CI Photocommunity

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Contax G2 or Nikon F100

yogi

Well-Known Member
BTW - G2 systems kits can be bought for under $2000 for the 28mm, 45mm, 90mm, and TLA200 with a G2 body. They are bargain priced compared to other brands with less quality. If you don't mind used e-bay has them for dirt cheap. A brand new kit from Hong Kong with hoods and filters cost around $1600. You just can't beat that. You get 1 year international warranty instead of 3 year US warranty on the lenses, but contax so far still services them unlike if you buy grey market Nikon - Nikon USA will not service them.
 
R

ramella

I agree using in travel a G2 with 28 and 45 and a SLR with 60 macro
i am a pro photographer and in this times i am working almost in digital...times goes on my friends...although i am in the way of buying a G camera with 28 and 45, i don't know if i have to buy G1 or G2...prices are really different but what about time reaction in fast snapshotting and reportage between g1 and g2?
thanks
 

tomasjpn

Well-Known Member
Alberto,

I got rid of my G1 and bought a G2, after owning the G1 for four years, for mainly that reason - the time lag between pushing the shutter release and the lens actually focusing,, then finally the shutter firing. Often, it was just not fast enough. The G2 is significantly faster to focus and fire. Not 'a little faster' but very noticeably faster, like night and day, in my opinion. Quieter too. I liked my G1 but its slowness was often a major annoyance.

Mark Edwards
 

redseca2

Member
I have just received my G2 body from Tamarkin to replace the role of my veteran G1 body with my 21, 28, 45 and 90mm lenses. G1 now has to fight with a much bigger Mamiya 6MF to be the "black-and-white" camera. Having used a G1 for many years, I can only agree that, within its operating range, it is capable of some the finest images I have ever made. To compare the G2 to a Nikon F100 however is very difficult. The G cameras are focused sports cars compared to a F100, which is a high-end do-everything camera version of an SUV like a Range Rover. The only times I wish that I was shooting with an SLR like that instead of the G are:

To use a split screen filter to darken a landscape sky in relation to the ground plane.

To use a polarizer filter without people asking what is wrong....

Perspective correction lenses that I lust for.

I can live without super telephoto, but those moments that I do NOT shoot, when others with a simple point and shoot-but one that goes out to 140mm or so-DO.
 

jhslater

Member
Pierre -
There are a lot of good commentscposted to answer your question. I have been following the post in my e-mail the past few days, but thisis the first time I was wble to get on-line to post a comment. I have been in photography for over 50 years and suffer with the same problems - old eyes, etc. I hav had many different cameras. I worked in a camera store for 15 years.

The G2 ( I have the 28, 45, and 90 ) system is the best I have ever owned (I had Leica in the 70s & 80s).

You will love the G2. When you get your first roll of shots back from the lab, be preepared for a shock. The results are truley amazing.

I really don't care if Contax does not keep up with new products as long as they continue to support and service the product. I do want a digital back, but so does everyone else.

As far as your Nikon equipment goes, consider keeping the body and enough lenses to fill in the area wher the Contax can't be used. If your photography technique and needs can be fulfilled by the G2 (as mine are now) then it can be your only system.

Good luck with your decision.

Jim
 

smartrav

Well-Known Member
>

I just returned from a photo shoot out west. Put 60 rolls of B&W through my Contax G2. Combination of T400CN, Tech Pan, Tri-X, and Tmax 100. In that order of awesome negatives. I also put 40 rolls of color film through my Nikon. Combination of Kodak color films from 100 to 800 speeds.

The Contax 21mm lens gave me shots that are unbelievable. The only time I used the Nikon was if I wanted a color shot of what I was shooting in B&W or if I wanted to use a long (600mm) focal length lens. In general, the images from the Nikon are nice snapshots but the images from the Contax are all professional quality. My wife who was with me used an Olympus APS point and shoot and her images came just as good as the Nikon shots. In both cameras I used a tripod for every shot.

By the way I can reply to notes but can someone tell me how initiate a new subject?

Dave
 

dirk

CI-Founder
Hi David,

to start a new thread, you have to be online in the forum. Once in the section you want to post in, click on "Start new thread" below the last visible thread.
 

pierre_l

Member
By the way, I'm not comparing the F100 and the G2 directly. Apples and oranges, as another poster said, and I agree completely. I'm only considering both because they are in the same price range I will be looking at. My real concern with the G system is whether it will continue to be supported, especially with all the digital hoopla going on right now. The last thing I want to do is to spend over $2000 Cdn and soon after end up with an orphan system. I'm still trying to find out how well the G system is doing in the marketplace.
 

coodeville

Well-Known Member
I own both. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Whip out the F100 in a location where pro photographers are not welcomed and see what happens. Most people take the G as nothing more than a P&S. The G2 is decieving and that's what I like about it. The F100 is fast. Try shooting sports with a G2 and see what happens. More power to both of these great systems.
 

bdy

Member
I don't think you're going to be able to get sales figures very easily. The question to ask yourself is why specifically this "orphan" issue is important to you. If you are looking for major upgrades to the system, new lenses, a film G3, etc. I think you are likely to be disappointed, though there have been periodic rumors of a digital G. If you are worried about parts and repairs then I would guess this is less of a concern. Mostly what I am saying is that if the camera is still taking quality photographs years from now it doesn't really matter whether the line is discontinued. Your camera won't disappear.

As far as information is concerned, what we know is that Contax continues to produce and promote the G2. We know that the used prices are dropping (check eBay- a "standard" kit: body, 28,45,90, TLA-200, is about US$1500, down somewhat) but this is due in part at least to the move to digital, not unhappiness with the G2.)

Make what you can of all this, but remember that orphan cameras work just fine. There are a lot of discontinued models out there, making fine photographs.
 

pierre_l

Member
I understand what you're saying. My concern about it, I guess, is because I'm a kidney dialysis patient on limited disability income, with a one-time opportunity 5 months from now to buy a more or less lifetime camera in that price range (a tall order, I know!). I would welcome a future G3, because that would mean Kyocera/Contax is committed to an AF "rangefinder" system and won't just abandon it. I don't care about future lenses or anything like that, because the set I start out with is likely all I will ever have (likely 28, 45 and maybe 90). I would just like it to be current at least for a little while, after I buy it


...in addition to having a certain level of reliabitily combined with quality (both build and the actual photos).

That's one reason I'm staying totally out of the digital arena.
 
W

writing4me

Bernard's post said what I have been thinking. I don't know what Contax does have in mind for the future of the G2, but just to add to this discussion, even if the day comes that the G2 would be discontinued I believe Contax continues to service their discontinued cameras for quite a very long time afterwards. Do they not? Barring use of factory repair, there are still very good repair services elsewhere.

For ex&le, I'm starting to enjoy looking at the very old cameras (1940-1960 etc) and although they have been orphaned long ago, it is still possible to find good shooters, to get them worked on, and to find lenses and accessories.

As a comparison about discontinued cameras, I've noticed that the price of the RX seems down quite a bit on Ebay since the news of the RXII. In my way of thinking, it's an even better buy even though it is discontinued. The build is quality. Parts are accessible. Repair options are open. The G1 certainly dropped down to nearly nothing in price, but is still a very desirable and good camera.

If the price is right on the system you want, I'm not sure orphaning would be a big worry, given there are plenty of options for getting more parts for G2's. And if you're worried about dropping it in a lake while taking photos, get some cheap insurance on the camera itself. When I insured my gear I called up my regular insurance person (through State Farm) and it was next to nothing for a year of coverage that included absolutely stupid destruction of gear, no questions asked.

Hope this was helpful somehow. -Lynn
 

hdfuhrman

Active Member
Pierre,

Make a decision. Stop agonizing. Both camera are great. If you are going to take close up pictures of flowers or wildlife needing a telephoto, buy the f100, you won't go wrong. If you want a realively lightweight, great camera and lenses for nearly all the other photo's get the G-2.

As far as whether a camera is supported or not, most of my cameras were discontinued many years ago and they are still capable of taking great photo's (subject to the limitations of this photographer, of course). Whether something is continued or discontinued is unimportant, if it accomplishes your purpose, go with it.

I have had my G-2 for a year, I did not get rid of my only Canon EF (1970 vintage) so I can take macro photos to my hearts content (usually one or two macro photo sessions per year). But the bulk of my photos is with the G2 and I am very satisfied with results.

Good luck,
Howard
 

robgo2

Active Member
Pierre,

Based on your earlier description of the type of photography that you like to do, I would say that the G system is ideal. (Just hold onto your current SLR for special situations.) Presumably, you have made the decision to go with film rather than digital capture. Given the fairly large number of G2s that have been sold over the years, I doubt that there will be a problem finding support for that camera in the forseeable future.
 

pierre_l

Member
Thanks again everyone for your thoughts. I'm not really agonizing over this choice, just doing what I guess they would call due diligence in the business world. I've seen the G1 and G2 in the store, but I've yet to actually handle one, so that will be the next thing I do. Maybe that will be enough to convince me. So far, it seems like it might be ideal for my needs.
 

tomasjpn

Well-Known Member
Hi Pierre,

Another post mentioned that it might be difficult, maybe impossible, to know how well the G2 is selling, except for knowing that sales of all non-digital equipment made by all companies are falling. Kyocera is a fairly small company, but they manufacture a lot of other things besides cameras (their full name is Kyoto Ceramic). Perhaps a valid question would be 'how well is the company doing?' I live in Japan and frankly, there are very few medium to large companies here that are not well in the red. Not a day goes by when I watch the nightly news here in Tokyo that I don't see news of another failed company either going bankrupt or begging for government assistance. I haven't seen financials for Kyocera or Nikon (nor Minolta and Pentax), but if they did what most other Japanese companies did, 10-15 years ago, then their balance sheets probably look like hell. That is, did they invest in the Tokyo real-estate market and stock market using one of these investment/speculation instruments as collateral for the other? As you may know, both stocks and real estate in Japan have gone down the toilet, and still continue to decline.

That being said, perhaps there aren't ANY major Japanese camera companies that aren't a financial mess (and most of the mess is hidden off the balance sheets, by the way).

I would speculate that as long as Kyocera can continue to sell something in the digital market, and as long as their other non-camera products do ok, the company will not disappear and therefore we should all still be able to get service etc for our G2s.

I hope......

The 'G3' issue is another thing altogether, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Not really sure if this addresses your concern about an orphaned product.

Good luck.

Mark Edwards
 

pierre_l

Member
BTW, if anything convinces me to get a G1 or G2, it will be all of your photos in the gallery. Most of you guys are very good.
 

yogi

Well-Known Member
Call me retro and very paranoid. But if this is to be MY only camera, I'd try to have as little dependency on electronics as much as possible.

As I mentioned before I do own the F100 and G2, but I also have the Nikon FM2 and Ftn to go with them as backup. Seriously the FM2 and the recently introduced FM3a is about the weight of the G2 and if you get the prime lenses should still be very light. The sizes are about equal (compare them toghether in the stores) No motors to worry about. Shutter/aperture will work without battery. A good split view screen will give good focusing and diopeter and magnification eye pieces will help for poor eye sight people. I believe that my Nikon FM2 and FTn will still be around when my F100 and G2 have died.

I'm not familiar with Contax Manual cameras but I bet they have something similar as well. Mechanical parts for the most part are easier to repair. Electronics for the most part need to be "replaced."
 

robgo2

Active Member
"But if this is to be MY only camera, I'd try to have as little dependency on electronics as much as possible."

Frankly, I find this kind of thinking mystifying. Given the fact that almost everything else in our lives is in someway dependent on electricity, why should we worry that our cameras are as well. Carrying an extra set of batteries at all times is no more taxing than carrying extra film. Even if the G is not one's only camera, what is gained by having a backup mechanical camera? It makes just as much sense to have a second G body or a good P&S with enough batteries to last forever.
 

traderbc

Member
> Its not just batteries but electronic cameras if broken are harder to repair > by 3rd parties.

Not unlike our cars these days with so many parts electronically controlled.
 
Top