Propaganda Wars: G2 vs M6

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

Thought people'd be interested in this- I just noticed it while checking out the Contax site.

http://www.con taxcameras.com/gseries/g2chart.html

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), April 21, 2002

Answers

Can't we all just get along?

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), April 21, 2002.

They missed one or two

Contax Leica M6

LOW Desirability High LOW Value (current and Retained) High VERY POOR FEEL-GOOD Factor VERY HIGH VERY LIMITED SYSTEM/ACCESSORIES VERY LARGE NONE Backward Compatability HIGH Doorstop Use with Dead Battery Camera

etc etc etc

:-)

-- John Tobias (johntobias@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.


oops formatting didn't work anyway I'm sure you get the jist.

-- John Tobias (johntobias@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.

Here is what john wrote formatted correctly:

They missed one or two


Contax Leica M6

LOW Desirability High LOW Value (current and Retained) High VERY POOR FEEL-GOOD Factor VERY HIGH VERY LIMITED SYSTEM/ACCESSORIES VERY LARGE NONE Backward Compatability HIGH Doorstop Use with Dead Battery Camera

etc etc etc

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), April 21, 2002.


The G2 is not really a rangefinder, it's a posh point and shoot with interchangable lenses. Some of those lenses are really nice. What really upset me when I owned one was that one never knows at the time of exposure if the camera has really focussed correctly. So I couldn't use it, for example, at a wedding, where I can't afford to lose shots because the focus gods are frowning. Even when the focus readout looks correct, it can still be off. Mine had to be reset under warranty, but the lesson was learned, and the camera was sold.

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), April 21, 2002.


You never know if a Leica is focussed correctly or not either.

The viewfinder may tell you it is so, but that doesn't mean anything.

-- Pete Su (psu@kvdpsu.org), April 21, 2002.


Looking at the comparison of features (G2 v. M6) I was surprized to realize how little one needs to make a good photo. It is basically an excellent lens, a reliable shutter, accurate easy focising, the right film for the situation, and talent.

-- Igor Osatuke (visionstudios@yahoo.com), April 21, 2002.

My experience with the Contax is limited to about 30 seconds. As soon as I saw the viewfinder, basically the same as the one on my Olympus Stylus, I handed the camera back. I think the Stylus zoom is essentially the same camera, in a more versatile, smaller package. :-)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.

You never know if a Leica is focussed correctly or not either.

Peter, could you expand on your comment? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), April 21, 2002.


The Contax and the Leica both have viewing and focussing systems that are not through the lens, but through a different optical system.

Therefore, if there are any problems with this second optical system, you will focus on the wrong thing or in the wrong place and have no way of knowing.

In the case of the leica, this optical system is a combination of the viewfinder and the mechanical rangefinder.

In the case of the G2, this second optical system is a combiation of a zooming viewfinder and an electronic rangefinder.

It's perfectly possible for the Leica rangefinder to go out of wack and not know about it until you get a roll of badly focussed pictures back.

-- Pete Su (psu@kvdpsu.org), April 21, 2002.



I read this last year when I thought I wanted a G2. I had been getting better results with my wife's newly acquired Yashica T4 (w/35 Tessar) than with my FM2, so thought I needed AF and Zeiss glass. I also read the G2 vs. M6 wars on www.photographyreview.com and photo.net. I was all but convinced that I should get the G2, but decided I should at least handle a Leica to see what the fuss was all about. That's all it took: fifteen minutes later I was $3K poorer with a chrome M6TTL and a 35Asph cron. No regrets.

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), April 21, 2002.

Pete, I don't think we're talking faulty cameras here. With the M camera, if I want to focus on the nose, I set the rangefinder spot on the nose, focus, and barring subject movement or camera movement, I've got a properly focussed photo. I've had lots of experience with, first, the original A/F Hexar, later a G1, and thousands of rolls through Leica cameras. I wanted to love the Hexar as a pocket camera, but, to many times I would focus on the nose, hold the shutter down, recompose, and get images back with the ears sharp, not the eyes/nose, etc. This has always been one of the complaints about A/F rangefinders, aiming a crosshair at something, holding a shutter button down while recomposing, is not as easy or accurate as properly using the rangefinder patch. As someone else stated these are in essence very high quality p/s cameras. You very seldom see serious photojournalists (for example, I can't recall any Contax G photos in major spreads in Nat Geo, Life, etc.) using the Contax.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 21, 2002.

Fair enough. I've never had problems getting good focus using a Hexar AF. But different people like different tools.

-- Pete Su (psu@kvdpsu.org), April 21, 2002.

Looked at the G series cameras because of the Zeiss lenses, but didn't like them for all the reasons listed above.(noise, lousy finder, AF in RF camera) Contax should come out with a "GM" version that takes the same lenses with a thumbwheel manul focus on the body like the old Contax RF cameras, and a nice bright, wide base double image manual focus.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 21, 2002.

I used the G2 for about six months and while the quality of the lenses is fantastic, I found it simply too slow to use for _my_ application. But it really is an excellent and beautifully made camera with great ergonomics. And in no way a genuine (i.e. functional) alternative to the M6 - just a very different experience in every way.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 21, 2002.


I can't recall any Contax G photos in major spreads in Nat Geo, Life, etc.) using the Contax.

The Gontax G system is a stepping stone, useful in its way;it is a starting mode to serious photography.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 21, 2002.


I can't recall any Contax G photos in major spreads in Nat Geo, Life, etc.) using the Contax.

So what? You don't see Hasselbald cameras being used in NatGeo either. NatGeo is hardly the epitome of great photography for a lot of photographers.

The Gontax G system is a stepping stone, useful in its way;it is a starting mode to serious photography.

Stepping stones are things like mastering techniques or realizing vision, not acquiring equipment.

Show us that you know something about photography rather than platitudes about equipment.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), April 21, 2002.


Jeff Spirer I would presume you are talking about me not Bob whos work speaks for itself.When i am ready, if it important to you, i will show some work.Happy now.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 21, 2002.

Oops! Rob i mean.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 21, 2002.

I knew the Contax wasn't for me the instant I tripped the shutter. It went: whirrrrCLICKTY-CLACK! Whereas, the Leica just goes: snick. :)

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.

The Contax site commentary is interesting -- and true. What you do with the info is your preference, I guess. I am a big fan of the Konica Hexar RF, which has a lot of the new function of the G2, with Leica lens mount and rangefinder. Maybe it's the third way here.

-- Dante Stella (dante@dantestella.com), April 21, 2002.

Now that this subject has, perhaps inevitably, come up again, I'll just refer to thisthread from last month. I still agree w/Andy Piper's post of March 27.

BTW, having handled a Hexar for the 1st time yesterday, I agree w/Dante Stella that it represents a viable "3rd Way" (if you don't include the outrageously-priced M7). If Konica made a high-magnification 0.85 version, I would seriously consider buying 1.

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), April 21, 2002.


Calling a Contax G a point-and-shoot and complaining about the size of the viewfinder is like calling an Audi TT Coupe a sub-compact car and complaining about the low headroom.

Look through a G1/G2 and then through the viewfinder of a Leica IIIf (you know - the one Cartier-Bresson and others used for 20+ years?). Tell me you see any difference at all - and what it is.

Contax (and the Leica screw-mounts) managed to incorporate diopter adjustment into the viewfinder - something the M hasn't been able to achieve in 48 years.

The Contax viewfinder zooms - something many (not all) folks on this list keep panting after for their Leica Ms.

If Contax decided to come out with a 40mm lens, or add a 50, their viewfinder will adjust to it - while Leica owners with a 40mm get into heated arguments over whether the 35 or 50 framelines work 'best' - or at least "least worst" - with a focal length the Leica finder forgot.

It is "Leica snobbery" at its most blatant to castigate something when it's in someone else's camera, but not when the exact same specification/feature appears in a Leica. Don't forget - each of us is free to hold any opinion we want - but the rest of us are also free to judge the others by any prejudice or bias in their opinions.

I used to shoot Contax G - I now shoot Leica. For very specific reasons that are important to me, but that I would never assume are universal for all photographers.

If Leica rangefinders wren't available, I would immediately switch back Contax G as the "best" alternative - for me. Ahead of Cosina/ Voigtlander (althought that would be close), and certainly ahead of Leica R. I wouldn't necessarily be thrilled by having to change, because I prefer the Leica-M 'feature set' to the Contax-G 'feature set'. But they're close enough.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 21, 2002.


On the other hand - Contax probably asked for it by posting their 'comparison list' in the first place - but a few observations on John's additions.

Desirability: matter of opinion - no objective difference

Value: Monetary - Leica (but to some folks the Gs are no doubt - in the words of the credit card ad - 'priceless'.)

FEEL-GOOD Factor: matter of opinion - no objective difference

SYSTEM/ACCESSORIES: I think it's more like VERY LIMITED (Leica M) vs. EXTREMELY LIMITED (Contax). 8 focal lengths vs. 6 isn't that much to crow about.

Backward Compatability: Clearly Leica - but remember 'backward' has several meanings (!!)

Use with Dead Battery: M6 - camera, Contax G - expensive doorstop, M7 - really expensive doorstop.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 21, 2002.


Yes, they started it!

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 21, 2002.

HA!!

Those are the reasons why I bought the Leica and not the Contax!

-- kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.


You could make a similar "features yes/no" list comparing a Leica M6 or M7 to a Sigma SA-7 or other entry level sub $200 SLR that would "prove" they were better cameras as well. Just goes to show what an ignorant bunch of consumers we must all be.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 21, 2002.

Interesting comparison. I never thought that some of the features in my M6 date so far back. Makes me like it even more.

Ilkka

-- Ilkka (ikuu65@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.


"Use with Dead Battery: M6 - camera, Contax G - expensive doorstop, M7 - really expensive doorstop."

I was - of course - wrong. The M7 without a battery is NOT a really expensive doostop. Its a really expensive Holga/Diana with 2 shutter speeds; 3 if "B" works minus the battery.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 22, 2002.


"Use with Dead Battery: M6 - camera, Contax G - expensive doorstop, M7 - really expensive doorstop."

I was - of course - wrong. The M7 without a battery is NOT a really expensive doorstop. Its a really expensive Holga/Diana with 2 shutter speeds; 3 if "B" works minus the battery.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 22, 2002.


They may have started it and they may have a limited amount of accesoires but it is a fact that the G2 outperforms the M6 & 7 always. The products also offer everything you will ever need.

Compared to the Leica M, the G2 offers higher shutterspeeds, higher synch. speed (better for fill-in flash), better lenses (same quality or higher quality at 1/3 or 1/2 of the Leica prices). The focus never let me down. Sure it stops working when the battery is dead but so does an F5 or a EOS 1V and the R8. There is a supersimple solution to it. Just carry a spare battery.

Conax just shows that with better production methods it can make an better product. Of course Contax does not release a limited edition of it's camera every 6 months because some composer of 300 years ago had his 360th bithday or because the company exists 50 uears or so. It is just concerned with making a good camera and good lenses instead of making a collectors item.

-- Frank Bunnik (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.


"...The products also offer everything you will ever need."

This is a seriously silly statement. Contax G2 has good lenses but none of them approach the current Leica M lenses in quality. It has a poor claustrophobic viewfinder, a loud shutter, and it's AF is not terribly accurate (far less than that of a Leica M), just accurate enough to cover the depth of field of its lenses. It offers "everything you will ever need" only if you don't need any lens faster than F/2.0 (and at that only available for 45 and 35 mm) or longer than 90 mm focal length or most other accessories. The lenses lack depth of field scales, and the "manual focussing" is a joke.

True Leica makes too many commemoratives, and Contax makes too many silly cameras. It's hard to keep track of them all, with their SLR, P&S, G series, autofocus, 645, digital, etc. They are truly a Jack of all trades and master of none type company.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 22, 2002.


And I forgot to mention that the arguments Matthew mentions in favour of the Leica are very simple: non desirability? The Contax does indeed not have the Leica myth hanging around it. This is a very good for the potential buyers of a contax because at least 1/3 of the price of every Leica product consists of this myth. Low value? Contax just asks a more realistic price for its product. And again there the absence of paying for a myth.

All the points contax mentions might be more or less importent for the making of pictures, however, none of the points Matthew mentions is.

-- Frank Bunnik (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.


A loud shutter? It is louder than that of an M yes, but loud? No, taking pictures in the steet, you can hardly hear it. No depth of field scales on the lens? True, but for the few instances that I need it, I can just take a chart and put the lens on the required distance.

Maybe the MTF chart of a Contax lens is a little bit less than that of a Laica but in practice, you will never see any difference. And since a Contax lens costs much less than a Leica, it is the better product.

Dim viewfinder? Maybe, but only when directly compared. Once you use the G2 for a while, you will not notice. I have never ever found the viewfinder too dark.

Just to let you know, I also used the M5 for a couple of years so I have experience with M Leica's.

-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.


Using a Contax G, can you take a photo like this?

If the answer is no (and the answer is no), then it won't do everything I need.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 22, 2002.


I should mention the issues of "backward compatibility" and "system accessories" are far from trivial factors. Every interchangeable lens made by Leica (since 1931) can be used on a Leica M6 (or M7) (the screwmount lenses with the aid of a screw to BM adapter). Talk about backwards compatibility and non-obsolescence! There is a whole series of macro and telephoto lenses (up to 560 mm focal length) that can be used on Leica M cameras fitted with a Visoflex unit. The Stemar 33 mm Stereo lens system (from the early 1950s) can be used on the Leica M for stereophotography (if you can afford one).

The diversity and range of accessories developed over the years by Leica is mind boggling. You can read Lager III to get a taste of the richness of these accessories, many of which are still available at reasonable prices. Many recent Leica M converts are not even aware of the list of products Leica once offered for its rangefinder cameras, and which can still be obtained used.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 22, 2002.


I was expecting a good photo, not this. I have no doubt that I can take a similar photo with a G2, I have no doubt either that I would never want to make such a picture.

-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

Wow, Frank, you can actually get the DOF of 75mm lens at f1.4 with a 90/f2.8 lens? Focused exactly where you want it across a crowded bar? Without it being underexposed by two stops? Come to think of it, if I had those powers, I don't suppose I'd need a Leica, either.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 22, 2002.

I never said I could take the same picture, I said similar. In difficult lightning situations I always take a few shots at different speeds. Actually I don't have to do this because my G2 has never ever made any exposure mistakes.

Frank

-- Frank Bunnik (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.


Regardless of the Leica vs Contax topic I think the barpicture is bad. The faces to the right of the woman draw to much attention. Probably a 90mm would have made a much better picture. IUf only the woman was doing something worth to look at.

Ed van der Elsken took his barpictures in Paris with a Rolleiflex and those pictures are a lot more joy to look at.

-- Frank Bunnik (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.


"Contax Leica M6 LOW Desirability High LOW Value (current and Retained) High VERY POOR FEEL-GOOD Factor VERY HIGH VERY LIMITED SYSTEM/ACCESSORIES VERY LARGE NONE Backward Compatability HIGH Doorstop Use with Dead Battery Camera"

This is hilarious! Let's throw in a few more:

Use without film: Contax, somewhat overpriced bauble: Leica, extremely overpriced bauble.

Ease of focusing if you suddenly go blind: Contax, high; Leica, low.

Ease and speed of film loading: Contax, high; Leica, low. Love the aftertaste from the Leica bottom plate, though.

Ability to frighten off dangerous animals with loud focusing noises: Contax, high; Leica, low.

Coolness factor from those funky, squared-off German numbers: OK, Leica wins here. Glad they finally dropped the M6 Classic so they could retool the shutter speed dial and finally have the same font they've been sticking on their lenses. Those old, round numbers looked so...so...so Japanese!

Self-timer: Contax, yes; Leica, go get an M4, they were too cheap to put one on any camera after that. Maybe some day they'll figure out how to fit both that and a battery in one camera.

Wide Angle: Contax, down to 16mm (a lens that some heretics have even adapted to Leicas!); Leica, 21mm, or 15 if you get the Voigtlander, but that's cheating.

Feel Good factor: Personally, I enjoy standing around, reving my focusing motor. It impresses the hell out of women. I feel very good when doing this. Advantage Contax.

System accessories: I sure wish Contax would come out with a finder magnifier. Oh yeah, it's built in. Or a motor drive. Oh yeah, it's built in. Or a data back. Oh yeah, they have one. Or an adaptor to allow the use of SLR lenses. They have that too? How about TTL flash units? At least four of them.

Backward compatibility: As far as I know, things made for the G system still work in the G system. Have they changed the lens mount? Try sticking an M lens on your Leica IIIg! Have they made any of those silly lenses with goggles that you can't use on some cameras? I guess Contax has no backward compatibility because there's nothing backward to be compatible with. A true classis system!

-- Masatoshi Yamamoto (masa@nifty.co.jp), April 22, 2002.


I would say that in the hands of a capable photographer, the M is a much more powerful tool than the Contax G which is just a glorified point and shoot and you cant really compare the 2 cameras either, they are totally different.

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), April 22, 2002.

Why Karl?

-- Frank Bunnik (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

Great and telling one again Mike, thanks. And you are right: same pic with G is near impossible, not only because there is no 75mm, but also because there is no f1.4 option anywhere in the range, and f2.8 means 4 times less light, or ISO 3200 instead of ISO 800.

The 90 f2.8 is the nearest thing approaching the 75mm. Its focusing is an erratic hit or miss business, especially in low light, especially in crowded setups such as this one. I shiver imagining the AF hunting back and forth in endless loops in that bar, and me praying that when that black dot shows up in the viewfinder display, it will mean the gizmo has focused where I am aiming. Such was not usually the case with the G2 I sued for over a year.

And Mike: that pic is really quintessential 'lux (though I would probably print it with a little harder contrast paper). Do you feel the Noctilux virus bugging you yet ? ;-)

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.


Matoshi, please try putting your Contax G lens on a Contax IIa and let me know how well it fits.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 22, 2002.

Frank, You cant really compare the 2 cameras as the only similarity is that they are both rangefinders, thats it. If you go down the route like that of the link given by the Contax Site, you are sure to start a slagging off match. If Leica decided to do the same, they can easily come up something similar which praises its own 'simplistic' features against the battery dependant overkill of the G, but thats not what its all about. They are 2 completely different tools with different strengths and weaknesses, but at the end of the day, its the lens that determines the ultimate result (hence what I mean by a competant photographer is required to first be able to set up the M, otherwise the results will be totally useless) and the leica lens range and quality I believe is superior to that offered by Zeiss for the G series. In this day of modern photography, there must be something lacking in all other camera outfits otherwise Leica would have been out of business ages ago.

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), April 22, 2002.

Judging by most of the photos posted here, the G2 would be the wiser investment for you blind (old men), no creativity, snapshooters. For example, Kristian's postcard scenics (posted a coulpe of weeks ago for comments) would be just as good (or bad) with a G2. Why does he need a quiet shutter or bigger viewfinder for taking photos of trees and rocks and sunsets?

-- pinhead (blieb@sheridanross.com), April 22, 2002.

"Backward compatibility: As far as I know, things made for the G system still work in the G system. Have they changed the lens mount? Try sticking an M lens on your Leica IIIg! Have they made any of those silly lenses with goggles that you can't use on some cameras? I guess Contax has no backward compatibility because there's nothing backward to be compatible with. A true classis system!"

What a silly comment. Any lens made for the IIIg can be used on the M6 or M7 with full rangefinder coupling. And the last IIIg was made in 1960! "Because there's nothing backward to be compatible with" was my whole point. Leica has a whole series of lenses and accessories thta date back to the 1930s (actually, some of them to the 1920s), many of which can still be used on the latest M camera. The Contax G2 dates back to, what, the 1990s? And even at that, I don't think all of the current lenses can be used on the original Contax G without modification.

There is nothing whatever "classic" about the Contax G2 system. It is simply a modern AF autoeverything camera with a titanium cover, without many of the features of high end AF SLRs, and with a very small lens selection. Not only that, but I find their advertising objectionable.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 22, 2002.


I can't believe this...My camera is better than your camera,my dad's bigger than your dad. Let's not have any more of this. Let's see photo's at ten paces.

-- Yogesh Jeram (Yogeshjeram@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

Backward compatibility: As far as I know, things made for the G system still work in the G system.
um, not exactly. the 35-70G zoom lens will NOT work on the G1...

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

Why are all these Contax G advocates trolling the Leica forum anyway?

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), April 22, 2002.

Why are all these Contax G advocates trolling the Leica forum anyway?

If one has a closed circle, eventually one learns nothing.

A year or two ago, I was invited to join the Contax mailing list, originally to discuss a photo of mine. I was asked to stay on and critique their monthly gallery (a great idea, sort of a "salon" kind of thing with a specific topic) and offer other comments. I think it showed an open mind since I have never owned a Contax anything, but they valued opinions other than their own.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), April 22, 2002.


I'm still confused by the concept that a Contax G is a "posh/glorified point-and-shoot."

Can anyone give us a definition of "point-and-shoot camera" that includes the Contax G - and DOESN'T include at least one of the following: a Nikon F100; a Cosina/Voigtlander Bessa-L w/25mm lens; a Leica IIIf, a Rollei 35; a Canonet w/50 f/1.8 lens. Or do you count any of those as point-and-shoots?

A old Nikkormat is fully manual: focusing, exposure setting, wind/ rewind. A Nikon F100 is the modern version, with AF, AE, and motor features added. But with the possibility of full manual control (except wind) still available. Anyone ready to call the F100 a "point-and- shoot"?

A Leica M is fully manual (M7 excluded): focusing, exposure setting, wind/rewind. A Contax G is a modern adaptation, with AF, AE and motor features added. But with the possibility of full manual control (except wind) still available. It's (more or less) an F100 without SLR viewing.

My definition of "P&S" is - "a fail-safe automated amateur camera with little or no provisions for overriding the automation, and a fixed single- or zoom-focal length lens of modest (<= f/2.8) lens".

My wife's Olympus IS-10 is an SLR with quite a good fixed zoom lens - but I DO consider it a P&S because the zoom (and some generic 'function modes) are all that you can control directly - there IS no shutter speed or aperture to set, or provision (however limited) for manual focusing, and the max. aperture possible is f/4, dropping to f/5.6 at the telephoto end.

You don't have to love (or even like) the Contax G. But if you run around claiming it's a P&S you just don't have any credibility.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 22, 2002.


. . . it is a fact that the G2 outperforms the M6 & 7 always. The products also offer everything you will ever need.

The problem with this kind of statement is not that it offers a different perspective, but that it disputes the validity of other people's perspective. I presented a picture that refuted both statements. The response ignored the limitations on the Contax imposed by smaller maximum apertures and autofocus, instead insulting the photo and dismissing such photos as not being worthwhile. Differing perspectives are a good thing, but they contribute little to the debate when they consist of nothing more than one person's dogma. (Here's another photo that would be impossible with the Contax. Whether you like the image or not, it's more evidence that the Contax will not do everything I need.)

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 22, 2002.


Mike, what a wonderful portrait.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 22, 2002.

I fully agree that this is a silly discussion. However I felt I had to react when stupid arguments like desirability and feel good factor where mentioned.

Mike when I said "disturbing"I meant "distracting". Sorry. Personally I don't like your last picture either, IMHO there is to much light/haze to the left of the picture. If you post a picture, your bound to get some comments, either positive and negative. Different people have different views. I do feel however that a lot of people here like a picture just because it is made with a Leica.

I don't have a scanner yet but when I get one I will post some pictures, see if anybody can actually detect if they are made with a leica, contax, canon.

All the best, Frank

-- Frank Bunnik (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.


Can anyone give us a definition of "point-and-shoot camera" that includes the Contax G - and DOESN'T include at least one of the following:

How about "a camera that has neither a useful means of focusing manually, nor a way for you to see what it's auto-focused on?" Or how about "a camera that has to refocus every time you take your finger off the shutter release"?

-- Mark Ciccarello (mark@ciccarello.com), April 23, 2002.


Nice shots, Mike. I understand where you're coming from. I own a G system and your first shot would be hit or miss for it. You'd have to take a number of exposures to cover your ass. Your second shot... not as difficult as the first one, but I see your point.

In all fairness, however, I don't see how making these shots is anything exclusive to Leica...a Nikon FM with an 85/1.8 would work well in these situations.

But sticking with a straight G2 vs M6 comparison, I have to agree. But, then again, I could post some shots of long exposures (8-10 seconds) of night street scenes made with my G2, that I know from experience are far more accurate than the "guesstimates" I'd have to make with an M6.

But there's no point in doing so. Both systems are wonderful if you're comfortable using them for what you like to shoot.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), April 23, 2002.


Jim, I agree that a Leica isn't the only camera capable of making such shots (although I'd have trouble accurately focusing an SLR for the bar shot, and mirror slap would have made handholding the shot even more of a challenge). On the portrait, putting the focus specifically on her right eye probably would have been a challenge with the Contax (in addition to the DOF issue).

I don't dispute that the Contax G is a fine system for a lot of uses. I wish it could do everything I wanted--it would save me some money!

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotograhy.com), April 23, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ