Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/12/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_007A_01BF3F5B.B94D7BE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well, I'm not an engineer, but the G series has 2 focus windows like a = typical range finder, and the image that the system senses is compared = by an electronic rangefinder and "focuses" MECHANICALLY the lens by an = electronic motor. True, different than a totally mechanical Leica, but = seems like a true rangefinder thats focus depends on the "base" length = (distance between the focus windows). =20 As for the G1 being "really pathetic"-- that is a subjective remark. I = differ in that opinion and can focus without difficulty and consistently = get tack sharp photos with my G1. As a matter of fact, the "spot focus" = feature on my R4 (and subsequent R5) really 'trained' me to use the G1 = as I was already used to "locking the exposure" by this method. As for = 'available light photography"-- in this day and age of faster films, = finer grained fast films, etc, I have found very few limitations with = the G1 in available light. I took a roll of 24 pics at our Thanksgiving = get-together, all inside photos on 400 asa film. All perfectly = exposed, great skin tones (albeit a bit warm from the incandescent = lights) but definately not crippled. I find the meter just as accurate = in tone as my older R4 and very intuitative to use. True, not a great = system for dim light, but again, much photography is done in reasonable = light situations. A tripod or the old "Benser" bracing system works = just as well with the contax as the leica as well. Don't get me wrong in my defense of the contax G1. I am a member of = the Leica Historical society, spend alot on Leica (though not as much as = many of the folks here!), read quite a lot on leica photography, etc. I = like my Contax G1 very much, but I LOVE my Leicas. They are different, = but I do not qualify the G1 as a "point and shoot"-- a term I would = reserve for those cameras you can pull out of the bag, point, and shoot = with no "adjustments" or conscious photographic knowledge (ie. = aperature, focus selection, etc). If there is a more distinct definition of "rangefinder" that I am = missing, I appologize. I only know what I can decipher from the info = supplied by Contax on how it all works. Kent Peters - ------=_NextPart_000_007A_01BF3F5B.B94D7BE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 = http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 = Transitional//EN"> <META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000>Well, I'm not an engineer, but the G series = has 2 focus=20 windows like a typical range finder, and the image that the system = senses is=20 compared by an electronic rangefinder and "focuses" = MECHANICALLY the=20 lens by an electronic motor. True, different than a totally = mechanical=20 Leica, but seems like a true rangefinder thats focus depends on the=20 "base" length (distance between the focus windows). =20 </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000>As for the G1 being "really = pathetic"-- that=20 is a subjective remark. I differ in that opinion and can focus = without=20 difficulty and consistently get tack sharp photos with my G1. As a = matter=20 of fact, the "spot focus" feature on my R4 (and subsequent R5) = really=20 'trained' me to use the G1 as I was already used to "locking the=20 exposure" by this method. As for 'available light = photography"--=20 in this day and age of faster films, finer grained fast films, etc, I = have found=20 very few limitations with the G1 in available light. I took a roll = of 24=20 pics at our Thanksgiving get-together, all inside photos on 400 asa=20 film. All perfectly exposed, great skin tones (albeit a bit = warm=20 from the incandescent lights) but definately not crippled. I find = the=20 meter just as accurate in tone as my older R4 and very intuitative to = use. =20 True, not a great system for dim light, but again, much photography is = done in=20 reasonable light situations. A tripod or the old = "Benser"=20 bracing system works just as well with the contax as the leica as=20 well.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000>Don't get me wrong in my defense of the = contax=20 G1. I am a member of the Leica Historical society, spend = alot on=20 Leica (though not as much as many of the folks here!), read quite a lot = on leica=20 photography, etc. I like my Contax G1 very much, but I LOVE my=20 Leicas. They are different, but I do not qualify the G1 as a = "point=20 and shoot"-- a term I would reserve for those cameras you can pull = out of=20 the bag, point, and shoot with no "adjustments" or conscious=20 photographic knowledge (ie. aperature, focus selection, = etc).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000>If there is a more distinct definition of=20 "rangefinder" that I am missing, I appologize. I only = know what=20 I can decipher from the info supplied by Contax on how it all = works. Kent=20 Peters</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> - ------=_NextPart_000_007A_01BF3F5B.B94D7BE0--