Contax G2 vs Leica M

[uskanb2n@ibmmail.com]

Will von Dauster wrote:
>I would not feel sorry for myself with either camera system. The G2 outfit is
>less expensive, but I would argue probably less durable in the very long run.
>Thanks for your patience with this long post - thought it might be of
>interest to the Group.

Only if you count strictly new vs new. The Leica M used market has been
developing for over 40 years.
Likewise, I was disappointed to see that the fastest lenses for the Contax
G series were only f:2. In many situations the extra stop of a Summilux
(never mind a Noctilux) makes the difference between getting the immage you
want and a flash induced compromise.
The same pertained to my decision on SLRs: The Contax S2 and the Rollei
3003 were tempting, but I bought an old Leicaflex SL and a couple of
lenses for much less than the price I would have payed for just the
lenses for either of the others, which are pretty scarce on the used
market.
With Leica, be it M or R, you can find most anything you need used
at a much better than new price by just calling a couple or three dealers.
Of course, If you need something which has been just released you are
pretty much stuck no matter which system you use. But how often is a
new product introduced that you HAVE to have? That you can't wait for
someone else to rub the new off of... It would be nice to have that
new 24mm to fill the gap between my 35 & 21, but I have lived
without it for years, and can wait for one to come on the used market
that someone has taken a vibrograver to and uglified with their
driver's license number...
The only Leica product I have ever bought new was a lens hood for
my 50mm Summilux. It was an $87 special order from my local Leica
dealer, nearly a full third less than the best price I have seen
advertised for a used one lately. Thanks to Don Chatterton for
suggesting that I do so.

                                  - John Lowther