Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/07/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I shot with a G2 for a day. It's very solid feeling and has a lot of handy features. You can, by the way, move the lens to focus position before you're ready to release the shutter. This can be accomplished in AF or manual modes. Among the things I most disliked about the G2: 1) Small, dim viewfinder: It's very good compared to any other camera of similar design (ie. point and shoots) but it was nowhere near the bright, clear M viewfinder. I also found that I missed the M's projected framelines; they help me compose the photo by showing what's outside the field of view. 2) Battery dependent/noisy: Motors motors motors. It's not horribly loud, but it does take a bit of getting used to after using an M. It wouldn't be a first choice for discrete photography (the bright, titanium body notwithstanding). 3) Convenience of the lenses: The optical quality of the 45/2 I tried out was on par with my 50 Summicron (latest version), but it has no depth of field marks, and no built-in lens hood. The lens hood that is available does not clip on quickly like Leica's but screws into the filter threads, adding insult to injury. Changing lenses is not the smooth, quick operation I'm used to on the M. 4) Diversity of the system: There's no chance of using a Visoflex for macro work, a thirty year old M lens for its image qualities, or a LTM Russian Zeiss knockoff as I currently do for the rare 20mm photo. 5) No GUG. But, all of that said, I would enjoy having and using a G2 system. And, depending on what I wanted to photograph, it might make a fine first choice. Everyone has different needs in a camera. - -Charlie