|
|
|
|
Advice to Prospective G Buyers Every now and then on the rec.photo.equipment.35mm newsgroup, I find myself playing self-appointed "Contax G adviser" to people who have posted questions about the the G's. Several of these people have been kind enough to say they found my advice helpful, and suggested it be compiled somewhere -- so, here's a sampling of postings I thought might be most useful to other potential buyers. The original posters' questions are indented (and in blue, if your browser supports color); my responses are unindented and in black. Many of the responses are quite lengthy, so you may want to use this index to jump to the general topic that interests you:
Contax G: Camera Handling The Contax Experience
I don't think this was the fault of either you or the G1. It seems to be typical of the results of people who try the G1 a time or two -- I had trouble getting accurate focus with mine the first few times I used it, too. So, one of the things I always tell people is to remember that this really is a somewhat different kind of camera from either an SLR or a traditional rangefinder 35. It performs well once you're used to its characteristics, but it DOES take a certain amount of practice and experience to get the most out of it. In the case of the focusing problems, I found that it did take me a while to learn to aim the AF brackets at a focusable area of the subject. Because the viewfinder image is small compared to that on an SLR, this isn't as easy as it seems. The first few rolls, I got a LOT of misfocused pictures; over the next several rolls, as I gained the "knack," the results gradually improved; now, I hardly ever get a misfocused picture. (Another part of the skill required is realizing when it DOES miss. At first, I had to make a point of looking at the distance scale in the viewfinder. Now that I'm used to the camera, the parallax-correction mask gives me a tip-off -- if it seems obviously out of position, I know the camera has focused either too close or too far away, and I refocus before taking any pictures.) This sounds complicated, but it's very straightforward once you get the hang of it. Actually, it's not too dissimilar to the learning process you have to go through when switching from a manual focus SLR to autofocus, or from an SLR to an RF camera. The new way seems totally unnatural at first, but eventually it gets ingrained and you don't need to think about it. Shutter Lag: Fact or Fiction?
Again, this is partly a matter of practice. One of the things you probably noticed about the G1 was that every time you take your finger off the shutter release, the lens "parks" itself in the infinity position. Whenever you press the release halfway, it determines the correct distance and then drives the lens to that position. The G2 works the same way. It's is different from most autofocus SLRs, where the lens stays put after taking a picture. Many people have trouble learning to allow for the fact that the Contax has to "unpark" the lens before every picture, and the time lag involved in refocusing the lens each time drives them crazy. It's not hard to get around this, though. The technique I use is pretty much the same as I use when shooting with a conventional rangefinder camera: prefocusing. When I see what looks like a good picture situation, I immediately bring up the G1 (or 2), prefocus on the subject by pressing the release halfway, and then lock it there. Then I just keep watching until the right moment comes; then I press the release the rest of the way. With the lens pre-focused, there's almost no time lag at all between pressing the release and the shutter firing. On the other hand, if the subject moves before I take a picture, I just relax pressure on the release and re-focus when the subject reaches a new position. Often I'll track subjects this way for long stretches of time, re-locking focus whenever necessary and squeezing off a shot when the moment is right. This virtually eliminates any lag problems. (The G2 also has the option of continuous AF, and this is convenient for tracking moving subjects. Even when it's set to continuous AF, you can still do "one-shot" focusing by pressing the AF lock button on the back of the camera. So, I can switch continuously and flexibly from continuous to locking AF just by deciding which button to press.) Scale Focusing, Yes; Depth of Field Control, No (sigh!)
First, the good news: Yes, you can easily scale focus either the G1 or G2. The top LCD reads out the distance set by either the AF system or the manual-focus dial. To pre-focus the camera on a particular distance, you just set to manual focus and turn the dial until the distance you want shows up on the LCD. (The distance display is in meters, and as far as I know there's no way to change it, so you have to learn to 'think metric'!) The G1 also has an approximate focus scale printed on the manual focusing knob; this is handy for quick-and-dirty focus settings. The not-so-good news -- and it's really a bummer if you like to do controlled, painstaking photography -- is that there is NO depth-of-field scale anywhere in, on or about the G cameras or lenses (except the 16mm f/8 Hologon.) There's a comprehensive depth-of-field table in the instruction manual, but who wants to carry an instruction manual around all the time? This means that simple depth-of-field techniques, such as measuring the near and far distances you want and then using a DOF scale to pick a distance and f/stop that will hold them both in focus, just can't be done on a G1 or G2. You have to refer to the printed table. Personally, I do so much of my photography at maximum apertures that this had never bothered me. But I've heard from several people who bought G's for landscape, scenic and other types of more-controlled photography (attracted to it because of the handy size and quality of the lenses) who feel it's really limiting. One of the people with whom I've corresponded has said he can't understand why Contax didn't include some kind of electronic DOF indicator in the camera -- an extra pair of pointers on the focusing scale in the viewfinder, for example. I agree that this would be convenient, but I know why they didn't do it -- the electronic contacts on the lenses don't signal the actual set aperture to the camera body, so there would be no source from which to compute the DOF. (Even the GD2 data back for the G2, although it prints aperture data on the film, has to "estimate" the working aperture by comparing the readings from the internal and external meter cells.) On the other hand, I don't see why they couldn't have included a simple, mechanical, circular-slide-rule type of DOF scale -- the kind found on many older cameras such as the Minolta Autocord. This could even be sold as an add-on accessory -- it could come with a self-adhesive patch that would let you stick it on the camera back. I'm working on a printable version of this kind of "depth of field calculator"; when/if I get it done, I plan to put it on the Web site as a PostScript file that people can download, print out, and assemble to make their own DOF dial. But it'll probably be a while before I get this done. Meanwhile, if you want to do controlled DOF with a Contax G, you're unfortunately stuck with either referring to the tables in the manual or carrying a separate DOF guide. The Contax G as a Traveler's Camera
Basically I'm very happy with the performance of both cameras and their lenses. They're well suited to someone like me (and like you, apparently) who wants control and quality, but likes to travel light. Be advised, though, that using a G is considerably different from working with an SLR, and you'll need to allow yourself some practice time to get the most out of it. This is especially true in the case of the AF system -- most people who try it at first seem to get terrible results, and think the AF system is no good. Once they've gotten some practice at keeping the AF brackets centered on a "focusable" area of the subject, they get dramatically better performance. Another important problem area for some people is the viewfinder. It's smaller than SLR users are used to, and you need to keep your eye centered behind it accurately to avoid blackouts (the G2 has been improved somewhat over the G1 in this area.) It took me about a week to get fully comfortable with the viewfinder; now I'm perfectly happy with it and don't think about it at all, but I've heard from some people who just never got comfortable with it and were dissatisfied with the camera as a result. Spend some time in a store looking through the camera and getting used to the view before you commit! To try to deal with some of your specific questions and concerns: -- Normally I suggest to people that they compare the features of both cameras; if they don't really need the extra features of the G2, they can save some money by buying the G1 and still get equally-good pictures. In your case, though, I think the G2 would have the edge for both portraits and action. Contrary to the (bogus) criticisms you may have read on the 'Net, the G1's focusing system is quite accurate in most situations -- however, in the specific case of using the 90mm lens at its widest aperture AND closest focusing distance, there's some risk of misfocusing and the G2 (which has a wider-base AF sensor) would be a better bet. For action, the G2 has the edge because it gives you the choice of single or continuous autofocusing. --I shoot a lot of indoor available-light action (ballet rehearsals and classes) with both G cameras and they perform very well. The excellent full-aperture performance of the lenses is a big plus. However, I'm usually working under conditions of normal room light. If your anthropological pictures often call for action pictures in very dim lighting conditions, you may find the G series lenses are just not fast enough for your needs. For example, the Gs' normal lens is a 45mm f/2 and the tele is a 90mm f/2.8; many SLRs, and Leica rangefinder cameras, would give you access to normal and medium tele lenses of 1 to 2 full stops faster (of course, these lenses are also considerably bigger and heavier.) Only you can tell, based on your own picture-taking conditions, whether f/2 and f/2.8 are fast enough, or if you'd need more. Another thing you've got to keep in mind if you often travel to "somewhat remote areas" is that the G cameras are totally dependent on their two CR2 lithium batteries. These batteries are light, small, and have good shelf life, making it easy to carry spares... but they're still not available absolutely everywhere. If I were planning to make any exotic trips with a G, I'd want to carry spare CR2s AND the acessory cold-weather battery pack and adapter, which let you power the camera off AA batteries. And even with that, I'd be sorely tempted to throw an old manual camera (such as a cheap, used, leaf-shutter rangefinder 35 -- a Minolta Hi-Matic, Canon QL17, or similar) into the bottom of my luggage, just in case my G and its batteries packed it in! --I can't compare AF performance directly to Nikon SLRs, since I don't own them. However, I do own a Minolta 9xi, which has a very good reputation for AF performance. I'd say there are very few situations in which it outperforms the G2, and some in which the G2 would do better. Particularly when using wide-angle lenses, the G2 should be capable of better performance than any SLR system, because it does not operate through the camera lens. In really dark places, the G2 can focus (at least at close distances) in no light at all, since it has an active infrared system in addition to its passive AF system; an SLR, such as the 9xi, would need to use its focusing assist light, which could distract the subjects and draw unwanted attention to the photographer. (The G1 also uses an assist light in dim conditions.) --It's true that an accessory called the GA-1 allows Contax SLR lenses to be used on the G's, but I've never seen one and I don't think it's very popular. There are a LOT of limitations to its use -- the most important being that autofocus does NOT work. You have to use the camera's manual focus assist, read the distance off its LCD scale, and set it on the lens' focusing scale. This only lenses whose diameters are small enough (<66mm) not to block the AF windows... and even so, Contax recommends you stop down to f/4 or smaller to give enough depth of field to cover possible focusing errors. With lenses that are bigger, wider, or longer, you're absolutely on your own -- it's sheer guesswork. Considering that one of the big appeal factors of the G series is the excellent performance of the lenses made specifically for it, an adapter that lets you use only a limited range of other lenses and forces you to scale-focus them is probably not a big attraction! Re longer G lenses, I heard rumors last year that Zeiss was working on a 135mm lens for the G series, but it never appeared and I'm skeptical that significantly longer lenses are planned. For one thing, the 90/2.8 is about at the limit for what the autofocus system can handle accurately (because the size of the camera limits the base length that can be used.) For another, the existing viewfinder system doesn't support anything longer than 90mm. The rumored 135mm lens was supposedly going to get around both limitations by incorporating a magnifier attachment that would fit over the viewfinder and AF windows, somewhat in the manner of the one on the 135mm f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit lens for Leica M cameras. However, such a thing would be big and clunky, which would counteract the appeal of the G system's compactness. Overall, my impressions of the G2 are quite favorable -- although you have to remember that I've had a lot of experience with the G1 and plenty of time to learn its quirks. They're my favorite cameras and I use them enthusiastically -- but I always feel I need to remind people that they are a completely different type of camera from either an autofocus SLR or a conventional rangefinder camera, and that you'll need to do a bit of learning to get the most out of them. IF it suits your needs, IF its limitations (lens speed and focal length range, battery dependence) don't hamper your photography and IF you can take some time to get comfortable with it, you will probably be delighted with its handling and performance. If not, you'll probably wind up feeling you made an expensive mistake! Sorry this is so long, but a G2 is a big investment and I figured you'd want all the info possible! Good luck in your decision...
Contax G and SLRs G2 vs. SLR: Image Quality
Yes, they've been consistently good, although even after my G1 experience I find I still have a bit of learning to do. The G2's meter system is somewhat more center-weighted, for one thing, and the single/continuous AF business mentioned above takes some skill to manage smoothly. The G2 also has extra custom functions that are helpful in some situations but better turned off in others. It's not like starting up the learning curve from scratch, as I had to do with the G1, but the fine points are taking a while to master. In terms of performance, all other things being equal, I feel that a good picture with one of the G's will generally be sharper than one with the 9xi. Most of the difference is in lens quality, although I think the G's lack of vibration also has something to do with it. Remember, though, it's not strictly an apples-to-aples comparison. All my Minolta lenses are high-speed to super-speed: I have the 35mm f/2, the 50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.4 (my favorite), 100mm f/2, and 200mm f/2.8. The comparable G lenses -- 45mm f/2 and 90mm f/2.8 -- are much slower, more conservative designs that are easier to design for maximum sharpness. A side issue to that is that there are some situations where I might want to use the G, but just can't because I need a faster lens. None of the G lenses are really high-speed. So, even though the Contax 90mm f/2.8 is theoretically sharper than the Minolta 85mm f/1.4, for example, in low-light situations I'll often get a sharper picture with the Minolta because I can shoot at, say, 1/125 @ f/1.4 instead of 1/30 @ f/2.8. If you're not a low-light fanatic this isn't really a factor, of course, but for me it's the biggest limiting factor in my use of the Contax. G2 vs. SLR: Autofocus
I can't answer that question directly as I have a G2 but not an N90s. I can tell you that overall, it seems almost as quick as the AF on my Minolta 9xi, which is still considered one of the faster ones, and as quick as if not quicker than the original Canon EOS-1 I use at the office. The advantage that the state-of-the-art AF SLRs have over the G2 is not so much autofocus speed, as their multi-point, crossed-sensor arrays. The G2 uses a small, single, non-crossed AF sensor, so you have to aim the AF bracket fairly precisely and may have trouble focusing on subjects that contain only horizontal lines. I seldom find these to be drawbacks in the kinds of pictures I take. A Matter of Preference
Both the G's (1 and 2) have become my "preferred" cameras -- they're my first choice UNLESS the circumstances call for something else. If I need a longer lens than 90mm and/or faster than f/2 and 2.8, for example, I have to go to the Minoltas; they've also got spot meters, which is a big plus in shooting stage performances (which I do a lot.) Then again, if I need faster lenses PLUS nearly silent operation, I get out one of my old Canon rangefinder cameras. (For the Canons I have 50mm f/1.4 AND f/0.95 lenses plus a 100mm f/2 -- giving me a similar focal-length range to the Contax, but a full 1 to 2 stops faster even though not as sharp and contrasty.) And there are medium-format occasions when I have to drag out the big old Bronica, too. But if I don't need any of this specialized stuff -- and for probably 85% of my picture-taking, I don't -- the Contaxes are what I like to use. I suppose what I like best about them is that the whole outfit is very light and compact; I enjoy the feeling of mobility I have when I'm using it, compared to the tied-down feeling I get lugging around two motorized Minoltas plus all that high-speed glass. I also like the fact that the Contaxes are comparatively quiet and discreet -- I don't feel that I'm drawing as much attention to myself while picture-taking. Of course the Canon rangefinder cameras are almost as compact and even quieter -- but I do appreciate the Contaxes' built-in conveniences such as autoexposure and autofocus. And yes, I admit that I like the fact that it's an aesthetically pleasing object rather than a big black plastic blob! I guess the key benefit is responsiveness: Overall, now that I've accustomed myself to the quirks of working with the Contax, its operation is almost completely "transparent" to me. I can work for hours without thinking consciously about the camera at all. I do have a couple of caveats specifically about the G2, though. One is the viewfinder. I always warned people about the G1 that if they planned to buy one, they should spend a lot of time first making sure they could get comfortable with the finder. If you're used to the Cinemascope view of an SLR, it's pretty dinky... and you have to learn to keep your eye centered accurately behind it or it'll black out on you (practice again!) The G2's viewfinder has been redesigned to have more eye relief (good for eyeglasses wearers such as myself) and with the wide and normal lenses it's at least as sharp and clear as the G1's. But when using the 90mm lens, the G2 viewfinder has noticeably less contrast than the G1. When I first saw this, I thought maybe I was just imagining it, or maybe that my camera was defective -- but I went back to the store and looked through two others, and they were exactly the same. Now that I'm used to it, it doesn't bother me -- but with the G2 it's more important than ever to make sure you can get comfortable with the finder view! The other hangup with the G2 is that with its additional capabilities -- continuous AF, custom functions, etc. -- it's noticeably more complex to learn than the G1. For example, I had to study the logic-grid chart in the instruction manual pretty intensively to learn all the interactions among the AE, AF and motor-drive modes. I've already told several people that if they mostly take pictures of non-action subjects in good light, and don't really need features such as continuous AF and 4fps film advance... they might be happier with the G1, which has very straightforward controls and no confusing options. I admit that of the two, I'm still more comfortable using the G1, although I'm sure it will even out as I get more experience with the G2. And on the other hand, of course, some people enjoy having a camera that's more demanding to master! I hope all this opinionation hasn't made things more confusing for you. But there's so much ill-informed hearsay about the G's on the 'Net ("...well, I heard that somebody posted that somebody told them that 'Chasseur d'Images' said...") that I thought a real "user report" might be of some benefit to you. In summary: I get great results with my G's, and I really like them. But they're not for everybody, or for every kind of photography... so take your time and do your homework before taking the plunge!
Contax G and Leica M How They Compare A Leica user asked:
Good points: Superb lens quality (if your Leica lenses are contemporaneous with your M3, the Planar is almost undoubtedly superior.) Lots of convenience features (e.g. autoload, motorized advance, TTL autoexposure and autoflash) in a very compact system. Nicely made, straighforward controls (mostly), easy to handle. Bad points: The viewfinder is smaller than what you're used to on your M3, and takes some getting used to. (Make sure you're comfortable with the viewfinder before buying a G1 or G2. Most people have no trouble getting accustomed to it, but some never do -- different eyesight, possibly -- and this is one common cause of dissatisfaction with the camera.) It takes some practice to use the autofocus system effectively. The motorized advance is noisier than your M3, although still quieter than most motorized SLRs. Limited range of lenses, especially high-speed optics (nothing faster than f/2.) The G1 is a bit different from either an SLR or a traditional RF such as a Leica, and takes a bit of practice to get the most out of it. Despite its automatic conveniences, it's still a pretty traditional camera and demands some involvement from the photographer for best results. People who buy it thinking they can use it like an expensive point-and-shoot have been very disappointed. On the other hand, if you like the discreet, responsive style of photography possible with a Leica, but wish it had a few "modern" features just for convenience, you might like the G1 very much. Contax G and Leica M: Viewfinders in Detail
Let me start out with my usual disclaimer that, IMHO, the Leica and the Contax are different types of cameras and shouldn't be directly compared (any more than you'd compare, say, a Leica and a Sinar P2.) Having said that, though, I'll try to compare the viewfinders, which use completely different types of optical system. The Leica M6 viewfinder is an afocal "inverted telescope" design and has considerably larger magnification than the Contax G2 viewfinder (about 0.78x vs. 0.57x -- the Contax figure is for the 45mm lens.) As you noted, the Leica finder's magnification is constant whatever lens you mount; the fields of different lenses are delineated by white framelines projected into the view by a separate optical system. These framelines appear in pairs -- typically, the lines for one wide-angle lens and one tele lens appear together. This system has several advantages. The view through the finder is very bright and almost totally free of distortion. As you note, the framelines are sharp and clear. They also move diagonally as you focus, to compensate for parallax error (the fact that the viewfinder "sees" a slightly different area from the lens at close distances.) With longer lenses, you can see considerable area outside the frameline -- some people find this makes it easier to shoot action pictures, as you can see a moving subject approach the boundaries of the picture area. There are also some disadvantages to the Leica system. Some of the frame "lines" (such as those for the 75mm lens) aren't really lines, just corners; I always had trouble visualizing the actual boundaries of the picture with such a sketchy reference. The 28mm frame is at the very edges of the finder's field of view; eyeglasses wearers may not be able to see it at all. And as you note, the frames for the 90mm and 135mm lenses are only a small percentage of the total finder area, so it can be hard to concentrate on details of the subject with these lenses. The finder has no built-in diopter adjustment (but can accommodate add-on diopter correction lenses.) The Contax, on the other hand, has a zoom viewfinder -- the actual magnification changes according to the lens that's mounted. The optical system is a real-image type similar to those used on the old Leitz Imarect and Zeiss turret finders. This system provides a sharply-focused outer border for the image, so the field of view is as clearly delineated as in the Leica finder. There are no projected framelines -- the outer border defines the field of view of the lens in use, and also moves diagonally to compensate for parallax error. The advantages and disadvantages of this system are pretty much the opposite of the Leica's. Because there are no projected framelines, you can't see objects outside the lens' field of view (although with the 90mm lens, the finder magnification is so close to 1:1 that you can view with both eyes open, which helps.) As noted, the view isn't as large as the Leica's, and because of the more complex optical system, it's not quite as bright. Some people also find it difficult to keep their viewing eye centered accurately behind it; if your eye drifts off center, the viewing image can darken or go out of focus. However, the view through the Contax finder is less confusing, especially to users accustomed to SLRs. What you see looking through the finder is pretty much what the picture will look like -- there are no extraneous framelines, and the view is magnified to match the magnification of the lens. The only distractions within the image area are a pair of unobtrusive black brackets that define the autofocus area. The finder has built-in diopter adjustment covering a range of -2 to +0.3, and the G2 also accepts supplementary diopter lenses if necessary (the G1 does not.) As a longtime rangefinder camera user AND an owner of both the G1 and G2 since their introduction, I feel at home with both types of viewfinder system. It took me a while to adapt to the G finder (mostly in learning to keep my eye centered behind it and finding exactly the right diopter correction setting for my vision) but now that I've done that, I can view through the camera comfortably for hours without strain. I still prefer a conventional RF camera when shooting action with a medium-tele lens (because I can see the subject before it moves into the frame) but the trick of using the G with both eyes open makes it almost as good. In short, I feel that most users would eventually be happy with either viewing system (the Leica is probably more immediately comfortable, while the Contax takes a little experience.) To me, if you HAVE to compare these two cameras, it makes more sense to decide between them on the basis of such differences as the range of lenses available (Leica is stronger here, especially in the area of super-speed lenses) or the range of built-in conveniences (the Contax is far ahead here with motorized advance, autofocus and autoexposure in a very compact body) or other features for specific needs (for example, it's important to some users that the Leica can function without batteries; it's important to others that the Contax has TTL autoflash while the Leica does not.) Sorry for the long post, but I'm trying NOT to be dogmatic and just saying "X is better than Y"... Is the Contax Worth The Money? (And Leicas Again...)
It's certainly a very well-made camera, and you can take pictures of extremely high quality with it if you use it intelligently. The same is true of any well-made 35mm camera, but my own experience with the G1 has been that, all other things being equal, I get sharper pictures with it than I do with my 35mm SLRs (and considerably better than the elderly Leicas I used to own.) As to whether the results are better than current Leica equipment, I couldn't say, and I'm not sure that's the relevant question anyway. Certainly in terms of image quality, any decent medium-format camera would blow them both out of the tub. The G1 represents one style of compromise among image quality, size, and convenience features; a Leica M represents a somewhat different compromise; an auto-everything SLR is another sort of compromise. Only you can say which compromise will suit you best. As to whether it's "worth the money," that's an even more subjective question. If you're on a tight budget, a Pentax K1000 that you CAN buy will take better pictures for you than a Contax G that you CAN'T buy. When I first bought my G1, it was a helluva financial stretch for me, but I've enjoyed using it and have made a lot of really satisfying pictures with it, so to me it was "worth the money"; for somebody else, who knows? Contax G and Leica: Image Quality
I don't currently own an M Leica (I think I sold my M4-P system in about 1990), so I can't answer this question by making side-by-side comparisons. All I can do is look at pictures in my files that I shot with my various M's and lenses, and compare them to ones I've shot more recently with the G's. This poses the risk of some distortions: for example, films have improved over the years, and this might make current pictures look better than older ones for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the cameras or lenses. And it's possible that my shooting technique has gotten better... although then again, it may have gotten worse! Still, keeping these caveats in mind, I'd have to say that my overall impression is that the G's image quality is at least equal to the images I got from the Leica, and in many cases it's significantly better. This doesn't really surprise me, for a couple of reasons:
I always considered the pictures I got with my Leica lenses very satisfactory (except occasionally from the older of my two 90mm f/2 Summicrons, which was sharp but flarey at full aperture, and from my 50mm f/1.5 Summarit, which badly flared any light sources in the picture area -- sometimes a pretty effect, but other times NOT what I wanted!) But the current G lenses seem significantly better overall. Their most striking quality to me is something I call "microcontrast" -- even small details are imaged with very clear edge definition, which gives a remarkable richness to textures such as fabric and skin. In fact, I'd say that the three G lenses I currently own (35mm f/2 I just got, 45mm f/2, and 90mm f/2.8) are the best lenses in those categories of any I've ever owned or used. If you prefer "objective" measurement, I think you'll find my impressions are generally borne out by lens tests in back issues of 'Pop Photo' -- the G lenses have tested at least as well as and usually better than any Leica equivalents. (I put more confidence in the 'Pop Photo' tests than some of those quoted so reverently on rec.photo for two reasons: 'Pop' uses very sophisticated statistical techniques to relate its raw numbers to real-world performance; and, you can check the actual magazine articles, rather than having to just rely on net.hearsay!) Again, though, keep in mind that sharpness isn't the only thing -- for example, if you really need an f/1.4 medium tele, the Leica system has it and the Contax G system doesn't.
G1 or G2? G1 vs. G2: Features Of the Contax G1, a rec.photo poster had asked:
To which another poster had replied:
My response: Now that I've had some practice with my new G2 (enough to compare it with the G1 I still own) I'm not sure I'd second this advice. There's nothing particularly temperamental about focusing on the G1 once you get the knack of keeping the focus frame centered on a "focusable" part of the subject -- which you also have to do on the G2. And, the G1 is a bit smaller, noticeably lighter, and has considerably more straightforward controls compared to the G2. (I think the viewfinder is a tiny bit clearer at 90mm, too.) I'd say go with the G2 if you really need features such as 4fps motor, 1/200 X sync speed, 1/6000 top shutter speed and/or switchable continuous/single autofocus. If you DON'T need these features -- for example, if you mostly want a compact outfit with really good lenses for outdoor, scenic, travel, and other kinds of photography that don't involve fast-moving objects -- you might actually prefer the G1! You can buy an extra lens with the money you'll save. G1 vs. G2: Autofocus
I don't know. I've never had any focusing problems with the G1 once I had used it for a few weeks. I did learn that when you're using the 90mm lens on the G1 at its closest focusing distance (1 meter) it's prudent to stop it down to f/4 or smaller, rather than trying to use it at f/2.8. But that's a pretty routine consequence of short-base rangefinders: I had to do exactly the same thing with my Leica CL, and in fact Leitz specifically recommended the 90mm f/4 Elmar for it instead of the f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit just to keep users from having focus-accuracy problems at close distances! From the specs, though, it does appear that the G2's focusing system has been redone specifically to improve close-distance focusing accuracy. The AF windows' base is a little longer, and there's a separate active-infrared system specifically for close-range use. One of the first things I did when I got the G2 was put the 90mm lens on it, open it up to f/2.8, and shoot some available-light pictures of people at close distances, focusing carefully on the near eye. Examining the pictures, I found that the focus point was always where I had put it; when I first got the G1 and tried the same thing with it, it would sometimes focus on the far eye instead. This suggests that the G2 is improved in this area, although it's possible I was just luckier with the G2. Basically, my results have been good enough that I don't worry about it: if I'm shooting the 90mm lens on the G2 at 1 meter, and I need to use f/2.8, I just go ahead and do it. If possible, though, I'd still rather stop down a bit -- but I'd most likely do the same thing with ANY camera, if only because of the very limited depth of field. G1 vs. G2: How They Differ
The G2 is slightly bigger, although not by much, and slightly but noticeably heavier. The specs:
In case you need some other basic specs, here are the ones that are significantly different between the two cameras: Shutter speeds
Metering range, TTL measurement (ISO 100 film, f/2 lens)
Metering range, external meter (used only with 16mm Hologon lens)
TTL autoflash film speed range
Drive modes
Custom functions G1:
G2:
Accessories Choosing a G2 Flash
No; I've got the older TLA140 for emergencies, and that's good enough for me. I hardly ever use on-camera flash anyway, as I think I mentioned in a previous mail. I do have the TLA remote cord, and sometimes I'll use this to get the TLA140 off the camera and create a little "modeling" when I'm shooting in conditions where the ambient light is plentiful but flat (fluorescent-lit offices are often like this.) Frankly, the new flash made me wonder the same thing you're wondering about red-eye... also, I like the fact that the TLA140 is so thin that it takes up almost no bag space, while the new one is a little chunkier. I think that if I used on-camera flash heavily, I'd just go ahead and step up to one of the Contax SLR flash units (which are fully compatible with the G) so I could get stuff like bounce capability and second-curtain sync. Of course, these flashes don't match the G2's finish, and some of them are considerably larger than the camera itself! What Lenses to Buy?
As to the lenses, it depends a bit on your tastes and also how much money you want to spend up front. I usually work with normal and medium tele lenses, so I started out with the 45 and 90 and find this a very useful combination. If you do a lot of interior work, though, or just prefer a wider view, it might make more sense to start out with the 90 and the new 35mm f/2 Planar. I just got this lens and it performs really well -- it's every bit as good as the other lenses in the G line, and that's saying something! If you want to plan ahead for future lens buys, one way to think about this is what "spread" you prefer between lenses. Some people like to have their focal lengths fairly closely spaced, so their pictures have a "unity" to them; others prefer to see a more dramatic difference between their lenses. Someone who likes closedly-spaced lenses might want to start out with the 45 and the 90, then later add the 28mm f/2.8. Somebody who enjoys getting dramatically different perspectives might want to start out with the 35mm and 90mm, then eventually save up to add the new 21mm f/2.8. (I've only played with the 21mm in a store, but it's certainly an interesting lens!) Flash: Third-Party Units
I've got the TLA140 simply as an emergency light. I hardly ever use it -- I almost always work either by available light or with an AC-powered studio flash system, nothing in between. But it's a well-made little unit and has worked well the few times I've tried it. It's powered by a single CR123A 3v lithium battery (duh, would have been nice if it took the same battery as the camera, but no such luck!), covers the angle of a 28mm lens, weighs 80g without the battery, and has a guide number in meters of 14 with ISO 100 film. Sorry, I don't have any info on the TLA200. However, you may not need this info, since you may not need a new flash unit at all! Even a lot of G owners don't realize that the flash system is completely compatible with ALL the TLA series flash units made for Contax SLRs, and supports all their features including TTL metering and second-curtain sync. So if you can get a dedication module for your Sunpak equipment that would work with a Contax SLR, it would also work with a G2. (If you don't mind having a flash unit that might be bigger than the camera, that is!) Polarizing Filters: What Kind?
A circular polarizer should NOT be necessary -- a linear polarizer should be fine. The only cameras that require a circular polarizer are those that have a partly-reflecting surface somewhere in the light path, because a partly-reflecting surface introduces its own polarization that could interact with a linear polarizer. All autofocus SLR cameras have a partly-reflecting main mirror (because part of the light has to be sent downward to the AF module, while most is reflected upward to the viewing and metering systems) so they all require a circular polarizer for consistent results. The G cameras, however, don't have any such problems. The AF system views through external windows, NOT through the lens, so it doesn't care what kind of filter you're using (a big plus if you're fond of very dense filters.) And the metering system directly reads the light reflected straight off the first shutter curtain (which is neutral gray in color to provide a "target") via a meter cell in the top of the camera "throat." No semi-reflecting surfaces, no polarization problems! The TTL metering should compensate just fine for the polarizer's filter factor, and it'll have no effect on the AF at all as the AF system doesn't "see" through it. Since you don't view through the lens, though, you'll have to determine the best setting for the polarizer by holding it up to your eye, noting the angle that gives the effect you want, then attaching it to the lens and setting it to the same angle. Not exactly convenient! Battery Life
Well, the instruction books say about 80 24-exposure rolls... at room temperature and according to the "Contax standard test method," whatever that is. All I know is that I got my G1 on 12/29/94, and am only on my fourth set of batteries! However, my usage patterns may not be typical. Because a lot of my photography involves the performing arts, I tend to shoot fairly intensively over a short period -- say, 10-15 rolls in a couple of days at dress rehearsals -- then might not touch the camera again for three or four weeks. Somebody who uses the camera more constantly might go through batteries more quickly. I can't even give you a rough idea in terms of number of rolls per set of batteries, because with an AF camera a lot of your battery power goes into focusing. Often while shooting a rehearsal or work session, I'll follow a director or performers with the camera, refocusing constantly to be ready if anything photogenic happens, but only actually fire the camera every 10 or 15 minutes. Somebody who works in a more decisive manner -- focusing only when he's sure he's ready to take a picture -- could probably get a lot more pictures per set of batteries. Even so, though, the G1 seems pretty efficient. I'm still on my first set of batteries in the G2, so don't have any basis to judge its battery consumption -- although I suspect it'll go through batteries a little faster because of its heavier motor (4fps vs. 2fps), continuous autofocus capability, and so on.
Bottom-Line Advice The Final Word
As I said, just make really sure you're comfortable with the viewfinder and controls, that the somewhat limited range of lenses will fit your needs, and that you're not bothered by things such as the fact that it won't work if the batteries go dead. Some people are really disturbed by these limitations, while others (such as myself) find them no problem at all. If it does suit your needs and work habits, I can almost guarantee that you'll really like the performance of the lenses and the overall quality of your results! [Return to Top of Page] [Return to Main Page] |