Re: [Leica] Contax G2 and Dan's evaluation - long

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

I agree w/both of your fine, even assessments.  I employ three Leicas and a 
G1 and G2.  I use low-light glass on the Ms (Noct., 35/1.4, 75/1.4) and the 
full suite of Contax lenses (except for the 35).  After a couple of years 
of working with them all together, it's pretty easy to move from one to 
another.  I really don't think any more about which camera/lens is 
better.  When *I* do everything right, both systems deliver image quality 
that'll drop one's jaw.

It is silly to say that the G1 and G2 are glorified point and shoots, as 
some continue to claim, and you've hit exactly why they're not.  The Gs are 
notably louder than the Leicas, although this, too, is a matter of 
degree.  In a quiet room, I've often had people ask whether my Leicas 
worked or not when I released the shuuter.  They don't pose that question 
when I use a G.  On the other hand, in the presence of ordinary levels of 
street noise or in the general hub-bub of a crowd, I doubt anyone could 
tell the difference.

There a sort of mantra that Jim Williams introduced long ago: they're 
complimentary systems, not substitutes for one another.

I like to repeat that I came back to M Leicas after almost 20 years of 
using IIIfs exclusively.  I came back *through* the G system, which, after 
peering through the IIIf's VF for two decades, seemed positively panoramic 
in its coverage.  I went to the M bodies solely for the glass--and, of 
course--the exquisitely retro charm of the M3.

The Gs are great, quirky cameras; they share this distinction with the Leica.

CHandos


At 10:49 AM 6/30/1999 +0100, you wrote:
>The post by Dan Bereskin on his
>experience with the G2 and his comparisons with  the M6 are spot on. Leica
>and Zeiss glass are both first class.



Chandos Michael Brown
Assoc. Prof., History and American Studies
College of William and Mary

http:www.wm.edu/CAS/ASP/faculty/brown