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

Not to continue this for sale posting issue, but there is a place on the Contax User Forums for Buying and Selling, and that is where these things should be posted. Joel
 
Hello,
A message for the lovers of photos. I sent the sale post in the thread Events, but I suppose that everybody, as me, is not registered to receive all.
So if you go to Paris this time there is a nice exhibition on Henri Cartier Bresson with 350 photos at the Bibliothèque notaionale de France until the 27th of jully. Tuesday-saturday 10h-19h 5 €.
Enjoy it,
Apologize for this disgression on the G pages,

Nicolas
 
> > Mark said: "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."

An article in Pop Photo (Keppler) a few years back showed range finder cameras give sharper images than SLRs because lens designers are h&ered with keeping the lens so far from the film because they need to leave roon for the mirror to swinge out of place. Range finder camera lens designers don't have that problem.

Dave
 
David J. Valvo:

"Range finder camera lens designers don't have that problem."

Not exactly. For the standard 24mmx36mm 35mm film frame, lenses 50mm and longer do not have any penalty when designed for SLRs or rangefinders; this is because the optically best design puts the lens element closest to the film plane relatively far away, leaving plenty of room for the mirror. Shorter than 50mm, however, is wide-angle territory, and the optically best position of the rearmost lens element moves closer to the film plane the shorter the focal length becomes. With rangefinder cameras, this is not a problem, but with SLRs, other than with the now sadly limited "mirror-up" lens designs, a compromise is required. Wide-angle SLR lenses are generally designated as "retrofocus," that is to say, inverted telephotos. This design puts the rear lens element further from the film plane, but does not perform as well as a "true" wide-angle design. For an excellent ex&le of this, including world-class Zeiss technical documentation, check Hasselblad's web site and compare the performance of either of the 40mm Distagon lenses (one is brand-new) available for Hassy SLRs versus the stellar performance of the Biogon 38mm lens, found on the 905 SWC (Super Wide Camera). The Biogon 38mm is an optically "true" design and has been hailed as perhaps the best wide-angle lens ever designed and manufactured. Rest assured that the Distagons are among the finest ex&les of retrofocus lens design, but not even Zeiss can escape the inherent sacrafice which must be made in SLR wide-angle lens design.
 
> [I think you have three factors to consider in comparing the G2 and > the Voightlander.

1. The G lenses as a group are unbeatable. They are among the best Zeiss makes.

2. How strongly do you feel about autofocus? The G2 is primarily an AF camera. The AF is extremely reliable, and the MF provides a useful workaround for circumstances where AF doesn't work. But if you're mainly into MF, this might not be your camera.

3. G2 build quality is superb. These are rock-solid cameras and lenses. I don't know about Voightlander.

As to weight and size, my G2 kit, body with three primes (28, 45, and 90 lenses) weighs just over 2 pounds. The body's size, of course, is a function of the camera's electronic features. Are those features important to you?

Hope this helps.

-- Max

> ]
 
Hi, Chris!

Biogon and other symmetric designs produce lenses which are small, affordable, and of low geometric distortion. Cosina/Voigtländer is turning out an astonishing array of such wide-angles.

The big problem is light fall-off, which plagues all WA lenses but is particularly bad for the symmetrics: stopping down has little or no effect. Compare CZ data for Biogon 21/2.8 and 38/4.5 (SWC) versus the D21. The Distagon (reverse-telephoto) design seems to side-step the Cosine-Fourth law that pin-holes and Biogons must obey.

Good telephotos must address chromatic aberration by using low-dispersion glass. Canon even manufactures flourite crystal for its super-teles. The D21 is a beast, but shows the effectiveness of a modern WA design: reverse-telephoto combined with low-dispersion glass.
 
Mark said: "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."

True the G2 and other rangefinder bodies are not that compact compared to some SLR bodies.

The size difference is in the lenses I carry my G2 with the lens on in a low profile messenger bag. Something I can never do with an equivalent SLR setup.

The difference is more apparent with faster and wider lenses try comparing any wide or the faster 50mm lenses from leica or Voigtlander with there SLR equivalents.

Faisal
 
This interests me because I also like small and light outfits, and insist on it to a certain extent with 35mm. The mass and burden of something like the (otherwise excellent) RTS are not for me, when I could carry a MF camera with no greater overall penalty. I like to carry what won't interfere with other activities when I *don't* end up doing photography. There's a lot to what you say about the lenses, however a good search will turn up compact lenses for SLR. In the case of the Aria mentioned above, the very-good tessar 45mm 2.8 pancake would make a pretty featherweight, jacket-pocketable combination that would yield good results and be inconspicuous, if that's what you like. I doubt there's any RF lens much smaller/lighter than that one. I also have a Phoenix f3.5 100mm macro. This plasticky, cheap little thing is quite a surprise. Under 10 ounces and pretty sharp, with a deeply recessed front element that obviates the need for a shade. There may not be a contax version, but I believe there was a 100 f3.5 CZ that is also quite diminuitive, if you could find a used one. Of course that would be much better made than the cheapo Phoenix I just mentioned. For small SLR lenses, you have to give up speed and, in some cases, ruggedness and build quality. It's a trade-off I don't mind, but it's not for eveyone. Chas.
 
Hi all new to the group.
I am a semi professional for I own a digital print shop (www.colossalimage.com), and do print more than taking pictures. Lately, my wife decided to have a baby due August, and there goes traveling with a bulky SLR. So the debate becomes digital or a small rangefinder system. I am still cold feet about the digital technology for I have seen enough what my customer gave me. However, the traditional customer still hold up with a good slide scan. I know you folks are pretty much die hard G fan. I just need some second opinion. Also is it worth getting a black kit for a couple of hundreds more for I heard that the black does not hold up as well as the Ti model. Any comment appreciated.

Cyrus
 
> Cyrus I migrated to the G series due to an addiction for CZ optics as well as the convenience of autofocus. I had the G1 for a while and despite some commentaries relative to focusing problems in certain situations, I got a 99% hit rate with the misses being mostly due to "operator" errors. I am now using the G2 which has a more advanced focusing engine- I miss though both the lesser size and weight of the G1. I use slide film exclusively (Vevia and Provia) because of the fine grain as well as the advantage of being able to get both slides for projection and scanned files for printing photos. I started with the 45/f2- the sharpness thereof is almost 3 dimensional, it is a black version and I have not been able to see that it wears out worse than the silver 35/f2 which is another great lens despite some prejudice voiced here and there. The 90/f2.8 is also very good, I miss though the 1.4 typical of SLR-however, the G's are an extremely stable platform and I have been able to get very good shots at 1/60 s which compensates to some extent the "darker" design. I am not a fan of the 28mm despite its performance and cost ratio- in most cases when shooting scenery I find the 28 focal length rather limiting- the 21mm despite the discomfort required by the special viewfinder does provide that extra oomph for large vistas (nice especially if you do slides). The oomph does not come free of cost so on a bang/buck basis the 28mm outscores it. If you really want to go overboard, Zoerkendorfer manufactures a G adaptor for the Voigtlander/Cosina 12mm and 15mm lenses which have an excellent reputation. To my knowledge these are true wide angles and not fisheye lenses. I believe the kit for the 15mm starts at $800 and the 12mm at $1200. This is not insignificant, considering that the original version of the 15mm lens for the Bessa cameras is about $350. If the G is only meant to be a tool, I would not spend extra on the black version. The G is very versatile both for taking "snapshots" as well as doing some more elaborate work. A point and shoot it is not which I believe to be the major disappointment for those who turn away from it. Hope this helps and have fun

Regards

Andrei
 
Back
Top