Re: [Leica] Leica vs. Contax wars

[D Khong <dkhong@pacific.net.sg>]

Friends

I have just returned from a photo shoot up in the hills of north Thailand.
The Karen people, whom I photographed, are the largest tribal group of hill
people living in  Myanmar (Burma), Laos and Thailand. The various hill
tribes are effectively spread out over a large area in these countries and
they live side by side with one another. One would not be surprised to find
a Hmong village just a walking distance from a Karen village.  They speak
different languages and have different costumes. Otherwise they can look
similar.

Although I love using leicas and have found the Contax G cameras to be
complementary to leicas, in practice, I am hard pressed to tell which of
their lenses are better. Both the Leica and Carl Zeiss lenses are superb
optics. I am indeed delighted to be able to own a set of Carl Zeiss G
lenses at such affordable prices. It was a difficult decision, but I ended
up taking my Contax G2 and 35/2 planar and 90/2.8 sonnar on this recent trip.

I like to travel light and with the minimum of lenses. For many years now,
I have found that the "photojournalistic" setup (as I read in the Leica M
compendium by Jonathan Eastland) comprising a 35 Summicron and a 90 Elmarit
to be a very useful pair of lenses to match with an M camera during
travels. Incidently a similar pair of lenses exist in the Contax G system.

On trips like this, I prefer to err towards automation. Film loading, wind
and rewind pampers me. Exposure can be set to fully automated, exposure
compensation is merely a flick of the dial. TTL flash is there when I need
it. For discrete shooting from the hip or over your head, there is AF to
take care of things.  I have found that 70% of my shots were taken with my
35 planar, 25% with my 90 sonnar and 5% were with the 21/2.8 biogon which
was loaned to me. While I had second thoughts whether to bring along the
biogon, in retrospect, I managed to capture many very nice images in
enclosed cramped dwellings which would not have been possible with the 35.
Only one frame out of the many rolls was actually taken with flash. I
prefer to take available light shots. Handholding up to 1/2 sec is usually
not a problem whether I am using the Leica or the Contax G.  

While I admire those who are particularly adept at focussing without the
aid of a rangefinder, I still prefer some form of focus confirmation. Those
who are used to Leicas will initially find the G2 rather slow as it
autofocusses but once learnt, the G2 can be remarkably fast. I do not use
the G2 in manual focus mode. In this aspect the leica is superior.

True to my expectations, as roll after roll of HP5+ churn out of my
developing tank, I am elated by the consistently well-exposure images. This
also means that I will have less hassle printing these negatives in the
darkroom. Almost 100% of the images are printable. This is not always the
case with my Leica and external metering. Film latitude is one thing, but
having to tweak the exposure in the darkroom from one frame to another is
often a pain.

After having used both systems, I have found that they are complementary.
Aesthetically, I'd prefer the leica but then that's an emotional matter.

Dan K.