Re: [Leica] Contax G-2

[Chandos Michael Brown <cmbrow@mail.wm.edu>]

Take this for what it's worth.  I use a G1, a G2, an M4-P and miscellaneous
SMs, Zeiss, Leitz, and various Russian lenses.  I have a single SLR w/ a
macro/zoom.  I"m not a pro: rather a serious amateur (for nearly 30 years
now, it pains me to say).  I *really* like the  Contax system. It's, as you
say, a question of comparing chalk and cheese.  The Contax is manifestly
*not* a P&S, and I'd argue that, for some, it might be an attractive
"alternative" to Leica.  As to cheapness--well, what does that mean
precisely?  I shot hundreds of frames through the 21 Super-Angulon.  I now
use the 21 Biogon and prefer it. I wonder, in the great scheme of things,
how many folks could, in the end, in a blind tasting, so to speak, tell
them apart.  I don't know much about the aspherics, because I can't quite
find it in myself to drop a couple of grand for a lens; what I know is that
the Zeiss and Leica lenses that I do own do for me what I want: they record
with fidelity and a certain, positive presence the way light ought to look
when captured on film.  I don't need to rationalize the purchase of the
Contaxes, because I've used Leicas my entire 'photographic' life, and,
quite frankly, I can afford to buy what I want.  The Contax is a system in
it's own right, not an "alternative" to anything, let alone a "cheaper"
one. "Seriousness" resides in the eye, not the tool.

Chandos Michael Brown


At 02:56 PM 4/29/98 -0700, you wrote:
>B.D.
>
>Take this for what it is worth.  At the photo store across the street they
get, maybe twice a year, a G-1/G-2 outfit in the used department.  In every
case I can remember the owner traded up to a Leica.  I assume that those
who bought it as a super duper P&S have kept it and love the results, and
those who have bought it as a cheaper, AF alternative to Leica have
realized their mistake.
>
>E.g., don't buy a G as an alternative to a Leica.  Buy it because it is
what you want.
>
><<same quality/serious photo tool >>  Remember this is Carl Zeiss T* glass.
>
>Bob
>
>>>> "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> 04/29 1:18 PM >>>
>Have any LUGers had any substantial experience with the Contax G-2, and, if
>so, what did/do you think? Is the autofocus fast and accurate, particularly
>in low light? How do the lenses compare to their Leitz counterparts? Is it
>- forgive the heresy! - in the same quality/serious photo tool catagory as
>the M6, or is it essentially a rich persons P&S?
>
>Any comments will be much appreciated.
>
>B. D.
>












  !
>                                  
>
>


         
>