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!

G3 wish list

Yes, that would be useful, especially with the G2's zooming = viewfinder.

John
 
> [I sense a great polarization beginning in photography circles. Traditionalists and Modernists. I classify myself in the former and want little to do with digital photography other than to use it to send photos of the dog to my daughter via the internet. Last quality camera I would ever buy would be a G digital. I hope Kyocera doesn't tarnish the great Contax G system by introducing a digital version. Unless at the same time they continue their support of std G system by including a camera body with the wish list items for a film version G-3. If they must have a camera that uses G lenses then call it something else like a D system for digital. Making a digital G cheapens the system. ]
 
Hi Till,

thanks for your heads up!

"...a new rumour of a G digital..."

I do not want to sound harsh, but this published rumour is worth nothing. That is why I did not publish it here.

It is obvious that Contax is looking at every camera system they own, whether it can be used for digital photography or not. This is common sense.

And at image-resource they do not say anything else then Contax is looking at the possibility. This is the same news level as they would say: Nikon is looking at possibilities to bring out new digital cameras.

In my opinion, this is only a poor try of image-resource to get attention. But these are definitely no "news".

But I appreciate your heads up, since I can not have my eyes everywhere. I just want to manage expectations here on the interenet.

Dirk
 
David,

Although I don't tend to consider myself a Traditionalist, I have similar feelings about digital: as a recently retired software developer, it's too much a "bus driver's holiday". Also, despite all protestations to the contrary, the quality isn't even close yet - try comparing an original Adams/Weston/etc. contact with any "gigapixel" digital equivalent.

However, the ease with which digital images can be adjusted has, for me, diminished the pleasure of both practicing and viewing photography. I guess that's my problem to work through.

Dan
 
> Interesting comments about digital, Dan.

I share your sentiments. Sorry if this goes a bit off topic, but I'll try to be brief.

I know the digital camera age is here to stay. I have witnessed many of the local (within 150 miles) camera shops and professional labs going under due to the lack of business and the changes of the digital age. I had friends at a few of these places and I feel for them. They have watched their clients switch over to in-house digital, and not need them any longer. It is like the horse and buggy being pushed aside by the automobile in some ways. I have even advised in a small business discussioin group that I belong to that this change is upon us and tried to help a few people realise that now is not a stellar time to break into a new business that offers professional scanning services (of negs and 35 mm slides) to professional photographers. I've had experience shooting with the new digital studio stuff....I've really enjoyed learning how the Better Light system mates up with a Sinar View camera, done a few shoots with it ... neat stuff (wish I owned it). And, I've done a little shooting with a Fuji Digital system (35 mm type) as well...borrowed from another studio.

You'd think by all this that I'm ready to jump headlong into the digital age. But, you'd be wrong if you guessed that. I'm not ready. I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling when viewing my work taken digitally. It all needs so much manipulation to come up to snuff yet. I'm very good with photoshop, don't get me wrong, but I don't WANT to need to use it on my images. I enjoy looking at a transparency and seeing the colors as I expect them, and knowing when I go to produce a brochure that the colors have to come up to the transparency I'm holding on to. I hope you know what I mean. I won't ramble on about it any more. I am resigned that digital is here, I sort of like it, but I don't want to give up my transparencies either.

(Ah, one minor note...I helped a friend get their university set up with a new better light digital system for archiving their collections. Please be aware, that I've learned that the Smithsonian (we compared their methods for sake of reference) not only does digital archives of everything in their collections...But..they also do transparencies and hold those off site in a secure location as a "just in case" step. The images that they archive to disk will eventually be out of date with technology, and they will need to make further copies (transfer the digital files) to new media as technology changes. Please know that the CD's that we can burn to on our desktops have a shelf life of about 5 - 8 years (best quality) and they degrade, the surface coating is different than the pre-recorded music CD's you buy. DVD's have a longer life, but again, technology will change, and if you want your images to last 100 years (like Ansel Adams) then you will need to keep up with technology and make sure your digital images are always readable. )

Sorry, this was a longer post than I intended. Hope it was somewhat helpful to someone.

-Lynn
 
> [Lynn, thanks for your post. Glad to see I'm not the only one. I agree with you about the image stability issues and original digital data not lasting as long as AgX. I understand the National Archives was going to move everything to digital files until they learned they would have to hire an army of people to copy the files and then get another army to recopy the files with in 5 to 8 years to keep them from going out of date. So they scrapped the idea. Today every national record is supposed to be on silver halide (AgX).

I also have heard that if you buy a digital camera and decide to trade up for higher resolution that it is against the law to sell the digital camera. Reason is that the software is licensed only to you. Too bad digital people, my Contax is already the highest resolution. I don't need to buy a new camera every year. Then, I don't have to buy new software every year. And I don't have to keep going to school to learn how to use that software. And when I get old I hope I will have mastered my AgX methods and not still be on a learning curve. I just hope we keep buying film and paper and the manufacturers keep making it. ]
 
Recently I purchased a G1 and am very pleased with its performance. The 35mm F2 lens is wonderful, quite a revelation having used less snazzy gear. Nikon's and Konica Hexar.

However, I do have one big complaint about the camera that could easily be changed on the as yet hypothetical G3. The fact that the lense parks at infinity between shots causes a very disturbing lag from the time you press the shutter.

I like to set the camera on manual focus and rely on depth of field for the shot. If the lens would stay parked at that setting , shots could be gotten off much more quickly and with greater confidence that you actually got the shot.

Of course I would like a bigger viewfinder too, and a silent mode similar to the old Hexar AF I used to have.

But oh for that permanent park feature!

Thanks
 
Bishop,

Glad to hear of your G1 success. Your proposed "park" feature would certainly come in handy at times.

I don't have any G1 experience. Have you ever used a G2? In CAF (continuous autofocus) mode, if you hold the shutter button down halfway, the lens stays extended and continues to focus in "real time." If you hold down the focus lock button, the lens stays prefocused on your selected distance between shots. In either mode, the lens does not return to park, which is how the G2 can achieve 4 fps.

A final, related note. The lens doens't park at infinity. I have a lens (45mm) that sometimes fails to extend from park in use, and in the photos shot under that condition, nothing is in focus at all, near or distant. The lenses, evidently park "beyond" infinity.

Best regards,

Rick
 
Rick,

I've considered the G2 because of the autofocus lock button, but as I understand it the lock is only in effect when you hold the button down. It's a momentary switch correct?

In manual mode the Hexar would leave the lens prefocused and as long as you had it switched on response was instantaneous. Just like an old fashioned camera.

I live in Seville Spain and shoot Tri-X on the street, it's in circumstances like this that show up the one limitation on what is an absolutely superb camera. If you have the second or so to compose and shoot, it's hard to imagine a better camera. But that lag can be disconcerting at times.

Incidentally, I understand that other G1 users have complained about the friction-free manual focus wheel and how easily it can be inadvertenlty moved. Here's a non-invasive remedy that I came up with: I slipped a small piece of rubber tubing over the post between the focus dial and the speed dial. This provides just the right amount of friction so the dial doesn't move unless I want it to. I leave the camera set on 5 meters at f8 and am getting wonderful results.

Saludos,

Bishop
 
Back
Top