I know from reading this forum that some of you own the Contax G1/G2. Can anyone attest to it's durability regarding heavy use over several years?

-- Sanford (sanford@usa.com), March 26, 2002

Answers

I have used my G1 with 28/45/90 lenses for a couple years now. My use has been light (mostly vacations) and everything has worked flawlessly. The lenses are wickedly sharp and the body is nicely finished but the viewfinder is small and dim. If you don't mind the AF and accompanying noise, the Contax G system it is a very good value for the money.

-- Doug from Tumwater (dbaker9128@aol.com), March 26, 2002.

I used mine for just about 1 year exactly (2-Gs, 1-G1, lenses 21/28/35/ 45/90). In that time: all three bodies needed to go to Contax to adjust focus errors with the 90mm (factory misprogramming), all three bodies developed loose strap lugs, and at the end the 90mm began focusing all shots at the 'zero' position (i.e. slightly beyond infinity) with all bodies.

I was using Leica straps instead of the flimsy soft gray Contax straps - which may have been responsible for the loose lugs - the Leica straps' wider plastic retainers may have applied too much torque to the strap lugs when the camera was swinging free at my side. (But the same straps aren't loosening my Leica lugs!)

IMHE this is about par for post-1990 Kyocera/Contax gear. If it DOESN'T shed a few parts in the first year it just doesn't love you!

I switched to the "L" camera more because of lens color/contrast and the fact the G2's autoexposure/autofocus 'hesitated' once too often and lost me a moment (M7 wannabees take note) than because of their construction, which is really pretty good (=F100 quality).

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 26, 2002.

I don't use my G2 system every day, but when I do, I use it pretty hard (e.g., in stressful &/or rushed situations when I like/need to have automation) & so far it's held up just fine. Most recently it easily survived a day bumping into rocks (& my M3) on a hot day spent hiking around Joshua Tree Nat'l Park on vacation (the finish is a bit pinged up now, though).

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), March 27, 2002.

I own a Leica, not a Contax for reliabiity. Under normal conditions I am sure the G will be fine. If you are asking whether the G will be as reliable, well, ask yourself this..."why haven't Contax carried out reliability tests compared to the M, as they have compared techno features on their website?"

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.

I owned both an M5 and a G2. The N5 I traded for a Hasselblad and never regretted it. The G2 is the best rangefinder ever made. A fine viewfinder in which you see the perspective of the lens you are using. In the Leica you have to compose between frames and they get very small from 75mm onwards. The autofocus never failed me, even in dimly lit situations. The mechanical quality of the G2 is superb and so are the lenses. They prerform the same als Laica's only they cost about 1/3th of Leica's. Of course the aperture priority is a plus and for the price of a M7 you can buy a G2 with 35 and 90mm lenses (new).

Just remember, the M7 is a 1950's camera with aperture priority which was already standard on most camera's in the 1970's. If you want to pay a lot extra for just the name and the myth, buy Leica, if you want an excellent camera and lenses but no nonsens, buy the G2. Frank

-- Frank Bunnik (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.

The G2 is not a rangefinder camera IMO, it's an AF compact with interchangeable lenses.

-- Lucien (Lucien_vd@yahoo.fr), March 27, 2002.

The G2 is a rangefinder, no doubt about that, just an electronic one. Frank

-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.

Contax G the finest rangefinder ever made.??? I've been seduced into that nonsense not once, but twice! I dearly wanted it to be true. But after owning two Black kits and the "G zoom" all I felt was poorer...in cash (resale sucks), in sprit..the camera has no soul or real history save the name, and in images...no fast lenses... and while technically sharp in the Japanese manner, "0" character to the tonal range compaired to Leica. As far as the tiny, dim viewfinder showing the perspective of the lenses...? Only an SLR can do that. The G viewfinder crops the view to each lens, but shows none of the "perspective" distortion of a 28mm, or none of the foreshorting of the 90. In fact the bright line Leica viewfinder is one of it's major strengths because it isn't a claustrophobic view, allowing observation of action outside the shooting area. It is one of the things that defines a serious rangefinder, and seperates it from the SLR world as well as the hybrid, "bells and whistles" wanna-bes. What I would conceed is that the Contax G is the finest, most expensive, "no brainer" point-and-shoot in the world. Unfortunately I can't even do that because my Leica Minilux regularly produced better images than the "G" did, in the same location and same subject matter. My conclusion after owing two of these wallet drainers, was that the Contax fills the need gap for those people who don't quite know the difference as measured in subtile nuance and rich tonal gradation. The G is a seductive camera to be sure. Like a beautiful woman who takes your money then leaves you "chilled".

Twice bitten, so I ain't ever petting that dog again -Marc

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), March 27, 2002.

Sorry Marc but I don't agree with you (but that will not be a surprise). Sure, the zoom is not the best lens in it's system, you should have used the other lenses. They are tacksharp and render beautiful colour reproduction. No fast lenses, who needs a faster lens than 2,0? I used the last version of the 2,0 35 summicron (non asph), the 2,0 50mm summicron and a 2,8 90mm (elmarit?). For the G the 21, 35, 45 and 90 and I found the Zeiss lenses MUCH better in sharpness and tonalrange. Leica may look better in a labtest but that does not proof one thing.

The camera has no soul, no history? Why do you have a camera, for the amount of talk about it or to take pictures with. A bit of soul might be nice but not if it makes up more than half the price.

The G is certainly no point and shoot camera. You still have to select the aperture, measure the light and focus. Viewing outside the shooting area? How needs that, except for the manual rangefinders, no other camera offers it and nobody misses it.

Talking about small viewfinders? The minilux probably has the smallest one around. Better pictures, I can't believe it.

Frank

-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.

I looked seriously into a Contax G2 a while ago because I also thought that the viewfinder, which adjusts for field size (focal length loss due to extension), would give me an easier time composing full-frame. I discovered that the frames show only about 85% of the on-film view, but unlike the Leica, there are no "tricks" that can be applied (such as estimating outside the frame, or calling up another frameline set). Furthermore, while I found manual focusing with the electronic rangefinder just as convenient as the Leica's mechanical rangefinder, the lack of DOF scales on the Contax lenses made shooting an immense chore. I deal with a similar problem with my v.1 Tri-Elmar (the 2nd version's DOF scales are an incomprehensible maze to me), but at least the prime lenses all have scales. Another brutal flaw in the Contax design is the fact that even in manual focus mode the lens returns to infinity between shots, meaning additional time between pressing the shutter until the shot can be taken.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 27, 2002.

Frank, Of course you disagree, you're stuck with owing a G system without the option to dump it without taking a huge loss. I know, I've been there. On the other hand I've sold Leica's for more than I paid for them in the first place. By the way, I did use all of the G lenses, not just the Zoom. Who needs anything below f/2. Me. With that line of reasoning why anything faster than f/5.6? Or f/10 like the no-brainer point 'n shoots? Trying to manual focus the G is a nightmare of an after thought. The flash is a joke. And the finish started to show wear with-in a year. I had a 1932 Leica that showed less wear. Most of all it really comes down to a matter of opinion about the images. In my INFORMED opinion (having owned and extensivel used both systems) I prefer the Leica results by a wide margin. So do my clients, who respond to more shots from the Leica than any other of my 10 cameras. And they know squat about "Bench Tests". It's the emotional component they're reacting to. For whatever the reason I capture it more frequently with the Leicas. I don't question it, I just keep doing it. When I want my camera to do the thinking I use my EOS 1v. It's smarter than any other camera I've used, and has "L" lenses that also perform well in low light. Next to the EOS 1v, the contax G is an electronic village idiot. But, hey, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Gee, Frank, wouldn't you be more comfortable using a Contax forum? I'm sure you'd find a lot of folks that would agree with you there. What did you expect in a Leica forum? Electronic Lemmings? People who really wanted a G, but paid more to get a Leica? Hello! Anyone home?

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.com), March 27, 2002.

Well Marc, I am not stuck with a G2. Stuck means I want to get rid of it but I don't. And the starting question was about G2 vs M. I am entitled to my opinion and I feel free to give it.

Dept of field scales lacking? A little inconvenient indeed, a little troublesome to take dept of field scales for each lens and set it manually but it works. Dept of field is something I usually only use for landscapes and such. Landscapes on 35mm being it Leica or any other brand is a joke compared to my med. format slides.

A village idiot? The G2 has everything it needs, including an excellent light meter. Sure, the Eos 1N/V has a lot more but do you really need everything it offers?

While using the faster lenses, just remember that the summilux at 2,0 performs not as good as the summicron at 2,0.

The viewfinder shows 90% and I have never had problems with it. The flash a joke? I have never used it. a friend of mine has and he is very pleased with it. The results he showed me were excellent. At least the synch. speed is 1/200 instead of Leica's pre-WWwar II's 1/50th. A real joke was the flash Leica presented with it's M6 ttl. If you want a strong flash, leica or Contax, buy a Metz and a SCA adapter. Over the years the G2 has never let me down. Therefore I strongly advise the person who asked the question to buy a G2. Oh, and I was wrong, for the price of a M7 you can buy a G2 with 28, 45 and 90 mm lenses easily. The optical results are equal to the Leica, only Contax does not make so much fuss about it's products, nor does it release a limited edition of it's camera every 6 months like Leica has done with it's M6.

Frank

-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.

A little addition, I just got back from 9 months in India, Nepal and Laos and the G2 never failed, come rain (it was pouring sometimes in Kerala during the monsoon) or shine, from the seashores up to 5.500 meters.

Frank

-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.

i owned a Contax G1 before switching to Leica. i love the 45 planar but the G1 is just a pain...have you tried focussing the 45 planar wide-open, on its minimum focussing distance on a G1? hah...good luck. and the flash? i'm sorry, but it's indeed a joke...especially the TTL where exposure is very inconsistent...

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.

Sanford

There seems to be a real argument going on here. I cannot answer your question, except I do know two people who had Contax Gs (one a G1 and one a G2) both of which had to be returned to Contax under warrant due to focussing errors. Hardly a really useful sample size, of course, and some people will say the same about Leicas. I think the Contax is a nice camera actually and the lenses are certainly cheaper than the Ms, but most M users do not like the viewfinder, and I too found the return to infinity after every shot slowed me down a lot. It also does not have any lenses faster than f2, nor any 90mm faster than f2.8, nor any 135mm lenses, nor 24mm lenses. Anyway, you probably know all this. I also dislike the lack of DOF scales: for an expensive camera this seems weird to me. If you have no Leica investment, then it is certainly worth a try. I had plenty of Leica experience so was never seriously tempted, but without out that background the Contax IS tempting.

Actually I think in your shoes I would go for the Bessa R2 or R with VC lenses - cheaper than a Contax and should you want to go Leica you can continue to use the lenses if you wish.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.

Sorry, but the G2 is not a rangefinder. The user does not align images to focus. The camera is autofocus even in manual mode. The user can adjust focus in "zones" and only get focus confirmation from the viewfinder led. For this reason, it is actually a point and shoot design with interchangeable lenses.

-- Bob Haight (rhaigh5748@aol.com), March 27, 2002.

What ever floats your boat.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.

I have a G1, bought used, green label, and no problems so far (1 year in my hands). I can only speak for the 45 and 28, they are wonderful, without any doubt. The camea has some idiosincrasies, i.e. manual focusing is hard (the weel on the g1 is free to rotate). The viewfinder is something you get used to, not a big problem ,and AF is accurate (never had a problem focusing the 45 at near distance). DOF missing on the barrel is a pity, really. All in all a good camera, if portability, compactness and craft are important to you. About exposure, it's usually very accurate also with slides.

-- Antonio Carrus (Milan, Italy) (antoniocarrus@yahoo.it), March 27, 2002.

I was tempted ONCE. I found a set cheap. I was after a high performance auto camera. Two things made me walk away:

Manual focus did not give me the feedback I wanted; seeing physical movement in the finder.

The finder itself; tunnel vision.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 27, 2002.

I shoud've reported three:

Yashica

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 27, 2002.

I have noted more than once that people on this forum just make up their own definitions for terms that have well-estasblished meanings. The Contax G2 (whatever else it is) is NOT a rangefinder. It is an electronic AF camera; and the AF is not as fast or accurate as the state-of-the-art AF on Canon's, nikon's, or Minolta's best (not that it necessaily should be).

What Contax calls manual focusing on the G1/G2 is nothing of the sort. The shutter is much louder than that of any M. Whatever the merits of this camera and its lens (which I'm sure are very good), it is not a RF and it does not have depth of field scales, which many of us consider very important. Having looked through the VF of this camera, it IS very claustrophobic and I wouldn't want to switch from that of the M.

All in all probably a very nice camera, but the focussing accuracy surely not sufficient to support high speed lenses.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 27, 2002.

Shaford,

Here are a few things I've gleened from lens tests. The Contax 45 and 28 are excellent, the 35 is so-so (less than wonderful wide open in my view.)

I've debated getting a G2. Here in Japan Contax G1 and G2 are fairly plentiful in used camera sections of photo shops. There is a message there somewhere. (You'll seldom see a used Bessa for sale!)

I have a T2 which is a pretty good all around point and shoot--a real Father Knows Best camera that seems to do the right thing at the right time. Have a TVS--I think it is called that--with a zoom. Nothing but trouble. The system shut down right after the 1/15/95 Great Kansai Earthquake--and after end of warrenty. Took it to Contax in Shin Osaka. They fixed it for free. System crashed in Bologna, Italy on New Year's 1996--right after midnight. Took it to Contax in Shin Osaka. When I opened it, the pressure plat fell out. The Contax chap said they'd fix it for free and asked if I had trouble finding them when I came out. "Shin-Osaka is a second home to me now," said I. Well after a few months it went dead on me again. I haven't taken it back to Shin Osaka. I'm a bit skittery about Contax.

If you go for a used G1 be aware it won't work with the 35/2 without modification.

Frankly if you want a really nice Autofocus camera that is RF like, fast and reasonably priced, get a Hexar AF. The fixed 35/2 is excellent, the shutter is quiet and can be made quieter. See Stephen Grady's comments on Cameraquest. His repair people can install the super quiet mode on later models.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), March 27, 2002.

What about a Leica brightline finder on a Contax G? The thing's autofocus, anyway. Love my SBOOI.

-- John (johnfleetwood@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.

I carried a Contax G2 kit around for about two and a half years, treated it just like I do the Leica M, and never had a single problem with it. I have been carrying a Contax Tix around similarly since 1999 and it's also operated flawlessly. I had a Contax Tvs for a while too. It was mostly trouble free but once the zoom mechanism jammed and needed a service to bring it back to working order. And my old Contax 139ma banged around with me for 10 years without a single problem.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), March 27, 2002.

I've been using my Gs several times a week now for the last couple of years. They've been to Europe, Mexico, Canada and all over the USA, never had a problem. Durability seems to be as good as any camera. Anything can and does happen to cameras, regardless of make. It's not fragile, if that's what you're looking for.

In all fairness, I have missed a few shots because the camera would not lock focus, but that is easily remedied by switching to CAF (continuous focus). On the other hand, I've gotten shots because the camera can AF faster than I can, and can track moving objects fairly easily. And, the camera is far more useful for night shooting than a Leica because it can automatically calculate a long exposure. In theory, the new M7 should be able to do this, also.

The camera does make noise when it focuses, but the volume of this noise has been GREATLY exaggerated by people who just repeat what they've read on the internet. The same holds true for the 90mm focusing errors.

The manual focus is pretty useless. This is an auto-focus camera, although I have used zone focusing with some success with the 35/2 lens.

This is definitly a RANGEFINDER camera. It's just not a manually controlled rangefinder. The camera uses an electronic rangefinder focusing system. The viewfinder is on the small side and would probably be a pain if you wear glasses...I don't.

The flash system is good, but not great...heads and shoulders above Leicas. I use rear-curtain sync a lot at night.

The lenses are superb, but the Leicas are better wide open, at least when comparing 35s, which is the only Leica lens I have. The Planar 45 might be the best lens I've ever used...at any aperture.

The G is a unigue camera. It's not a traditional rangefinder and it's not an slr. It has a lot of good features from both. It does take a while to get used to. A point and shoot??...it can be, but so can a Nikon F5, or an EOS 1V. There is no such thing as a dumb camera, only dumb photographers.

No it's not a Leica, but is that a bad thing?

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), March 27, 2002.

I have never use a G, but I have handle it and play with it for a wile, in a photographers reunion, I didnīt like the finder is dificult to see through, and uncomfortable, all leica users agree about that.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.

(Before you flame - remember that I've switched from Contax-G to Leica - for good, but not necessarily universal, reasons).

There seems to be a bit of denial going on on both sides here.

1) If you showed the proverbial woman from Mars a P&S, a Contax-G and a Leica M7 and asked her to group the similar cameras together, she'd put the all-metal, interchangeable/fast (f/2) lensed, viewfinder-based Contax and Leica in one group, and the slow/zoom P&S in another.

2) Viewfinder size - the Contax-G finder is IDENTICAL to the screw- mount Leicas' finders (except IIIg) - in apparent size, and in not having 'outside the framelines' viewing. It's not the work of the Devil - unless you're willing to concede that Oscar Barnack was the Devil. (????)

2a) G viewfinder gives LIFE-SIZE viewing with the 90 mounted - something Leica's never been able to achieve with built-in finders.

2b) Using the space outside the framelines - it exists, and it is a useful feature of the Leica (for some of us) - just as autowind is (or isn't) a useful feature for some of us. It's silly to deny that it adds to the functionality of the camera for certain kinds of 'decisive moment' images - or for deciding what to leave out or leave in the composition. but as thousands of pro SLR users (including Leicaflex through R8) can tell you - it ain't a necessity of life.

3) Lens sharpness winners (comparable aperture lenses): 21 (Contax - sorry Charlie - I've tried the CZ and the 21 ASPH - the CZ 21 matches even the 24 ASPH Leica!)....28 (tie).....35 (actually the Planar is a dead copy of the 'king of bokeh' preASPH 'cron - [check the optical diagrams and MTF patterns] - sharp center, soft corners to f/5.6 - tie).....45/50 (Contax by a smidgen at f/2, Leica by a notch at f/5.6 - tie)....90 (effective tie - Leica wins the center, Zeiss the corners at 2.8)

Note this says nothing about tonality - and there is a difference - and I prefer the Leica look on the whole. But I do miss that compact, razor edged Biogon sometimes!!! It also says nothing about construction - titanium shell wrapped around space-frame AF mechanism vs. machined nested brass/aluminum barrels. And if you want 28 f/2, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/ 1.4-f/1(!!), 75 f/1.4, 90 f/2 or ANY 135 - well...sorry, Contax owners!

4) The G is an electro-mechanical camera - with the advantages and liabilities that come with electronics. Contax's auto-bracketing at 4 frames-per-second beats ANY evaluative/centerweighted/spot meter for ensuring a good exposure automatically - assuming you're willing to burn the film!

But it does, on occasion, decide it isn't ready to take a picture and

-- hesitates --

and misses the moment. For me the occasions just occured too often.

When you push the button on the Leica - the shutter fires, right now, every time (unless it's just plain broke - or an M7.)

As to quality control - Contax has its problems, but read the posts on this forum moaning about sending 3 $2500 lenses back to Solms because of dust specks, or new M6s' metering and RF alignment woes - c'mon folks! How can you beat up on the Contax with a straight face!?

Contax screwed up the programming of the AF ROM chip for 90mm focusing on a series of bodies about the time the G2 was introduced - bad data for how many turns to give the AF shaft for a given distance. Reprogramming the chips was done under warranty (And 2 of my 3 bodies needed it). But that's quality control - not durability.

To get back to Sanford's basic question - from the testimony here, obviously lots of users have put the Contax through the heavy use you asked about and it's come out fine. Whether a Contax-G will still be operating (and repairable) in 20 years - as are my M4-x cameras, or 40 years, as are many M3s, is not yet clear. Probably not.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 27, 2002.

1. i see no reason why the contax G should be any less reliable day to day than a leica. as long as you have batteries. electronic cameras are tried and true technology over the last 30 years.

2. autofocus cameras use CCD based *rangefinders* to focus. the split image is captured and evaluated by a computer instead of visually by you. these systems are eaisly fooled in some situations, but the leica rf has its weaknesses too (focussing on repeating patterns is really hard, for example).

i think if you know how to use and control the AF, it can be just as fast to use as manual focus. you just lose the ability to zone focus and shoot fast that way. but zone focus is really just guessing anyway. if you focus every shot, it's doubtful to me that i could focus faster than most modern AF systems.

3. the only time the camera should pause before firing is if it thinks it hasn't hit focus. you just have to learn to compensate for this. if you know the focus isn't going to shift for a few shots, then the G will be a bit slower than a leica because it refocuses most of the time.

-- Pete Su (psu_13@yahoo.com), March 27, 2002.

IF the G was not battery dependent, IF the viewfinder was not so small, IF the shutter and focus lag was not as long, IF the build was better, IF they made faster lenses, IF the resale value was not so poor...IF only people were not so consumed with my "G is better than your M"!

I've used both systems and they are poles apart...the only thing that is similar is the image quality which both are superb unless you want to get scientific and microscopic...in which case there will always be a difference..blah..blah...blah!!

-- Stewart Weir (weirs99@aol.com), March 27, 2002.

The viewfinder IS small...and I wish it was bigger. BUT, it works fine for MY photogaphy (B&W with some trans. for my stock agency). I also agree with Andy....the 21 is WAY good!!! And I also like the 35! NO complaints whatsoever!!

-- Todd Phillips (toddvphillips@webtv.net), March 27, 2002.

Andy makes the most "balanced" sense in this discussion. If matters of pure subjective opinion are set aside and one examines the real reason why there is a preference one way or another, you can get to the heart of the matter. For me it's simply a matter of lens speed, lens function and viewfinder information. All my Leica lenses are fast. And I use them that way more often than not. An extra stop, or 2, or 3 means a lot to my style of available darkness shooting. In daylight I often use hyper-focal distance pre-focussing, so lens barrel info is a critical need. Finally, I use the information outside the brightline framing as much as what's inside it, to determine timing a shot. To me, these are the reasons to have a Leica. If they were not important, I'd be hard pressed to rationalize any rangefinder. Realibility isn't just a matter of holding up under hard use, it also revolves around what you rely on a camera to do in the first place. If image qualities were the only criteria, then the subjective debate could last forever and a day. Or be ended by everyone switching to large format 8X10, zone system and contact prints. An option that my sore back is happy I do not often make. For those with different needs than lens speed, barrel info or shooting style preferences, then there are other options, including some mighty fine 35mm SLRs and Medium Format cameras ( among which I include my CONTAX 645 because... you guessed it...the faster lens speed! ). So, I'm not down on Contax. It's just what I rely on a rangefinder to do that brought me to choose Leica over everything else. Sincerely,--Marc Williams

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), March 28, 2002.

I bought a G1 several years ago.I must say it was a excellent little camera,easy to use, very sharp punchy results.At the same time i bought a old Leica 111F,it was a lot more fun,even thought i cut my hands trying to load the film.The G1 is excellent value and you can buy a mint condition with 45mm lenses for around about Ģ450 sterling.I never had in probs with it(even dropped it),i just found it boring.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), March 28, 2002.

Thank you, Andy for your common sense post. It's amazing how quickly Sanford's simple query ignited the usual "G v. M" flames.

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), March 28, 2002.

I've used G2s now every day for almost 3 years. I've traveled throughout Mexico, the US and the Caribbean with nary a problem. I've gone from desert to rainforest, from sea level to 15,000 feet in one day and the without so much as a hiccup from the cameras. The lenses are stunning and the cameras very reliable.

A couple of thoughts: They are battery dependant. If you've shot with other AF slr's or digital, battery dependance is a fact of life. I've gotten used to battery dependant cameras and plan accordingly (ie I pack lots of spares). The advantages provided by the batteries: AF, 1/200th flash synch and built in winder, far outweigh the disadvantages. The G2s are louder than other rangefinders. I don't think it's obnoxiously louder but the camera does make noise. It's much quieter than other motorized SLRs, somewhat louder than other rangefinders. The best thing to do is try a G2 in your local camera store and listen to it in normal room environment with a normal amount of background noise. It's 1/3 of the price of the other marquee rangefinder label. The G2 doesn't hold its resale value nearly as well as Leica. This is important if you plan to resell the camera. I tend to use my cameras till they fall apart and they're not worth anything anyhow. jk

-- Jack Kurtz (jackkurtz@worldnet.att.net), May 03, 2002.

If I could buy a Leica M7, I would. HOWEVER, I would also keep the Contax G1 I have now. The only reason I want a Leica is for the F1 Noctilux, and because I'm old-fashioned and like to do everything myself occasionally. It's why I own a stick instead of an auto tranny Civic Si.

The BEST thing about the Contax G? I just bought a NEW 45mm F2 lens for $200. That lens is as good as Leica's best, but for a WHOLE LOT less. I can't afford Leica, so soon I'll buy a Contax G2!

-- Dana Curtis Kincaid (dkincaid@pinnaclesys.com), May 03, 2002.

I used the G2 for about a year and liked it a lot, but I found the focusing unreliable. Good lenses.

You can't compare it to the M6 and 35/1.4, however - totally different cameras for very different applications.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 03, 2002.

The lenses are wickedly sharp

Very true,however,so full of contrast they appear unnatural.Very poor tonal quality...if you like in your face contrast buy one.

-- allen herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), May 03, 2002.

Re. the original question:

I've had my G2 for about three and a half years and, so far, it's durability seems fine (knock wood). Has that been "hard use?" Certainly not from a pro's perspective. I'm a hobbiest, but one who did shoot commercially in the past. That said, my G has accompanied me on some fine adventures, including extensive backpacking trips, with no hiccups. I've probably not even run 400 rolls through mine.

Can Yashica-Contaxes last a long time? Absolutely! My RTS circa 1977 (has it been that long?) has only needed cleaning and adjustment, and it's been used *hard*. My 139Q needed releathering and reworking of the shutter switch a couple years back. Both work quite well today, thanks. Anybody smugly predicting a G's morphing into a heap of bits in 2020 is speaking through their headwear.

Horses for courses, that's all one's camera choice should be. Buy the camera, or into the camera system, that suits you and your needs (regrettably, needs include fitting within one's budget). I admire both brand L and brand C. I have a beautiful little IIIc, which I'll play around with once in awhile, alongside a Contax III with its astonishingly complex rangefinder and shutter curtain. I think both cameras' descendants carry on their traditions well.

If I were to torn pro again, my only question would be whether to go with Hasselblad or the Contax 645.

--Rick

-- Rick Dreher (redbike64@ziplip.com), May 03, 2002.

I do recall another problem that crept up with both my RTS and 139Q: the light seals failed and needed replecing. The material used broke down (I had the work done in the late '90s).

--Rick

-- Rick Dreher (redbike64@ziplip.com), May 04, 2002.

I've had a G2 about four years now (since shortly after it was first available, I don't remember exactly when) and before that a G1.

It's had I'd say medium use, not daily use and abuse, but I haven't babied it either; it's taken the occasional knocks and shocks and it operates flawlessly.

_However_ it just developed a malady, a light leak. I found where I believe the foam degraded and stuck another piece in there; if that doesn't fix it I suppose I'll have to send it to Contax repair and get it done right. I can't grouse too much, though; I've had Hasselblad back light leaks, I've been chasing a leak in a Horseman rollback for a month, and I even once had a Leica M3 with a light leak.

For comparison, I also use a couple of M6 bodies, 35 ASPH Summicron, 50 Summicron and 90 Elmarit. The appropriate tool for the job at hand, so to speak.

FWIW I've found the Contax 21, 28, 45 and 90 lenses to be very, very good. I don't like the 35 much; the bokeh at wide apertures strikes me as "jumbled" or "busy." I find the 35 Summicron to be much better.

The only the time little beast has flatly refused to focus was when I was trying to focus on an olive-drab surface, the only details being olive-drab rivets, in a very dark place. No way I could've focused a Leica either.

-- John Hicks (jhicks31@bellsouth.net), May 04, 2002.