Only one using Contax G?

[Orio]

Am I the only one using Contax G here?

-

[F16SUNSHINE]

Hello Orio
I had a G1 green label with the planar 45 f2 and sonnar 90 2.8 . I sold the camera and lenses a few months back. It is a great system. I just did not use it much. Auto focus, auto wind/rewind and the noise that went with it I did not like. Michelle and I both would grab the CL or a Yashica before the G1. That 45 planar is truly an astounding lens however. I think the camera was just a poor fit for me. Rangefinders should be quiet.

Andy

[Orio]

When I bought the G2 I didn't know it was autofocus! I was not much informed and I was convinced at the time that Zeiss only made MF equipment.
However it is possible to switch to manual focus and actually the focusing wheel is a fantastic way to manual focus, because you don't have to move the hand away from the shutter. The rangefinder is coupled and very precise and in fact manual focusing the G2 is preferable in most of the photographic cases.
I agree about the sound but I never thought of the G2 as the kind of camera you use in churches or theaters - a compact rangefinder such as the Canonette is much better suited for that.
I have come to conceive the G2 for what it really shines in: taking top quality photographs. Comparing the slides taken with the G2 with those taken with the 167MT and my beautiful reflex lenses is a shock. The G2 is merciless, it wins so much hands down. The quality of the lenses - particularly the Planar 45 and Biogon 28 - is nothing short of impressive. The quality and quantity of detail, and above all the clarity of image, of the rangefinder lenses, wins over all the reflex Contax lenses that I have.

[F16SUNSHINE]

Rangefinders truly do have the edge when it comes to overall image quality. The G2 from my understanding has an updated and much improved MF system from my G1. The G1 did not focus manually very well (or auto in all but really strong light). It was much more scale focusing than true rangefinder manual focus. I always felt I was just guessing distance and hoping for the best. The CL or one of my little fixed lens rangefinders gave more control and were much quieter. Before I bought the 40D I seriously thought of putting off Digital a bit longer and building a Zeiss Ikon system. It did not make sense from a workflow standpoint and I have enough small format rangefinders to stay busy. If budget was not an issue I would have an M-8 system. Not because of the "Leica name" to the contrary, most of the lenses I desire in M mount are Zeiss. I also have one Cosina M on my CL already and find it a fantastic performer and value (voightlander noktot 40mm f1.4). Cosina/voightlander also has many serious options for M mount wide angle lenses. This is really tempting. How does a mostly amateur justify paying for an M8 ? Do you think any other manufacturers will ever offer a digital RF that can be affordable? Epson has the rds1 but $2500+ for 6mp cosina made camera is hardly affordable or good value.

[LucisPictor]

[Richard_D]

I drooled over one (G2) in the local camera shop - a cased set with 28, 45 and 90 lenses, but it was beyond my means

[spkennedy3000]

Hi Orio and any other G fans.

The G2 has been a dream camera for me since it came out.
I would love to buy one, with the 21mm biogon especially, but I struggle to justify the purchase. However, although it is still not cheap, compared to what it cost when it first came out, it has become relatively affordable.

Would you tell a little more about what it is like to use, especially relative to your 5D (Orio)?

How do the images compare when used with top quality film to those made by the 5d?

Thanks very much,

Simon

[Orio]

[Orio]

Here's a picture I took with the G2 and the Biogon 28mm.:



I think it illustrates well what I mean that the film can give a certain atmosphere that the digital (too clean, probably), can not.

However, as the following 100% crops will show, you still get high quality output.
The negative was scanned at half (3343 pixels larger side) of the maximum optical resolution of the scanner. So it shows half of the resolution potential of the G2.
These 100% crops have not been denoized, and have not been sharpened. I left them intact to show the potential, even when scanned with a consumer scanner like mine.
The second crop is a corner crop, and this shows the kind of corner quality you can expect from a Biogon lens.





-

[Orio]

A quick and quite misfocused snapshot that I took of Monica (Sonnar 90). This image also shows that there is some kind of "live" film quality, that shows through also sloppy images:



-

[spkennedy3000]

Thanks Orio these look great.

Is the autofocus so very noisy?

[spkennedy3000]

Whoopsie... just bought one...

[Orio]

[Orio]

[bob955i]

[poilu]

[spkennedy3000]

By far the best looking/feeling camera I have seen, hope I can get something good out of it.

[Orio]

[spkennedy3000]

What I would really like is for someone to invent and sell me a 22 megapixel chip that inserts into the back of it, giving me digital functionality when required. Then it would be really perfect.

[Orio]

Requests for a digital back for the G2 have been going on for quite some time now, but apparently Zeiss isn't interested, probably because after the hyatus from Kyocera, there are still legal issues pending for the Contax name (which belong to Zeiss but was loaned to Kyocera until well within the 2010s I believe.)

[spkennedy3000]

Well I would be happy to wait.

In the meantime the quality is so high it will keep my happy enough.

Just have to finish this pesky video then I will go and shoot some film with it.

[spkennedy3000]

WOW!

I love this camera.

I just got some negatives back, and they are looking good.
Off to Cyprus for a week but here is the first scan - neopan 1600, a series on mannequins (I find them fascinating):

This one is with the 90mm wide open.

[Orio]

Impressive for a 1600 and wide open!