Why Leica Over G2?

[soboyle www.oboylephoto.co]

I've shot a number of essays entirely with the Contax G system, including the <p><a href="http://www.oboylephoto.com/girls_school/index.htm">Girls Orphanage</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.oboylephoto.com/state_hospital/index.htm">Abandon Asylum</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.oboylephoto.com/rankin/index.htm">Pittsburgh Steel mill</a></p> among many others.

It really is an outstanding camera system, the lenses are reasonably priced (in comparison) and of outstanding quality. YOu can buy the entire system for the price of a M and one lens. But it has the quirks mentioned above, auto focus can be quirky in low light and make you hunt for a contrasty area to focus on, but this is rare, there is no DOF scales on the lenses, what were they thinking? The manual focus override is really awkward and not usable IMO, if the G lenses had on the lens manual focus it would really be a difficult system to beat. But one could probably find equally annoying quirks with the M system. Bottom line is you need to live with both systems to see their strengths and weaknesses before you can make a informed decision, which is a difficult thing to do.

[Allen Herbert]

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

 

Very honest statement.

[bob haight]

As the Contax people will tell you the G system is a zone focus system, not a rangefinder. It is a posh P&S with attachable lenses. Thats all. To compare it to a coincident imaging system in a rangefinder such as the Leica, Hexar, Cosina, Mamiya 7II or Bronica 645 is crazy but it seems to be done all the time.

[Allen Herbert]

Bottom line. The precise focusing you can get from a range finder camera is far superior to any auto focus something.

 

Wizz bang is very nice in certain situations, but real control over your images is what it's really about. In my opinion.

 

Of course familarity with any camera, and knowing it's limitations, and strenghts, makes for decent images..regardless of camera type.

[andrew_hull]

Bob:

 

I respectfully disagree, the Contax uses the same principal as the Leica, by triangulation. It is no better or worse. You rely on the patch being correct, I can confirm my focus with the scale int he viewfinder, or on the top of the camera with the LCD. There is no "zone" to it.

[soboyle www.oboylephoto.co]

The G is a rangefinder, not a zone focus camera. The disadvantage I see is that focus is not visually indicated in the viewfinder, as it is with the overlaid images in the M. With the G you see the distance read in numbers in the viewfinder and on the camera top, so if your focusing manually you need to be able to estimate distance well, not a good solution. The autofocus system uses the rangefinder for focus.

[frank_bunnik]

It's a pity that Leica owners allways have to state that their M is so much better than the G2. Yes, Contax showed Leica that a quality camera system does not require ridiculous prices and now the Leica owners seem to have to justify to themselves the high amount of money the have spent on their Leica's.

 

- Considering noise: yes, the Leica is quieter but the Contax is not as loud as some Leica owners want (us) to believe. I took pictures of people less than 2 meters away from me in Nepal, with nobody around exept myself (I am taller then 2 meters), yet nobody paid any attention or noticed I was taking pictures with my G2.

- Considering the viewfinder: yes, the Leica is brighter but the Contax's is fully useable. I had no problems composing pictures in dim light when I used one.

- Considering price: well the Contax is the absolute winner here, (except when it is important to you that you don't loose money when you sell your camerastuff in about 20 years time, then the Leica collectors step in and Leica is the winner). In neighbouring Germany I can buy a new G2 with 35 and 90mm lenses for about 1.400 euro's (which is maybe 1.200 US dollars, probably less). I can not get a new M body for that price, let alone a new body and 2 lenses.

- Considering quality: well, the Contax and the Leica are about equal here. Both are mechanically and optically superb. Zeiss lenses are more contrasty but it's just want you want.

- considering features: well, the Contax wins. A topspeed of 1/6000th of a second. Nice outdoors with a fully opened lens (and maybe a 400 iso film). No need for ND filters. Fill in flash at 1/200th of a second is also a lot better then the ridiculous 1/50th of the Leica. A built in winder of 4 frames a second is also nice on occasion.

- the big problem of leica owners with the manual focus of the G2 is absurd. Why would leica owners bother. The autofocus is almost always correct. When I used one, I never missed a shot because the camera could not focus. It is autofocus and you have to know how to use it. You can not focus a leica m at a white wall and neither can you focus a G 2 at a even coloured wall. The manual focus of the G2 is only there to set the lens at a certain hyperfocal distance. To use it to focus manually for each shot is pretty stupid indeed.

 

The M and the G2 are 2 different kinds of camera's. They have certain things in common but still they are different and aimed at different kind of users. Let's stop the eternal debate once and for all.

 

By the way, I now use an M6 with 4 different lenses, 2 V/C and 2 Leica. This has nothing to do however with not being happy with the Contax.

[joshroot]

Frank, I don't know where you get your money exchanged, but 1400 Euros is over $1660 USD.

[andy_piper2]

(In reading the following, note that I've already stated my preference and reasons for the Leica M).

 

The issue of whether a Contax-G is a "rangefinder" or not always comes up. It's silly.

 

Cameras can be focused: a) by actually looking at a lens's projected image to see when it's sharp; or b) by measuring the distance to the subject and setting the lens accordingly without reference to the actual projected image.

 

SLRs, view cameras, and TLRs use method (a); Leica-Ms, Contax-Gs, Mamiya 6/7s, Polaroid Sonar-cameras, and press-camera 4x5s use method (b). Scale-focus cameras (original Leica, V'lander Bessa-L, Hasselblad SWC, Holga, etc) use a variant of (b) where the "range" is "found" using the human eye/brain, a tape measure, or some other external range-finding device.

 

The idea that a mechanical rangefinder is "more" of a rangefinder than an electronic one is intellectually (but NOT, I hasten to add, morally!) equivalent to the idea that a white-skinned person is "more" of a human being than a dark-skinned person. Spurious (il)logic without any basis in fact.

 

In the olden days battleships measured target range with mechanical rangefinders (Nikon built them for the Imperial Navy during WWII); basically a 6-foot-long version of the Leica's. Nowadays the military measures range-to-target with radar, and/or laser-rangefinders (like the Contax's). If mechanical rangefinders are so superior, why are the admirals and generals risking lives using the new-fangled electronic ones?

 

Don't take my word for it. LEICA sells a laser-ranging device - they call it a "Rangemaster" rangefinder in the catalogs. Last time I had Leica servicing done, I asked about the status of my rangefinder repair and it took Leica a moment to figure out I meant my M6 - they though I meant a laser rangefinder.

 

Rangefinder cameras are those that set focus by ranging the subject; Leica-M and Contax-G both qualify. Is there any other way to see it?

 

(Incidentally, the "small, dark" Contax-G viewfinder is larger than, and as bright as, a screw-mount Leica's (excepting perhaps the IIIg). If it was good enough for Barnack and Cartier-Bresson.....?)

[Allen Herbert]

Contax-G viewfinder is larger than, and as bright as, a screw-mount Leica's (excepting perhaps the IIIg).

 

Wow, as good as the 111g. Viewfinders matter, why anyone has a problem with that thought is beyond me. Even esteemed photographers like Jeff Spirer bought a seperate view finder for his G5. Of course you can make do, but why? What you see is what you photograph. Two eyes open, standing upside down, well! Of course you can take great photos with any camera, regardless of the limitations. No offence if i sound blunt, just my thoughts.

[mike dixon]

Reasons for choosing an M over a G2:

 

Faster glass (up to two stops) is important to you.

 

A wider selection of focal lengths is important to you.

 

Precise manual focusing is important to you.

[andrew_hull]

Mike:

 

You are correct. Faster lenses for the Leica, but at the price of almost the entire G2 system. More focal lengths, agreed. There is a 24, a 75, and a 135 for which I cannot compare in Contax. And I often manually focus my contax and it is quite accurate!

[mike dixon]

Can you focus on a specific person halfway down a crowded

bar? Or on a person's eye instead of her nose? Not knocking

the G2, but I think an M is going to allow much better precision in

choosing the point of focus (in addition to accurately focusing on

that point).

[andrew_hull]

yes, I put whatever I want in the brackets and rotate the wheel until the LED confirms it is in focus. Now my Ziess lenses don't have that Leica "glow", which is of course laughable term for something that cannot be defined but comes in useful when someone else's lens is either sharper, contrastier, or better.

[hans_beckert]

You cannot be serious. You actually have to ask? get the M and get on with your life.

[Allen Herbert]

Or on a person's eye instead of her nose?

 

Listen to Dixon, he actually kmows what his talking about, and can prove it.

[mr._kenny]

i bought the g2, added 3 lenses. after buying a m6/35cron/50cron for my gf, i was hooked. i still have the g2+lenses, but i don't use it unless it's the tool i need. my attachment is pretty superficial, i wouldn't cry if i lost/sold it.<br />

pros ...

<ul>

<li>good lenses</li>

<li>semi-fast AF</li>

<li>semi-good fill flash, with second curtain sync</li>

<li>decent winder</li>

<li>nice finish/excellent ergonomics, my favorite of all cameras, actually</li>

<li>excellent/pricey addon back which also will 'summarize' your roll's apeture, shutter speed and date both between frames and at the end of the roll. sweet!</li>

</ul>

the cons...

<ul>

<li>squinty viewfinder</li>

<li>slowish undercover of darkness lenses</li>

<li>klugey manual focus/no DOF scale unless you make one in excel and stick it on the back door like i did</li>

</ul>

i still own it, and occasionally shoot it, but wouldn't be all broken up if i lost it. my leica is pretty and efficient at snapshots, and i am a snapshot shooter. i almost always prefer the leica as my tool of choice .

[frank_bunnik]

Josh, you are absolutely right! My mistake,I changed falsely. It is about 1.700 US$, not 1.200.

[octavio bustard]

I've owned 7 Leicas and two G2s. I agree with everything that has been said above....

[raymond_tai]

I had the G2 w/ 21mm, 28mm, 45mm for a year prior to completely going Leica. The lenses are really nice and almost as good as Leica at a fraction of the price. But too bad the body is like a P&S with interchangable lenses though the big plus was that the finder zoomed to the focal length. That said, if all I had right now was two G2 bodies with the 28mm and 45mm I would be pretty happy since I don't use tele's and anything else esoteric.

[jay t.]

Trying still to figure out why the G2 body feels like a P&S, according to those that say that. A somewhat heavy beast, very solid feel, no one-handed shots here, though smaller than a typical SLR still much bigger than any P&S, etc etc. Y'all must have mighty fine P&S's to make that comparison!

[robert_landis]

I was able to buy a G2 with a 45mm lens and TLA 200 from B&H for ~ $1260 and then get rebated $500. This allowed me to move from a cheap Rebel with packaged zoom to a world class camera. I couldn't confidently spend $2500 to $5000 on Leica equipment now, but I did feel ok spending what I did to help me get close.

 

That was a good enough reason for me... I can overlook the fine points for the money I saved.