Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/12/03

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Contax G1 and Leica (off-topic?)
From: pcb@iac.co.jp (Paul C. Brodek)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 17:48:19 +0900

On Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:18:15 -0500, BBAIN@imnet.com (BBAIN) wrote:

[snipped here and there]
>               ...he has trouble focusing.  He's got a couple of the AF =
P&S
>	    types but hasn't been real thrilled with them....He fooled=20
>               around with my M3 and it was better but still more effort=
=20
>               for him to focus than he would have liked.  Question:... =
would=20
>	    anybody care to take a stab as to how the Contax G1=20
>	    compares in usability and "feel"?  My understanding is that the=20
>	    glass is supposed to be good, but that the G2 is a large=20
>	    improvement in the VF and AF areas....the G1 seems to be=20
>	    somewhat discounted right now. =20

Bill,

The short answer is the best thing to do would be to beg, borrow or
rent a G1 so your father can play with it and decide for himself.
It's a different sort of beast and many folks really need to play with
one a bit before they can decide whether or not it fits them.

The long answer is longer.  The Gs are hard cameras for me to pin down
because they share attributes of Leica Ms as well as modern SLRs and
P&S cameras.  They are far more compact than AF SLRs, yet don't
sacrifice much in the way of "features:" multi-mode AF, fast
shutters/flash synch, TTL flash exposure, reasonably fast built-in
motor drives, automatic bracketing, etc, etc.  They are very similar
to a Leica M in size and heft, have direct viewing with no mirror
blackout or shock, and have great lenses.   There is no program mode,
so you can't point and shoot quite as easily (mindlessly?) as you can
with a P&S, and although they are compact I think they are less
comparable to a P&S than an M or SLR.

The usability and feel issue depends on what you're comparing them to.
Compared to a P&S, they're bigger and heavier, feel better-built, have
interchangeable lenses and handle better.  But you can't slip them
into a pocket and forget they're there.  The question for you and your
father is what is it about the P&S that he's not happy with?  If it's
lack of exposure control, small buttons/control interface or lens
quality, the Gs are more usable.  If he didn't like the fact that they
are highly automated, he might not like the Gs either since they are
also highly automated.  There are overrides for exposure that work
well, but there is no manual film wind/rewind, and the manual focus
system on both Gs is (IMHO) pretty lame.

Comparisons to Leica Ms are even thornier, especially here! :-}  I
have both, I like both and I use both.  The M is great when I have
full use of both hands, can shoot a little more leisurely, want a bit
more control over exposure and want the best glass there is.  The G is
great when it's raining and I'm holding both an umbrella and my
14-month old with my left hand, and still want to take pictures with
my right.  The M won't autofocus, won't autoexpose, won't autoadvance
or rewind, and there are times I want to do some or all of these,
without losing the utility of very high quality interchangeable
lenses, compact size and direct viewing.  If about the only thing your
father didn't like about the M3 was the focusing and he's not adverse
to a fair amount of automation, the Contax G might work well for him.


Your father's been using his SLR for a while, I guess, so he could go
that route.  If he likes shooting with lenses longer than 90mm the G
won't work for him.  Ditto is he likes zooms.  But if he likes the
general feature set but wants autofocus and smaller size (more like
his Retina), the G could work well.  I find the G better for my needs
than an AF SLR, but I'm not doing a lot of telephoto, macro, or
high-speed sports photography.

I think this all circles back to the fact that these choices are all
very indiviual and specific.  There are people who play with a G1 or
G2 for a day or two and just hate them.  Too much this, not enough
that.  There are others who try them and find themselves with a full G
system, and then find themselves selling off their SLRs or Leica Ms or
medium format kits.  None of these responses is wrong---we're all
moved by different things and driven by different needs.  I had a G1
for a while, traded it away for Leica lenses, then found I missed the
G a lot.  I got rid of my Nikon F4 stuff so I could claw my way back
in.  My wife and others seriously question my sanity, but that's
another post.  I've never missed the Nikon, and I'm glad I've got a
Contax G again. =20

To finally get to your question about the G1 and G2 comparison, it
depends (sorry....).  I only find the G1 autofocus speed a problem
when using the 90mm Sonnar---I sometimes have enough time to think:
"Make up your mind already!" before the shutter trips.  The G2 is
definitely faster with the 90mm, and is a bit faster with the 21-45mm
range, but usually not so much faster to make or break a photo for me.
I've heard of others who found the G1 autofocus unusable, but find the
G2 a large improvement. This, again, is something your father would be
best off trying himself.  I wear eyeglasses, and never notice much of
a difference between the two viewfinders.  The G1 is cheaper these
days, and it is a bit more compact.

That about taps me out for now.  Let me know if you have any other
questions....

Regards,

PB


Paul C. Brodek
Kobe, Japan
pcb@iac.co.jp