Contax G2

[barkington]

> I have both G2 and G1, bought in that order. The G2 is my colour =20 > camera for slides or prints, whereas the G1 is currently my mono =20 > camera, but I might use it as a point and shoot for print film. I =20 > have no problems with AF on the G1, but I know that I must take a =20 > little more time to allow for focus. I rarely use either on manual. =20=

> They are both very pleasurable to use and I get fewer off-focus shots =20=

> than trusting my eyesight on quick shots on my OM1 or 4. However, for = =20 > telephoto, macro or wideangle, I still use my Olympus MF bodies and =20=

> lenses. Chris

 

[tomasjpn]

Many thanks for your input, Rico. Today, I had in my hands both the G2 and the Rollei 35RF. The Rollei is full manual, uses CZ lenses, and is all-metal construction - seems solid as a tank. The downside is, as far as I know at this time there are only 2 CZ lenses available for it - a 40mm and an 80mm.

Yes, I too am a little suspicious of the quality of the Voigtlander bodies, hence, I suppose, part of my hesitation.

And lastly, I do agree that the G2 is a very fine-feeling piece of machinery. A very lovely camera. If anyone has any experience with the Rollei 35 RF, your input and comments would be appreciated. Cheers.

Mark Edwards

 

[jakob_groes_ii]

Mark wrote: 'If anyone has any experience with the Rollei 35 RF, your input and comments would be appreciated.'

Please note that the socalled Zeiss lenses for the Rollei 35 RF are remakes of some very outdated designs.

The 40/2.8 is a relaunched version of the lens originally made for the Rollei 35 in 1966. I tested this lens a few years back, when it was relaunched in 'another wine bottle' - the Rollei 35 Classic. And it is no way up to any recent standards. Most of all the difference that this lens produces in sharpness and contrast between center and edges are huge.

The 80/2.8 is a relaunched version of a 1950'es lens originally made for medium format twinreflex.

I guess some people will have fun with such kind of retro or nostalgia - and Rollei might have problems allocating funds for true product development. That is fine with me.

What I personally do not like is that Rollei seems to cover-up their true dispositions by marketing these lenses with words like 'cutting edge technology' and misleading symbols like the most recent Zeiss logo - which really is kind of misleading.

Regards,

Jakob

 

[tomasjpn]

Well, Jakob, you definitely cleared that up for me! It seems, then, that Rollei is cynically trying to cash in on the market segment that is enamoured of rangefinders, in particular we Contax fans!? I have no past experience at all with Rollei products, other than being familiar with their name and being aware of their medium format line- I would have expected that sort of marketing behaviour from a new kid on the block, not an old, respected (?) company like Rollei!

I am quite new to this forum, and in the short time (6 or 8 weeks) that I have been a member, I'd have to say that I've gleaned more useful information from this BBS than just about any other I've found on the net in the past 6 years.

Again, many thanks!

Mark Edwards

 

[rico1]

Mark,

To make matters worst, the Rollei 35 RF is a rebadged Bessa R2! If you want to go that route, might as well buy from the source (Cosina of Japan). The R2 is the R with metal covers and dials -- cameraquest.com has exhaustive details. Frankly, your options are limited if you want an interchangable-lens rangefinder of G1 weight: the Cosina/Voitländer line, or the discontinued CL/CLE models from Leica/Minolta.

If you relax the weight requirement a bit, you can get the equally-priced Contax G2 or used Leica M (with CV lenses).

 

[jeff1]

>>To make matters worst, the Rollei 35 RF is a rebadged Bessa R2!<<

That being the case, why wouldn't youget a Bessa R2-C and use Zeiss Ikon Contax RF lenses as well as the Cosina ones.

 

[alanb]

I now have 2 Bessa R2 bodies and use a combination of Voightlander, Leica and a Minolta CLE lenses. While louder than the Leica, the Bessa R2 seems very well made and is fun to use. I use it alongside a Contax G because sometimes I want the benefit of a depth of field scale for determining focus so I don't have to worry about reacquiring focus on each shot. It is easier for this than using the Conrax manual focus (for me, at least). By the way, the lenses for the Bessa seem very nice to me!

Alan

 

[jgban]

Mark,
You seem to be leaning towads the Bessa R2, which by all accounts is a very good camera with excellent lenses (many more than the Contax Gs, and some quite faster). I don't think there can be a "wrong" answer. The reasons to prefer one way or another are many. At the very beginning of this thread (2nd post, from Olaf Mill) it was stated how the experience of shooting with a G2 and a manual focus, manual exposure camera (Leica M6) is different. For a situation like the one you described (shooting from a motor vehicle in motion), an auto-focus, auto-exposure camera will, in general, give you more useful shots (set at CAF) than a camera where you have to focus and adjust exposure. Shooting with a manual camera has its own rewards, but it is definitely more involved than with a G2.
The weight and size of G1 and G2 seem to me similar enough when I hold them, and the G2 has more features. In my opinion, the reason to go Bessa would be mainly the rangefinder manual focus with the fast lenses (plus the excitement of having a new gadget...)
Juan

 

[tomasjpn]

Thanks Rico, Juan, Alan and others for some great feedback.

About shooting from through an open window of a moving vehicle, I would have hoped my G1 would have been up to the task, but definitely not; that was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, and brought me to the conclusion that I should upgrade to the G2 or go for a manual focus rangefinder. I think the process will be much easier, more interesting, and less frustrating after the valuable input I've received from the members of this forum. Many many thanks!

Mark Edwards

 

[molte]

I have used the Minolta CLE quite a bit over the last year. It is in many w= ays a perfect camera, the 40/2 lens is great, and it takes the voigtlander = lenses that are almost as good as the Leica lenses. It is smaller and light= er than the G1, similar mechanical quality, makes no noise, uses very stand= ard SR 44 batteries, has manual focus, and has TTL AE, +/- 2 in half stops.= It is in many ways the perfect camera. I almost like the finder better tha= n the finder on the M6. The only fault is that it is not good for longer le= nses and there is no frame for 50mm (it has 28, 40 and 90). It does have a = frame for a 90mm lens, which is all you really need anyway, but it is small= viewfinder for 90 and the focussing accuracy is maybe not the best, althou= gh I have had no problems. This camera, the 40mm rokkor and the 25mm voigtl= ander is so light that it often goes with me where the RTS and lenses stay = home because of weight. I tried the Bessa R some years ago, but there were = problems with the rangefinders. The CLE is a great little camera.