Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/07/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>>> Hmm. I've been lurking rather than bringing up my brand new Contax G2 >>> (which replaced my CLE). Does this mean it's a permissible topic? >> >>Sure, compare it to the M Leica! To which Ben Holmes responded: >Since you've brought it up... > >How does that thing focus? Is it capable of manual, rangefinder focusing? Or >is it a guess knob type of thing? I know it has AF, but I've never been >entirely clear on the MF part. The manual focus is not visual RF focusing - you do it by centering a bunch of little LCD's over a big LCD. Very un-intuitive. Since there is no indication of depth of field anywhere on the camera or on the lens, manual focus is, for me, useless. If you don't want autofocus, forget the G2. >I used a G1 that the local rep loaned me for a few days, and I'm not sure >how I feel about it. I used the AF mode all the time, and felt it had a bit >of a delay that I just couldn't get used to. Other than that it was okay. It >feels a lot tougher than it looks. Also, that death ray, laser beam, IR >thing seemed to draw a lot of attention when I used it. The G2 does away with the ray-gun by using an invisible IR beam as a backup to the automated rangefinder focusing system. I'm atypical of most LUGgers in that I'm neither a professional photographer nor particularly artistic. I would classify myself as an enthusiastic, perfectionistic, snapshooter. That's why I was so fond of my CLE, and why I think I'll like my G2 even better. My reasons for switching: autofocus and the fact that Minolta no longer supports the CLE. I've only shot a couple of rolls so far, but the images are the equal of any I've gotten with my CLE or Leica R system (I have the 28, 45, and 90 Zeiss lenses - essentially the same range I had for my CLE). The notorious time lag while the lens focuses is, IMO, negligible; I think the G1 must have been much slower in this regard. The metering is relatively unsophisticated, being a basic center-weighted, off the shutter system, but every exposure so far has been dead on. I also appreciate the TTL flash control (which the CLE also had). The G2 is almost exactly the same size and weight as the M6; why can't the Leica geniuses pack some of these whizz-bang electronics inside an M body? Other G2 plusses: I appreciate the clean viewfinder image (only the autofocus brackets are visible in the picture area; everything else is beneath it). I never really got used to projected frame lines - probably a result of cutting my teeth on SLR's. I also expect the autobracketing control to be a godsend as I get more adventurous. Beefs (so far): lack of DOF information, and the viewfinder image is on the small side. Oh, yeah - the lens hoods are a la carte, and the caps that fit over the hoods cost $35 each. I'd be glad to respond to any questions or make comparisons; keep in mind though, that I've owned an M3 but not an M4 or an M6. Chuck - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck Warman cwarman@wf.net (Wichita Falls, TX) - --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------