Need G1 Advice

[gunteach]

Hi Folks,

I'm considering the purchase of a gently used G1 green label with the 45mm/f2 lens as my first ever interchangeable lens camera of this type. It would also be my first autofocus camera as well. All previous experience has been with Contax SLR's. This one is being offered to me at $250.00 USD.

First, what does the group think of this camera as a starter? I'd like a competent film camera to carry with me all the time that is a little less obtrusive than some of my SLR's. For that duty right now, I use a 139Q with the 45mm Zeiss pancake lens, but would like to go even a little bit smaller without resorting to a P&S camera.

There is also just something about the look of the G1 and G2 cameras that appeals to me. I've not actually put my hands on one, having just seen pictures and looked over the manual a bit. Any comments on the "feel" and handling of this camera would be appreciated. Is it very much different from the G2?

Second, for those who keep track of such things, does this sound like a good price?

Cheers!

Tom

 

[stan_parry]

You won't regret it. The G system is great in most every way, including handling, feel and results. Some complain about the AF but it never bothered me. I think the lens are superb. It is just a pleasure to use. The other lens are among the best in my opinion. Others may differ.

 

[johnw]

The G-1 sounds perfect for your use and at that price you can sell it later with no loss. I like the G-1 - its a little ligher, smaller, and simpler than the G-2. The lenses are superb for resolution, lack of distortion, and color. Just decide what you want to focus on and point the autofocus bracket area on that object. The viewfinder is harder to use than the G-2 but I never had a problem.

 

[scheberies]

G1 is a great camera with superb optics. Great for travel. Check out the viewfinder as it is small for some. The G2 has a larger viewfinder which I find easier to use.

 

[jsmisc]

I don't know about the G1 but I love the G2. Some non Contax people, mainly it seems Leica afficionados, rather tend to turn their noses up at the the G series saying that they are not proper rangefinder cameras. This is rubbish. It is tantamount to saying that an autofocus SLR is not an SLR.
The G series lenses are excellent, if a little slow. They are also now excellent value.
As for the autofocus, on the G2 anyway, it is fine provided you are aware that it won't always "lock on" to the subject if there is insufficient contrast for it. Grab shots can be occasionally lost through this. But it is a comparatively elderly system which has not been kept up to date by Kyocera much to our lament. Despite this, it works fine most of the time and if it won't initially lock on you just have to refocus with the central area aimed at something it recognises, lock the focus with the shutter release half pressed and recompose.
The 90mm lens is the slowest to focus and it would help if the lens could remain at its focused setting between shots rather than returning to its default each time and then having to find focus again. This slows it down.
Apart from these quibbles, it all works fine and on occasions, autofocus can be a very useful feature.
I have to say though that I find the "manual" focus to be a dead loss.
The camera also sounds a little noisy to me but this appears only to be to me as the user and happily, not to the subject.
I understand that Kyocera have said that they will repair their products for 10 years. After that time, there may be a problem with getting parts and repairs for such a complicated electronic camera.
Hope this helps,
John

 

[artzifartzi]

>I don't own a G1 but I've had the G2 and used it professionally for about 10 months and find it to be an exceptional camera - it takes a while to get into the swing of using if you are accustomed to SLRs, but it's well worth the time spent learning the ins & outs. I don't agree with the previous comment about the Manual focus being a dead loss. I find it very handy in certain situations (pre-focussing) but it also helps if you're a dab hand at judging distances by eye. Overall tho', I love these cameras, and it goes without saying that the lenses are superb in every

 

[jsmisc]

Hi Dave,
I must admit that it hadn't ocurred to me to use the manual focus for pre-focusing but I shall give it a go. I can definitely see the benefit of that as it will speed up the camera's response.
It is so long since I used the function having written it off, that I had fogotten that the focus remains where you set it in manual mode and doesn't revert to its default. I can see that is a useful feature.
Thanks and apologies for libelling the camera.
John

 

[jsmisc]

It just shows the benefits of this forum - the friendly interchange of ideas, opinions and experience.

 

[wang]

Let me compare G2 with G45mm f2 and 139Q with Tessar 45mm f2.8 as this could be what Tom wish to know.

You will find focusing with the little Tessar not easy. The focusing barrel of the little thing is narrow. Focusing at 2.8 is very demanding to the eye sight. I find the autofocus of G2 accurate from f2.8 and higher. Focusing at f2 is not that reliable. I have tried all the ways, read the manuals thoroughly, but still find the G2 45mm combo at f2 is just not good enough. This is why I switched to the M system. Otherwise, G45 at f2.8 and above are great, accurate and fast focusing.
In low light, G2G45 performs better than 139QTessar45 in the absence of mirror vibration at long shutter time hand held. G45 is very much sharper than Tessar 45. At f4, the performance of the Planar is just breathtaking. I like to use the Tessar at f5.6, the stop I find to be sharp enough. On the other hand , I like the out of focus pattern of Tessar, the pattern of Planar is rather harsh.
I do like to use G2G45 except at f2. 45mm Tessar at 139Q is worrying. As I like to use the Tessar at 5.6, I worry very much on mirror vibration. I would rather use the lens on S2 in which it has mirror lock up.

 

[jsmisc]

Thanks for that Joseph. I had wondered about the 45mm Tessar myself.

 

[gunteach]

Thanks to everyone for their thoughtful advice. I was able to get a pretty good understanding of the G1's strengths and weaknesses from your posts. I went ahead and bought the used G1 with the 45/2 Planar since it seemed like a good price. I downloaded a scanned copy of the manual and have been reading it while I wait for the unit to arrive, and looking at some pictures posted on the web shot with this combination, which I must say really impress me. I think the chief value of having this camera is that I plan to always have it with me so maybe I will shoot more pictures with it.

As for the 139Q with the pancake Tessar, I like mine, even though as Joseph says, it can be a little tricky to focus with that small ring. But, it is a great little lens and is razor sharp and produces great colors. The 139 is at its best when carried just as it is with this lens on it, when you add the winder, it gets heavier than it needs to be and it spoils the package. I guess I will see which set-up I like best.

Thanks again to all for your responses.

 

[jsmisc]

I still fancy the 45mm Tessar to go on my Yashica FX-3 Super 2000 and might get one if I see one at a good price.

 

[gunteach]

John,

I've been using my 45 Tessar on a 139Q for several months now as my "always with me" camera/lens. As a result, I've probably taken more pictures with it than with anything else. I'm probably not using this lens on anything really demanding from a focusing standpoint, but I will say that even drugstore lab prints made with film bought from the grocery store make me smile when I open the envelope. They are sharp and the colors are wonderful. The results are visibly different than the same type of shots made with other lenses, such as the run-of-the-mill Yashica normal lenses, so much so that the processing personnel have commented and asked me what I took the pictures with. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on one's perspective, my new wife has decided she likes this combo so much that she wants it. I think it's probably worth the sacrifice to have her share my hobby, and I get to justify the G1 purchase.

I bought my 45 Tessar for less than $150 on e-bay, and I do not think you would go wrong with one. When I read your post, I put mine on one of the FX-3's we have here for work cameras. It looked great and made a neat little package, just like on the 139Q. There is something kind of neat about having a "stealth" top of the line lens on a low-end Yashica body too. If you see one on e-bay at a good price, I'd say go for it!

Cheers.

Tom

 

[king]

> Hi, I am aware that this is the incorrect place to request being dropped from the service but after many efforts through the web site and having no success I am using this choice, I am enrolled in leica, contax canon and minolta please drop from all. I am srroy to use this discussion group, but it is a last ditich effort

Jim

 

[wang]

In the even lower end there is the Yashica FX-2 and I have one. A few months ago I deliberately chose FX-2 instead of the more popular FX-3. This camera is chunky, in contrast, it has a very light mirror. It can function without the battery. Although the view is dim and smaller than other Contax cameras, I do find it to be a very good backup.
I do use it with the" top of the line lenses'' such as 45 2.8, 85 1.2, 21 2.8 and 28 2. I might find a Tele-apo-tessar 300 2.8 to fit on the FX-2 in the future. Perhaps the biggest contrast is when you fit FX-3 with Zeiss Tele-apo-tessar 600mm f4, this is something I wish to do one day. reference for 600 4

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[gunteach]

Joseph,

I know what you mean about the positive features of FX-2's. I have over a dozen of these workhorse cameras, which we use to teach investigative photography and to issue to our invesigators precisely because they will work without batteries. They are a bit heavy and clunky, but ours have survived many an incident where they were dropped, etc. I would think they would be a little large and heavy to match up well with the 45 Tessar, but it certainly would work if one wanted to do it. By the way, if anyone here needs parts for FX-2's I have a half-dozen of these cameras that came to us broken in various ways and are not worth our time or effort to repair. They can be made available free to forum members who wish to perform camera surgery for only the cost of shipping them to you.

Cheers,

Tom

 

[wang]

I wish to ask one question about the FX-3. Does this body have mirror lock up like the S2 ? What I mean is rewind the body, pull the mechanical self timer, press the shutter button you get the mirror lift up, once the timer finish, the shutter opens, so there is a time gap between mirror lifting up and shutter opening.

 

[jsmisc]

I'll have to check mine Joseph and get back to you as I can't remember off hand and it is stored in the loft at the moment.
John

 

[jsmisc]

Tom,
Thanks for your reply. I reckon I'll go for it if I see one, perhaps as a birthday or Christmas present. I have to recover from our daughter's wedding first, which takes place on the 9th October. She has just flown over from Sydney for it and her Australian fiance is due next week.
Cheers,
John

 

[jsmisc]

Joseph,
Yes on my FX -3 Super 2000, the mirror lifts as soon as the shutter button is pressed in self timer mode. The mirror flips down again the moment the shutter has tripped.
I must say that although the camera certainly gives a healthy clunk, I have never noticed undue blur in the pictures.
An advantage is that I have just discovered that the batteries are flat in mine but of course the camera still works fine, just no meter.
No doubt it is the venerable Cosina designed and made camera. I have always liked the design and simplicity of it. It was the original model which introduced me to Yashica SLR's from whence I moved to Contax with the excellent 139 20 years ago. I cannot really remember but I feel that my original one was much more heavily made than this latest one.
I think that the Cosina design has been the base for many cameras which must prove the worth of the original design.
John