Contax G2 or Nikon F100

[pierre_l]

I understand what you're saying. My concern about it, I guess, is because I'm a kidney dialysis patient on limited disability income, with a one-time opportunity 5 months from now to buy a more or less lifetime camera in that price range (a tall order, I know!). I would welcome a future G3, because that would mean Kyocera/Contax is committed to an AF "rangefinder" system and won't just abandon it. I don't care about future lenses or anything like that, because the set I start out with is likely all I will ever have (likely 28, 45 and maybe 90). I would just like it to be current at least for a little while, after I buy it

...in addition to having a certain level of reliabitily combined with quality (both build and the actual photos).

That's one reason I'm staying totally out of the digital arena.

 

[writing4me]

Bernard's post said what I have been thinking. I don't know what Contax does have in mind for the future of the G2, but just to add to this discussion, even if the day comes that the G2 would be discontinued I believe Contax continues to service their discontinued cameras for quite a very long time afterwards. Do they not? Barring use of factory repair, there are still very good repair services elsewhere.

For ex&le, I'm starting to enjoy looking at the very old cameras (1940-1960 etc) and although they have been orphaned long ago, it is still possible to find good shooters, to get them worked on, and to find lenses and accessories.

As a comparison about discontinued cameras, I've noticed that the price of the RX seems down quite a bit on Ebay since the news of the RXII. In my way of thinking, it's an even better buy even though it is discontinued. The build is quality. Parts are accessible. Repair options are open. The G1 certainly dropped down to nearly nothing in price, but is still a very desirable and good camera.

If the price is right on the system you want, I'm not sure orphaning would be a big worry, given there are plenty of options for getting more parts for G2's. And if you're worried about dropping it in a lake while taking photos, get some cheap insurance on the camera itself. When I insured my gear I called up my regular insurance person (through State Farm) and it was next to nothing for a year of coverage that included absolutely stupid destruction of gear, no questions asked.

Hope this was helpful somehow. -Lynn

 

[hdfuhrman]

Pierre,

Make a decision. Stop agonizing. Both camera are great. If you are going to take close up pictures of flowers or wildlife needing a telephoto, buy the f100, you won't go wrong. If you want a realively lightweight, great camera and lenses for nearly all the other photo's get the G-2.

As far as whether a camera is supported or not, most of my cameras were discontinued many years ago and they are still capable of taking great photo's (subject to the limitations of this photographer, of course). Whether something is continued or discontinued is unimportant, if it accomplishes your purpose, go with it.

I have had my G-2 for a year, I did not get rid of my only Canon EF (1970 vintage) so I can take macro photos to my hearts content (usually one or two macro photo sessions per year). But the bulk of my photos is with the G2 and I am very satisfied with results.

Good luck,
Howard

 

[robgo2]

Pierre,

Based on your earlier description of the type of photography that you like to do, I would say that the G system is ideal. (Just hold onto your current SLR for special situations.) Presumably, you have made the decision to go with film rather than digital capture. Given the fairly large number of G2s that have been sold over the years, I doubt that there will be a problem finding support for that camera in the forseeable future.

 

[pierre_l]

Thanks again everyone for your thoughts. I'm not really agonizing over this choice, just doing what I guess they would call due diligence in the business world. I've seen the G1 and G2 in the store, but I've yet to actually handle one, so that will be the next thing I do. Maybe that will be enough to convince me. So far, it seems like it might be ideal for my needs.

 

[tomasjpn]

Hi Pierre,

Another post mentioned that it might be difficult, maybe impossible, to know how well the G2 is selling, except for knowing that sales of all non-digital equipment made by all companies are falling. Kyocera is a fairly small company, but they manufacture a lot of other things besides cameras (their full name is Kyoto Ceramic). Perhaps a valid question would be 'how well is the company doing?' I live in Japan and frankly, there are very few medium to large companies here that are not well in the red. Not a day goes by when I watch the nightly news here in Tokyo that I don't see news of another failed company either going bankrupt or begging for government assistance. I haven't seen financials for Kyocera or Nikon (nor Minolta and Pentax), but if they did what most other Japanese companies did, 10-15 years ago, then their balance sheets probably look like hell. That is, did they invest in the Tokyo real-estate market and stock market using one of these investment/speculation instruments as collateral for the other? As you may know, both stocks and real estate in Japan have gone down the toilet, and still continue to decline.

That being said, perhaps there aren't ANY major Japanese camera companies that aren't a financial mess (and most of the mess is hidden off the balance sheets, by the way).

I would speculate that as long as Kyocera can continue to sell something in the digital market, and as long as their other non-camera products do ok, the company will not disappear and therefore we should all still be able to get service etc for our G2s.

I hope......

The 'G3' issue is another thing altogether, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Not really sure if this addresses your concern about an orphaned product.

Good luck.

Mark Edwards

 

[pierre_l]

BTW, if anything convinces me to get a G1 or G2, it will be all of your photos in the gallery. Most of you guys are very good.

 

[yogi]

Call me retro and very paranoid. But if this is to be MY only camera, I'd try to have as little dependency on electronics as much as possible.

As I mentioned before I do own the F100 and G2, but I also have the Nikon FM2 and Ftn to go with them as backup. Seriously the FM2 and the recently introduced FM3a is about the weight of the G2 and if you get the prime lenses should still be very light. The sizes are about equal (compare them toghether in the stores) No motors to worry about. Shutter/aperture will work without battery. A good split view screen will give good focusing and diopeter and magnification eye pieces will help for poor eye sight people. I believe that my Nikon FM2 and FTn will still be around when my F100 and G2 have died.

I'm not familiar with Contax Manual cameras but I bet they have something similar as well. Mechanical parts for the most part are easier to repair. Electronics for the most part need to be "replaced."

 

[robgo2]

"But if this is to be MY only camera, I'd try to have as little dependency on electronics as much as possible."

Frankly, I find this kind of thinking mystifying. Given the fact that almost everything else in our lives is in someway dependent on electricity, why should we worry that our cameras are as well. Carrying an extra set of batteries at all times is no more taxing than carrying extra film. Even if the G is not one's only camera, what is gained by having a backup mechanical camera? It makes just as much sense to have a second G body or a good P&S with enough batteries to last forever.

 

[traderbc]

> Its not just batteries but electronic cameras if broken are harder to repair > by 3rd parties.

Not unlike our cars these days with so many parts electronically controlled.