What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.

DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Contax G2 or Nikon F100

Very like our cars in fact. Nobody can work on them except highly-trained, expensive technicians, and you have to replace entire assemblies when they break, rather than fixing them, and these assemblies are very expensive. My first camera was a Pentax Spotmatic in 1975. Very simple, very mechanical, easily repairable. My first car in the late 1960's was very mechanical too. Most things, I could fix myself. No computers, no electronics except the AM radio. Today, it's very much the same with cars as it is with the electronic cameras, let alone digital (what a nightmare those must be if something goes wrong).
 
I am very sure you will just love a Contax G2, but if you do not want to have 2 camera systems, I believe you may want to stick with Nikon.

I did not sell my SLR. There is a Tamron 180mm f/2.5 lens I have to keep for low light stage pictures. If one day I get into macro, I would need an SLR too. I wish to put those lenses on my G2, but I can't.

But, for what the G2 is capable of doing, it is always my preferred camera.

Nikkor optics are nice, with vivid color, but Zeiss optics are great all-round performers. Let me say Nikkors have a Nikon taste, but Zeiss is analytically neutral. I am sure you will like Zeiss optics better.

The G2 handles much better than any AF SLR I have tried (a very long list !). Judging from the specs it isn't particularly light, many SLRs could match its weight, but the G2 holds much better. It is also true for manual focus SLR's such as the Nikon FE2, they are lighter than their specs indicate. I don't know why. I got far sharper pictures hand-held with the G2, although I am pretty sure with the best Nikkor optics on tripods there would be no difference in measured optical quality.

My biggest gripe of the G2 is that there is no displayed aperture in the viewfinder. This is a very very serious issue, impeding me in a big way. In the SLR world, even the cheapest and lowest-end model shows the aperture value in the viewfinder. The Contax G mount doesn't even communicate the aperture from the lens to the body and the only way for the body to know the aperture is to guess it by comparing the external light meter and the TTL light meter. The guessed aperture is imprinted by the GD2 data back this way.
 
I started this thread, and I'm still undecided (though I have until about January '04 to decide). I've been looking at a lot of photos taken with the G1 or G2 on the web and comparing with those taken with other makes. I'm also well aware of how many experts say there isn't much real difference between one make's lenses and the others'. However, maybe it's my imagination, but I find so many Contax G photos look especially sharp, almost like medium format photos - both colour and B&W. Either all you G users are better photographers, or better film scanners, or the Zeiss lenses just have a special hard-to-define quality. So far, since my last posting, I've experimented quite a bit with three Nikkors: a very expensive 45mm 2.8P (Tessar), a 50mm 1.8D, and my 28-105D zoom. Even with tripod-mounted shots and a cable release, I can't get that same sharpness. I'm beginning to think the reflex mirror may be the culprit, as my F80 doesn't have mirror lock-up ( the mirror action is supposed to be well-d&ened). Or maybe it's the rangefinder's better use of the lenses, compared to an SLR.
 
For what it is worth, as a humble amateur I have reached the same conclusion - the contrast for the G lenses appears to be simply unmatched. While any rangefinder has its well-known liimitations, what it does ,it does extremely well.With no mirror, the film plain is so much closer to the lens, that different lens designs are possible(including biogon).Nearly all of Cartier Bresson's images were with just 3 focal lengths(50/35/90), and Salgado I believe is similar.And the non-real time way to go digital is just to get a really good scanner.Hopefully it is possible to make duotone prints in PS with this approach ?
 
Hi Pierre

It is not helpful, to compare pictures in the web. Only a direct compare of good paperprints or slides with the lenssystems of both cameras will help you. I can promise you, you will find a difference. I own both systems, a g2 with 21, 28, 45 and 90 lens and a nikon f4 where i prefer the MF AIS lenses. The advantages in quality of the G-lenses guided me to the decision, to use prime lenses only for the nikon. But since I own the G-system, I use this when ever I can. The Nikon System is for Close up and tele only, whereby this occurs seldom in the last 3 years. Originaly I bought the G as a good Camera to take with all the time, but soon it became my favortite photo-tool.

I hope I can help you to hit a good decision. However you decide, photography is fine thing anyway.

Regards

Hans Villars, Switzerland
 
On the subjest of sharpness.............I myself have noticed that the subject sometimes makes a difference in how sharp your pictures are. For instance, I shot a car show with both the F100 and the G2. I used the same exact film in both camera's. In my opinion, the Nikkor lenses produced superior results over the G lenses. I just was not satisfied with how the shots came out with the G.

Yet, the best people pictures I've taken have always been with my G2. Alongwith the G2 and the F100, I own a Fuji S2 along with a Mamiya RZ67. I believe that each camera has its pro's and cons to deal with. Yet all four server their purposes. I would never take the RZ to an area where a flashy camera could get me into trouble. Yet Iwould never ever take the RZ to shoot a sporting event in an arena.
 
Hi David,
That's the conclusion I've come to as well for the moment anyway i.e. to be a hybrid and have the best of both worlds in being able to use my favourite traditional equipment but buy a film scanner - possibly the new Minolta. You miss the convenience and economy of digital but get to keep using the cameras and lenses you love and know.
 
pierre said "I can't get that same sharpness. I'm beginning to think the reflex mirror may be the culprit" try using the timer it is should raise the mirror earlier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top