DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Contax G2

To James Wakefield:
I had a look at your nice pics on your homepage. Since I have some experience with 21mm and 20mm wide-angles, I think the 21 is to extreme for your work.
The 28 is good, the 35mm seems ideal for social work. The 21 does a lot of extortion to human beings, is very good for landscapes and architecture.
But I would suggest, you go to your dealer and ask him to let you test the 21mm Biogon, without obligation to buy it.
Have a nice Easter all of you.
 
Good Luck in trying to download a free copy! I tried doing that and could not find it. I sent 14 bucks to Kyocera for a new one. It's a pretty good deal since they do not know when to stop sending them. I got 6 for the price of one!
 
I've read with interest some of the older posts concerning the strong points of the G2 and users' experiences. I own a G1 and have been considering upgrading. I'll try to relate my experience as briefly as possible.

I've owned the G1 for nearly 4 years, have taken a lot of great photos, but at the same time, I've found, as have others, that sometimes the autofocus gets 'tricked' by extremely light or extremely dark colours, and sometimes also by very glossy surfaces (such as that of a well-polished car).
The result has been the occasional out-of-focus shot, and which can be frustrating if the shot was a one-off sort of thing.
Now, when I purchased the G1, there was a fair cost difference between it and the G2, but I can't say that was my reason for choosing the G1. I chose it because it seemed comparable (at the time) and was significantly smaller.
So, lately I've been considering buying a G2 and unloading my G1 body; however, I look at the G2, pick it up, handle it, and side by side with the Contax Aria SLR, it is about the same size!
Isn't one of the reasons that we're rangefinder fans is the smaller size of these beauties compared to an SLR? And so in effect, doesn't the size of the G2 partially defeat the purpose?
With that in mind, I've also been looking at the Bessa R2 - small, nice feel, and the size a rangefinder should be.
Any thoughts or comments about this would be appreciated, as I am stuck between acquiring the G2, or switching completely over to the Voigtlander Bessa R2.
Sounds like sacrilege!
Many thanks.
Mark Edwards
Saitama, Japan
 
Ýou might consider at Kiev 4am /without light meter, a copy of the pre-war Contax. Focus is extremly accurate and they are fun to use and the lenses are copies of Zeiss designs. Fun to use.Oddly enough on two successive trips to Paris I encountered the same man with a genuine mint Contax rangefinder!
 
>I also have the G1, having chosen it over the G2 for the somewhat smaller size. I can get it and an extra lens into a remarkably small bag, a belt pouch, in fact. I don't consider it lightweight by today's standards, though; it is ruggedly-built instead. The Voigtlander you are considering will do basically what the G cameras will do, but manually only. I have the original R camera. It is not ideal for rapid work, although to some extent it can adapt to such applications if you are skilled and in practice with it. The R is somewhat underbuilt and plasticky, but gives you a real benefit in size and weight savings as a result. The camera is delightful to hold and wonderfully thin and jacket-pocketable. The lenses are good, with the benefit of many aperture blades. They may not test as well as Zeiss, but in practice they deliver very nice results, rather lower in contrast than Zeiss. They have half-stop clicks where many Zeiss lenses do not. You may find composition difficult with the Voigtlander when using longer lenses, because the finder is non-zooming, making the frames for these quite small. A benefit accrues here owing to the fact that you can observe things outside the frame to be photographed: what is about to come into the frame, that is, in action situations such as parades and dancing. As I say, handling these cameras is very pleasurable in a way that can't quite be described, but style of photography and types of subjects will favor one camera over the other to some extent. All the whirring, grinding noises, lens parking, etc. are absent with the R's, making your G feel like a Teutonic rattletrap by comparison, however autofocus and auto-wind are missed when your're used to them and don't have them. Generally I feel the R's support a slower, more considered type of photography, so you shouldn't think you'll be getting the same thing as a G in a smaller, lighter package. The R's are based on the classic rangefinder designs, and they require some discipline and practice. Except by zone-focussing (with the consequent spotty results), they cannot really be used as point-and-shoots the way the G's can. But the camera won't mis-focus for you unless the rangefinder is out of adjustment; you have to make that mistake yourself, so to speak. Chas.
 
I have owned both the G1 and the G2. The G2 is a far superior camera and the autofocus system is streets ahead of that on the G1. I shot 12 rolls on the G1 and had many out of focus shots, especially in dark conditions even with flash. I decided to go for the G2 without even looking at it before purchase because I found an excellent deal on ebay. I have shot 48 rolls in about six weeks and probably less than 1% of the shots have been off focus. I believe size difference is no issue here. If you already own a G1 and are comfortable with its size and structure, there is very little difference to the G2. If you can afford it then seriously consider the G2, you really will not regret it. I felt my G1 was effectively a stepping stone to the G2 which I consider to be a professional level camera. Also, if you can get a good price on the vario sonnar zoom then I recommend it as it gives a lot more potential than the standard 45mm which I used on the G1 and the quality is just as ridiculous.
 
I want to thank both Charles and James for their very considered responses. This has kind of been nagging at me since a recent trip abroad, and since returning home (I live near Tokyo) I've spent a fair amount of time browsing camera shops and Ebay, looking to make a decision about my next step or purchase. While on my recent trip (to Cuba) I tried a few shots out of a moving vehicle, windows open (so no obstruction), and the lens on the G1 wouldn't focus, therefore the shutter wouldn't fire. I even turned of the autofocus, went to manual, and focused to infinity. No luck. After that, I thought I'd come back and buy the G2, but as I mentioned, there is a fair size difference and picking up and handling the G2 made me recall why I had chosen the G1 in the first place, four years ago. Right beside were the Voigtlanders, particularly the new R2. They feel solid, and the 3fps trigger-winder is an interesting idea. Has anyone used this setup? I agree with Charles that using the Bessa R2 will likely force a more disciplined approach. Alas, I am a torn and broken man! What to do....

Many thanks for your opinions, views, and advice.

Mark Edwards
 
Don't despair, Mark! Between digital, current film, and classic film cameras, we live in a golden age of photography. Regardless of technical orientation and budget, there's a camera for you somewhere. If the G1 doesn't fit your needs, dump it and move on. I understand the allure of the reborn Bessa, but I'm deeply suspicious of camera build quality -- lenses are fine.

To stay in the CZ family, have you considered the Aria? It's as light as the G1, and will never focus incorrectly... that becomes your choice! For even less automation, and full-metal build, consider a 2nd-hand 159MM at 520 grams. C/Y prices are really attractive these days.
 
Back
Top