and help to keep the site free for all
Contax G2 or EOS 3?
- Thread starter ekimeno
- Start date
- Messages
- 117
- Edit My Images
- No
OP
- Messages
- 2,659
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Some scans at last - shot on Ektachrome 400 that's five years out of date....
Must admit, though, the G2 isn't too fond of movement using CAF. I think the technique should be more predictive from the user point of view - ie. focus on something at the same distance, lock focus and recompose. The CAF gets a bit confused with moving subjects - think I'l stick to SAF.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Must admit, though, the G2 isn't too fond of movement using CAF. I think the technique should be more predictive from the user point of view - ie. focus on something at the same distance, lock focus and recompose. The CAF gets a bit confused with moving subjects - think I'l stick to SAF.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Strangely, I feel the answer is both.
Nice as it is, it's not too practical is it? Surely I can do 'sensible' - just this once? 
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nice pics Mike - lovely colour. Don't forget you're digitizing these images whether you like it or not and they could do with a dab of sharpen unless you've got a pretty ace scanner. If you've reduced the image from the scan size to web size, they'll need a sharpen anyway....
Tell me you don't love it already!
Tell me you don't love it already!
OP
- Messages
- 2,659
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I normally unsharp mask on the full resolution scan, then resize and upload... should I be resizing and then sharpening? Yes, the colour is impressive considering the age of the film and manky developer which is going on it's 7th re-use.
The G2 is a fab little camera - very good quality for such a small camera. I'm still a bit disappointed when I look at 35mm scans compared to my 6x6 Bronnie shots on the same scanner, though this is to be expected. Next on my hitlist is a decent scanner...
The G2 is a fab little camera - very good quality for such a small camera. I'm still a bit disappointed when I look at 35mm scans compared to my 6x6 Bronnie shots on the same scanner, though this is to be expected. Next on my hitlist is a decent scanner...
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well most pundits advise only sharpening the image at it's final output size. That's what I do though some might disagree. What that means in practice is that if you're going to print the full size scan you should sharpen at that size.
If you reduce a picture in size for web viewing then you should only sharpen at that size as a final step. It's easy with digital and RAW as you can always go back to the RAW file, but with scanned images, it usually means duplicating each image from the original that you intend resizing.
If you reduce a picture in size for web viewing then you should only sharpen at that size as a final step. It's easy with digital and RAW as you can always go back to the RAW file, but with scanned images, it usually means duplicating each image from the original that you intend resizing.
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
OP
- Messages
- 2,659
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
2 weeks later with the G2 and...
Auto focus - not always getting it nailed. General advice seems to be that if you loose the focus, try again and to check the focus meter in the viewfinder. For street togging you need instant focus or the moment is gone. You can't 'try again'.
Colour - desaturated is good for some, but I'm always left feeling a little deflated by the results that I do manage to get in focus. I'm a bright colours togger - I want to be overwhelmed by colour... and I hate spending more than a minute fixing colour in PS. On the plus side, I guess the G2 is perfect for B&W...
On the flipside, the camera is just beautiful - the ergonomics are to die for. The mechanics make the camera feel like you're handling some scientific instrument - it's a joy to operate.
I wish it had a 'real' rangefinder manual handling ability where you could just switch off the electronics and just do it by lining up those images in a split prism the old fashioned way.
I'm tearing my hair out trying to think of ways to make the G2 work for me because I so want to keep it (and so many other people love this camera), so I can only think it's down to me and my particular style of shooting. If I was shooting only subjects that were easy to focus on - neutral, static subjects, then the G2 may be the perfect camera. My subjects tend to move around a bit, and if they're not, I'm usually using my Bronica SQ-Ai (ie landscapes)
I may keep it for at least a few more rolls of film... but I'm already checking out other options. I guess that's the beauty of playing with old film cameras - there are just so many to try out.
Certain cameras just do it for some people, other cameras for others... for now all I can say is that it's been fun messing around with a G2 although after giving it a good go can say with a fair bit of confidence, that it's probably not for me
Auto focus - not always getting it nailed. General advice seems to be that if you loose the focus, try again and to check the focus meter in the viewfinder. For street togging you need instant focus or the moment is gone. You can't 'try again'.
Colour - desaturated is good for some, but I'm always left feeling a little deflated by the results that I do manage to get in focus. I'm a bright colours togger - I want to be overwhelmed by colour... and I hate spending more than a minute fixing colour in PS. On the plus side, I guess the G2 is perfect for B&W...
On the flipside, the camera is just beautiful - the ergonomics are to die for. The mechanics make the camera feel like you're handling some scientific instrument - it's a joy to operate.
I wish it had a 'real' rangefinder manual handling ability where you could just switch off the electronics and just do it by lining up those images in a split prism the old fashioned way.
I'm tearing my hair out trying to think of ways to make the G2 work for me because I so want to keep it (and so many other people love this camera), so I can only think it's down to me and my particular style of shooting. If I was shooting only subjects that were easy to focus on - neutral, static subjects, then the G2 may be the perfect camera. My subjects tend to move around a bit, and if they're not, I'm usually using my Bronica SQ-Ai (ie landscapes)
I may keep it for at least a few more rolls of film... but I'm already checking out other options. I guess that's the beauty of playing with old film cameras - there are just so many to try out.
Certain cameras just do it for some people, other cameras for others... for now all I can say is that it's been fun messing around with a G2 although after giving it a good go can say with a fair bit of confidence, that it's probably not for me
- Messages
- 5,993
- Name
- Darren
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You can set the focus manually but it's not what I'd call manual focus. It's an electronic link from a little thumb wheel on the camera body. The only bit of the camera I didn't like.
If you do move on to something else ekimeno, it's an icon crossed off your list and I doubt you'll lose on it.
If you do move on to something else ekimeno, it's an icon crossed off your list and I doubt you'll lose on it.
OP
- Messages
- 2,659
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, the MF is still just an electronic display in the VF with little dots coming together as you focus - bit irritating really... I feel that the G2 is a learning curve too steep for me perhaps.
As you say dazz, it's a box ticked and it's no loss in my book - the beauty of buying used equipment.
As you say dazz, it's a box ticked and it's no loss in my book - the beauty of buying used equipment.
excalibur2
My F4's Broken...
- Messages
- 11,771
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
ermm After going thru this thread, you might have been happy with a Nikon L35AD P&S, very good lens...get it for about £2 from boot sales. I was also amazed by the sharpness of a Minolta AFZ for £1.
£500 is a lot of money to play around with one film camera and a few lenses, esp when you probably will put it in a back pack cycling.............The camera I use least is my Canon T90 because I don't want to scratch it in a back pack or get sand in it on a beach...lol which defeats the object of buying it in the first place.
So unless you are going to have some large lab prints done, you probably wont see any difference compared to my cheapy Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Konica, Minolta gear......esp if you are going to use a home scanner.
£500 is a lot of money to play around with one film camera and a few lenses, esp when you probably will put it in a back pack cycling.............The camera I use least is my Canon T90 because I don't want to scratch it in a back pack or get sand in it on a beach...lol which defeats the object of buying it in the first place.
So unless you are going to have some large lab prints done, you probably wont see any difference compared to my cheapy Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Konica, Minolta gear......esp if you are going to use a home scanner.
- Messages
- 11,800
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Re - saturation...
Surely it depends which film you use...or am I just being simple?
Have you tried Velvia?
Surely it depends which film you use...or am I just being simple?
Have you tried Velvia?
OP
- Messages
- 2,659
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yep, I'm happier with my little Minolta XG9 manual focus SLR that set me back £10 and getting better results too
No, you have a point. Velvia would provide more saturation and I haven't tried it yet. The Contax G2/G1 lenses, however, are known for their faded colours compared to other lenses on the same film and I can see it at work in the Ektachrome and Sensia slide film I've used so far.
- Messages
- 1,831
- Name
- Nick (yes there is more than one of us)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You could always try slide film set at slightly higher ISO
I usually set my 100 at 125 or even 150 as it helps saturate the colours, looking at you images not sure if will add as much as you want, but could be worth ago. :shrug:
I usually set my 100 at 125 or even 150 as it helps saturate the colours, looking at you images not sure if will add as much as you want, but could be worth ago. :shrug:
- Messages
- 11,800
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Yep, I'm happier with my little Minolta XG9 manual focus SLR that set me back £10 and getting better results too
No, you have a point. Velvia would provide more saturation and I haven't tried it yet. The Contax G2/G1 lenses, however, are known for their faded colours compared to other lenses on the same film and I can see it at work in the Ektachrome and Sensia slide film I've used so far.
Just put some velvia 50 through it, then!
excalibur2
My F4's Broken...
- Messages
- 11,771
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
***Yep, I'm happier with my little Minolta XG9 manual focus SLR that set me back £10 and getting better results too***
...and the Minolta f1.7 lens would be better than:- an Epson flatbed scanner, a image on a computer screen, a print from el cheapo inkjet, a photographer that doesn't use a tripod and has shakey hands and probably the resolution of most faster neg films.
...and the Minolta f1.7 lens would be better than:- an Epson flatbed scanner, a image on a computer screen, a print from el cheapo inkjet, a photographer that doesn't use a tripod and has shakey hands and probably the resolution of most faster neg films.
OP
- Messages
- 2,659
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'll give that a go Knikki. Also going to try some different slide like Velvia and perhaps Ektar 100. Also, I'm seriously going to give the focusing issues a bit of testing. I really really REALLY want to make this camera work for me. It been a rocky start in our relationship, but I'm going to work it out
- Messages
- 8,758
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
I fell out with my Mamiya 6, mostly because of the close focussing issues, but I eventually accepted its limitations and I won't sell it again
I'm not saying its the same thing, it really depends on the severity of the perceived handicap, some issues are insurmountable, and some just take a different approach or some getting used to.
The jump from SLR AF to rangefinder focussing is a yawning chasm, I suspect its a similar gap from MF to G2 focussing.
I'm not saying its the same thing, it really depends on the severity of the perceived handicap, some issues are insurmountable, and some just take a different approach or some getting used to.
The jump from SLR AF to rangefinder focussing is a yawning chasm, I suspect its a similar gap from MF to G2 focussing.
- Messages
- 1,842
- Name
- Ujjwal
- Edit My Images
- No
I use a G1 pretty regularly; and have faced some focussing issues only with the 90 MM lens on a fast moving object. Other than that, never have a problem. The key for me is to keep the subject in the bang central for focussing, and the lock the focus.
For fast moving object on 90 mm ( I took quite a few shots of an air show with it recently), I simply set the manual focus to infinity.
I am told that G2 has better focussing than G1, so I am wondering if your camera body or the lens contacts have some issues Ekimeno. Offcourse I have never done any street photography, so the demands may be very different, and AF may not be able to cope, especially in low light.
Re colour saturation, I get them very vivid and bright; especially the blue in the sky from the 28 mm lens. This corresponds to the reviews I have read of the all the G lens. Again, my expectations may be lower, perhaps.
For fast moving object on 90 mm ( I took quite a few shots of an air show with it recently), I simply set the manual focus to infinity.
I am told that G2 has better focussing than G1, so I am wondering if your camera body or the lens contacts have some issues Ekimeno. Offcourse I have never done any street photography, so the demands may be very different, and AF may not be able to cope, especially in low light.
Re colour saturation, I get them very vivid and bright; especially the blue in the sky from the 28 mm lens. This corresponds to the reviews I have read of the all the G lens. Again, my expectations may be lower, perhaps.
OP
- Messages
- 2,659
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks for those comments joxby and ujjwaldey8165. By all accounts, the auto focussing on the G2 works in two ways - one is using a rangefinder method and the other is using an IR beam, and they work together... if the rangefinder fails, the IR takes over, so it should in fact be very accurate, it's just not very fast.
However, the only other AF cameras I've used before this have been Canon EOS SLR's and I feel that I've been spoiled by them - dead accurate 99.9% of the time and very quick. My Bronica has given me a feel for manual focus, so MF doesn't scare me away - it's a new method of auto-focussing which does!
However, the only other AF cameras I've used before this have been Canon EOS SLR's and I feel that I've been spoiled by them - dead accurate 99.9% of the time and very quick. My Bronica has given me a feel for manual focus, so MF doesn't scare me away - it's a new method of auto-focussing which does!
OP
- Messages
- 2,659
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Looks like by my 2nd roll of 35mm, things were already improving...
excalibur2
My F4's Broken...
- Messages
- 11,771
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
***I see a Leicaflex or perhaps an OM-4 system on the horizon...***
As you use a Bronica, then a Canon T90 is for you with great selection of FD lenses, with the matching speedlight you'll enjoy your time in the "small room" working out and remembering what it can do from the manuals.
http://www.mir.SPAM/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/canont90/index.htm
As you use a Bronica, then a Canon T90 is for you with great selection of FD lenses, with the matching speedlight you'll enjoy your time in the "small room" working out and remembering what it can do from the manuals.
http://www.mir.SPAM/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/canont90/index.htm
- Messages
- 1,831
- Name
- Nick (yes there is more than one of us)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I am shocked, but at least you have tried and produced some great images. For the OM4Leicas are good I picked you a R5 with 35-70 Jap lens on it and only done one film so far (cocked the development up :bang
but from what I saw yep great.The T90 is a great camera but bloody noisey when you fire it
(yes I do have one)
OP
- Messages
- 2,659
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Leicas are good I picked you a R5 with 35-70 Jap lens on it and only done one film so far (cocked the development up :bang
The T90 is a great camera but bloody noisey when you fire it
Yes, it may produce some excellent images, but I feel more comfortable with an SLR. Ideally I'd like to go for a 'serious' SLR but also something not too big, hence my thinking along the Leicaflex and OM4 lines.
Oh yes - if anyone feels like bumping my ad - please bump away
- Messages
- 1,842
- Name
- Ujjwal
- Edit My Images
- No
ekimeno
Leica R4 is smaller ( and lighter, from recollection) than a leicaflex. Plus it takes 3 cam lens; and is cheaper.
On the other hand, a flex is reputed to be the most robust SLR; with the brightest view finder ( one of the models anyways).
You may want to hold them and play for sometime before you commit. If you wish to, you can play with my R4
That said, have a look at Contax + contax lens. Very compact ( at least the 45 mm on a 167 body and the lovliest range of lens ever. Plus much much cheaper ( body : 40 - 100£; 45/50 mm lens : 50 £; 85 mm 170-200£; 35/28 mm : 150 - 250 £)
Ujjwal
Leica R4 is smaller ( and lighter, from recollection) than a leicaflex. Plus it takes 3 cam lens; and is cheaper.
On the other hand, a flex is reputed to be the most robust SLR; with the brightest view finder ( one of the models anyways).
You may want to hold them and play for sometime before you commit. If you wish to, you can play with my R4
That said, have a look at Contax + contax lens. Very compact ( at least the 45 mm on a 167 body
and the lovliest range of lens ever. Plus much much cheaper ( body : 40 - 100£; 45/50 mm lens : 50 £; 85 mm 170-200£; 35/28 mm : 150 - 250 £)Ujjwal
OP
- Messages
- 2,659
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I must say that I'm currently in love with my Minolta XG9 and 50mm Rokkor lens. The handling on the thing is so straight forward... also the lenses and accessories available are excellent quality and dirt cheap. I may buy more for this little SLR, but will probably do some more testing with it... I'm in no hurry
Ujjwal - thanks for the tips - the Contax SLRs look the business
Ujjwal - thanks for the tips - the Contax SLRs look the business
- Messages
- 117
- Edit My Images
- No
Maybe you should take a peek at a om4ti, I brought one a couple of months ago and absolutely love it, I have the 50/1.4, 135/3.5 and 28/35 but mainly the 50mm 1.4 stays on there as it's so versatile.
I'm used to Canon 1d but now I prefer to use the Oly, hard to explain really, It just feels "right" in my hands, easy to use and I love the spot exposure, which works a treat.
Obviously this model has the Ti body like your Contax and it feel bullet proof. I brought mine from MXV, 12 months warranty and it was cheaper than Ebay, so no complaints from me.
Good luck with your sale and search!
I'm used to Canon 1d but now I prefer to use the Oly, hard to explain really, It just feels "right" in my hands, easy to use and I love the spot exposure, which works a treat.
Obviously this model has the Ti body like your Contax and it feel bullet proof. I brought mine from MXV, 12 months warranty and it was cheaper than Ebay, so no complaints from me.
Good luck with your sale and search!
OP
- Messages
- 2,659
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well, I thought I might let everyone know that I now do in fact like my G2. I believe I've mastered the controls, but still I find focusing tricky to get right. I've managed however, to not mess up the focus on any shots for the last 2 rolls, so I think I can say that I've got it.
I guess that it's important to anyone that's read this thread to understand that if an SLR is all you've known, don't expect to pick up a camera like a G2 and just start taking great shots straight away. I was very impressed with the results of my developing session on Sunday - all the colour was looking good. The washed out colour I was getting before was probably the result of the out of date film... this time I made sure I was using fresh film and E6 chems. Apologies for any misinformation I may have spread... these things happen :bonk:
Anyway, here's a recent shot from this new batch
I guess that it's important to anyone that's read this thread to understand that if an SLR is all you've known, don't expect to pick up a camera like a G2 and just start taking great shots straight away. I was very impressed with the results of my developing session on Sunday - all the colour was looking good. The washed out colour I was getting before was probably the result of the out of date film... this time I made sure I was using fresh film and E6 chems. Apologies for any misinformation I may have spread... these things happen :bonk:
Anyway, here's a recent shot from this new batch
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
Another one has seen the light!
Why not have both?
As you say, the EOS 3 is similar in operation to the 40D so if I were doing this, I would go for the G2 first.
EDIT: I really should read the whole of a thread before replying. Unless you travelled forwards in time to read my recommendation!
Steve.