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