[Leica] LeicaM vs. ContaxG

[Claes Bjerner <claes.bjerner@pi.se>]

This might be of some interest for us LUGgers! 

After six days of total silence the ContaxG-list suddenly woke up =
with an active discussion about the pros and cons of LeicaM and =
ContaxG. With the risk of being branded a stool pigeon I=B4d like to =
show the following quotes:

>Guidance will be appreciated--especially from those who have experience =
with
>both Contax and Leica equipment.
>
>        Thanks in advance for any help you can give me.
>-Phil Kronenberg, Reston, VA

>
>Phil,
>
>Good question. Done a lot of checking on this and there are two issues to
>consider. First, optical performance. Second, everything else.
>
>As for the first, all reports are that the Contax lenses are excellent -- =
and
>that the Leica lenses are a little better. The 35/2 G lens, for instance, =
is
>easily bested by the M 35/2 ASPH and M 35/1.4 ASPH at large apertures. 
>It's fair
>to say that if you're shooting wide open all the time, you'd be better =
off 
>going
>Leica. If you're shooting stopped down, mox nix. If there were a =
consensus 
>grade
>on Contax G lenses, it'd probably be about a 93, with the Leica grade 
>coming in
>at 96. Bottom line: you will have a far greater effect on the quality of =
your
>pictures than the optical performance of the two sets of lenses.
>
>Of course, there is a vast difference in the two design philosophies 
>(Contax G
>vs. Leica M), and because of that I don't consider them competitive, but
>complimentary. Apples to oranges. I have two M6s and five lenses, bought 
>in the
>last year to use professionally, so you know how I'd vote. But I intend =
to 
>buy a
>G2 some day for me, just for fun. And then there's that nifty Hologon....
>
>David W. Almy
>Annapolis, Maryland

>OK that's an interesting start...  :-)
>
>What makes the Leica lenses "better" than the Contax ones?
>Is it sharpness, contrast, colour fidelity, distortion control, 
>wide-open performance, (dare I say it?) bokeh, or a combination
>of all of these?  As for the apples/oranges comparison, if I go
>to my fruit bowl to choose one item to eat, I do have to make
>that choice.  Likewise if my aim is to create the best possible
>fine-art photographs and remove as many of the limiting
>factors as possible, the choice between going Leica or Contax G
>may well break down to a choice between the lenses, so this
>is a valid comparison.  
>
>In other words, if I can choose any 35mm camera system which
>one will provide the best possible results given that I'm a perfect
>photographer?  (which I'm not by the way!)
>
>Simon. 

Personally, as being a user of both LeicaM and ContaxG, I must repeat =
that my one only excuse for using the ContaxG is my Zeiss 16mm =
Hologon. As far as for using my LeicaM=B4s I simply don=B4t need any =
excuses!

Claes