My final verdict on Leica M vs. Contax G

I have gone back and forth between Leica M and Contax G like a fickle woman for some 11 years now. And the final

verdict is: meterless Leica M thrashes the motordriven, autofocusing auto metering G soundly.<p>

 

A Leica M3 with a hand held meter, and a Zeiss Planar can whip the G's ass. You do your incident reading, and

boom, you have far more accurate exposure than the Contax could ever achieve, with its ttl cells.<p>

 

The finder allows you to observe your subject seamlessly, instead of having to squint through the G's narrow

finder while making sure to aim the cross hairs in the right place, all the while holding the shutter button to

lock focus.<p>

 

The Leica's silent snick is almost imperceptible to you, never mind your subject, in complete contrast the

whizzing clicks of the AF, motor drive and shutter cocking of the G.<p>

 

I never worry about batteries. The G would almost always run out when I was far from a source for its special

little batteries.<p>

 

The results are what really cinched it. Almost every shot on a roll shot through the Leica is a keeper. With the

G, I had to throw away half to two thirds because they were out of focus or poorly exposed. Also, the subject is

always looking at the camera with the G, as there is no way to be inconspicuous with it.<p>

 

The G, like the Bessa, and the Hexar RF is a fatally flawed attempt at replacing the M. I can only assume that

the manufacturers of these cameras are in such awe of the Leica they do not dare to mount a successful challenge,

for fear of toppling their god. There is no doubt they could, if they so chose.<p>

<p>My first attempt at anything rangefinder-ish was a Contax G2 and that experience almost put me of rangefinders completely. There were a lot a aspects I really liked about the camera and I have taken some great photos with it - I had the 28mm, 45mm and 90mm lenses. However, for me, what eventually determined this camera's fate for me was 1) the very small pokey viewfinder, 2) no positive confirmation of "what" you had actually focused on, and 3) even in manual focus mode, there was significant delay between the lens moving into position and actually firing.<br>

 <br>

With the move to Leica M, I've never looked back. With an M6 TTL and a takup spool modified M2, I prefer the M2 any day. It just does exactly what I tell it to do, when I tell it to do it. And actually, for the way I shoot, I find the manual focus aspect faster than using the G2. The battery-less aspects are of a far lesser concern to me as I also use a Bessa R2A, but I will concede that even that body is no Leica. I love shooting film, with no interest in digital, and for close candid documentary style work the Leica M just becomes an extension of you. YMMV</p>

<p>Well, I am amazed! If the M thrashes the G so soundly, why did it take you 11 years to find out? This sounds to me more like a resolution of cognitive dissonance as we psychologists say. In other words the difference isn't that obvious but once you come down on one side or the other then it was obvious all along! Neither the Bessa nor the Hexar RF (a very fine camera) were attempts to replace the M. They are different. In fact a case could be made that the M7 was an attempt to replace the RF with its autoexposure setting. The RF has a noisy mechanism but is as well made as a Leica. I have an RF, a Bessa, an M6 and an M8, and I use whichever suits me on the day. I have never had a technical problem with the RF or the Bessa (unlike with the M7 I got rid of).</p>

<p>I have Bessas and Leicas, and it's usually the Bessa that goes with me when I head out the door with a rangefinder (an R2A to be specific). The Bessa certainly isn't "fatally flawed." What religious nonsense.</p>

<p>'Fatally flawed'? A £100 Bessa T does the same job as an MP, it just sounds a bit louder and will probably break if you drop it. Thing is, you can buy over ten of them for the same cost, spend the rest on lenses, take more than one body for colour, black and white, all good. How can a thing that opens a hole when you click a button be 'fatally flawed' as long as it does that...?<br>

Oh, and the light meter indicator on the Bessa T is not, like the MP, inside the viewfinder, BUT you can see it when using the viewfinder. You can shoot from the hip with correct exposure without raising the camera to your eye. Is that a 'fatal flaw' in the MP :-)</p>

<p>If I did not know better, I would say the OP's post was obvious trolling, since it is very inflamatory, very one-eyed and contains so much clear nonsense...</p>

<p>"I can only assume that the manufacturers of these cameras are in such awe of the Leica they do not dare to mount a successful challenge, for fear of toppling their god."</p>

<p>It's more likely that other companies want to be profitable. Leica has been bleeding money for years.</p>

<p>Funny stuff.</p>

<p>If you look at Darius's posts over the years, his ratio of camera owned/pictures taken is probably the highest of anyone on PN. I'd take this opinion with a very large grain of salt. FWIW, I've owned both an M and the G, and my opinion is exactly the reverse. And I even take pictures with my cameras.</p>

<p>If you know how to use a Leica M and don't know how to use a Contax G, not even how to autofocus properly (and haven't learned in 11 years), chances are that the photos taken with the Leica will be better, that's for sure.</p>

<p>I have: Leica M2, Leica CL, Bessa R3A, Contax G1, with a lot of lenses, and everyone does a special job, you can not mixture apples and pears. Actually you can enjoy advantage of any, when you need silent shot you will take M2, when you need fast reaction and hip shot you will take CL, when you want compose and have a time to take a shot you will go for Bessa, and when you need clean, cold sharp shot, and you know that AF will not affect the qualitty you will go for Contax. I love them all at the same level. Never find any need to get a final verdict. Love them all with their weakness and strong points.</p>

<p>I use a Bessa and have been vaguely thinking about buying a G2 for a while - I wouldn't consider either to be an "attempt at replacing the M" any more than chalk is a replacement for cheese - or vice versa.</p>

<p>Steven, isn't there some sort of anti-inflamatory ointment available nowadays? ;-)</p>

<p>The G is a fraudulent rangefinder wannabe. Expensive P&S is what it is. Small VF, no focus confirmation on exactly what you focused on, and the 90mm lens DOES hunt for focus in low light situations and make you miss shots. That's unacceptable to a serious shooter. Can't hold a candle to a Leica M for reliability. And yes, I've owned both for several years and in the end stuck with Leica. Try and have your electronic G repaired in say 3 years and let me know how you made out. Those are the cold, hard facts people.</p>

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

<p>It's an almost inviolate rule that people whose keen taste causes them to complain the loudest about any piece of equipment have the fewest photos to show. I wonder why that is.</p>

<p>Maybe they don't have a scanner, or don't have one that'll do their photos justice.... Maybe they don't want to spend even more hours at a computer... Maybe they're just an analog guy in a digital world and hate sitting in front of a screen... Maybe they do enough of that at work... Maybe they don't have a need to hear praise from strangers they know nothing about? Just a few possibilities...</p>

<p>Oh God, I have been waiting a long time to say this in a forum of folks who understand. I have been photographing for decades. I take it from shutter release to hanging the print that I sold. I have made images with many different brands from 35mm to 8x10. I learned the hard way a long time ago that Fred Picker was right when he said, "When shooting 35, take a Leica and a Nikon. That way, when one breaks down, you always have the Nikon. I got rid of my Leica stuff(both R and M) a long time ago when I took the time to accurately compare it to Nikon and Contax. They all looked fine, especially when printed up to 11x14, 12x18 full frame, or 16x20. In fact, they all looked practically the same. I now use only Nikon 35 & digital, Contax 645, and 8x10. </p>

<p>I never heard that quote from Fred Picker. Almost fell off my chair laughing. Take THAT, you Leica snobs!<br>

Alas, I have not learned my lesson yet; I am still shooting both Leica and Nikon.<br>

Oh, and Contax G too, even though the AF inaccuracy sometimes drives me crazy.</p>

<p>Rick, that Fred Picker quote can be found somewhere deep within one of his Zone VI Newsletter issues from the 1980's and 90's. You sound like a regular good photographer who does not belong to the Leica Hysterical Society. Enjoy your pics! </p>

<p>Who cares how you want to label G1, your labels have nothing to with the pictures it takes. The G1 with the wonderful Contax Lenses, particularly the 35 can take fabulous photos. The auto focus seems pretty fast, but like all auto-focus can miss, just like manual focus can. If you can't get great photos with the G1, I doubt it's the camera's fault. I am just borrowing my friends, while she uses my M7. All I can say is her pictuers vouch for themselves. I'll see what I get out of it.</p>

<p>Given this is predominantly a Leica forum, it makes sense that many would come here to glorify their Leicas while trashing another camera. Differences in operation, differences in quirks aside, the Contax G and those superb Zeiss lenses can hold their own against any Leica M. The OP's findings are his opinion only and hold no more weight than my opinion...using the G2 since '96, the Leica M6 & M7 along the way. What am I still using? The Contax. The G's metering is dead accurate, and if you ran out of batteries during a jaunt, you can blame no one but yourself. Enjoy your Leica, say what you will about the G, and life goes on, your rant forgotten. :-)</p>

<p>They're both excellent camera systems. I prefer the imaging of Leitz glass, but have some stellar shots w/ the G lenses as well. In color some might say the Contax lenses are superior. Some G cameras have trouble focusing, but I learned to sell those and buy another that would focus dependably. The meters are not that good and there's a knack to finding the metering pattern, but once you do it meters ok. Both are small and inconspicuous. I used to fret over the G's focusing noise until I handed the camera to my wife and realized that I couldn't hear it unless I was right next to the camera. The viewfinders are no contest. M wins handily. But for system compatibility nothing beats the Leica, and when it comes to the pleasure of using the camera, again it's in the Leica's favor.</p>

<p>What an odd thread...<br>

I have an use Leica M, would not trade it for the world. But if someone told me I *had* to get a great image with this G2 thingy, I'm sure I could manage.<br>

Life's too short for this crud, either you are a photographer or you are a gear head.</p>

<p>Almost ten years ago, I think, before I had bought my Leica M6, I walked in to look around at one of my few local camera stores that sold the good stuff. They are closed now unfortunately. They had Leica M and the new Contax G. I had never handled either one, but I picked up a Conxax G brochure that boasted of how superior it was to the M. I still have the brochure. Even at the time, without having ever handled an M, I saw that it was an absurd comparison. Perhaps my perceptions were just proof of my prior biases about equipment before I even got the Leica. Point is that Contax tried to characterize the Leica M as "old" and obsolete and outdated technology. Nice try. They tried to tout the AF on the Contax as an improvement, and I admit I was already cynical of that. I have to think that Contax's error was to try to make such a direct comparison because I imagine, not having used one, that the Contax is a fine camera in its own right. The Leica M defines its own niche, and only Zeiss has offerred a fair competitor to it in the modern age, and my impression is that the Zeiss offers admirable characteristics to tempt those on a budget, but it still isn't built like a brick house like the Leica.</p>

Hey Mark, I remember Contax's drool inducing brochures, which touted the fondlabilty of Contax. I don't mind what they were trying to do, but it was the fatal flaws in the execution of their plan that bothered me. It's frustrating to see a company with so many resources and so much money and talent and engineering prowess, drop the ball so badly.<p>

 

There are a number of flaws in the design of the G1 and the improved G2. The first was the finder from hell, the second was the lack of a useable manual focus override, and the third the dependence on hard to find batteries. The G cameras, quite simply, are not practical cameras.<p>

 

Maybe, as seems to be the case from your recall of that brochure, Kyocera were just drunk on their own capability. For some strange reason, they could not look at the camera objectively and make the necessary changes. Then when Cosina came along they failed as well. <p>

 

I don't know why so many people are allergic to criticizing these makers. It's all true, so why bother getting all worked up? <p>

 

Wouldn't it be great if someone made a 21st century upgrade to the M? And got it right?