Contax G2

[Guest]

Kian-Guan,

I think 35mm RF is the ideal tool to combine landscape & travel. But if you can live with the bulk and weight of an F5 system, you should clearly opt for 645 or 6x7.

In my eyes F5 is a journalistic system; not appropriate for landscapes, if you can have medium format at the same weight.

Just my 2 cents
Till

 

[Guest]

Till brings up a good point about going mid-format. Another possibility would be a Hasselblad X-Pan, a wonderful landscape camera, even though you wouldn't have Zeiss glass. You get to use the broader range of 35mm films.

I've often wondered what it would be like to carry nothing but an SWC, a dazzling camera in its own right.

--Rick

 

[Guest]

I'll add my 2 cents to Till's, making four cents in all, if my arithmetic doesn't fail me. The bulk and weight of "pro" 35 SLR's answer the needs of hardworking pros, perhaps - where ruggedness counts for so much -, but for the rest of us, I've always wondered: why carry a load like that when you can have the added benefit of much larger film for about the same weight/bulk penalty, by using a more compact mid-format camera? Some of the lightweight, compact new slr's give you nice lenses and very capable operation without the ruggedness advantage, so that's another alternative. There are a few quite good ones that are surprisingly diminutive and smaller/lightweight lenses can be found for them. No knock on the G's: they have their own special advantages. Chas.

 

[Guest]

If you're willing to considering MF and you're looking for a landscape machine, consider the Fuji GSW 690III - cheaper than an F5, the lens has a fantastic reputation, and you end up with massive negatives or chromes (without the headaches of LF).

Not that I think you can go wrong with the G2, I love my G1. But if your looking for balls-to-the-walls image quality you shouldn't forget the value of upsizing your neg.

 

[Guest]

Till, Rick, Chas, and Ron, thank you very much. Your points are well taken.

I think the 35 mm RF may be better for me because I got my eye glasses a several years ago. What's more, I am getting little tired of manual focus. As for travel, sometimes I have troublesome to carry the "heavy" SLR camera and lens. This is what it makes me to think of AF and good compact camera like G2.

Rick, I understand that the Hasselblad X-Pan is good for landscape. What about regular one like travel or portait or people? Is it good for anything?

 

[Guest]

Kain-Guan,

The XPan, while it only has three lenses available so far, should handle portraiture as well as travel and landscape. It is switchable between regular 35mm and true panorama (24 X 65mm), and you can mix the two formats on a single roll of film. I'm not aware of any other 35mm camera with this capability. It is not, however, autofocus.

If I were considering getting into a new system (and I'm not) I'd certainly give the XPan a close look.

--Rick

 

[Guest]

>FYI- I bought a Fuji FSW690 a few years ago, and the images are fantastic. However, I had years earlier a Fuji 645 with the folding front/75mm lens, and the shutter stuck a couple of times, and the Fuji repair folks fixed it for free. With the fixed lens on the 690, I thought there would be no problem, but the shutter quit in Kauai, of all places. Had it repaired and sold it. The shutter to me is just no reliable.

 

[Guest]

> [Hi, Can somebody tell me what is the use of an UV fikter ? Thanks Bernard]

 

[Guest]

> You may be interested ......Last July I had an exhibit up in the lobby of a large building in my city where I wanted to see if people could tell me which prints came from my Contax G 35mm (interchangeable Zeiss lenses) and which came from my Fuji 6x9 (fixed lens) There were 30 prints. I made the question easy. I asked them to tell me which prints came from the larger format, 120 camera. Only one person got one 6x9 image right. But let's look at the other parameters. All the images were printed full size with little cropping. The enlarger I used for the Contax prints was a Leica subtractive enlarger, with of course, a Leica lens. The enlarger I used for the 6x9 negs was an Ilford MG500, additive head with a Nikon lens. There were 22 contax 35mm prints and eight Fuji 6x9 prints. Maximum print size was 11x14. Problem? it's a poorly designed statistical test.

Botton line, in my view: Contax G system wins. Heresy about format size? Yes, I know!

Dave

PS: The building was Kodak's recreation theater. The people that looked at the exhibit and emailed me with their opinions I hope knew what they were looking for. I did not tell them what to look for. I also didn't tell them it was a Fuji camera. It may have biased the results. Bad word to use here in Rochester.

 

[Guest]

Hi folks,

For what it is worth I cannot see a comparison between the G2 and F5 - they are totally different cameras.

I use my G2 in addition to 35mm & 6x7 SLR's not instead of. Each outfit has its own strengths and weaknesses for given subjects or techniques.

The good things about the G2 include its light weight as an outfit and unobtrusive 'presence'. It does not look like a pro' spec' camera and does not get you noticeed like the F5 or RTSiii will. This is particularly good for reportage and candids of people. The downside is in not having lenses over 90mm and not having a macro facility as well as filters being hard to use with it.

Clive

p.s. - Why is 'Fuji' a bad word to use in Rochester? The yellow giant was keen to wed the green rival in order to milk the APS gravy train. Or does profit triumph over ethics?