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

B&H sells the black hoods. They also sell the black three lens set. They were the only ones in the USA that claimed to have it and did. Everyone else tried baiting me in and then selling me chrome.
 
>I must admit that I like the black bodies. I have the later colour >bodies, one G2, one G1. Does anyone know if there were black G1s? >Although it is a less capable camera, I love my little G1. Chris
 
The 21mm was available from Hamburg. The Problem: Kyocera doesnt publish any info. The Swiss have had it on their list. This was around 30 month ago. gv
 
Kian - a little late with my response but you can read a lot about the N1 and its lenses under the appropriate section on this web site.

I can tell you that I can't live without zooms anymore, especially now zooms have reached a level of quality (the 24-85 in particular) where you will need a microscope and intensive squinting at line charts to perhaps squeeze out a minuscule difference in quality with prime lenses. I can't imagine switching lenses anymore, it is just so cumbersome and unimpulsive. The N1 is big and bold, but boy, it gives you all the advantages of the SLR with CZ quality lenses. How can you possibly beat that. I liked my Nikon system a lot as well which also has outstanding lenses; the reply from David Morris to you about Nikon lenses is a load of BS, as far as I am concerned (and many professionals as well). But, Nikon does not have a good 24-85 zoom and this is the best lens for me. This is why I got my N1 and dumped my nikon system. Also, I find the Nikon lenses having less pleasing contrast and more distortion at the wide end, although they are on par with CZ - or even better - as far as sharpness is concerned (I am only talking about their top zooms here). There are many web sites you can check (consumer reviews, epinions) on this topic.

So, I personally would never give up my SLR for a range finder because I don't see the point; it is not lens quality I tell you, but that is tantamount to heresy on this forum dedicated to range finder jocks, so I'll leave you with this.

Good luck.
 
> The reason rangefinders give sharper images is that the lens designer is constrained to have to consider the distance the mirror needs to move in an SLR. It is vertually impossible to design as sharp a lens with an SLR as can be done with a rangefinder across the entire frame.
 
Guenther,

that's quite interesting!

I already knew that the black Biogon 21 was available in the U.S., Japan and Swiss. But Germany is a news to me!

Any ideas where to get one...?

Till
 
Guenther,

thank you so much!
As the price is not a bargain, I have to think about it - hopefully not too long :)

Till
 
After reading all the comments about G2 from this weekend I'd like to add my 2 cents worth in 2 seprate posts
happy.gif


This post is about Color preference thread - I personally like black (all my Nikons FTN/FM2/F100 are black body no chrome) - but I own a Titanium G2 due to reports of black paint chip (brassing) and accesories harder to find and in most instances more expensive in black.

One caveat about the titanium, there seems to be many different hues/of titanium. The body resembles a greyer tone titanium, but the lenses tend to have a yellower hue to it while the hoods and caps even have slightly different hues not to mention the TLA-200 flash. And if you use the BP-1 with P-8 external battery pack - I have never seen a BP-1 in black athough the P-8 battery pack only comes in black ;) People who are picky about these things may dislike the mismatch. I could care less since the camera produces wonderful results.

- I do know some people who are picky about appearance and would never buy the G2 system for this reason. Too bad they miss the point of a camera for pictures not for collection.
 
Picture Quality thread -

I don't own a N1 to compare to my G2, so for comparison sake I am using my Nikon F100 since they are similar level SLR's. I have done some tests comparing the 50mm f1.8 nikkor and 45mm f2 planar and the results are as follows.

On my first test my impressions Nikkor wins on sharpness (Not!! but we're pulling hairs here). just by looking at 4x6 prints. Same object same aperature, same film etc..

But how can that be with all the reports pointing to range finder lenses being superior more contrast, sharper etc..? - So I did a second more controlled test. I used the same exposure, same focusing point, and mounted everything on a tripod with remote release cable. This is where I noticed some very fine points about the pro's and con's of the G2. Once you get familiar with how it works best you will get better results with the G2, by a hair.

I found out my initial results from the first test were off due to my inexperience with the G2. first with the focusing mechanism, and second with going back to center weighted metering. I must say being able to see the focus point on a closer object through the lens really helps. The AF system on the F100 is same as that of the F5 and is very accurate. You place the object within the selected focus brackets and it focuses right on (with close object priority if there happens to be multiple objects within the bracket. The G2 has one single focus point in the center with no close object priority which often times misfocuses - For the second test, I had to make sure that the object I'm focusing on covers the entire focus bracket to get very good results. But once both cameras focused on the same points the 45 f2 planar performed a tiny better than the 50mm f1.8 AF nikkor in sharpness across the entire frame as seen through an 8x loupe. (Note when focusing on a mirror notice the range finders displayed distance is about double the distance you are standing from the mirror. The F100 does not have that problem)

Now onto contrast, I noticed during the second test that the matrix metering of the F100 is consistently about 1/3 to 2/3 lower (depending on color of object and background than the measured exposure of the G2. This is very consistent with results I get from my Nikon FM2 (center weighted). So I compensated the G2 to expose by -1/3 to -2/3 stop when taking the pictures. This showed me that the contrast with the 45 planar is on par if not better than that of the 50mm f1.8 AF. But alas it is a bit difficult to tell because the T* coating gives a warmer tone to the picture compared to the more neutral coating of the Nikkor lens.

So lesson learned? - Know your camera and you will get much better results. Looking back at the result of the first test I can easily tell how the results ended up with the Nikon lens 'appearing' to do better than the G2 lens.

Note: the results are obviously based on my own observations with my equipment, my eyes and a loupe. And rest assured it was difficult to tell from the prints and slides. The differences were minimal at best even with the 8x loupe. For me the test helped me understand how to use my equipment better. I still would not sell my F100 since I do a lot of macro and telephoto shooting that the G2 just isn't capable of. But now I know how to use the G2 to reach its potential. Also note using other lenses could prove the Contax lenses to be much much better as the 50mm f1.8 AF from Nikon is a simple design and one of Nikon's sharpest though possibly least used lenses :p
 
Back
Top