Question:
I’d appreciate it if you could share with me your experience/opinion on Leica M6 or Contax G2. After keeping my finger away from the shutter for years, I wish to shoot pictures again. My basic interests are portraits, landscape, buildings and people taken during trips. I’d like to find a quality camera which I can enjoy using for years. I’d rather have a good combination than buy a few bodies and lenses over the years. I am now considering the two combinations: 1. Leica M6 TTL, 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH, 50mm f/2 Summicron-M, 90mm f/2 APO-Summicron-M, SF 20 flash (or 28-35-50mm f/4 Tri-Elmar-M ASPH to substitute the above 24mm and 50 mm lenses) 2. Contax G2, Biogon T 28mm f/2.8, Planar T 45 mm f/2, Sonnar T 90mm f/2.8, TLA 200 flash Brochures about most of the above equipment have been read. But experience and practical opinion from users about the cameras and lenses will certainly help me decide. Any suggestions of other combinations will be welcome too. Regards, Andrew
Response:
Basically the advantage of the Leica is smaller size-one of the main reasons to buy a rangefinder camera in the first place. The Contax is quite large in comparison. The advantage of the Contax is the inclusion of some additional electronics as well as lower price. My opinion, though, is that if you are going to buy a camera as large as the Contax G2, you should just buy a more versatile SLR. Good shooting. Fred Maplewood Photography http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I’d appreciate it if you could share with me your experience/opinion on Leica M6 or Contax G2.
Response:
I hacve owned a Leica M6 for almost 20 years. I love that camera (I have several M4s and lenses). With that said, I would like to caution you about the Contax G2 and viewing. The diameter of the eyepiece of the G2 is small and I found hard to see through. This would be even more pronounced IF you wear glasses (I do NOT). You should check this before considering which to buy. As with most expensive camera purchases, you might seek a place to rent them for a weekend and try them beofre spending lots of cash. Another note regarding the Leica 24mm, that lens will require a seperate finder to work, this may be a hassel since it lives on the hot shoe connection and would prohibit the use of flash there. Also you can not focus and view at the same times. These may be small hassels but you should know. As for thinking about the Tri-Elmar, that is reported to be Leica’s sharpest M lens to date, that is the "rumor" I have heard/read. I wish I had one but it is a bit pricey for me just now. Joe McCary Photo Response http://www.erols.com/mccary |I’d appreciate it if you could share with me your |experience/opinion on Leica M6 or Contax G2. | |After keeping my finger away from the shutter for years, I wish |to shoot pictures again. My basic interests are portraits, |landscape, buildings and people taken during trips. I’d like to |find a quality camera which I can enjoy using for years. I’d |rather have a good combination than buy a few bodies and lenses |over the years. I am now considering the two combinations: | |1. Leica M6 TTL, 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH, 50mm f/2 Summicron-M, |90mm f/2 APO-Summicron-M, SF 20 flash (or 28-35-50mm f/4 |Tri-Elmar-M ASPH to substitute the above 24mm and 50 mm lenses) | |2. Contax G2, Biogon T 28mm f/2.8, Planar T 45 mm f/2, Sonnar T |90mm f/2.8, TLA 200 flash | |Brochures about most of the above equipment have been read. But |experience and practical opinion from users about the cameras and |lenses will certainly help me decide. Any suggestions of other |combinations will be welcome too. | |Regards, | |Andrew |
Response:
Andrew Lau asked :I’d appreciate it if you could share with me your experience/opinion on Leica M6 or Contax G2. I have owned both and found that the G2 and M6 found them each to be first rate camera systems with superb lenses and capable of producing wonderful images. However, I also found that they are very different kinds of camera systems. The strong suit of the G2 system is its automation: autofocus, automatic exposures and auto film feed. It is a very easy camera system to use and you can (if you so choose) operate as a point and shoot. Its biggest shortcoming (for me) was the fact that its autofocus system always parks the lens at infinity so that, if you remove your finger from the shutter button or focus lock button, there is a time lag when have to refocus — which I found to be troublesome for the kind of candid street photgraphy I like to do. After using the G2 for about 18 months, I borrowed an M6 and found (to my surprize) that I could get a better focus "hit rate" with its rangefinder focusing system than with the autofocusing of the G2 . This was largely because I could prefocus on my subject (usually by distance guessing) and then rely on depth of field to give me an acceptable focus when the "decisive moment’ occured. I should add that I generally use a 35mm lens on the street, which facilitates this kind of focusing. I also found the (black) M6 attracted less attention on the street than the titanium G2 and that its quietness permits me to take photos, virtually unnoticed, even when standing a few feet from a subject.. It was largely for these reasons that I swallowed hard and took the costly plunge by trading up to an M6 system. After using the M6 for some time, I am delighted with the choice I made for the kinds of photography I do. However, For other kinds of photography, say travel photography or scenic work, the G2 might be a better choice. If you can, try using both systems before choosing . The feel is very different. For me, the difference is between using an automated photographic machine (in the case of the G2) and a manual tool (with the M6). Bill O
Response:
Basically the advantage of the Leica is smaller size-one of the main reasons to buy a rangefinder camera in the first place. The Contax is quite large in comparison. The advantage of the Contax is the inclusion of some additional electronics as well as lower price. My opinion, though, is that if you are going to buy a camera as large as the Contax G2, you should just buy a more versatile SLR. Good shooting. Fred Maplewood Photography http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
I think I have to disagree. The Contax G2 is about the same size and weight (possibly lighter) as the Leica M6, the shape/dimensions are a little different. The Contax G2 is much more compact than an SLR, and with lenses it is even more compact, light weight travelling set. There is fact no comparision with an SLR. You can take along a G2 and 4 lenses in less space and weight of a similar quality SLR and single zoom – and the SLR and zoom won’t deliver the picture quality of the G2. If you want a compact rangefinder your choices are the M6 or the G2 and they are very different cameras. The Leica traditional, manual exposure, manual focus,etc. The Contax auto exposure, auto focus, and nearly full info viewfinder. Contax viewfinder auotmatically adjusts the viewfinder for lenses betweem 28 and 90mm and for parallax. lens quality between the Contax and Leica is comparably. Some Leica are better, some Contax are better – more a matter of taste. Both cameras are very solidly and well built. Perhaps are greater selection of lenses with Leica, particularly lenses with larger (e.g. f1.4) aperatures – but you really pay for that. Contax much more reasonably priced. Can probably buy G2 and a few lenses for the price of an M6 body. Electronics make the G2 a bit more flexible, and it has a neat data back. The only things the G2 is not useful for is macro, astro and long tele work. Outside of that, nothing will provide a better 35mm image (compared to an SLR there is no mirror shake, and you can hand hold the G2 at least another stop slower) yes the viewfinder is a bit small and take a little getting used to, but isn’t bad once you get used to it (it is a rangefinder after all). The Contax G2 is a great compact camera, packed with innovative technology, that saves quite a bit of space over an SLR while providing superior picture quality. —– Posted via Deja.com, The People-Powered Information Exchange —–
Response:
I think the other resposes are very accurate. I own an M6 and have shot with the G2. To my taste, the color rendition of Leica glass is unique- not better than the Zeiss glass, but distinctive especially with available light. The M6 has made me a better photographer because it makes me think. I can’t say that manual focus is that much of a disadvantage for the types of pictures I take. I can tell you that using the 90mm is a pain to focus, especially if shooting wide open with no depth of field to cover minute errors in focusing. The camera syncs at 1/50 sec, so flash is a royal pain, especially if fill flash is desired. So if 35mm and 50mm lenses with available light are your "thing", this is the ultimate camera. If you don’t mind the weight, check out the R8. True Leica fans say the ranefinder glass is better- not me. The camera is really versatile, and you get to use the Leica lenses for what that is worth. Good luck. Bill
Response:
I’d appreciate it if you could share with me your experience/opinion on Leica M6 or Contax G2.
The M6 & G2 are very differents ! First of all you should try them at a store. If I have to bought one of them I’ll choose the G2. The Contax lens are cheaper than the Leica’s ! Some lens from Leica are really too much expansive. And the cost is not motivated by a better sharpness in comparison with other brands. The M6 offer less features. The G2 is more modern…. It’s you choice 
— http://www.drgfx.wsc.fr http://photonet.citeweb.net http://synchrox.citeweb.net
Response:
The M6 offer less features. The G2 is more modern….
This is true. The M6 offers control over focus, aperture, and shutter speed. The G2 offers control over focus, aperture, and shutter speed, but if you wish, you can fiddle with it more to do the same thing. Richard S.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I’d appreciate it if you could share with me your experience/opinion on Leica M6 or Contax G2. After keeping my finger away from the shutter for years, I wish to shoot pictures again. My basic interests are portraits, landscape, buildings and people taken during trips. I’d like to find a quality camera which I can enjoy using for years. I’d rather have a good combination than buy a few bodies and lenses over the years. I am now considering the two combinations: 1. Leica M6 TTL, 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH, 50mm f/2 Summicron-M, 90mm f/2 APO-Summicron-M, SF 20 flash (or 28-35-50mm f/4 Tri-Elmar-M ASPH to substitute the above 24mm and 50 mm lenses) 2. Contax G2, Biogon T 28mm f/2.8, Planar T 45 mm f/2, Sonnar T 90mm f/2.8, TLA 200 flash
Well, you’ve certainly heard from the Leicaphiles, so I’ll try to offer a balancing (not necessarily opposing) point of view, from my position as a current G2 owner and experienced ex-Leica-owner. (Brief detour for plug: check out my ‘Contax G User Pages’ site at http://www.novia.net/~jlw/contax/ for lots more G1 and G2 info.) Now, then: — Whomever said the Leica M is a lot smaller than the Contax G was leading you astray. The overall "pack size" of the G2 is about the same as the M6, and remember that it includes an integral motor. The M6 plus M Winder is a LOT larger. On the other hand, for portraits, landscape, and other fairly static subjects, a motor isn’t really needed, so it’s kind of a wash. — The Leica M does have a much more wide-ranging lens line than the Contax G, especially if you need wide-aperture lenses. Note, though, that wide-aperture lenses are larger and heavier — this might be important if you do a lot of traveling. The Contax G system you mention probably would be somewhat smaller and lighter than the three-lens Leica M system, mostly because of the 90mm APO-Summicron. You could equalize this somewhat by choosing one of the smaller-aperture Leica medium tele lenses. — You just plain aren’t gonna see any significant lens quality differences between the two: either outfit would give you superb optics, about the best you’ll find in 35mm, and the differences people talk about at such length are microscopically hair-splitting at best. — Yes, the Contax G system would be substantially less expensive than the Leica M system. On the other hand, if you can easily afford either one, who cares? Likewise, I’d ignore such considerations as "future value." After all, you’re buying the thing to USE, not trade on the commodities market… right? — The best advice you’ve gotten is to try them. Do it!!! What it comes down to is that these are two very different types of camera systems, both in concept and in handling. You’ve simply GOT to spend some time with both before you can decide which you’d prefer as a long-term companion. The Contax is much like a modern, convenience-featured SLR except for its viewing system, which (as others have noted) is somewhat quirky; I like it and am very comfortable with it (despite wearing glasses) but have corresponded with other people who just plain couldn’t adjust to it (possibly because of differences in eyesight accommodation or personal taste.) I always tell people that they should NOT buy a G2 without first spending time at a camera store, viewing through it with various lenses and at various distances, to make sure their eyes are suited to it. On the other hand, the Leica M has quirks of its own. The film-loading system can be downright inconvenient — you’ve got to stash the removable baseplate during film changes, and once in a while (especially in cold weather) you may encounter a roll of film that simply WILL NOT load. The metering system is slow and fiddly, too. And while some people love the projected-frame viewfinder, others find the frames confusing and composition through them difficult to visualize. In short, it’s a question of WHICH set of quirks best fits your own preferences, and the only way to decide that is to handle both extensively and see which one you like! Good luck…
Response:
I have no experience with the Leica, but I do own a G2. I own a Nikon FM2 also and choice the G2 while looking for a point & shoot. Yeah, I know there’s a big difference between the G2 and a generic P&S. I didn’t like any of the P&S cameras I looked at. While talking with the saleslady, she handed me the G2 and I loved it at first touch. I find the G2 and FM2 to be similar in size; they fit nicely in the camera bag together. My eyes can’t seem to focus quite as fast as they used to and I love the fully automatic capabilities of the G2. I can set the aperature to set the depth of field I want and let the camera do the rest. My only "complaint" is the damn thing eats through the film faster than ever. The built in motor drive is very nice. The top speed is only about 4 fps, but that’s more than fast enough for me. I see from this thread that some people who wear glasses don’t like the G2 viewfinder, but I like it. I adjusted the diopter setting a tad and it seems brighter and clearer than any other camera I’ve ever tried. I particularly like the fact that being a rangefinder the view doesn’t "blink" every time I press the shutter. I was quite used to that with SLRs but didn’t realize until after I bought the G2 how much of a pain it is. I’ve recently shot some bike and road racing for a company newsletter and it was easier to track along with the runners and riders without having the mirror block of the SLR. I find the Zeiss lens to be very nice. It has a very nice look that I like. It’s a bit contrasty, but I like that particular look. To be honest, I never enlarge more than 8×10, so I don’t see much real difference between the Nikon and Zeiss optics that I have. I don’t have any experience with Leica. I’m experimenting with a "minimalist" approach to photography as a creativity exercise. One camera, one lens, one film, one developer, one paper. So far, the G2 works best for this. I don’t do any macro, astro, or other funky stuff, so this camera works well for me. Les – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’d appreciate it if you could share with me your experience/opinion on Leica M6 or Contax G2. After keeping my finger away from the shutter for years, I wish to shoot pictures again. My basic interests are portraits, landscape, buildings and people taken during trips. I’d like to find a quality camera which I can enjoy using for years. I’d rather have a good combination than buy a few bodies and lenses over the years. I am now considering the two combinations: 1. Leica M6 TTL, 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH, 50mm f/2 Summicron-M, 90mm f/2 APO-Summicron-M, SF 20 flash (or 28-35-50mm f/4 Tri-Elmar-M ASPH to substitute the above 24mm and 50 mm lenses) 2. Contax G2, Biogon T 28mm f/2.8, Planar T 45 mm f/2, Sonnar T 90mm f/2.8, TLA 200 flash Brochures about most of the above equipment have been read. But experience and practical opinion from users about the cameras and lenses will certainly help me decide. Any suggestions of other combinations will be welcome too. Regards, Andrew
Response:
Andrew, I think for the long run the Leica M6 is the way to go…. It consists of a much better lens lineup (well way more expensive…, too). I sold my G2 after a year, I used to have their 21,28,35,45,90. In fact I think all of them are very sharp, my favorite was the 21. But the G2’s smart viewfinder is small and quite difficult to see thru. The body is heavy, almost or even heavier than a decent SLR, therefore it rested in my cabinet all the time. Well the M system is still sharper than Contax’s, and the M system’s value will hold up much better than Contax’s. If I were you I wouldn’t substitute the 24 2.8 for the 28-35-50 ASPH. The 24 2.8 is one hell of a lens. Based on a lens test conducted by ASAHI camera, the 28-35-50 ’s light pass thru rate is only 78.5% versus the Nikon AFS 28-70 2.8’s 85.7%. Quite low for a Leica lens, though the lens’ resolution is still high, and the report said the lowish light pass thru rate might be caused by the use of high refractive index glasses. The G2 would be more convenient when using flash, so it will be better for party photos. Yes, it costs a lot more (diminishing returns really kicks in here), but it’s worth it. Alex – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’d appreciate it if you could share with me your experience/opinion on Leica M6 or Contax G2. After keeping my finger away from the shutter for years, I wish to shoot pictures again. My basic interests are portraits, landscape, buildings and people taken during trips. I’d like to find a quality camera which I can enjoy using for years. I’d rather have a good combination than buy a few bodies and lenses over the years. I am now considering the two combinations: 1. Leica M6 TTL, 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH, 50mm f/2 Summicron-M, 90mm f/2 APO-Summicron-M, SF 20 flash (or 28-35-50mm f/4 Tri-Elmar-M ASPH to substitute the above 24mm and 50 mm lenses) 2. Contax G2, Biogon T 28mm f/2.8, Planar T 45 mm f/2, Sonnar T 90mm f/2.8, TLA 200 flash Brochures about most of the above equipment have been read. But experience and practical opinion from users about the cameras and lenses will certainly help me decide. Any suggestions of other combinations will be welcome too. Regards, Andrew
Response:
I’d appreciate it if you could share with me your experience/opinion on Leica M6 or Contax G2.
while you are comtemplating the M6 and G2 i would like to add that you shd consider the Mamiya M7 ( granted this is a medium format RF ) but it is stated to function like a slightly larger M6 ? i was just looking at my 67 slides just thought i shd add this to the tread I also heard that Mamiya stuff are going way lower ( price ) in HK
Response:
Dear all, It’s a great news group. About ten members have shared with me their experience and opinon which will help me find my camera for the coming years. A big thank you to you. Andrew – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’d appreciate it if you could share with me your experience/opinion on Leica M6 or Contax G2. After keeping my finger away from the shutter for years, I wish to shoot pictures again. My basic interests are portraits, landscape, buildings and people taken during trips. I’d like to find a quality camera which I can enjoy using for years. I’d rather have a good combination than buy a few bodies and lenses over the years. I am now considering the two combinations: 1. Leica M6 TTL, 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH, 50mm f/2 Summicron-M, 90mm f/2 APO-Summicron-M, SF 20 flash (or 28-35-50mm f/4 Tri-Elmar-M ASPH to substitute the above 24mm and 50 mm lenses) 2. Contax G2, Biogon T 28mm f/2.8, Planar T 45 mm f/2, Sonnar T 90mm f/2.8, TLA 200 flash Brochures about most of the above equipment have been read. But experience and practical opinion from users about the cameras and lenses will certainly help me decide. Any suggestions of other combinations will be welcome too. Regards, Andrew
Response:
The M6 offer less features. The G2 is more modern…. This is true. The M6 offers control over focus, aperture, and shutter speed. The G2 offers control over focus, aperture, and shutter speed, but if you wish, you can fiddle with it more to do the same thing.
Oh yes, I have not mentioned the kind of features I’m talking about, it’s the shutter speed of the M6 (1/1000) & the G2 (1/6000) — http://www.drgfx.wsc.fr http://photonet.citeweb.net http://synchrox.citeweb.net
Response:
The M6 offer less features. The G2 is more modern…. This is true. The M6 offers control over focus, aperture, and shutter speed. The G2 offers control over focus, aperture, and shutter speed, but if you wish, you can fiddle with it more to do the same thing. Oh yes, I have not mentioned the kind of features I’m talking about, it’s the shutter speed of the M6 (1/1000) & the G2 (1/6000) — http://www.drgfx.wsc.fr http://photonet.citeweb.net http://synchrox.citeweb.net I think we are comparing apples wit oranges. The M6 with the new Asp. and Apo
objectives is a state of the art photographic instrument. The image quality created by this combination is unsurpassed. The M6 is the only camera I can The image quality of the Zeiss lenses are good, but by my conception nothing special. 1/6000" shutter speed,even if it is true 1/6000" ,is irreverent in every day photography. For me the M6 is a clear winner. I also admit, the first Leica was purchased by my family in 1931, and it is still working like new. Regards. Frank
Response:
Andrew, If you like the Leica, do consider the Hasselblad XPAN camera. Check out the review at http://hawk.foto.no/pinhole/nikon/ The only disadvantages I can think of over a Leica are: 1) Only two lenses 45/4, 90/4. They are planing a 35 and a 135. They will probably be slow, however. 2) Total reliance on battery power. 3) Does not have the viewfinder level that will change the framelines without the need to change lenses. This helps when judging what focal length is best. 4) Physically the camera is wider and a bit heavier than a M6. But, the advantages are many: 1) Autowinder 2) Exposure compensation 3) Much less expensive. You can get the XPAN with 45mm lens for the price of an M6 body. 4) Two film formats to chose: normal 35mm (36 x 24mm) and panoramic (56 x 24mm). This format can be switched on the same roll of film. Check out the April edition of Pop Photo which had a good review of this camera. Good luck!
Response:
I think we are comparing apples wit oranges. The M6 with the new Asp. and
Apo Hey ! I love apples & oranges ! every day photography. For me the M6 is a clear winner. I also admit, the first Leica was purchased by my family in 1931, and it is still working like new.
Well… I know perfectly that the M6 and the G2 have not the same "philosophy", but if somebody are asking questions about that 2 bodies, is because they are close in the buyer’s use. But some lens are really to much expansive for the quality compared with the other brands. too much is too much… 1/6000" shutter speed,even if it is true 1/6000" ,is irreverent in every day photography.
Well It’s quite strange… A Minolta owner have told me that the 1/12.000 shutter speed is a real advantage, and know you are telling me that the 1/1000 shutter speed is an advantage ! Quite strange 
)) But Leica is Great… — http://www.drgfx.wsc.fr http://photonet.citeweb.net http://synchrox.citeweb.net
Response:
Andrew, If u want an unadulterated opinion on the Contax G cameras, they are crap. I owned the G1 for a couple years and never really liked or used it that much. It is one of those things that conceptually seems great but in practice just DOESN’T work. Main problems: AF is VERY noisy, esp. when compared to Canon AF cameras with USM lenses. It is also slow-moving and "hunts" for focus quite often, especially indoors or with low-contrast subjects. Manual focus is a joke; you can’t turn the lens to focus it and there is no central-viewfinder focusing aid like on the Leica. Others are rite about the viewfinder; it IS very small. Also it does not read out apertures, only shutter speeds. Bottom line: while the lenses ARE very good, the camera is a compromise at best. You’d be much better off with a high-end point/shoot, like Contax TVS, Leica Minilux, etc. If u must have a rangefinder, go with the Leica, or as others suggested consider the Hasselblad XPAN or Mamiya 7/7 II as alternatives. ALSO consider the Canon EOS-1N RS. It’s an incredible AF SLR with a great lens lineup (esp. the L / USM lenses) that gives the same effect as the rangefinders (ie., the mirror does NOT move) and is loaded with features for the same price as the Leica and about the same weight as the Leica with motordrive. Best of luck either way. Mark the Sharpshooting Shark
Response:
Well It’s quite strange… A Minolta owner have told me that the 1/12.000 shutter speed is a real advantage …
Great for photographing nuclear detonations on Kodachrome, for example. — Anthony
Response:
Popular Photography’s Review of the Contax G2: It does everything faster and a bit better, but is the G2 still an instant classic like the G1? When Contax announced the landmark G1, the first new interchangeable-lens rangefinder 35 in decades, and the first ever with autofocus, back in late 1994, few would have expected them to come up with a significantly improved and upgraded companion model a scant 25 months later. But that is precisely what they have done. Not surprisingly, the new Contax G2 bears a close family resemblance to the G1, is also built on a cast-alloy chassis with stylish titanium outer body, uses the same breech-bayonet G mount, and is a serious enthusiast’s camera that incorporates many of the conveniences built into the latest SLRs and sophisticated point-and-shoots. These include autofocus, through-the-lens (TTL) aperture-priority autoexposure, built-in two-speed motor drive, power rewind, and TTL auto flash via a dedicated hot shoe. In its own way, the G2 is just as attractive as its posh, elegant, and pricey predecessor, but it’s bigger-1/4 inch wider and 1/8 inch taller, as well as a tad over 31/4 ounces heavier than the G1. And with a list price of $2,250, it’s also $40 more expensive than the G1, which continues in production. Despite these moderate increases in size and cost, we predict that most G-series Contax buyers will opt for the G2 and many will be tempted to trade in their G1’s to acquire the new model. No, the G2 doesn’t blow the G1 out of the water, either in picture-taking ability or convenience, and taken individually none of its enhancements may seem to strike a decisive blow, but when you add them all up, the inescapable conclusion is that the G2 is a much improved machine. Improvements Let’s begin our comparison by looking through the G2’s finder. While it’s still not as big and bright as today’s best SLR finders, it is a bit larger, brighter, and contrastier than the G1’s finder, and affords better eye relief as well. Even more important, its parallax-compensation system has been improved. It now shifts the bottom and right-hand borders of the frame outward and downward, as well as moving the left and top edges inward as you focus closer (the G1 only does the latter), and this provides noticeably improved framing accuracy with all lenses (28 to 90mm) that couple to the finder. The second major improvement is in autofocus performance. While the G1’s single-line sensor, passive-only autofocusing is more than adequate for general shooting, it’s not in the same league as that of current high-tech SLRs. The G1’s AF system tends to hunt, and occasionally fails to achieve focus with some low-contrast subjects, especially in low light. The G2 doesn’t have such problems and focuses about as fast and consistently as a good AF SLR. The reasons are simple. Not only have its AF sensors been upgraded, it also incorporates parallel active and passive AF systems, so when the passive (phase detection) system can’t find the focus point fast enough, it defaults to the active (infrared ranging) system. This ingenious idea did not originate with Contax (we first noticed it on the Chinon Genesis IV and the Fuji GA645), but it’s apparently an effective way of upgrading the performance of rangefinder-type AF systems. As a result, the G2 has four autofocus windows nestled among the optical array above the lens-two passive AF windows, plus a window for the IR emitter and another for the IR receiver. Neither the G1 nor the G2 autofocuses through the lens like an AF SLR, but this poses few difficulties as neither is designed to autofocus with long tele lenses where AF system parallax might prove problematic. Another significant set of improvements on the G2 is in the area of control placement and separation of function. The most obvious change was moving the manual-focusing dial from the top of the camera (on the G1) to the front, where it is reminiscent of the famous focusing wheel of the great German-made Contax rangefinder cameras of the ’30s to the ’60s. To focus the G2 manually, set the focus-mode selector on the back to M (manual focus), and turn the focusing wheel with your right index finger until only a single dot appears above the focusing index arrow on the illuminated LCD panel below the image area in the finder. Your set distances (in meters only!) are read out on the top LCD. Manually focusing the G2 is still a finicky procedure because the system is so sensitive, but it is easier than with the G1. It’s still accompanied by interesting little ratcheting noises as the system moves from one closely spaced focusing zone to the next. More important by far than its slightly easier manual focusing is the G2’s improved separation of function. To set drive modes on the G1, you press a little button and note the settings on the top LCD. Set S, and you get single-shot advance, but only focus-priority AF, which is to say the camera won’t fire until focus has been achieved; set C and you get continuous framing, but only with continuous AF, which means that the camera will keep autofocusing, but you can fire the shutter at any time. With the G2, you have separate drive-mode and focus-mode control dials, so you have the flexibility of setting any combination of AF and framing you wish. The little milled, click-stopped dial located where rewind knobs used to reside is the drive-mode selector, which has settings for S (single frame), CL (continuous low-speed drive to 2 fps), and CH (continuous high-speed drive to 4 fps), as well as self-timer and multi-exposure settings. The focus-mode selector on the back has settings labeled CAF (continuous autofocus), SAF (single-shot autofocus), and M (manual focus). The conveniently placed thumb button in the center of this dial is the focus-lock button, which works in either AF mode. Moving the manual-focus dial to the front on the G2 has had another beneficial effect-it freed up space for a separate exposure-compensation dial (it’s built into the shutter-speed dial on the G1). The new dial is not only more convenient, it also can be used to input compensation when setting manual shutter speeds, which can’t be done on the G1. Despite all these improvements, and the G2’s somewhat larger dimensions, shooting with both models is, functionally and tactilely, remarkably similar. One reason is that the right-hand grip and rear thumb rest are virtually identical on both models-a good thing since they’re both very comfortable and secure. General control placement, back and interior configuration, and finder readouts are also quite similar. So is the overall balance, which remains excellent no matter which lens or lens/finder combination is fitted. The lensmount, and the lens switching procedure are likewise identical-press in the lens-release button, and get used to removing the lens by grabbing and turning it by the milled collar on the barrel, right behind the aperture ring. Peer through the exquisite stainless steel lensmounts on both models and you’ll observe two fascinating differences. While the G1’s shutter curtain is a uniform shade of gray, the G2’s has a wide gray band in the center, but is painted black at the top and bottom. And just inboard of the bottom of the mount, you’ll notice that there are seven pin-type, gold-plated electronic contacts on the G2 and only six on the G1. Based on the info we’ve received from Japan, the seventh contact is used to "speed up autofocus by increasing the rate of focusing-information transfer between body and lens." The system obviously works, since the G2 definitely autofocuses faster than the G1, but we’re not sure how much of this improvement is attributable to the extra contact, and how much is due to the addition of active autofocus components. As for the G2’s two-tone shutter curtain, only the central two blades are painted gray because the meter cell nestled in the top section of the chassis has been moved slightly, and now reads off a more central section of the curtain. The SPD cell was moved slightly primarily to accommodate the G2’s new higher-speed shutter unit, but this has also had the effect of altering the G2’s meter sensitivity pattern somewhat. According to our tests, the G2’s pattern is considerably wider, quite top-weighted, and shifted slightly to the left compared to the G1’s. Despite these changes, overall exposure accuracy is virtually the same for both models. Other similarities and differences between the two models? Because the AF-mode selector/focus-lock control now occupies the space on the back where the G1’s threaded cable-release socket is located, the G2’s has been moved to the camera’s right-hand side. The G2’s midroll rewind button has also been moved to the left-hand side, where it’s more accessible than the G1’s, which is on the bottom. The battery compartment cover, and shutter-release collar tab with settings for on, off, and AEL (autoexposure lock) are identical on both models. So is the shutter-release button itself, and that’s a good thing because the electromagnetic release on both Contax G’s is as smooth and predictable as any in current production, with just enough force required to initiate autofocus without making unintended exposures. Carrying forth such a large number of detailed improvements without adversely affecting the refined and elegant character of the original G1 must have been a formidable undertaking, but the Contax engineers have executed the task with intelligence and panache. What the G2 gives up in terms of larger size, is more than adequately recompensed in terms of function, and both cameras exude a jewel-like precision and a visual fascination that is sure to ring the chimes of any connoisseur of fine machinery. Because of its noticeably enhanced AF performance, upgraded specs, and slightly improved viewfinder, the G2 is, on balance, even more pleasant to shoot with than the G1. … read more »
Response:
Well It’s quite strange… A Minolta owner have told me that the 1/12.000 shutter speed is a real advantage … Great for photographing nuclear detonations on Kodachrome, for example.
And for shooting in bright daylight at full aperture, which is likely to occur more often in a photographer’s life. Bernard.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I think we are comparing apples wit oranges. The M6 with the new Asp.and Apo objectives is a state of the art photographic instrument. The image quality created by this combination is unsurpassed. The M6 is the only camera I can The image quality of the Zeiss lenses are good, but by my conception nothing special. 1/6000" shutter speed,even if it is true 1/6000" ,is irreverent in every day photography. For me the M6 is a clear winner. I also admit, the first Leica was purchased by my family in 1931, and it is still working like new. Regards. Frank
This is an interesting response. Yes, SOME of the Leica lenses are state of the art, but then so are the Zeiss lenses for the Contax G. The Zeiss lenses are indeed wonderful. Most leica owner, exceptt for the most biased, are probably willing to go along with that. Leica has nothing that compares to the Hologon, the 21mm and 28mm lenses are comparable, the understand that the Leica 35mm is better than the Zeiss 35mm/f2, but the Zeiss 45/f2 is better, and only the latest Leica short telephoto can just nudge aside the Zeiss G 90mm. I have handheld the G2 and G1 at 1/8 sec with excellent results. I also don’t find manually focusing the G2 to be difficult at all. I suppose if you you were used to something else it might be difficult at first, like anything else new. But it really works well, once you get over that it is different. In fact, for some it is an old way of focusing, Early Zeiss Contax rangefinders features a similar focussing wheel mechanism. For those used to those cameras the G2 would be easy. A camera with a 1/6000 sec shutter speed is a big advantage. That why they build cameras with fast shutters. It allows you control over depth of field and aperture selection in more lighting condition and film selections in addition for action photography. I have regularly used higher than 1/1000 on the G2, and am grateful for it. I am please than Contax saw the value in the faster speeds and boosted shutter speeds on the G2 to 1/6000 from the 1/2000 on the G1. Finally it is precisely for "everyday" photography that features like automation and electronics were adopted. It makes everyday photography simpler and faster. Clearly the G2 is the "everyday" photography camera. It can do everything from quick grab action, point and shoot to the most carefully controlled and designed exposures. If you’ve used Leicas and nothing but Leicas for a long time, you may have a long period of adjustment to the G2. But if you are coming from any other direction, the G2 will prove to the easier to use, more flexible, and more convenient camera to use - and it will provide images just as spectacular (if not more so) than the Leica.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’d appreciate it if you could share with me your experience/opinion on Leica M6 or Contax G2. After keeping my finger away from the shutter for years, I wish to shoot pictures again. My basic interests are portraits, landscape, buildings and people taken during trips. I’d like to find a quality camera which I can enjoy using for years. I’d rather have a good combination than buy a few bodies and lenses over the years. I am now considering the two combinations: 1. Leica M6 TTL, 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH, 50mm f/2 Summicron-M, 90mm f/2 APO-Summicron-M, SF 20 flash (or 28-35-50mm f/4 Tri-Elmar-M ASPH to substitute the above 24mm and 50 mm lenses) 2. Contax G2, Biogon T 28mm f/2.8, Planar T 45 mm f/2, Sonnar T 90mm f/2.8, TLA 200 flash Brochures about most of the above equipment have been read. But experience and practical opinion from users about the cameras and lenses will certainly help me decide. Any suggestions of other combinations will be welcome too. Regards, Andrew
Half jokingly but half seriously speaking, why don’t you buy the both systems and use them a while then decide which to dump if you have a deep pocket? You can enjoy finicky TTL meter of Leica’s and at the same time AF-errors of Contax’s. This is a great fun of amature photogaphy, isn’t it? I have the both systems and enjoy the later system slightly more. …/koji
Response:
| Half jokingly but half seriously speaking, why don’t you buy the both systems |and use them a while then decide which to dump if you have a deep pocket? |You can enjoy finicky TTL meter of Leica’s and at the same time AF-errors |of Contax’s. FINICKY meter of the M6? I have had an M6 since 1981 and that meter has been as accurate as any meter I have ever used (Minolta hand helds, Nikon F100). When it says correct exposure it is the correct exposure. I haven’t used the Contax though I have picked one up and played with it. I found the eye piece a bit small but usable. My biggest complaint about the M series and the M6 is the flash sync speed. That eliminates the use of fill flash outdoors when you must be shooting above 1/50th of a second. I have never seen lenses any sharper than the Leitz lenses (some may be as sharp but NONE sharper). Joe McCary
Response:
Typically, this kind of question will start a religious war… Now in this price region there is one alternative which will give objectively better (in the technical sense of the word) pictures: The Mamiya 7 It is a 6×7 camera, hence 4 times the negative size. If you make large prints, the comparison with 35mm cameras becomes futile, so obvious is the difference in quality. Otherwise it looks and handles like a big Leica. It has downsides: to keep it easily portable, the lenses are slow (f4, but you can use Delta 3200 film with good results) so it’s not really for available light, and esp. with the telephoto, it doesn’t focus close enough for heads and shoulders pictures. Otherwise it’s one of the great camera’s… Tom
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.