Why Leica Over G2?

[k_michael]

I was in the store today looking at the Leica M6 and M7. Why would I

want to choose one of these two camera's over a Contax G2?

[peter_stockton]

You wouldn't. Get the G2.

[andrew_c2]

(covers head; murmurs, 'here it comes...')

[bart feliciano]

Rent/Borrow each, shoot lots of film, THEN make your choice.

[pengland]

I have no doubt that there will be as many different answers as there are owners. As a G2 owner of several months with only a fleeting experience with (but fascination of) Leica, my answer is: the ease and reliability of the focussing system of the M Leicas. I am still wondering if I made the right choice moving up from my trusty OM2 after 20 years to the G2 with its new-fangled autofocus and darkish viewfinder. In every other respect, especially (most of) the photos it produces, I am very content.

[andy_piper2]

Well, these were my reasons (applicable to the M6 - I can't argue in favor of the M7):

 

1) The mechanical Leicas ALWAYS shoot when you push the button - no hestitations, no pausing while the electrons think things over. The G2 too often gets confused and whizzes and whirs instead of capturing the moment. I know - I used two for a year.

 

2) The Zeiss lenses are contrasty - more contrasty than I like, especially in sunlight. That's a judgement/taste call. I owned the Z-G's - shot them side-by-side against Leicas - preferred the Leicas enough to trade the ZG's and spend the money. The Z-G's are plenty sharp - but "don't confuse 'sharp' with 'good', or you'll end up shaving with an ice cream cone - and licking razor blades." (Bill Pierce).

 

3) multi-part: 90 f/2, 35 f/1.4, 24 f/2.8, 135 f/3.4-2.8, 75 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4, 28 f/2, 50 f/1.0. I.E. the focal lengths and apertures that Leica HAS and Contax DOESN'T. This wasn't among my original reasons for switching, but now I shoot with the 35 f/1.4 and 135mm a lot - so I can't go back.

 

Don't get me wrong - I like the G2 as a concept, and the concept was fairly well executed. It's 'the next best thing' to a Leica, IMHO. If you can live with its limited lens range and 'Zeissy" images and occasional electronic burps, it offers a lot of fun stuff - 4fps motor is a real kick (faster than most of Contax's SLRs(!)), and it does have the "rangefinder" advantages of zero mirror shake, light weight, compactness, and relative quiet. I might even pick up a used one with a couple of lenses for theose times when the light is flat and dull, and I don't have to capture 'the moment' with certainty.

 

But if, as I do, you need a camera that absolutely, positively, goes off RIGHT NOW every time you push the button, or mount a 35 f/1.4 or a 24 or a 135; well, there it is.....

[johnmarkpainter]

K,

 

I am getting ready to sell a whole G2 kit. Contact me if interested.

 

The benefits of the G2....you can get the whole range of lenses rather cheaply

compared to Leica. The Quality level is quite high. The Wide Lenses look wonderful.

 

Personally,

I don't enjoy using the G2. Don't get me wrong...it takes GREAT pictures. I just don't

like all of that automation.

 

All of my other cameras are full manual and only one has a meter on it.

 

jmp

[manu_vermeiren]

one reason: the bigger viewfinder, really. I enjoy both systems, and (when the light fades) the leica viewfinder is a relief for your eyes.

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

I agree with John, the G2 takes great pictures but I found the keep rate was very low for the period I owned this camera. This camera almost put me off "range finders" completely - Im glad I fought back!

 

The two biggest issues with the G2 are a far-too-small and dull viewfinder and no ability to confirm "what" you have focused on. I find this a real pity as otherwise I really liked the camera.

 

The three minor issues were, as mentioned, the lenses being a little too contrasty for my liking; because of how the camera manually focuses (I like the concept and digital readout on top, but) it turns zone-focusing into a guessing nightmare; and (ignoring the primary focusing issue above) the fact that the autofocus system resets to infinity each time introducing un-necessary delay.

 

Now being a dedicated M6 user I find that there are a number of other benefits the the Leica offers to a street/documentary style of shooting that few other cameras can match - let alone automatic ones. A bit of regular practice and the issue of "quickly" dealing with the manual controls can be managed. In crowded areas, or where you need to focus on another similarly distanced object first, or even zone-focusing, automatic focusing systems just plain get in the way. And although you can always read plenty about the benefits of being able to see what happens outside the Leica's frame lines, its only use that lets you really understand the value of it.

 

...but having said all that I do miss seeing an image come into focus on a bright SLR focusing screen, just like I miss slides on a light box but for the overall enjoyment of taking people photography and achieving wide exposure lattitude in prints I'll continue to suffer with the M6 and negative films!

 

regards

Craig / Beijing

[fotografz]

Once upon a time I dumped all my M gear and switched to a black G2 kit with all the

lenses. I used it for years, gave myself time, but the images simply never did cut it. I

really wanted the camera to work for me. It never did...for all the reasons stated

above, plus I like seeing what is outside the framed area. It helps in anticipating the

action. BTW, the finish on both the black bodies started to wear with-in a year, and

the 90 was turned into junk from a minor impact. The entire barrel bowed out.

 

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

[jay t.]

K Michael - have a look at the various Leica photos posted in this forum and then pop over to contaxg.com to have a look at G1 and G2 produced photos. Then you can better decide whether sharpness is good or bad, whether the contrasty nature of Zeiss lenses are what you want, etc etc, and how those issues combine with your general attitude towards automation (ie, autofocus, auto wind, the aid of ap. priority mode, and if you really want to get fancy, the optional back which imprints exposure information on the film between negatives! That's a nice touch).

 

Pay no attention to the superior Leica build quality claims here, though. G2s are nice and solid and quite able to take plenty of abuse. Like Leicas. Both Leica and Contax lenses will not generally end of well if they bare the brunt of shock treatment rather than the camera bodies!

[andrew_hull]

Some advantages to the Contax:Faster to work with. If you want to take multiple shots of someone doing something quickly, you can.

I have experienced no delay in shooting because of the AF. I often shoot from the hip and either stop down to hyperfocal distance or refer to the LCD on top to make sure that the distance that it is reading is about right.With respect to the comment about trusting the focus, there IS NO DIFFERENCE between me trusting the digital readout, and someone with a Leica trusting that that patch is in alignment.I have two G2 bodies, 21/28/45/90 all for less than an MP! The lenses are as highly rated as their counterparts (some slightly better, some slightly worse) that Leica makes. Film loading is much easier in the Contax. Some disadvantages are: battery dependence (carry extras). It is slightly louder. I don't plan on owning the Contaxes forever. In fact, I could see myself using an MP eventually. The problem is that I think that it takes 6 months to really get the feel for a camera. Rent both and try them out. You cannot lose with either.

[Allen Herbert]

It�s all down to individual taste of course. I�ve never liked the smidgey little view finder, or the over contrasty lenses. All the auto stuff I can take or leave....prefer to leave given the choice.

[Sanford]

Price for one thing. Contax now has a $500.00 rebate which means you can get a G2, 45MM lens, and flash in kit form for about $900.00 from B&H.

[patricks]

I owned/used Contax G2. I actually like the high contrast images it produces, but alas the dim/small viewfinder is close to useless, the lack of real focus confirmation, the fact that the lens parks itself at infinity after each shot, the sometimes erratic AF system, etc made it no joy to use.

 

G2 = 1/3 SLR + 1/3 Point & Shoot + 1/3 rangefinder. That becomes too much of a compromise, IMO.

 

As Marc said, I did everything possible to really try to make it work because I indeed wanted it to work. But it didn't.

[stephen_w.]

Why Leica? Because you know you've always wanted one. Get both if you want.

[erik_den_hartigh]

I have not used a G2, but i once held one for a minute. I was immediately put off by the viewfinder. It really belongs in a p&s, not in a quality camera system.

[asher]

At the risk of getting flamed to a crisp, here is an

<A HREF=

"http://contaxg.com/archive/articles/

transitions.htm#Transitioning%20to%20the%20Contax%20G%20from%20the%20Leica%

20M6"><U>article</U></A> I wrote a few years ago for a Contax G website,

comparing the G2 and M6. Note that eventually I returned to a Leica M. The G2's AF

and focus-feedback (or lack thereof) was just too annoying.

[patricks]

Lots of articles on the topic: </p>

 

<a href="http://www.davebeckerman.com/Contax-g2.html">David Beckerman thoughts</a> </p>

 

<a href="http://www.photoslave.com/misc/contaxg2.html">Grant Hefferman's take on the G2</a> </p>

 

<a href="http://acc.tku.edu.tw/jcchen/contaxg.htm">Advice to prospective G buyers</a> </p>

 

<a href="http://www.contaxcameras.com/gseries/g2chart.html">G2 vs. M6 feature comparisation (by Contax)</a> </p>

 

<a href="http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_83351_3138crx.aspx">Photography Review has 100+ comments on it</a> </p>

 

Etcetera, etcetera...

[Allen Herbert]

After looking through a Leica viewfinder, i can't image anyone would be happy with the Contax. Seeing your photo, isn't that's what it's all about?

[andrew_hull]

Although I don't agree that the Contax viewfinder is SO bad, I will agree that I like the framelines and seeing aroundt he scene more. That being said, if you choose to shoot both wide and 90mm, the telescoping viewfinder on the G is nice. It's too bad they cannot combine both! Another thing to add, as an investment it is a no brainer, buy the Leica (but the cost is so much less for the Contax you could invest the difference!).

[andrew_hull]

Although I don't agree that the Contax viewfinder is SO bad, I will agree that I like the framelines and seeing aroundt he scene more. That being said, if you choose to shoot both wide and 90mm, the telescoping viewfinder on the G is nice. It's too bad they cannot combine both! Another thing to add, as an investment it is a no brainer, buy the Leica (but the cost is so much less for the Contax you could invest the difference!). Also, if you want fast lenses, go Leica.

[patricks]

right Allen, but if you don't see cleary through the VF how can you envision your end-product? for me it felt like the G2 photos that I liked were more of a fluke rather than me seeing and capturing the moment I wanted.

[joshroot]

The Contax G system gets a lot of undeserved negative attention from the Leica crowd (not specifically the crowd here, just in general). It's a quite decent little camera with great lenses.

 

But the fact of the matter is that it's a lot different in use than a Leica M camera. And if you like one, you aren't really going to be able to get used to the other I think. I've had both, and there were some things I really liked about the Contax. Faster shutter speeds, less reliance on rube-goldberg clockwork internals, TTL flash, motordrive without a huge add-on grip, cheaper lenses (not counting the Voigtlanders), etc. The "loud shutter" is really an overblown issue. It's only loud to the photographer. You can hardly hear the thing 4 feet away. And if there is any noise at all in the room, it becomes a non-issue.

 

But I didn't like the zooming finder, I prefer to see what's coming into the frame. I didn't like the fact that the lens had to be "parked" at infinity all of the time. So the lens made this zzzzt-zzzzt noise every time you made a half press on the shutter. And the fact of the matter is, with so many nice lenses from Cosina/Voigtlander, you can get into Leica M photography for almost as low of a price as getting into the G line.

 

But for anyone who really wants to try it, there are TONS of G2's on ebay all of the time.

[furcafe]

No reason @ all, depending on what kind of camera you're looking for.

 

I have both Leica Ms & a Contax Gs system. Other than being non-SLRs & having great lenses, they really don't have that much in common. Each has its advantages & disadvantages that can be read in the gazillion "Leica v. Contax G" threads out there. As the M system has been around much longer, most of the opinions will be pro-Leica/anti-G. Unlike many of the posters here, I have no problems w/using the G's viewfinder (not the best, but not even close to being the worst I've ever used) & autofocus & don't care a great deal about the M's framelines or the space around them (if you want to see outside the frame, just keep your left eye open). I do like the M's VF brightness, however, & find it better for low-light photography.

 

If you really want the best of both worlds (manual focus + automation) get the Konica Hexar RF (while they're still available).