Should I buy a Contax G2?

The system you have, is probably the best combination. All you need is a zoom lens in the range of 70-200mm. Or you can buy a 1.5X or 2x converter for your 100mm macro. If you do not shoot macro that often, Canon 100mm macro sells for around $550.00, you can trade your macro lens for a medium to Telephoto zoom. Contax G-2 is an excellent system, but it cannot replace SLR system.

I considered this decision in January this year.

4 years ago I purchased an EOS 5 (A2E in the U.S.) with the Canon 28-105mm zoom. As my interest in photography grew, I added (and traded) various lenses. My interests so that they are now broadly three-fold;

1. Travel 2. Nature / wildlife (tele- and macro) 3. General 'snapping'

Before reaching for the 'phone with credit card in hand, I made the effort to sit down and review my collection of 'keepers' (FWIW I shoot Velvia and Elite 200).

Result? Most of my favourite images are from the travel category, and most of those were taken at 28mm. Also there are numerous times when I have missed shots through not wanting to lug around the EOS and 80-200 f2.8 etc.

The next most favoured set come from the nature / wildlife category, where results improved as I bought better glass, but were still not as 'pleasing' as the best of my travel shots.

Outcome? I decided that the 'horses for courses' axiom applies, and traded all my Canon lenses towards a 300mm f4 plus the two teleconverters. I also bought a 100mm macro (having previously had the 50mm plus life-size converter). That covers the nature / wildlife side.

For travel and general snapping, I bought a G2 kit with the 28/45/90mm lenses and the TLA 200 flash.

I carry the two sets in separate bags - a Mini-Trekker backpack for the Canon set, and a small Omni-Traveller for the G2.

This has proved to be an inspired move! The G2 is superior to the EOS as a travel camera because of it's size and weight. Image quality is equal to or better than that of the Canon (incl. 'L' glass). It also makes rather a good p&s for family days etc!

The Canon is far better suited to wildlife and nature.

In conclusion, I would urge you to think carefully about what you want from your photography. If what you say is true, and you are not worried about tele- or macro capabilities, then the G2 may well be a better system to own. However, every time you trade, you lose (assuming that you bought new, that is) so don't switch unless you can really see the advantages, and are sure your needs won't change.

This has become a little garbled, but hopefully is of some help.

I like Ian's logic of "horses for courses". Oh darn... now you got me thinking of selling my Nikon lenses to get a 150mm Sonnar for my Hassy....

I have owned a G2 (with 21,35 and 90mm lenses) for about eight months and I am delighted with the purchase. However, I also have a fairly complete SLR system (Nikon in my case) and would not for a moment consider parting with it because because of the Contax gear.

I am dedicated candid street photographer. I take great pleasure in walking urban streets and documenting the wonderful life of our cityscapes on black and white film. Here I find the G2 to be a wonderful tool. It is compact, unobtrusive, relatively quiet and a masterfull picture taking machine. It has been superbly engineered to factilitate rapid, accurate shooting. And the famed lenses produce sharp, contrasty negatives which really need to be seen to be appreciated. I also find the G2 system to be an excellent choice for general vacation/travel photography, where traveling light is important.

However, there are other kinds of photography where I find the limits of the G2 system to be unacceptable. There are no lenses longer than 90mm, no macro lenses, and no zooms. I have found the autofocus capabilities of the G2 to be excellent for general purpose shooting, However it doesn't provide the rapid, predictive autofocus of today's SLR sytems which my aging eyes and reflexes find so usefull for sports action photography. Finally, allthough the Contax system does provide flash capabilities, I would not want to give up the superb automated, balanced fill-flash capabilities of today's state-of-the art SLR systems for many photo applications.

I can't recommend the G2 too highly for certain kinds of photography. However I really don't believe it can serve as an adequate substitute for an SLR system as a general purpose photographic tool.

Judging from the equipment you own, I wouldn't trade everything. Keep the 28-70 f2.8 (a Canon L series?), the 100 Micro, and whatever EOS you have. The rest of the stuff is expendable. Buy a used G2 or G1 with the 45mm Planar with whatever you could scrape together on the Canon stuff and savings. Build the new system one lens at a time. The other alternative is to buy a used Hexar, but you will only have the one 35mm f2 lens. Some people actually prefer the Hexar to the Contax, or the G1 over the G2.

I purchased a G2 with 35mm and 90mm lenses last August after having primarily used an OM-2 and 24mm, 35mm, 35-70mm, 50mm and 75-150mm for the previous 15 years or so (which system I still have but now rarely use). I also used a rangefinder from time to time, having acquired a Leitz Minolta CL some years ago. My principal uses were to be, as with the OM, travel, "street," and family. Macro and long telephoto work had never been part of my photography. I was attracted to the G2 for its compactness and light weight and because, while technologically advanced, one could maintain considerable manual control (which, sadly, I don't use as much as I probably should -- but the G2 is so easy to use as a P&S(or I'm so lazy)). And, of course, there was the allure of the "Zeiss glass."

Bottom line? As long as you are prepared to accept the differences between this AF rangefinder and your SLR, you simply will not be disappointed in the results. For months I've been poring over the Velvia I shot late last year in India and I am very pleased. Of course I have quibbles about the camera, but nothing's perfect. Feel free to e-mail me privately for more information. Good luck deciding.

I recently purchased a G2 system for travel purposes. I kept, however, my existing Contax SLR system for Macro and long telephoto uses. I learned a few things after having used it for a couple of months.

First of all, the lens quality is outstanding. I couldn't ask for better results.

Like some people, I have been having a bit of difficulty in properly focusing the 90mm lens at close distances. This is more a problem with me than with the camera. I need to better understand where the focusing point is when the finder shifts for parallax correction.

The main finding, however, was the realization that I work better with an SLR (since I used one for over 25 years) than a rangefinder. An SLR lets you see what is in focus, and what isn't. The SLR metering systems are a bit more flexible (i.e. choice of spot or average).

But in the end, I am very happy to have both. The G2 system is a fantastic machine that can give superb images, and it is very light for travelling. The weight difference alone can alter my mood by the end of the day (g). While I have heard the Siren-song of Leica rangefinders, I stay with the Zeiss optics because I find that they give me better color rendition (I previously owned an M6 and two lenses).

If you like the G-2 viewfinder, by all means go for it. When the G-1 was first introduced it sounded great to me, so I went to a camera store to see one first hand. One look through the viewfinder, and I said "No way!. This thing is one feature worse than an SLR!" To me, one of the foremost reasons to use a rangefinder camera is the fact that the viewfinder lets you see what is outside the frame as well as what is inside it. You view the world through clear glass, set your little outline around the part of it you want to photograph, and "click" -- it's yours.

Several friends have the Contax and are enthusiastic about it. I respect it as a fine piece of equipment, but it's not for me.

Nuke this comment after a day or so, if need be.

I'm a little surprised that no one has jumped in and said, "Dumb question, read the archives and try one at a store!" Not that it IS a dumb question; it just seems like the kind that gets criticized so readily because someone assumes that it's been "covered". The posts above prove that there is often more room for fresh and insightful commentary than some photo.net "guardians" might anticipate. Thanks! (Okay, I'm done ranting now.)

Pat, I think the reason this thread hasn't been nuked is because there are significant differences between the autofocus rangefinders, point and shoot cameras, and SLRs. I think the AF rangefinders have in general been neglected, mostly because anyone who wants a serious camera seems to gravitate towards an SLR, whereas everyone else buys a cheap point and shoot.

I'm not saying that's the way it should be, but that's the way it is today. If rangefinders had stayed popular with the advent of the modern SLR, you bet Nikon and Canon (both of which made rangefinders in the pre-SLR era) would still be making them. As it is today, the only rangefinders left seem to be the "boutique" brand such as Leica and Contax.

I personally wouldn't use a rangefinder because of the kind of photography I like to do (WYSIWYG is important any time you're playing with filters or getting critical with depth of field), but for many people (especially photojournalism-oriented type people---and I include most travel photography in that category) I think that it'd be "just the thing", and I think it's a pity that cheap good rangefinders are no longer available. (I mean, there's absolutely no reason a company like Canon couldn't make a rangefinder that cost as little as the Elan---but it's just not worth their effort)

The only thing I'd add is that you've got some heavy-ish SLR lenses there. If you had a EOS-500n with a 50/1.8, 35/2 or something like that, it would be lighter, cheaper, not much bigger if at all, and optically very good, even if not quite up to the Zeiss. Perhaps you should expand your SLR system?

The July/August issue of Photo Techniques has that rare thing, a really good camera mag article, on shooting with the G2, by John Kennerdell. It's probably off the stands but I could fax it at you.

Piaw hit the nail on the head for this moderator (as to why I've not nuked the thread). The G1/G2 is different enough from other available systems that 1) there's not that much relevant information already existing here, as far as I know and 2) trying one out in a store will tell you a lot, but the differences between using such a camera in practice vs. using an SLR (which most of us have experience with) are great enough, and the expense high enough, that it is understandable that one wants to hear about user experiences and thoughts comparing it to an SLR system.

In other words, this question is a far cry from "Nikon vs. Canon", both in interest (to me, at least) and in volume (of previous questions on the subject).

It looks like we're entering another cycle of "let's make the moderators defend themselves so they'll be too busy doing so to moderate" posts...

keep your "big" 35mm system for the time being and but yourself a Konica Hexar. terrific camera, metering system, auto focus, flash and lens. Shooting with a rangefinder is a different experience than shooting with an SLR. You see picture possibilities (composition, action) differently with a rangefinder. If after shooting with the Hexar for awhile then consider getting the Contax. The one thing I do not like about the G2 is the way the use of a frame mask rather than the framelines in the Hexar and in the Leica M cameras. I like being able to see what may be about to come into the frame, or what is just outside of the picture area. I hope this helps you decide.

Cheers

As an owner of both a Contax 35mm SLR system (95% viewfinder coverage) and a venerable Konica C35EF fixed focal length rangefinder, I do not recommend an intermediate step to the Hexar. The differences between the Leica M6 and the Contax G2 are far greater, but that topic has been amply covered in Tom Shea's review of the Contax G2.

I myself have considered supplementing my Contax SLR with a G rangefinder, since the latter normally matches my photographic subject matter at a lighter size/weight. I don't see how selling your Canon EOS body and 50mm lens will make the G2 more affordable; Contax rangefinders are expensive to begin with and used consumer zooms like the 20-35/3.5-4.5 won't generate much cash - you can do as I am doing and just wait until you've saved up enough money to make the G2 purchase outright).

I managed to misconvey my thoughts above. First, I never suggested that this thread should be nuked; in fact, I shared my appreciation for the thread. Second, my reference to "guardians" was not to the actual moderators of this forum, though I now see that I did not make that very clear. By "guardians" I meant folks who are moderator wannabes. I was surprised, and grateful, that a wannabe did not stifle the thread. If a thread is worthless, I'll expect the moderators to take care of it. It's their job and they do it well. Sorry about the confusion, and keep up the good work! Feel free to email me personally if this still seems out of order.

I agree with the majority...don't sell your SLR to get a range finder. I have a Nikon SP and an SLR. I would recommend the modern Contaxes highly over the Nikon SP for speed, exposure consistency, and convenience. But I think certain experiences with the Nikon SP are still relevant to this particular thread.

SLR viewing screens and SLR pentaprisms tend to compress the apparent contrast of the viewed composition. This effect is typically 1/2 stop, but on some inexpensive SLRs it is nearer to a full stop. The viewfinders on top quality rangefinder cameras do not noticably compress the viewed contrast. This makes it easier with these range finders to select and compose scenes in terms of their actual colors and natural brightnesses.

The differences in both the viewed image width, and also the viewed depth of field, produced by the two types of finders has already been stated. In short, neither viewing method is ideal.

It would be nice if everyone got to use a rangefinder camera. But for most people, the range finder experience is likely to be just part of a learning curve. It's a way to notice, understand, and then compensate for the limits of SLR view finders. But in the overall scheme of things, rangefinder cameras are best for limited niches.

Some rangefinder lenses are sharper than SLR lenses. But, you have to use Kodchrome or Velvia, and a tripod, to really utilize these improved optics. That's a landscape photography niche. Some range finders operate extremely quietly, and most are smaller and lighter than SLRs. That's a photojournalism niche.

I would occasionally like to use a Contax G2 and the Zeiss 45mm lens, as well as various other exotic stuff. However, it and other range finder cameras never quite get to the top of my "buy list". Even my Nikon SP rests comfortably out of reach in a safety deposit box, with its antique friends. There are just too many other interesting things around.

But if money is no object to you, and you're planning a nice vacation trip to Kenya, then that is a different case........

Just my opinions.

Guido, your post is dated July 21, 1998.

Out of interest did you get the G2 or remain with Canon?

Dick,

I looked at your site. No thanks - I like Contax, and I am a avid Contax fan, but I just don't believe there can be enough serious users willing to pay $ to post and read at your site, especially when photo.net offers much better service for free.

Sorry - typo - the above reply was intended for Dirk of the www.contaxinfo.com site, not Dick, as I mistakenly wrote.