The limited range of lenses is another thing you have to weigh: the wide-angle range is pretty well-covered, but there's nothing longer than 90mm or faster than f/2, which means this isn't the camera you'll be using for sports, wildlife, or low-light documentary shooting, to name a few examples. Either of these is something that you have to judge for yourself after examining the camera. The other major hangup about using the camera was also viewfinder-related: the zoom viewfinder is perfectly comfortable and sufficiently bright for some people, but others have trouble getting their eyes accommodated to it and/or find it too dim for easy viewing. It's important to understand that because one of the biggest psychological stumbling blocks people have about the G cameras is that there is no visual confirmation that your intended focus target is actually what will be in focus! Many of us did learn to trust the distance scale in the camera viewfinder, make sure we were centering the AF frame on a "focusable" area of the subject, and various other tricks, but an occasional AF miss was something that came with the territory, and the nagging uncertainty about this made it impossible for some people to use it with confidence. It's more accurate to call it a non-SLR autofocus camera. The first thing you need to know is that it is not a rangefinder camera! It doesn't qualify because it isn't focused by an optical rangefinder.
#Contax g2 digital back update#
He is definitely a one draft writer and feeds ideas in his blogs as his hyperactive brain cells churn them out.I used to own one (and in fact ran a website about them which lives on here, although I no longer update or maintain it, and the site design is amusingly antique by now.) His technical data is (sometimes) worth reading but his other ideas seem to originate from the top of his head.
Ken Rockwell floats ideas like leaves on a pond.
This is rather a shame as the 21, 28 and 45 G's are by far the best optics I've worked with. As you say, the system is now 'orphaned' and unless a manufacturer some day produces a new camera (I once had high hopes for Bessa and even contacted this manufacturer with my idea in the mid-'00s, but alas, nothing came of it) with the G Zeiss lens mount, they will all end up as expensive collectables. Converters are available to use them on digital cameras (it seems Metabones make the best and certainly the most expensive ones) but a few shooters I know who've used them say results are so-so, the 45 and 90 produce okay images but the 28 and 35 tend to flare and throw up odd artifacts. These G lenses are now living legends all their own. My question for the forum is this: Is the Contax G2, along with its supposedly sensational Zeiss glass, enough of an improvement over the Canon? Will pictures taken with a Zeiss lens look that much different from pictures taken with my 40mm f/2.8 Canon lens? I realize that the answers to these questions are probably very subjective, but I am interested in hearing what the forum members have to say about this.Ĭlick to expand.Which is why I own four of these babies. I am okay with that since I love how it looks and the fact that it's supposed to be able to take good pictures. I am aware that the camera contains electronic parts that may not be repairable if it breaks, and that some find the viewfinder to be rather small. I am very close to convincing myself that I must have this camera, even though it costs upwards of two thousand dollars with one or two lenses. However, the Canon does not spark that much of a joy when using it, even though it gets the job done.įor the last few weeks, I have been drooling over the Contax G2 on eBay. I enjoy using them both but I use the Canon more, since I like autofocus, along with a Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM lens.
I have two 35mm cameras that I use regularly: Minolta XD-11 and Canon EOS Elan 7N.
0 kommentar(er)
