye. I also believe that there was a 28-70mm zoom as well. From my recollection, the Leicaphiles never were too happy about the quality of the zooms, but the 24mm definitely passed muster with the red-dot heads. " Also "The 75-200/4,5 is an older Minolta design, which had also been rebranded as Leica..."

On the camera's shared platforms, this from the Rokkorfiles.com site: "The camera (XD-11) was developed by Minolta in conjunction with Leica, and the body became the basis for the Leica R4, and later, as the chassis for the the Leica R5, R6 and R7. Leica introduced a more advanced metering system into the body (including spot metering), but most of the other features of the camera are evident in both bodies."

So, based on this, I am not too far off in saying Minota was the basis for, in large part, the R4 as well as the chassis for R5-R7. I stand corrected in my inaccurate use of the term "Made by..." Perhaps made with would have been more accurate.

doug herr · May 18, 2009

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2253636">Ray Nieves</a> wrote: "I did say many...most may be a bit of a stretch but I did not say all. "

There's a distinction between Leicaflexes and Leica-R. Minolta's influence on Leica reflex cameras began with the Leicaflex SL2 (mirror box clearance specs) but the use of Minolta components and designs began with the Leica R3. So, "many" applies to Leica R bodies but not to Leicaflexes.

ray_nieves2 · May 18, 2009

Douglas,

Are not all Leica SLR cameras Leicaflex's? Distiguished from the frist by numerical sequence R-2, R-4, R-4 etc?

You say tomato, and I say tomMAHto... Look, I do not wish to split hairs with you, the point I was making was that Minolta did make the Leica CL and had a heavy hand in the making, in part or in almost whole, of many Leica R cameras and many (but not all) lenses, and this is verifiable. I hope we can agree on that much.

Moving on as this is a M6 vs G2 forum.....I provide for you fine readers yet anoher perspective on the M experience: <a href="http://www.thevooner.com/feature/2000/11/24/leica/leica.htm">http://www.thevooner.com/feature/2000/11/24/leica/leica.htm</a>

doug herr · May 18, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2253636">Ray Nieves</a> wrote: "Are not all Leica SLR cameras Leicaflex's?"

Nope. The Leicaflex, Leicaflex SL, and Leicaflex SL2 are very different in design, concept and construction from the R bodies, the only similarity is the company that sold them and (partly) the lens mount. The R3 through R9 are not Leicaflexes, they're Leica R.

"the point I was making was that Minolta did make the Leica CL and had a heavy hand in the making, in part or in almost whole, of many Leica R cameras and many (but not all) lenses, and this is verifiable. I hope we can agree on that much."

Certainly! All I'm trying to do is explain the historical record as I understand it. No value judgements implied one way or another about Minolta or the various joint-production products.

ray_nieves2 · May 18, 2009

Douglas,

I know little of Leica SLRs. I did some research and you are correct: The first Leicaflex SLs were all mechanical and later, when Minolita got involved, the designation changed to just Leica R. While built on similar designs, all R bodies were made in Germany while prisms, shutters, circut boards etc. were provided, in variying degrees, by Minolta for those models. I have read in some places that the differences between some R and XD models is only cosemetic, hence my original statement.

Thanks for the clarification. Now that we have cleared that up, do you prefer the early Leicaflexs or the later electronic R models?

doug herr · May 18, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2253636">Ray Nieves</a> wrote: " do you prefer the early Leicaflexs or the later electronic R models?"

Perhaps it's because I'm a mechanical engineer, perhaps because my first Leica was the SL, I prefer the Leicaflexes, especially the SL: <a href="../equipment/leica/leicaflex/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/leica/leicaflex/</a>

I've used most Leica reflex bodies, dissected and repaired a few, and right now the one I use most is the R8 but only because it has the DMR digital back on it. The SL is my favorite SLR camera.

ray_nieves2 · May 22, 2009

Back to this thread: Darius, while you are most certaily entitiled to your opinion, I am curious; what level of photo experteese do you have such that you can make such absolute and derisive comments? I hope this does not seem like an attack, I just don't understand your 'Final verdict". There are pros who love the M system, while others tried it and almosted hated it. An M3 whip ass? Parhaps for you, in my book a Minolta CLE whips an M3 ass; it is smaller and faster with easy loading and a good automatic system with access to 90% of the same lenses. To each his own. "With the G, I had to throw away half to two thirds because they were out of focus or poorly exposed." I read your post a few times and what I really get is that you do not know how to use an autofocus system. "The results are what really cinched it" This is perhaps the most subjective statment that bothers me. I invite you to look at photos taken by the G on Photo-sig and the Contax G pages: every bit as sharp and clear (if not better) as photos taken with the M system. I will agree batteries are an issue, but you plan for that and unless are in the deep back-woods of an underdeveloped country, ususally one can find CR-2s. For every positive you note on an M3, I and many others could find a negative. Again, it is OK to like one camera over an other as the world would be a sad place of only one kind were made, it is another thing to condem a camera you never really learned how to use properly. If one day all rangefinder cameras would cease production, what would you do, given your discomfort with auto-everything cameras?

panayotis_constantatos2 · February 20, 2010

It seems to me that that's endless chat to nothing. I've been using Leicas since 1973, Nikons since 1974 and Contax G's since 1996. They are all fine. So is digital and I have been very happy with Olympus's miniscule SLRs, Nikon's D700 and Leica's M8 and M9. I have nothing to complain about Voigtlander's fine lenses, or Leica's, or Nikon's or Contax's. They are all tools to take pictures with. Fit the tool to the job and the job will be done. Use pliers to hammer nails and be thankful for sore fingers. It all comes down to practical considerations and.....pleasure. That's the basic factor we usually overlook. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In my younger days back in 70's and 80's travelling meant a couple of F2's a score of lenses, an M3 more lenses and a Sekonic studio deluxe. Now it means a a Contax G2 with 28, 45 and 90 and a Bessa L with the 15 and, guess what..., the same old Sekonic. Alternatively an M6, CV25 (brilliant), 35, 50, 75 and the indispensable L with the 15 ............and the Sekonic. Sorry guys, but I can't readily tell what camera and lens was used to shoot what, unless I well remember what I was carrying on that specific day. Keepers? The ratio is the same it seems to me, no matter what I use. If I work hard and pay attention to what I am doing, then it all turns out fine. If not I get crap. Digital? Superb....but I still use film but for no other reson than that I am used to it and the fact that not having something to go back to (the negative) makes me uneasy. But still, my computer has replaced my Omega B22 and Kodak Carousel which still stand firm and ready but purely for sentimental reasons. To cut a long story short, use what you like and let those fine companies compete to give us what they will deem best. But what really makes the difference is our eye and our brains, so let's go out and shoot pictures, each with the camera and lens that best suits his preferences. I consider myself first and foremost a photographer. The fact that I am also a Leica collector has nothing to do with photography, it has to do with my love for the fine craftsmanship embodied in these cameras (but by no means in Leicas only...)

donbright · September 29, 2011

Wow, I just picked up in this forum, and after reading all of what everyone has to say about the two camera's in question. It seems like both the Contax and the Leica have done their jobs in taking great pictures, and stirring emotions. I don't have a Leica. I own the Contax G2. I've used it for 11 years and it still works, and works wonderfully. Using the autofocus reticle is an acquired taste, but it works. If you consider hyperfocal distance, use the focus lock. The exposure meter is great but you need to underexpose by, 1/3 stop. Thats the starting point for exposure. I enjoy the rangefinder for its speed, stealth, lightness. The ergonomics on the G2 are, and should be legendary for the well thought out way the dials and buttons are easily accessible. There are times in Photography when we need to command attention with equipment, and times when we need to be invisible. I tell you, I can be invisible with the G2, I've done it, Its pretty cool. The imaging results from both the M-Leica, and the G2, from what I've seen in comparison look the same. I understand the methods of manipulating the differences between the two machines, and its just a different way thats all. I guess understanding this reality is difficult and frustrating to some enough to cause arguments. Lets face it, some of the comments of these two camera's have been a little off the wall. Lets keep it simple and go out and take pictures.

In a street environment, or a Wedding. Between the two camera's. What one would you think present you with more usable on target images? There's a clear answer for me. The G2 has autowind, autofocus, autoload, Auto-aperture priority, and it all happens without attracting attention to yourself. Organize, prioritize. The 3 lenses, 28mm, 45, and 90, are enough to get it done. I guess I'm not the one to judge. I don't have a Leica. The M7 seems to be the likely candidate to go side by side with the G2. In a shoot when things start to happen quick; Subject position, quick distance variances. If the Leica provides more speed in reacting to situations, then someone please correct me on this and explain how. The G2 is fast. I've heard all the whining about how the autofocus doesn't work. It works for me! Framing? The viewfinder in the G2 is accurate. The frames are defined. Parallax correction is spot on too.

If your reading this and your wondering what all the fuss is about. Take a roll of Fuji slide film, or two and run it through a G2, and do it right. Then look at them on a light table. Case closed.

robert_petersen1 · April 20, 2016

Whew lots of verdicts here , lots of experience and lots of comparisons , i too have been shooting film as of lately and own several cameras to shoot and have comparisons but i don't do this , shoot to compare ,i own the m3 and the m6 the f6 and the f2s the f1 and the a-1 the little penn ft and the rolle twin 2.8 the maymia 7, the 4x5 and 8x10 as well as the digital the 800 the 610 and the 7d and mk3 and a a7r Sony along with lens that have adapters for the sony and cannons , the point is i am not comparing them to each other ,i am learning what they do and how well they work and capture images, this includes there lens and the results ...so no fair on a verdict of which rf you feel is best, with out a added question of "best for what " Is the 8x10 deardorf better than the m6??? for what ?But to let any one get a good idea of the contax camera g1 and g2 ,i want to add the best i found a g1 for is using the 28mm on it ..there done, you will not find any problems with focus,28s have a good depth of field, the camera view finder will adjust to this perspective for you ,try that on the m6 , the 35 45 and especially the 90 will NOT focus as fast but what the g1 and 28 give you is a fast street shooter and if you want a sharp landscape, stop it down and you will be happy with 100 percent sharp images , the g2 is far better with the 90mm , your portraits and work in a ilford film, B&W will be as good as the m6 , the 35 mm lens is best left on the m6 were that lens and camera just shine as well as the 50 summicron, the 45mm works so well on a sony a7 , hard to believe some one tossed their g in the trash can awww not often do you hear that about the m3 or m6 , " i got a g2 and tossed the Ms in the trash, whats this car comparison? electric tooth brush vs the old handjobber , or... a sx70 vs a 100 land-camera non sense the g2 is a capable camera...just like all the others i mentioned .

Sign In

My final verdict on Leica M vs. Contax G

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in