Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,221   Posts: 1,532,341   Online: 1070
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32
  1. #11

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Evanston, IL, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    646
    Images
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by John Koehrer View Post
    Hi Reub,
    Do you use a RF? It's a better at AF than MF, I think that's what it was truly meant to do
    The G2 is a very well balanced, handling camera, very smooth. Manual focus takes a little getting used to, I vaguely recall that it had a focus confirmation in the VF. Comparing the two is a little like apples 'n those orange things. The G1 is a little less sophisticated, but a great pocket camera.
    Yes I have. I have a Yashica Electro 35 GSN. I love the camera. Focus conformation is seeing the superimposed image line up with the rest of the viewfinder.

    I also use AF SLRs, and these things can do very well at autofocusing. AF is fast and silent when using a lens with a USM motor. Plus I can fall back on the manual focus, something that come is very handy when I'm doing closeups.

  2. #12
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by reub2000 View Post
    I once held one, and I wasn't too impressed. The focus seemed slow, and the manual focus is fly-by-wire. There is no rangefinder or ground glass to confirm your focus.
    "I held one once" shouldn't be the metric by which to judge, jeez.

    Using G2 Focus Correctly

    I sat in a Ferrari once. It was too low and you had to shift manually. I wasn't too impressed.

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,358
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeyes View Post
    <snip> I disgree that the body just holds the film flat and keeps the dark in, have you only ever used a box camera?
    Of course I've used a box camera. My first camera was a Brownie Hawkeye. It held the film flat and kept the dark in, did both very well. Its self-cocking shutter was a menace, fired on the down stroke and again on the up. Got some surprisingly nice double exposures before I learned how it worked.

    These days I shoot advanced box cameras. On 35 mm still, mainly Nikon SLRs. On 2x3, Graphics. They all keep the dark in. The Nikons hold the film flat enough. The Graphics themselves don't even hold the film, with them roll holders and sheet film holders are attachments.

    Cheers,

    Dan

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    587
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeyes View Post
    So I,m laid up in bed with a spot of back trouble at the moment and my eyes keep looking at Contax G2 kits on ebay at reasonable prices. Beautiful looking compact cameras with interchangable lenses. I know that the last thing I need is another camera but I can't help wondering, what are the G2s like to use and own? Have you any sample photographs to show produced with a G2 using B&W film? Thanks in advance.
    I have used a G1 for years. Never had a problem with it and has, still is, a delight to use. Only used a standard lens (45 mm f2 planar) that I have found to be absolutely suberb. "Focus is slow" - never found this to be a problem with street photography/candids as long as you use it correctly. Also, even after years of fairly hard use, show little signs of wear.
    Never used a G2 but they are supposed to be an improvement over the G1, I have found that I have needed no improvements.
    Regards
    John

  5. #15

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Evanston, IL, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    646
    Images
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by bjorke View Post
    "I held one once" shouldn't be the metric by which to judge, jeez.

    Using G2 Focus Correctly

    I sat in a Ferrari once. It was too low and you had to shift manually. I wasn't too impressed.
    Sorry, just posting my impression of the camera. Not a complete review.

    The OP may like the like the camera.

  6. #16
    Peter Williams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    275
    I had the G2 for about a year before I sold it in favor of a 4x5 kit. The camera itself is wonderful - heavy and solid and beautiful to look at. The lenses are fantastic and I have some great shots taken with it. The article linked above on focusing the G2 is spot on and that is the way I used the camera. The camera is not as good for close up photography as an SLR, but I did manage to get some good close up shots with it.
    If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
    - Elbert Hubbard

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeyes View Post
    So I,m laid up in bed with a spot of back trouble at the moment and my eyes keep looking at Contax G2 kits on ebay at reasonable prices. Beautiful looking compact cameras with interchangable lenses. I know that the last thing I need is another camera but I can't help wondering, what are the G2s like to use and own? Have you any sample photographs to show produced with a G2 using B&W film? Thanks in advance.
    The lenses are second to none, but I'd far rather have Leicas. I had a G2 for a year, with 35 and 90 lenses. Like all autofocus, the focus was not totally reliable (hunting, not focusing on occasion) but the thing I found worst was that in humid/sweaty conditions (including carrying the thing under my coat on a cold day) the eyepiece would steam us, as it does with a Leica, but because it was so deep-set, it was a swine to clean.

    Looking at my 'rangefinder' book (details on www.rogerandfrances.com) I note that there isn't a single pic in there taken with the G2, and there aren't many in other books of mine or on the web-site.

    Cheers,

    R.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    The lenses are second to none, but I'd far rather have Leicas. I had a G2 for a year, with 35 and 90 lenses. Like all autofocus, the focus was not totally reliable (hunting, not focusing on occasion) but the thing I found worst was that in humid/sweaty conditions (including carrying the thing under my coat on a cold day) the eyepiece would steam us, as it does with a Leica, but because it was so deep-set, it was a swine to clean.

    Looking at my 'rangefinder' book (details on www.rogerandfrances.com) I note that there isn't a single pic in there taken with the G2, and there aren't many in other books of mine or on the web-site.

    Cheers,

    R.

    Roger, looks like you need to go back to bjorke's post in this thread and review:

    Using G2 Focus Correctly
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  9. #19

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    291
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post
    Of course I've used a box camera. My first camera was a Brownie Hawkeye. It held the film flat and kept the dark in, did both very well. Its self-cocking shutter was a menace, fired on the down stroke and again on the up. Got some surprisingly nice double exposures before I learned how it worked.

    These days I shoot advanced box cameras. On 35 mm still, mainly Nikon SLRs. On 2x3, Graphics. They all keep the dark in. The Nikons hold the film flat enough. The Graphics themselves don't even hold the film, with them roll holders and sheet film holders are attachments.

    Cheers,

    Dan
    Shhh! some camera bodies DONT EVEN NEED FILM IN THEM and you can even make phone calls on 'em honest, no kidding.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    291
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    The lenses are second to none, but I'd far rather have Leicas. I had a G2 for a year, with 35 and 90 lenses. Like all autofocus, the focus was not totally reliable (hunting, not focusing on occasion) but the thing I found worst was that in humid/sweaty conditions (including carrying the thing under my coat on a cold day) the eyepiece would steam us, as it does with a Leica, but because it was so deep-set, it was a swine to clean.

    Looking at my 'rangefinder' book (details on www.rogerandfrances.com) I note that there isn't a single pic in there taken with the G2, and there aren't many in other books of mine or on the web-site.

    Cheers,

    R.
    Roger which Leica with a 28mm, 45mm and 90mm lens could I buy for less than a grand (£1000)

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin