[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: leica contax.jpg (85 KB, 1000x523)
85 KB
85 KB JPG
What is the best rangefinder of these?

>G2
Pros:
Cheaper than most Leica bodies ($600-700 for a good condition body)
Lenses are amazing (and cheap, usually under $300)
AF
TTL Metering
Continuous shooting mode
Auto Adjusting frame lines
Amazing build quality

Cons:
If it breaks, it likely won't be repairable.
MF is a bit wonky

>G1
Pros:
A decent condition body is incredibly cheap at about $100
does 80% of what the G2 does

Cons:
Also difficult/impossible to repair
MF is even wonkier
AF is apparently less accurate than the G2

>Leica
Pros:
Will essentially never lose value
Unrivaled build quality
Fully mechanical bodies which many skilled technicians can repair.
Newer, more expensive models have ttl metering.

Cons:
The hefty Leica tax
No AF
Repairs are extremely expensive if done by a proper Leica technician and still expensive if done by some asian guy in maine or whatever.
Most lenses cost more than the bodies.
>>
>>3215125
>Most lenses cost more than the bodies.
Only if you buy LEICA lenses.

just get whatever you want and fuck off
>>
>>3215135
I feel as though literally the only reason to buy and own a leica camera is to use the lenses.

Every time I see some fucking moron who spent $1400 on an M6 only to put Canon glass on it, I get physically ill.
>>
Although the G1 and G2 are technically rangefinders, they do not give the typical RF shooting experience. There's no RF patch in the viewfinders and the shooting experience is totally different.

Cross shopping them with a Leica is strange. If you want to manually focus a rangefinder, the Contax cameras would be a terrible choice.
>>
>>3215125
I own Leica and love the system but I would like to try a G2 one day
I've never tried the Contax systems so I won't say much about them but everyone I know who has a G1 has been trying to sell it for about as long as they owned it. so I don't no if I would bother with a G1.

no AF is as far as i'm concerned a bonus with the Leica, it gets fast and intuitive rather quick.

>>3215220
nothing wrong with non Leica lenses, some are really good, and yeah some are shit.
Zeiss ZM lenses are real fucking nice, and Voitlander is alright and I have been looking for a set of Rokkors.
Anything Russian or French is probably a miss
>>
>>3215125
contax g2 > zeiss ikon zm > leica
>>
>>3215269
Doesn't the ZM have an electronic shutter?
>>
>>3215220
this

imagine actually wanting to be a leica whore so bad that you buy an M3 but then just get some shitty voightlander or canon glass.

like if you get a zeiss lens for it, fair enough, I guess but basically anything else and you're just a fucking tool.
>>
File: .png (49 KB, 649x644)
49 KB
49 KB PNG
>>3215287
battery life is a non-issue when you only need to change it every few years. you get metal 1/2000 shutter on the upside and far better VF than any Leica.
>>
>>3215269

How are bessa and konica RFs in this chart? I've been looking at them. Mainly the RF since I'm left-eyed and keep hitting myself with the winding lever.
>>
As far as rf goes I own:
hexar RF
Zeiss ikon ZM
Minolta CLE

Out of them id suggest the Ikon or CLE
>>
>>3215125
Cons:
Rangefinder
>>
Been shooting with a G1 for awhile now. Great system with amazing lenses for a fraction of the Leica prices. Bodies are cheap so I've bought a backup. The 45mm lens is one of the best lenses ever made.

I like having AF and find it doesn't give me any issues. Would like to try an M6 one of these days.
>>
I love my G1 a lot, so much I decided to get a TVS as well.

Still looking for the 28mm tho.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3215306
bessa is a plastic Ikon and konika is special snoflake tier like nikon s2
>>
>>3215366
Have you tried a G2?
>>
>>3215391
I’ve held one in a local shop but never shot one.

I’ve heard the AF is better but conflicting info on why it’s actually better, so who knows. The G1 AF system works well enough, it’s definitely competent enough for daytime street shooting as long as you’re not shooting anyone moving too quick. There’s really now AF “tracking” but it does focus quick enough that if you “grab” focus a few times successively it’ll keep up. The bitch of it it when the AF confirm says you’re locked, but then you get the roll back it’s it’s missed. There’s a distance scale in the viewfinder but it’s kinda vague and it’s not always right anyway. The manual focus over ride is really just for still subjects, I can’t imagine trying to track a subject with it, but I may just have poor technique.

The shots themselves are GREAT, the 45 is laser sharp and has imo just the perfect amount of contrast with out getting obnoxiously punchy. The 90 is nice, but a tad too tight, I personally wish it was around 75mm.

It’s a bit heavy, but it’s built impeccably, and it’s a joy to shoot.
>>
>>3215125
The G1 and G2 have awful viewfinders and even worse AF systems.
If you want a slow, loud but well made camera get a contax
If you want a fast shooting well made camera, get a leica

Btw if you ever shoot in low light good luck with the G1, you can't see anything out of the vf it after sundown
>>
If you want to enter the Leica M system on the cheap the Minolta CLE is a pretty good option. It has TTL metering, framelines for 28/40/90 and pretty nice glass to go along with it. To get a comparable Leica you'll need an M7.

AF on a rangefinder seems pretty useless to me, the way you focus them is like part of the experience.
>>
Well, wouldn't necessarily count the G's as a rangefinder. Wouldn't mind owning one either - they're not that expensive usually. To me it feels more like an oversized point & shoot though.

I'll be getting a Leica hopefully this year though. If I end up not liking it, I can always sell it.
>>
>>3215422
I am almost certain you're over- exaggerating.

Besides, the point about after sundown you can see anything is ridiculous since the same is true of most Leica bodies apart from the newest ones.
>>
>>3215453
>Oversized point and shoot*
*With available full manual controls and interchangeable Zeiss lenses.
>>
>>3215646
Not to diss G lenses, but there's only like 7 lenses total, and only half of them are worth getting (zoom sucks, hologon is expensive, and 21mm needs added VF). 3 of them also don't work on the G1 without modification. The 2-4 lenses that most G1/G2 users do end up getting are fantastic at least.
>>
>>3215125
>Most lenses cost more than the bodies

Like in every good (film) camera system?
>>
>>3215302
I'd prefer a full mechanical camera. For that reason I clearly prefer M6 over M7/ZM/RxA. If the M6 electronics fail, the camera still works.
>>
>>3215949
well you're not OP are you? contax G is the most electronic out of all of these cameras
>>
>>3215779
>only like 7 lenses total
It's a rangefinder, which pretty much excludes all long teles and zooms.

How many more lenses do you need for an rf?
It goes from a unique, distortion free superwide (the hologon), to very high resolving portrait tele (90mm sonnar).
And inbetween you have mostly excellent lenses (21mm f/2.8 biogon, wide fast and tiny bit of distortion, 45mm f/2 planar, good all around normal, sharp and contrasty af, 35mm biogon, 28mm biogon etc.).

Imagine it like this: For 1200$ you can have a full system, with a body and 3 excellent lenses -28mm, 45mm, 90mm- or you can get an M7 and no glass, or an M6 and an entry level voigtlander.
>>
>>3215779
Dude, no one needs anything but a wide, standard, and portrait lens. Everything else is just dicking around.
>>
>>3215800
The point is that Leica bodies aren't $100 they're a minimum of $700.
>>
>>3215779
>zoom sucks
did you just complain about a ZOOM on a RANGEFINDER?

>the state of Lelca shitters
>>
>>3216193
yes the damn contax zoom lens sucks. it is one of 7 lenses available for the mount
>>
File: chinon_ap_100_zm.jpg (14 KB, 400x300)
14 KB
14 KB JPG
>>3216207
it doesn't really matter if the 35-70 Vario-Sonnar exists or not. the point is that a zoom is against the rangefinder shooter's doctrine.

the only reason this lens exists is so that some boomer in the 90s could say to his wife "well this has a 3x zoom too" while she is looking at some shitty APS Chinon
>>
>>3216207
Dude, no one cares about the zoom.

The 28mm, 45mm and 90mm lenses are the only lenses anyone needs. They can do easily 95% of anything that any photographer could trow at them.
>>
>>3215125
If you like automated features, get the Contax. If you're more comfortable doing everything yourself, get the Leica.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.