Contax G vs Leica M lenses

D

douglas

This thread was splitted and moved from another one, because it went off topic:
-------------------------------------


Instead of a "G3" just get a Leicaflex. Better viewfinder, even tougher construction, 50mm Summicron and 90mm 2.8 as good or better than G2's 45/90.
 
R

rickd

Not to toss a bucket of water on the DOF readout idea, but the G lenses don't communicate f:stop setting to the bodies. Much energy has been expended in guessing whether the capability is there, but not collected by the G1 or G2. If you count the connecting pins on the bodies and the contacts on the lenses, you'll see that there are extra contacts.

What are they there for, aperture information? Who knows?

The G2 data back calculates f:stop by comparing the meter reading with what the external Hologon meter is reading. It's not hard to imagine situations where this would be WAY off.

--Rick
 

coodeville

Well-Known Member
The Kyocerea reps told me as well notto hold my breath for a G3. Matter of fact, one told me notto wait at al for it. Digital is more important to Kyocera these days.
 
P

picturetaker

There is no reason why Contax should bring another RF on the market. But it would be good if there is a better Worldwide Customer Service including hotline and Contax magazine about news and ideas for Contax user.

Contax should do something to keep theyre Stil-Film Cameras alive and prevent Contax Owner to trow awy there equipmet because of not reciving any Lenses or suport from fotoequipment Dealers.

Leica can do it, so why schouldnt Contax do it ?
 

tomasjpn

Well-Known Member
Hi all,

It seems that local Kyocera reps are perhaps not chosen well by the parent company here in Tokyo. I've owned both a G1 and G2, presently just the G2, and have been to their service centre in Tokyo on a few occasions for cleanings and checks, which were prompt and courteous. As well, the units sold here in Japan come only with Japanese-language manuals, including the flash units. On three separate occasions I went to the service centre and they ordered two of the manuals in English for me for a nominal charge, and also happened to have an extra manual in the office, English, for the TLA 280, which they gave me free of charge.

I've had nothing but excellent service from Kyocera. I wonder if the local reps that everyone is complaining about are merely jobbers who bid on a local service contract? This could be the case, and if so, is a great pity, since the parent company in Japan gives first-rate service.

I have no complaints at all, so far (knock on wood), about Kyocera's customer service. And as far as supporting film-based cameras, they can only do a limited amount at this point in time without seriously hurting their bottom line. Just look at the mess that Kodak is in because of their late decision to focus on digital. Kyocera is only reading the writing on the wall. They are a small company, in case you didn't know, and in fact are having financial difficulties (like many smaller, uncompetitive Japanese companies, they are spread very thin over a number of different unrelated industries), so it's safe to say that if we would like them to be around AT ALL in the future, more power to them for putting resources into digital while at the same time offering decent customer service for their traditional film cameras. But expecting them to put development money into new lenses for the G2, or any of their other film-based SLRs, is ridiculous, IMHO.

That being said, enjoy your Gs (I surely do mine) and take advantage of the very reasonable used market that has opened up. Digital is here to stay, but we can still enjoy film, just don't expect companies to dump money into it - we are truly becoming a very small, specialized market that can be no great source of revenue for any company that wants to remain in business.

Sorry for this overly lengthy posting!

Mark Edwards
 

lytton

Well-Known Member
Scott, you just don't get it. It's a failsafe. MF is included for those times when the auto focus is fooled and allows one to avoid such problems when one is aware of such instances. Shooting to capture the reflection in a glass window or on water is nearly impossible with the AF, so one simply flips a switch and turns a dial to achieve the desired focusing distance. Photography can sometimes be more of an issue of overcoming obstacles in one's way of taking great pictures. The process is part of the art. I would never want a camera (particularly a Contax) to do everything for me all of the time, even if it could. That's half the fun. Awareness and mindfulness are parts of the photographic experience. If you're not thinking during the process then you're not a photographer. Lytton
 

lytton

Well-Known Member
First of all Doug, A Leica "flex" refers to the fact that the camera has a reflex prism meaning that it is not a rangefinder. That said, you are c omparing apples to oranges. If you were referring to the "M" series of Leica cameras that accept the Leica M mount manual focus lenses, then you are comparing apples to oranges yet again. I'm sick and tired of this 'My camera is better than your camera' BS from Leicafile snobs such as yourself. This is a CONTAX forum. Bugger off!!! Does your Leica shoot 4 frames per second? Does your Leica have TTL metering? Can your Leica flash sync at 1/200th of a second, or at all? Can it shoot at a top shutter speed of 1/6000th of a second? Oh yeah, can your Leica auto focus? Slight difference I should think. A Leica is a commodity; A Contax is a camera. -Lytton
 
F

farnborough

Doug, have had a lot of Leicas, my best was the Leicaflex SL2, and of course the bulkiest and heaviest. Some day I am going to buy one again, just for fun. The G2 is the ideal RF camera to carry around with you in all situations. Instead of wishing for a G3, lets be happy with the G2 we are used to, and wish for lenses like a 35mm 1.4 or a 45mm 1.4. At least that should be possible. Regards to a great forum from Vienna Peter
 

felipe

Member
>=20 >=20 >=20 > While I may agree with the basic sentiment voiced by Lytton, I don=B9t thin= k > that any forum participant should resort to foul language because someone > mentions the =B3L=B2 word. Those of us who use G2s know that we are using a > product that is superior to any rival in the field, =B3L=B2 or otherwise. Sur= e, it > has some shortcomings, but used properly it is a superb instrument. Have = a > look at some of the photos on =B3The Contax G Pages=B2 web site:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
com > to see how good the G cameras are. Don=B9t waste time and good will slaggin= g off > other forum members and other brands. >=20 >=20 >=20
 

afranklin

Well-Known Member
Lytton

> I'm sick > and tired of this 'My camera is better than your camera' BS from > Leicafile snobs such as yourself.

I didn't see anyone say "my camera is better than yours"...bla bla bla... Seems you're sensitive to the topic of discussion

> This is a CONTAX forum.

And...discussing features of other cameras as well as comparing cameras is part and parcel of any camera forum.

Both cameras have their virtues. What is important to one person may or may not be important to another.

But...to answer your questions ;-)

> Does your Leica shoot 4 frames per second?

no, but 3 is fine, and with no batteries (RapidWinder)

> Does your Leica have > TTL metering?

Yes...

> Can your Leica flash sync at 1/200th of a second, or at > all?

I don't believe it's 1/200, but it does flash sync.

> Can it shoot at a top shutter speed of 1/6000th of a second?

No. When do you need 1/6000th of a second?

> Oh > yeah, can your Leica auto focus?

No, but at least I can tell when it's IN focus (sorry, I couldn't resist ;-)

> Slight difference I should think.

Yes, they ARE different. There are quite a few exceptional 1.4 lenses available for the Leica M, as well as the Noctilux 1.0...I believe there are simply more lenses available for the Leica than the Contax G. The Leica M 6 also works without batteries...and is certainly a far more rugged camera. It's all a matter of what's important to you, and what your situation is.

> A > Leica is a commodity; A Contax is a camera. -Lytton

Well, Leicas seem to hold their value quite well. I'd guess the Leica M will be working far in the future, where the Contax G probably won't be, since it is highly electronic, and uses LCDs. Both are exceptional cameras, but they are different. To claim a Leica is a commodity is simply silly.

Austin
 
D

douglas

Actually, it is more than fair to compare apples to oranges. (Leica SLR to G2s or any other combination) After all, on this thread most are comparing an existing G2 to a MAKE BELIEVE "G3." Talk about apples to oranges! Fact is that the G2 and the Leicaflex are wonderful little machines and both occupy a place in the "greatest cameras of all time" roster. So, compare away. Every artist knows that all thought is fair and relevant in the contemplation of the final outcome. That some here might have a case of Leicis envy, should be irrelevant.
 

felipe

Member
While I may agree with the basic sentiment voiced by Lytton, I don’t think that any forum participant should resort to foul language because someone mentions the “L” word. Those of us who use G2s know that we are using a product that is superior to any rival in the field, “L” or otherwise. Sure, it has some shortcomings, but used properly it is a superb instrument. Have a look at some of the photos on “The Contax G Pages” web site:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to see how good the G cameras are. Don’t waste time and good will slagging off other forum members and other brands.
 

afranklin

Well-Known Member
Philip,

> Those of us who use G2s know > that we are using a product that is superior to any rival in the > field, L or otherwise.

The G2 may be "seperior" to other cameras for you and your purpuses, or for particular purposes, but to simply claim it is "superior to any rival" for everyone and all purposes is simply not realistic. It IS an exceptional camera, there is no doubt...but there are situations where it is simply not superior. That's true for ANY camera.

Regards,

Austin
 
>I didn't receive the message you're replying to here, but I feel moved to respond to some of the pronouncements in your post. Manual focus on the cameras is not merely a backup for autofocus, but has other useful applications. It enables you to place a point of focus in circumstances where the centrally placed AF sensor would be apt to set focus contrary to your intentions. Imagine a group of dancers moving about on an outdoor stage. Relying on AF, if you release the shutter when the figures in the scene are arranged just as you like in the frame, the sensor may be in a place where there is no figure, or subject, setting focus on some plane beyond: nice, sharp distant trees, blurry dancers. The focus-and-recompose technique is apt to be ineffectual here, as you want to press the shutter when the constantly-changing scene offers the compostion you want - the so-called decisive moment. This is but one case where the AF is indeed able to fix focus, but not necessarily in the zone where you want it. There are many other instances where using AF to establish a distance that can be read from the LCD panel and subsequently set on the MF dial will save you much grief and ruined pictures. Manually presetting exposure for stable prevailing conditions (and leaving it set there) from a single camera position is another technique that prevents the camera making "wrong" decisions for you. I find an incident meter or grey card useful for this. So I'd say I agree with you about not wanting a camera to make all the decisions for you, but an intuitive understanding of how the device works, and a methodology thought out beforehand is often a better way of working than thinking and calculating all the way through the process. Often, life won't wait for it, and depending on what type of photography you're doing, the deliberate, Ansel Adams way of working can be a real creativity-killer. I've noticed that when an athlete gives a stunning performance for the ages, someone will say, "oh my God, he was just unconscious!" I often wonder if photographers like Cartier-Bresson didn't work that way - so dialed-into the process, that he was able to keep thinking out of it and let intuition take over. Just my thoughts. Chas.
 

daleh

Well-Known Member
> Don't forget "style" and personal preference. Some people are just not happy unless the thing in their hands is THE most expensive available. I have both an M6 and a G2. Somewhat afraid to use the M6 as I know the first scratch will cost me about $300 off its value. On the other hand, the pure simplicity when shooting outdoors in sunlight makes it a compelling tool. The G2, on the other hand, is more versatile and does autofocus, making it preferable for low light flash shooting, low light available light shooting etc. My G2 and 21mm lens cost less than just a 21 mm lens for my Leica and because of that, no matter which may become my prime user, I will always keep the G2 around, especially now since big rebates have killed its value in the used market.
 

afranklin

Well-Known Member
Dale,

> The G2, on the other hand, is more > versatile and does autofocus, making it preferable for low light flash > shooting, low light available light shooting etc.

Can you elaborate on your comment about low light available light shooting being "more versatile" with the G2. The M6 has far faster lenses available (two stops in fact) for low light shooting, which allow you to use higher shutter speeds and therefore get sharper pictures...and the rangefinder focusing is quite good for low light shooting as well. Are you saying this because you believe the AF of the G2 gets you in better focus than the rangefinder focusing of the M6?

Regards,

Austin
 

daleh

Well-Known Member
> Austin: By all means I mean autofocus. Also, you are right that Leica has many more available wide f-stop lenses but they are out of reach financially for all but the most dedicated, financially affluent photographers. Today's fast films (e.g. 800 in particular) that using one of them with F2.8 will give you far better results than you would have gotten just a few years ago with 400 speed film and a wider aperture. But, of course, there is a place in the world for both systems. But, having both, and already having a 21mm lens for the G2, it would be foolish of me to sell the G2 and lens for $1000 in order to buy a 21mm Leitz lens for $2000. All I have for my Leica is a 50mm (new lens) and a forty year old F2.0 35mm with eyes old lens. I am going on a trip to the desert tomorrow and will take both with me as well as a Hasselblad. I will shoot some pictures with both cameras just to compare (using 45mm lens on G2 and 50mm lens on M6). I doubt if I will see any difference. Will take a favorite shot into some shadows at Mission San Juan Capistrano using both. Regards, DH
 

dag321

New Member
Comparing Contax Gs to Leica rangefinders,=20 what would it take to have someone market a lens holder that fastens to a G2 baseplate like the one available for the M series? =
 

daleh

Well-Known Member
> First it would take a license from the company whose mount is being copied. Second, it would take enough potential volume so that the cost of such a device would not be astronomical. I doubt that Leica and Contax owners put together could provide enough potential sales to justify such a device.
 
T

tvdweert

>it would be foolish of me to sell the G2 and lens for $1000 in order to buy a 21mm Leitz lens for $2000

Hi Dale- I certainly agree with your reasoning. I've owned Leicas for years, but also had a G2, which I sold in a fit of insanity (wanted to get back to basics yada yada). Thought I'd take the money and buy a Tr-Elmar for the m6. After thinking awhile, (and missing the heck out of my G2) I realized I could have a whole G2 system for the price of the Tri-Elmar. I ended up buying a black G2 with 28/45/90 AND 35-70 zoom, all used, for little more than the price of the Tri_elmar. And the G2 is ALWAYS the first camera out of the bag.

As an aside, I dont see much discussion here about the 35-70. That lens is fanatastic, and its certainly something Leitz cant do w/ the M. Anybody disagree?
 
Top