christopher kink www.digi

While the finder isn't great, it never bothered me the way it bothered other people. You get used to it. Same with the AF noise. You could hear it, but your subjects normally could not.

 

So while I certainly would love for those things to be improved upon, I'd still be happy if they just ported the existing technology to an equivalent digital camera platform.

Hi John, there are a few of us G users here. I've got a G1 and G2 and agree that the 45/2 is the finest 35mm format lens that I've ever used with the 21/2.8 being a close second. The 35/2 did get a lot of bad press, and while it's not quite as good as the 45/2, it's still a very good lens and I would never hesitate to use mine as an "only" lens when traveling light. Same goes for the 90/2 - no problems focusing that one on the G1 or the G2 except for the occasional issue that was soundly my fault.

 

It's a great system, but people didn't know how to classify it, and so you got statements like "it's not *really* a rangefinder," or "it's just an over-glorified point and shoot". Both are incorrect as far as I'm concerned. I have Leica Ms and SLRs too, but for handheld film shooting, my Gs got more use than my Leicas ever did.

I can't comment on the Sony/Minolta 300mm lenses as I've never had either one. But I have the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 SSM and had the Minolta 80-200 f/2.8 HS G at the same time. Between those two, the older G lens actually focused faster than the new SSM one. This made me wonder if I had a dud, or if Sony/Minolta just didn't get the whole SSM thing right on the first try, so I compared it to a co-worker's current Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L USM on his 1D Mark III. Both the Canon lens and the Sony SSM lens (on an updated Maxxum 9) focused at pretty much the same speed (as far as I could tell) so I suspect that this is just the nature of the design in this class of lenses.

 

This actually supports what I have suspected all along and is backed up by my experiences when I had a Canon EOS system and other lenses that I have tried - that in *many* (not all) cases, USM motors provide no real advantage in focusing speed over conventional slot-drive motors. The focusing "feels" faster because you don't hear the whirr of the motor, but if you actually time it, it's all a wash. USM is marketing Gold, though, so Canon and Nikon push it hard.

 

This may not be the case with the really heavy glass like the 300mm, but I doubt that the differences are anywhere as great as we've been lead to believe. Now there are some completely unsubstantiated rumors that Sigma will begin introducing HSM lenses for the A mount next year. I'd love to see that since I also think that the Sony 300mm is way too expensive, but I'm not going to hold my breath. If I really needed a 300mm now, I probably get a used Minolta 300mm f/2.8 HS G or a new third party lens and not worry about it too much.

Steve,

 

There were 2 versions of the 9. There was the regular "original" 9 and the 9ti where some of the black stainless steel shell was replaced with titanium. The 9ti has silver-ish titanium panels and is easy to differentiate. It added a few custom functiosn to the original 9, but didn't add ADI metering or SSM focusing (as far as I know). Minolta offered a firmware upgrade (actually a chip replacement) to bring the original 9 to the 9ti spec. They also offered a separate (kind of) upgrade for both the 9 and the 9ti to enable ADI metering and focusing with SSM lenses.

 

So here is where it gets confusing. The chip replacement for both of these changes is on the same chip. When they replaced the chip, they could enable either the 9ti items or the ADI/SSM items or both. This means that if you are looking for an upgraded 9 or 9ti, then you have to check for both items.

 

The 9ti upgrade is pretty easy to tell. If your 9 has different custom functions than a regular 9, then it had the 9ti update. As far as I know, the ADI and SSM were on the same update, so testing for one *should* indicate the presence of the other, but I'm not 100% sure. The only way that I know of to test for the ADI/SSM update is to mount and SSM lens and see if it focuses or a D lens/ADI flash combo and see if the flash reports ADI compatibility. If I was looking, I'd test for SSM and ADI separately, just to be sure, especially if the seller is charging a premium for an "updated" 9.

 

I had my 9 updated to the 9ti/ADI/SSM spec as soon as I heard that KM's camera division was headed off to Sony (that's how I found all of this out). From what I heard, the upgrade was pretty rarely done, so I wouldn't count on finding an upgraded 9. You might contact Sony to see if they will still do the upgrade, but the guy I spoke with at KM didn't think that they would do it. However, it's worth a shot.

Jed,

 

I've been a Maxxum user for nearly 20 years now, a Contax G user for about 7 and a Leica M user for about 5. The G system is really fantastic. You can safely ignore all of the talk about it not being a "real" rangefinder (that's a religious war that isn't worth getting into) or of the 35mm lens being bad or of difficulties focusing.

 

Both G cameras pretty much focus where you point them. They are, in fact, quite fast and usually accurate about that. You just have to make sure that you really want to focus on what you put the brackets over. There is a distance readout in the viewfinder (useful to make sure that you haven't accidently focused on the background) but no DoF scale on the lens.

 

I've used the 21, 28, 35, 45 and 90mm lenses. The 35 is good (though not as good as the others), the rest are great. In fact, the 45 and the 21 are amazing.

 

The G1 was my favorite camera for travel. I often carried it and a Mamiya 645e and it was a good combination. I have both the G cameras and Leica Ms, and when I want to shoot 35mm, I pick up the G2 more often. They're small, light, quick, quiet (not as quiet as an M, but quiet nonetheless), the lesnes are superb, and they can be had cheaply compared to the Leicas, even if you use Voigtlander lenses (also quite good in my experience). The metering is quick and accurate, and once you learn to use the AE lock independently of AF, you'll have no trouble with exposure at all.

 

The only reason that I ever got into the Ms is that I could see that there would never be a digital G (as soon as you pick up the 21mm, you'll immediately see why). But for film shooting, I'd pick the Gs hands down. And yes, you can use the Gs for landscape work.

 

Now as a Maxxum/Sony user (film and digital), what problems are you having with your Minolta's IQ? What lenses are you using? Minolta has some very nice glass (some of which, from my own experience, is very close to the same league as the Zeiss glass) and depending on what you have now, it might be easier and cheaper to get a couple of good (used) Maxxum lenses instead of a whole new system. It won't be as small as the G, but it might end up being more versatile. The Maxxum 20mm f/2.8, 28mm/f2 (not the f/2.8), 35mm f/2 (or the 1.4, it's good, but it's crazy expensive and the f/2 is supposed to be better), 50mm f/1.7 (or 1.4 same issue as the 35mm), 85mm f/1.4, and the 100mm f/2 or f/2.8 macro. Some of these are expensive and some are hard to find, but all can be found used with a little searching. The good thing is that older revisions of these lenses are optically identical to the newer ones (except the current Zeiss 85mm f/1,4 - it's different from the older Minolta lenses). So if you're willing to take older lenses, you can get essentially the same thing for less and end up with some great glass.

 

Having said all that, I agree with the suggestion to try the Mamiya 7.

 

Let me know I you have any other questions.

 

-Christopher

I've heard a lot about the Contax G 90mm not focusing accurately on the G1, but I never had much trouble with mine. I suspect that Bill is right. In most cases, I think the problem was that the users weren't being careful with where they put the focusing brackets. The G2 is a bit better, but both G cameras will pretty much focus where you point them, which might not be where you actually *want* them to focus.

 

You might want to do some controlled tests on a roll of film and see if it is really a problem with the camera. It might save you the cost of a repair.

I've had my Maxxum 9 since it first came out and it has been with me everywhere from Africa to Antarctica and never had a single problem. I've found it to be reliable, rugged, and overall to be the best SLR that I've ever used hands down (and I've used lots of them). If you're looking for a 35mm SLR, the 9 is a great choice. As far as things to look out for, make sure that you don't get one that looks too beat up. Mine wasn't babied and still looks pretty nice because the finish over the stainless steel is very durable. If you find one that looks really worn, it has probably been though a lot and should best be avoided. $300 would be a good price for a nice 9.

The pin on mine doesn't move. It's an electronic release and should just work. My guess is that yours is broken or someone tried to use a mechanical release on your G1 and broke the socket.

 

-Christopher

Congratulations on your G1. They're great cameras and the 45 and 21mm lenses are some of the best glass that I've used on any system. Has your G1 been upgraded to use the 35mm and 21mm lenses? As to your questions:

 

1 - The viewfinder was the only part of the camera that I wasn't thrilled with, and even that isn't too bad. Basically you just get used to it. The zoom feature is nice so there is no confusion about frame lines, but the G1's way of doing parallax compensation is not ideal. The G2's viewfinder is less squinty and also has better parallax compensation, but the difference is not worth the extra money. I have both cameras and don't feel that I'm giving anything up when using the G1. If you get the 21mm (or the hologon) you'll be using a separate viewfinder anyway. The 21's finder is very nice but I've never used the hologon, so I can't comment on it.

 

2 - I never used filters on mine. However, if you need to use filters, I agree with the suggestion to use a high quality, multicoated one. Money is probably better spent on lens hoods, though.

 

3 - The metering is center weighted and surprisingly accurate as long as you avoid (or compensate for) strongly backlit subjects. Since AE lock (the ring switch around the shutter release) is independent of AF lock, you can easily use it in tricky lighting situations without having to bracket or go manual. It will soon become second nature since it's very quick and easy to use. For example: views with lots of sky can throw the meter off pretty easily. To compensate for that, I usually meter off the ground and lock the exposure before I recompose and take the picture. No need to use exposure compensation or manual mode.

 

4 - Do you use your left or right eye? I'm left eyed and rotate the camera clockwise for verticals (grip on the bottom). My left hand is still on bottom of the camera so it doesn't block the viewfinder. This position also keeps your elbows at your side so that you are less likely to be bumped into when in a crowd.

 

Hope this helps.

 

-Christopher

The Minox GT-E, the original Contax T, and Ricoh GR1 are all nice little cameras with great lenses. Don't let the plastic body on the Minox fool you, they are well built. The Contax T is about the same size (without it's little add on flash) and has a real rangfinder and the Ricoh is aperture priority automantic.

 

Of the three, I'd go with the Minox or the Ricoh. the Contax is just too expensive and heavy for what it gives you when compared to the Minox. The Ricoh is expensive too, but you get a wider lens, AF, AE and a built in flash if you want it.

Sorry Dennis, didn't mean to spell your name worong.

Denis and Robert,

 

You're actually both wrong. A lens that produces 1:1 at its minimum focusing distance will produce 1:1 at its minimum focusing distance regardless of the film or sensor size. At the minimum focusing distance, 24x36mm will be "life size" for 35mm, while on an APS-C sensor, about 15x22.5mm will be "life size". However, the distance and magnification will be the same in both cases since magnification at the film/sensor plane is not influenced by crop factor. The magnification scale on the lens will still be accurate, no matter if you use a 35mm or digital camera.

 

-Christopher

I've had good luck with the Maxxum 9 in cold conditions. I've taken it to Antarctica for 2 weeks without any issues. To be fair, it was "summer" there and it sometimes got as warm as the high 20s F but it was usually very cold and snowed, rained or sleeted about 50% of the time. I've also had it out at other times with temperatures well below 0F and it never game me any trouble. The only potential problem is that its metal body gets extremely cold and will literally suck all the heat out of your hands in very little time, even through gloves. Of course, any metal, cloth shuttered, mechanical camera will have the same problem - my old rangefinders certainly did.

Keith - When using a DSLR, one of my favorite lenses is my Minolta 35mm f/1.4 G. There really is no replacement for a fast lens, especially when combined with anti-shake and higher sensitivity ISO speeds. Of the lenses you mentioned, I'd go with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (or a used Minolta 35mm f/1.4 if you can find one). I don't have any first hand experience with the Sigma, so I can't say if it's any good, but I have heard a few good things about it. Overall, you can't really say if a third party or manufacturer's lens is better. Some are good, others are not so good in every lens line. Between the Tamron and Minolta 28-75s, I'd go with the Minolta for the $30 difference because it is "claimed" to have improved coatings.

"Better" is not the right word for it. I like using my Leicas when I have time to slow down and do things myself. However, if I was somehow limited to either a G1 or my MP for film photography, I'd probably pick the G1. The Leicas have their charm, but the G series are ultimately just more functional for me.

 

If you are having trouble focusing, always check the distance scale in the viewfinder. It's not exact, but it will show you if the distance measurement is way off.

 

As for digital, I agree that the Gs would be nice digital systems, but lenses would probably not work well. The rear elements of the 28 and 21 protrude very deeply into the camera body and the rear element of the 16 is supposed to be so far back (I don't own one, so I don't know for sure) that it nearly touches the shutter. That's no good for current CCD designs.

Darius - I've been a G1 user for many years and got a G2 recently. It's probably blasphemy to post this here, but from a purely functional standpoint, I consider the G series to be the best rangefinders out there by a long shot - once you know what to expect from them. To answer your questions:

 

1. They both seem to be pretty equally loud/quiet to me, though I have never compared them directly. The G2 seems to be a bit quieter because it finishes its tasks (focusing and winding) more quickly, so the noise doesn't last as long. In either case, your subject is unlikely to hear either one unless you're in a dead silent environment. Can't say about the battery life on the G2, but the G1?s last a long time for me.

 

2. There is little doubt that the viewfinders on my Leicas are better in most respects than the viewfinders on my Gs. The Leica's finders are bigger, and have more useful parallax compensation (parallax compensation on the Gs leaves you to guess a bit). However, the Gs show the shutter speed and focus distance. The Gs are much faster to use (for me anyway) and I have had essentially no problems getting either G to focus accurately. My only real complaint is the lack of DOF scales on the lenses.

 

I think that the demise of the G series had more to do with Kyocera's business decisions and a lack of demand for rangefinders in general than anything else. With great lenses (the 45 and the 21 are my favorites) and a small, lightweight package, they are great, high quality, travel cameras. I didn't have any trouble using mine, but some people find the workflow unusual. If you get used to them, you'll have a nice system. If you end up not liking them, then use what works best for you.

One way that the digital M could guess the shooting aperture is the way the Contax G series does it. The 16mm Hologon can't use the TTL meter so the G cameras are all equipped with an external meter near the viewfinder. They can guess the shooting aperture by comparing the readings of the TTL meter and the external one. Sure it's not perfect, but it's close enough.

 

-Christopher

The lightmeter works and even works quite well. You still have DOF preview since the whole setup is using stopped-down metering anyway.

Yes, but it depends on the type of bellows you have. If it's a Minolta bellows, then I would try to find an old MD to Maxxum adapter. Theses were made when the Maxxum lenses first came out. They had some lens elements in them to compensate for the changes in flange distances. If you remove the lens elements in the adapter, then it just becomes a short extension tube with an MD mount on the front and a Maxxum mount on the back.

 

I use an old Vivitar T-mount bellows with a T-mount to Maxxum adapter to do something similar and it works well with the 7D.

I've had a poor experience with Focus Camera years ago too. It was the basic bait and switch. "Oh that was last months price." (Listed in an issue of Pop Photo for *next* month) "The version with the US warrantee will cost more." Advertising the new version of an item and sending the older version. You know, the basic scams. I would avoid them like the plague and stick to the reliable retailers like B&H, Adorama and KEH. I've never had a single issue that wasn't immediately and professionally resolved with any of those three.

There are also the original Maxxum 7000, the new (but unimpressive) Maxxum 70 and the Minolta X7A (basically just an X370).

I'm not positive about the infinity focus bit. My adapter might be bad. I was hoping that someone else might have had better luck than I did.

Jeroen,

 

I have a handful of superb Pentax SMC Super Takumars at home that I still use from time to time. (The 50mm f/1.4 with the slightly radioactive glass is great!). However I use them on a M42 body or a bellows because the M42 to Minolta AF adapter that I got with my 8mm f/3.5 Peleng fisheye doesn't seem to work well with the rest of my lenses.

 

Has anyone had any luck with M42 to Minolta AF adapters? I thought that the Flange distance was deeper in the Minolta AF bodies than the M42 ones, so that the lenses wouldn't focus to infinity.

 

If you can get the adapter to work, there are plenty of great M42 lenses out there. But I agree with Peter that once you are used to open aperture metering, stop-down metering is a pain with no real upside.

Clinton,

 

After conversing with a person over at KM in New Jersey, they are indeed shipping everything out. In fact, most of it is already gone. It's really too bad because I have always gotten excellent service and support from them. They've always gone above and beyond for me and I hate to seem them go.

I've used a .75 MP with a first generation 90mm Summicron without too much trouble. It's a nice lens, BTW, just a bit big and heavy.