Leica M6 v. Contax G2

[tony_brookes5]

I have seen some very favourable reports of the Contax G2. Has anyone carried out a careful comparison with the Leica M6 ? has anyone used both cameras for a while rather than a quick test ?

 

<p>

 

-- Tony Brookes , January 27, 2000

[jhbeckman]

There's pretty comparison in the photo.net static content, plus a lot

of photo.net'r input following.

 

<p>

 

I've been trying the contax G2, and it's pretty good. I don't think I

would ever drop the money for the Leica, and the film loading is sort

of irritating to me (I'm sure this is all heresy to Leica users)

 

<p>

 

The one edge you've got to give to Leica, though, is that you know

exactly on what the camera is focused (assuming the rangefiner

mechanism is in alignment). With the Contax, you're doing some guess

work, which is disconcerting.

 

<p>

 

The new Konica Hexar may be the solution -- interchangeable lenses,

manual focus, and enough electronics to make your life easier.

[jhbeckman]

That should be "there's a pretty GOOD comparison..."

[john_macpherson]

Tony - habve a look here if you have not already done so:

<P>

http://www.novia.net/~jlw/contax/index.html

[julio_marcos2]

It is hard to compare the G2 and the M6 directly because they operate

in a such a different manner. The best thing you could do is try them

at a photo shop. From inspection, I found the G2's viewfinder to be

very small, like a point-and-shoot. The M6 is fully manual, with a

great rangefinder mechanism. I think it is more fun.

Both will take great pictures, and neither of them is cheap, so check

them out yourself!

[cing_dao_kan2]

Tony,

 

<p>

 

I have used both systems for more than a year now. While both systems

are excellent in their own ways, they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT as the

previous poster has indicated. If you do lots of color slides for

travel and landscaping photography, Contax G2 and its G lenses are the

best there is for 35mm system, IMHO. Leica M lenses, on the other

hands, perform better at wide-open f-stops, particularly for the new

ASPH generation lenses. Leica M6 and M lenses better suited for

available light or B&W photography.

 

<p>

 

Hope this helps.

 

<p>

 

Cing-Dao Kan

[arild_reppen]

I have used both systems for a while, and as an said earlier, the M6

and the G2 are completely different cameras. The G2 has the advantages

(or disadvantages) of autofocus and motordrive. But then I found it to

be to noisy for my jind of photography. The M6 is a very

quiet, unobtrusive camera. And the M6's viewfinder is far better than

the G2. As for the optics, both Leica and Contax are exellent,

probably the best you can get.

 

<p>

 

Arild Reppen, february 2, 2000

[john_oconnell4]

These two cameras do the same thing in such completely different ways

that I doubt anyone would be equally happy with both. About all they

have in common is that they're not SLRs.

 

<p>

 

The Contax doesn't offer any fast lenses, and lacks even the pseudo-

focus confirmation of the Leica.

 

<p>

 

The Leica lacks automation, uses an archaic shutter, and is ungodly

expensive.

 

<p>

 

If you don't need the jewelry factor, the Hexar RF looks like a much

more capable machine than either one (and you'd still be able to buy

the fast Leica glass if you HAD to).

[denis_rudolph]

If you have a 'thing' about range finders, any of the before mentioned systems will do. The G2 is the only one in auto focus and its lenses are SHARP!. I have used both Leica and Contax and opt for the auto focus Contax. The 45mm gives stunning results. The Leica cult is a strange breed. I'm knock going to knock heads with them. Bottom line though, you can't beat the overall flexibility of an autofocus SLR!! Want a smaller camera, go Contax. The kit price is too good to pass up. Be warned about Konica RF, it focuses beyond infinity in every camera I looked at, VERY BAD!! Plus, NO ttl flash.