Okay, I will fess-up. I was in Louisiana near the end of June. I was taking some photos which would eventually be used in a brochure. Nothing really important. I needed to use a 50 mm on my Nikon. I pulled out the 50 mm f/1.4 which I hadn't used in years. The thing wouldn't focus at infinity. My thought was that something had failed and I used a 35 [which really didn't work]. I didn't think much about it until the other day. I pulled out to 50 to see what was wrong. It had a Nikon close-up filter on it. Arghh. Feel stupid? Now I blame it on the heat and humidity. :)

Just a story, but I have a question. I prefer the software on this board because Ise speeks HTML gooder than Ise does English. Like returning to your native language. But I can't find things in the archives. So I will ask again. A number of people have made negative comments about the G2, without giving much information. What are the problems with the camera?

Thanks,

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), August 08, 2001

Answers

I haven't actually used one. As far as I got was looking through it. The view was essentially the same as through my Olympus Stylus. I guess if you like that look, it's fine, but coming from Leicas I expected something better, and that one thing, alone, was enough to discourage looking deeper into the idea of getting one. I suspect that people coming from a SLR position might find the viewfinder somewhat similar to what they're used to, and more tolerable, but the view through an SLR is exactly why I use Leicas instead.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), August 08, 2001.

since I put the hood on my 28 noticed how dificult it was to set, so decided never take it off and started designing a hood cap, i did it of neoprene, sew a thread line in the middle of it, and that was it, a perfect cap for nothing, now every time i take a picture with this lens, i remind how important is to take pictures without lens caps on.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), August 08, 2001.

I loved the G2 viewfinder much better than the Leica, could see all of it with my glasses on and it corrects for field size (shows correct framing at all distances). I had no problem using the bar- graphic to manual focus with the AF spot centered on whatever I wanted to focus on. Why I didn't buy the G2 was for 2 reasons. First, there are no DOF markings on the lenses. Since I've been using the 1st version Tri-Elmar, I don't think now that would be as much of an issue. There is no lens longer than 90mm, and I do use 135mm (sometimes with a 2x) on the Leica. That was (and is) the reason I ended up with a Hexar RF.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), August 08, 2001.

I have a Mamiya 7. That does not have TTL metering. So it if the lens cap is left on, then you won't know.

Anyway, once I was taking pictures of my son with this Mamiya 7 at Disney with Mickey Mouse. I hurried to get about 5 great shots in the 30 seconds I was allowed. My other son kept trying to tell me something while I was taking those pictures. I kept telling "not now!". Then when I finshed I asked him "OK, what was it you were trying to tell me?".

"Your lens cap is on", he answered...

-- Mike Foster (mike567@acgecorp.com), August 08, 2001.

The G1 and G2 are superb cameras in many ways. Superlative optics with fit and finish rivaling the best Japan has to offer (which ain't bad). To me, they represent the pinnical of the Point and Shoot genre. However, they are no more a rangefinder camera than a Rollei Prego is a rangefinder camera (my opinion).

What makes a Leica for me is the simple mechanical design (I wish they'd ditch the TTL flash circuit), the lineage and tradition, and the adherence to quality. While they are far from perfect, more than any camera I have used (save my old Nikon S rangefinder) the Leica stimulates an interest in photography in me, and forces me to become a better craftsman due to the requirment that I not only understand aperture, shutter speed, focusing, DOF and etc., but forces me to learn to make decisions about these fundamental issues in photography in an instant, for the decisive moment of exposure. It is a real joy for me to receive my slides back and find virtually all the exposures correct and the vast majority of images focused where I wanted them focused. With a Leica M, this does not occur because of camera automation, but because I have learned to use this tool, like a craftsman.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), August 08, 2001.

Dan:

Yes, I agree with you. I have a couple of Leica M's. Still, last year I was traveling for 27 weeks; the job thing. I am thinking about something simple with good lenses. I don't like the small p&s cameras.

That was the basis of my question.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), August 08, 2001.

Art,

Sorry about your filter problem. I hope the 35mm shot was O.K.

One thing that I have read about over and over from Leica users that tried the G series Contax is the lag time between the shutter release and the actual exposure being made. Even when you focus manually, there is the electronic focus shift for every exposure (unless you walk around with a half pressed shutter release). The Leica M is one of the fastest cameras in this regard, with the time measured in milliseconds.

I also do not embrace optics, even very good ones like those in the Contax line, that forgo essential things like depth of field marks. I do too much street / grab shooting with pre-set lenses, and I use these marks all of the time. A hyper-focused or zone focused lens will be faster than auto focus... especially when the shutter fires immediately.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), August 08, 2001.

I forgot. I am asking the question because I live in a very small city. Of course we have a major hospital for every 12,000 people and the second highest number of MD's per capita in the country [hence a very large Mercedes and Ferrari dealer]. We also have the largest number of photojounalism students per capita in the country and have more than one photo store. Still none carry Contax. Lots of Leica, Nikon, Pentax and Canon; but no Contax.

So I just wondered about other's opinions.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), August 08, 2001.

Dear Art; very nice to know you live at the Buckinham palace, but w2hat does it have to do with feeling stupid?. Just a practical question. I may deserve a practical answer.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), August 08, 2001.

Hey, this is not the LUG Mr Watson.

-- Sam Smith (Ruy_Lopez@hotmail.com), August 08, 2001.

R:

the Buckinham palace I am confused since I don't know what that means. We do have a Buck & Ham palace. It serves really good BBQ. :)

R, that was for fun, we should laugh.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), August 08, 2001.

I have been using a G2 with 21/28/45/90 lenses for more than two years along with my Leica M systems. IMHO, it's an excellent system for what it is. The G2 is a very different camera and should not be compared with the M as such. The Zeiss G lenses are on par with Leica M lenses (with the exception that G doesn't offer any fast lenses) although they have very different optical signatures.

Most of the negative comments about the G2 system are from users who have not really spent the time using it. Many Leica M users tried the G2 in the stores or shot few rolls or read somewhere else then voiced their opinions. For example, the issue of shutter lag, what is being said by earlier poster is simply not true. The G2 has a pre-focus button that can be easily engaged with the right thumb. Once you use this, the shutter release is as fast as the M6 (the same applied to the G2 manual focus). Because G2 is an auto-focus camera can be used for manual focus, something has to give - use the pre-focus bottom. One can make a similar argument that the a modern M6 has longer shutter lag than that of M3 because of the M6 has meter tripping mechanism built into its shutter release.

-- Cing-Dao Kan (cdkan@yahoo.com), August 08, 2001.

it was just a joke, sorry for the speling, didnīt meant to hurt no one feelings, specialy Artīs, that I know I didnīt

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), August 08, 2001.

I looked through a G2 finder in a camera store, and was immediately turned off. A small, squinty view of the world. If I don't like looking through the camera, I won't enjoy shooting with it.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), August 08, 2001.

My relatively new G2 was used at a function to take photos. The focus was really off. I lost a lot of shots (and face.) Of course, I didn't find out until the film was processed. After a trip to Kyocera in New Jersey, the focus worked fine. But you can't see when the focus is out, as you can with a Leica or an AF camera. The G2, you are just hoping it worked until you see the results. I could never again depend on the camera when results were critical--so I sold it. The focus spot doesn't match the exposure metering area, and can't be changed. (A $450 Nikon N80 lets you change either!) No complaint on optics, I wish I could buy those lenses at those prices for my M6! It's a nice travel camera for the well-heeled tourist.

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.com), August 08, 2001.

Re: G2 From what I understand, the most common complaints that Leicaphiles have about the G2 is that the focus noise is too loud, the autofocus isn't fast enough, the viewfinder is too small, &, the biggest 1 of all, they simply don't like the way the autofocus works. There's some validity to all of these criticisms, but they tend to be overblown by Leica purists. Yes, the G2 makes a focus sound, but it's not really that loud unless you're used to using an M to photograph meditating monks & such. Yes, the autofocus is not as fast as a Canon or Nikon SLR, but it's much faster than most people can manually focus an M (&, let's face it, zone focusing an M is not a perfect substitute for actual focus). Yes, the viewfinder is not as big & bright as on the M cameras, but it works fine for anyone used to an SLR. Yes, the autofocus is not as advanced as a Canon or Nikon SLR & there's no visual confirmation, but it works most of the time & no autofocus system is perfect. Not surprisingly, most Leicaphiles prefer manual cameras & were quite disappointed that the G series cameras were something completely new & not just a lower-cost manual RF alternative to the Leica (maybe they don't know that the old Zeiss Ikon Contaxes were actually more advanced & expensive than comparable thread mount Leicas). Others expected the G series to be even more advanced in their automation & were disappointed that they don't have as advanced electronics as the latest SLRs. Every camera design is a compromise, & you can't please everyone. I happily use both M Leicas & a G2 & can recognize that each camera has its strengths & weakenesses. The G2 & the Leica M6 are very different cameras that just happen to overlap in some areas--if you're not a purist, they're really complementary cameras, not competitors.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), August 09, 2001.

I owned and used a G2 kit (16/28/45/90 lenses) for two years. In the course of owning/using it, I marveled at the fact that the exposure system and focus were always so right on the money when I let them work. The lenses were excellent, I had no problem with the viewfinder. I never found either the focus system noise or lag particularly objectionable. The camera operated, smoothly, quickly, and produced beautiful photos.

What brought me back to Leica M was the ergonomics. The Contax G system is best used in an automatic mode and my working habits are best when using cameras manually. With the Contax, I was always forgetting to do something in the sequence I was used to or trying to manipulate the automation to do what I'd have done by setting an aperture or shutter speed manually. It just became annoying, and I decided to go back to what worked better for me despite fewer features and more changes of error.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey DiGiorgi (ramarren@bayarea.net), August 09, 2001.

I appreciate you thoughts on the matter. They were very helpful.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), August 09, 2001.