Contax G2 or Nikon F100

[dem97]

>Pierre, I can relate to your dilemma -- I've lived it. Yes, the SLR is more versatile, and if you are a pro and need one for income, it's = indispensable. However, the G is ultimately much, more more satisfying -- in the hand = and on the light table. It is an artist's tool. - Dave

 

[aader]

> Agreed that the SLR is more versatile- if you do a lot of slides however, there is little that an SLR will offer compared to the G2. I own a manual focus Contax besides the G2 so my experience is strictly related to manual SLR lenses. For portrait work I would go for the SLR but for travelling and "on the fly" shots, the G2 is my choice. The only real thing I find annoying with it is the lack of depth of field information- when time allows it, I use a printed card with the information- otherwise, just trust my hunch setting the diaphragm. The G1, especially the type modified to accept newer lenses is a much overlooked option- lighter and more compact than the G2, also less expensive, it could prove a more viable alternative for travelling "light"- the only downside is that if you like zooms, the G1 will not take the 35-70 Vario Sonnar.

Regards

Andrei

 

[trisnadi]

I would think G2 and F100 are built for different purpose. I don't own them but I have G1 and Nikon F4, which probably the two extremes in terms of camera weight. I use those cameras for different purposes.

Trisnadi

 

[farnborough]

Pierre,
I can only say: buy the G2, its the best thing on the market. I had a lot of Leica equipment and sold it all. The only thing I miss, is a good SLR an a sharp macro 100mm lense for table top and close-ups. These I do with a digital camera nowadays. deltainternational.com has quite a good price, I am thinking of buying a second G2 body from them. Does anybody a know of a place with better sales-prices?

 

[malcg1uk]

> It depends what sort of pictures you take now, and may want to take in > the future. I use Nikon F cameras, FM2n and F100, and a G1 > professionally. I find the SLRs invaluable for macro, nature > photography, portraiture and for anything where precise framing, > control of depth of field and use of filters (e.g. polariser or grads > for landscape photography) is needed. For such activities, a range > finder camera offers less control and is less versatile or convenient, > as others have stated. Macro is impossible with a G. I use the F100 > to shoot events, particularly when flash is needed. It's superbly > efficient, especially with the grip, but big and heavy. It offers > little over your F80.

> I travel with the FM2n and the G1. With a 60mm macro on the SLR and > 21mm and 35mm lenses on the G. For general photography they make a > very fine combination. If weight/size is important to you, look at the > G1 over the G2 - a very fine camera. To be honest, I could do > everything I need to do with the SLRs + maybe a compact like the T3. > But those Zeiss lenses are simply incomparable IMHO, and I just like > the G cameras, they're beautifully made and nice to use, except the > viewfinder! So, if you want the relatively small size and the amongst > the BEST quality 35mm can offer, go with the G, if you want > versatility and convenience, with still very good quality, you can't > beat your SLR.

> Hope this helps, Malcolm

 

[faisal]

Pierre said "I can't afford to have 2 separate camera systems"

you probably cant afford to have two complete camera systems but I have found that if you spread out your lenses and accessories between systems according to the way you use them

you can come very close to breaking even and end up with a very versatile setup especially if you are already invested in one system

 

[robgo2]

Pierre,

If you have not yet had an opportunity to handle a G2, by all means do so post haste. To hold one is to love one. The focusing speed and accuracy of the G2 are substantially better than that of the G1, and for that reason alone, the G2 is to be preferred, in my opinion. The larger size and weight of the G2 are inconsequential. A complete G2 kit with 28mm, 45mm and 90mm lenses and TLA 200 flash should not be very expensive these days. (BTW, I prefer the TLA 140 flash, because it does not produce red-eye, as the TLA 200 does.)

If you are like many members of this forum, once you start using a G camera, your SLR will get very little use. However, by all means hang onto it for special needs, e.g. macro, long telephoto, zoom lens etc.

 

[cactus]

>Please advice which camera from the G2 and the Nikon F100 produces the >better picture quality.

 

[rickd]

Whichever one has he better photographer holding it?

Unless you can reasonably compare lens to lens at a given focal length, there's no right or wrong answer to "which is better?" The bodies don't define image quality, it's the lenses.

Photos taken with Zeiss lenses are said to have a certain look, which I think I can see myself, especially in chromes. IF you decide that you like the Zeiss look, then you might like the G system. (Remembering that shooting with a G is far different than shooting an SLR.) What Nikon cannot offer is an equivalent to the G's Biogons and Hologon, which are unique to rangefinder-type cameras.

--Rick

 

[yogi]

I actually have both F100 and G2 systems. Talk about comparing apples to oranges. As far as the first post from Pierre, I'd say for what you say you take pictures of as well as what your concerns are with weight and being inconspicous, I think the G2 is the better system for you. especially since you don't mind foot zooming

With your descriptions - you've obviously done your research and know the differences between the 2 systems. But I will go through a few of them below,

As far as picture quality goes - The G2 lenses can't be beat. Nikon has great lenses as well, but to get the POP you want out of them would require a big budget. ie. 85 mm f/1.4 20mm f/2.8 28mm f/1.4. etc.. BTW - love the new 70-200 AF-S VR I just got but try being inconspicuous with that!!

What you lose with G2 is spot metering, macro shots and some close focusing (G2 lenses are .5m to 1m closest focus distance), and telephoto lenses beyond 90mm.

What you gain is light weight small package - wonderful images. Also note if you do a lot of flash photography the G2 isn't the best pacakge for it. I personally shoot Fuji slides with my G2 and also use the GD2 data back the shooting information (although approximated) is useful and printed on the film instead of having to purchase separate cables and software per Nikon F100.

Please feel free to contact me for other questions.