|
close Substitute but they aint no G2. Leica M8, Panasonic Lumix LX3 and Canon G10.
They still are no G2 I still have my 2 G2s and I have a Lumix LX3 as well, nothing quite satisfies.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Lumix LX3 isnt capable of cleaning the G2's proverbial boots.
A small sensor digital compact cannot ever be called a 'digital G2'.
Likewise the G10
The closest in my opinion - not in sheer quality, but in quirkiness is the Olympus Micro 4/3 Pen Digital- it even looks a bit like a G2 (if you squint) its original, refreshing new design, compact, sturdy, and interchangeable lenses, plus good Dslr picture quality.
Though again, no G2.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Heres a photo of the 2 side by ide, the G2 is bigger and looks better, but the Oly aint half bad!
www.flickr.com/photos/oscar210/3656265628/sizes/m/
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Sultan of course there is no substitute to a G2, My recommendation was based on camera in pocket and shoots RAW. There is no 1:1. Unless someones releases a Digi that uses the G mount. That will be the day.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
There really isn't any thing you could compare to a G2 in essence. It's a film based electronic rf system. You need to maybe be a bit more specific. Are you asking for a digital rangefinder? If so there is the m8 or the epson rd1 / rds1. Otherwise the g system is rather unique it's pretty hard to compare a digital camera to a film camera.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The G2 is great because of the Zeiss glass, rangefinder size and styling, robust body and autofocus. It is also 'full frame' in digital terms.
No other camera has that combination of traits. The G10 is great but only has a small sensor. The M8 has a nice, big sensor but isn't autofocus. The Sigma DP cameras just aren't fast or versatile enough. The Olympus E-P1 is probably the closest you can get at the moment.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Also for me the big, big downside of the E-P1 other than it's slow focusing is the lack of an inbuilt viewfinder. To use this for discreet street photography and having to hold the camera out in front of you whilst you stare at the LCD screen is a big non starter. Also, when the sun comes out and shines bright and glaringly on that screen you are well stuffed. Tried the Canon G9/10 route myself and the viewfinder is pathetic, great camera but it had to go. In many ways you cannot even compare the M8 or Epson to the G2 either as they are both manual focus cameras, the G series is unique and on it's own in the "AF Rangefinder" category and maybe for many years to come too, who knows?
G1 or G2 and a good film scanner is still the way to go if you want a top quality rangefinder IMHO - Back to the Future in the truest sense of the expression.
Originally posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
cidereye edited this topic 35 months ago.
|
|
I have a Panasonic Lumix LC1. The body is bigger then the G1. I find the proportions of the Digital cameras are all off! Maybe it's because in film camera, the chambers dictate the shape...form follows function. The digital camera like the G10 feels small. Why can't they just make a digital g1 or g2?
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
However the Oly has an optional hotshoe mounted VF which is excellent.
I gather, from posts here, that there is NO alternative to the G2, though out of those mentioned the Olympus EP is head and shoulders the winner - it eve has an adaptor for M lenses and for OM Zuiko lenses too, so in theory you can fit M mount Zeiss Ikon lenses on it!
So can have an Oly EP with hotshoe mounted VF and a Zeiss Biogon or Planar!!! Now that sounds tempting! Its - as you can see from the pics, smaller than a G2 and shoots RAW, no idea about how quick the focus is though, nor whether the M lenses Autofocus
Originally posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
Sultan Vahdettin edited this topic 35 months ago.
|
|
|
Coming soon - the Panasonic GF1. It reportedly has styling similar to the Olympus E-P1, but will have the benefits of a clip-on electronic viewfinder and AVCHD movies. With adapter rings, you can use any M-mount manual focus lens from Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, etc.
Mind you, it still has a crop factor of 2x, which means that your 21/1.4 Leica lens will be a 42/1.4 on any m43 camera.
Still, it might be a good step towards a digital G2.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Size-wise I'm sure there are some similar cameras out there.
Image-wise I doubt anything could come close to the G series.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
We all agree that there really is no equal to the G2. There are manufacturers whose optics are equal (Leica is certainly one), but no one is significantly better.
What we really need is someone to either make a digital version of the G2 (I don't know if Kyocera still holds the patent on it or not), OR fabricate a digital back. That way you can use film, or change the back to a full frame CMOS digital sensor.
I really don't understand why some aftermarket company has not made a back like that.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
reodds - I have been thinking about this too, so I've been doing a lot of reading about sensors and related technology. The costs involved in creating a full frame digital back, specific to the G2, would be huge. Until the mythical full frame Leica M9 comes out, no one has even created a full frame rangefinder.
Given current sensor design, light must hit the sensor at right angles, whereas with film, light can hit at any angle. This is why film rangefinder lenses can be so small, vs digital lenses which are much, much bigger. A rangefinder lens on a full frame sensor would vignette like crazy. And even the M8 needs in-camera correction for the vignetting that already occurs in its cropped sensor.
Panasonic's new LiveMOS sensors remove some of the necessity for light to hit at strict right angles, but it is still not perfect.
So if a company like Panasonic, with all of its resources and understanding of camera and sensor technology, can't make a sensor that removes this need altogether right now, it is highly unlikely for any company to make a dedicated full frame digital back for a Contax G2. As much as we'd all love one, it ain't happening.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Archiver, I understand, however, you said "And even the M8 needs in-camera correction for the vignetting that already occurs in its cropped sensor". I would certainly welcome the technology involved if we could adapt what Leica did in the M8 to get a Contax digital back - even if it is "only" for a cropped sensor.
I don't really know how may G1 and G2 cameras were sold, but I can't believe that Kycera would not make their costs back and then some, if they came out with even a "limited edition" digital G2. Especially since they probably still have the necessary tooling for the body etc. Unless Kyocera is so busy in this world wide economic slump, that they cannot devote the time and effort to this project requested by so many.
Thanks for your input!
Roger
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i guess someone should do a survey of g owners, get a real indication of the demand, fire it at some camera entrepeneurs , developers etc. anythings possible but someone has to get the bull by the horns and do the numbers
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Kyocera still holds the license to the Contax brand name, and Zeiss still owns the name. So this closes the door for any new party acting independently.
Technically, a digital G2 is possible, and could utitlise the Zeiss G lenses. But for a business case, a D-G2 poses great risks. Considering Kyocera would need to purchase the digital imager from either Sony or Kodak, a D-G2 would likely not offer a better image than competitors. (BTW, Olympus and Panasonic use the same imager, which is why I can discern absolutely no difference between the two images). Without a better quality, Kyocera would be forced to follow suit with its competitors: ie price wars, marketing, new cameras every 6 months, etc.
I suppose a digital back might be retrofitted, if it could somehow couple with the existing body and electronics, and assuming a full-frame imager could be found. But if the d-backs for the Contax 645 are any indication, a d-back would be very very expensive.
For user's cost/benefit, buying digital makes no sense at all. For about $7 each, I can have 135-36 Provia film, develop, and d-scan. The new Leica M9 18MP is no where near the resolution of film, and costs $10,000 for body and fast lens - and this will be obsolete in 2 years. $10k is 1400 rolls of 135-36, or +50,000 images! - enough for a lifetime of shooting with the G2.
Ultimately though, I doubt a D-G2 would offer any photographic benefits. To me, digital offers the benefit of convenience - only. Only film has the qualities to capture the art, and to print/project it. Digital projection is woeful compared to a good slide projector. With digital scanning becoming better and cheaper monthly, I can now have the best of 2 mediums: film for art and presentation; and digital scans for convenience at home.
So, I will continue shooting film for as long as Fuji makes film - which I hope will be for a very very long time.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
If you are able to buy, dev, and scan a roll of Provia for $7, then I want to know where. In Australia it costs about AUD$5-8 for just a roll of XTRA400, and dev/scan/print is about $20. Slide film costs even more to buy and process. I've ended up paying about AUD$50+ for one roll's purchase, dev, scan and print.
For me, shooting film is far, far less economical than shooting digital over the long haul, especially when buying cameras other than the M9. A 5D MkII kit (body + 24=105L) costs about US$3500, and offers much more versatility than the M9, size notwithstanding. Heck, even a Ricoh GXR or Sigma DP2 will give image quality and 'look' similar to film, at a much more reasonable price.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have spoken with a friend of mine (cant say who) who has assured me
"They (Canon) are testing a auto-focus full frame interchangeable
lens Rangefinder."
He has been testing a "28mm f2 and 45mm f2 and it is superb". I am a Nikon fan myself however if someone like Canon or anybody brought out a Full Frame range finder like my G2. I am there.
Like previous prototype* cameras they don't always make it to market. With the popularity of the Olympus and several other brands 4/3 cameras maybe this Canon will make the production line.
*Nikon was testing back in 2003 shelved it, Voigtlander Cosina has been testing as well.
Originally posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
slm0n edited this topic 25 months ago.
|
|
|
Reply to Archiver.
(1) The price quoted applies to China. Costco in Mexico charges similar. For other countries, I cannot say. I have no idea if mail order is possible.
(2) When calculating overall lifetime cost, I factor for quality. Sure, I can buy a cheap point'n'shoot for about $350, but the gear and images are simply lousy. A $5k Nikon or Canon DSLR is good, but too bulky and heavy, and still do not reach the G2. Even so, $5k means about 25000 images. So far, only the Leica M9 compares to the G2. And so far, no digital system offers me sufficient economy to mothball my G2.
Reply to Simon.
I expect a Canon RF will not accept the G2 lenses and have insufficient resolution anyway.
A pity we do not have a D-G2.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Any full frame mirrorless camera has to solve the angle of incidence / telecentricity problem, otherwise we'll have small camera bodies but still massive lenses. The M9 has solved this to a certain degree, but is still not totally compatible with all M-mount lenses.
A digital G2 would be insanely awesome. I'd buy one.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Sony just released the NEX - which has an APS-C sized sensor, AND can accept adaptors for use with Zeiss glass (A mount)
The APS-C sensor is bigger than the half frame 2/3 sensor in the Oly and Panny, so less crop - I wonder whether people will release a Contax G adaptor??
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
There's also the Leica M9 - and I believe one can modify G lenses into M mount?
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Zeiss G were not designed to be universal, sadly. They have no manual focus ring, so focusing is via the lens-mount adapter. So far, my experiences with these adapters is dreadful. Also, the cameras have no focusing aids such as split images, so focusing via LED screen is hit or miss. Also, the digital cameras are simply not ergonomically matched to the G lens. The M9 can work, for $7000, BUT the G lenses must be completely disassembled and reconfigured to add a manual focus ring, mount, etc. I may consider destroying my G lenses this way when I can no longer find film. Here is a link for G mods:
www.japanexposures.com/lens
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Just FYI... You can shoot G lenses on Oly/Pany m4/3 cameras. I regularly shoot my 35 and 45mm's on my Panasonic GF1 and G1 with excellent results. Granted, both become short portrait lenses (2x crop).
Adapters can be had on eBxx, that's where I picked mine up. Focus is done with a little rotary wheel on the adapter.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
www.flickr.com/photos/mokap/4980320366/
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl0Y-7UhZf8
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
closest to a digital g2?
Nothing!!
THOUGH, G lenses on an M9 Leica, or the X100 Fuji (though thats more of a digital Hexar AF)
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
For a digital camera the lc1 feels the most similar to the g2. It definitely has its limitations, but in the daytime they are a great pair.
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
What is this Panasonic Ic 1, where to find it ????
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-LC1-Digital-Camera-Optical/d...
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Here is the digital G!
photorumors.com/2011/04/09/digital-film-design-concept/
photorumors.com/2011/04/06/in-case-you-didnt-know-the-re3...
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
wait for a G2 digital back !
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
digital still looks like shit and doesnt deserve the g2 or its lenses.
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I agree Keith!
Digital is CRAP!
Sweeping stament, I know, but digital only looks good when mimicking film.
I wish for a Contax G3;
A G2 with a bigger Viewfinder.
Better faster more accurate AF on the 90mm lens.
DoF marks on the lenses, and the ability to Manual Focus accurately.
Full blown Matrix metering.
And a quieter AF sound.
Of course, it'll still be film - a Digital G is no longer a G but a gadget.
Posted 13 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Oh I don‘t agree Keith and you know I love the G.
I thought the same for years until the 5d came up. Ugly huge thing, but great cam and image quality - film like. The fist acceptable digital camera.
Everything else before was totally crap. A friend has a d700 - much younger and even better full frame sensor.
But there‘s nothing as sexy as the G!
Posted 13 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
So, I guess the bottom line, is are we any closer today in getting a digital G than when this question was first posted in July, 2009?
Posted 13 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
M9
Posted 13 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
M9 unless Sony comes out with one, no reason why not, as they have Konica Hexar technology and all licenses so it would be a simple matter of putting one of their full frame sensors in a Sony branded Konica Hexar body = a digital (almost) G
Originally posted 13 months ago.
(permalink)
Sultan Vahdettin edited this topic 13 months ago.
|
|
|
There have been rumors about Sony for quite a long time now. Does anyone know definitively if Sony is considering making a digital G?
Posted 13 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Sony is happy with NEX and Alpha. They don`'t care.
I'm waiting for Zeiss and Cosina/Bessa to react AND for e-film.
Posted 13 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I propose a G2 with a decent film scanner.
Posted 13 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Yes Jeremy, but we want a new gadget with a G on it.
Posted 13 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Sony, if Konica Hexar users pool together and petition them, may, (also looking at the popularity of the X100 Fuj) feel inclined to build one!
After all, they have the Konica blueprints, and the technology and the knowhow and sensors - so why not?
The NEX is disappointing, lacks a VF and is slow at focussing.
Sony could effectively demolish Fuji and it's X100 and give Leica a good run if they had the sense to take Fuji as an example and release a Digital Hexar with full frame sensor.
The Hexar in itself is light years ahead of the X100 in terms of focussing, speed, ergonomics and the lens which unlike the X100 Fujinon is NOT ultra soft wide open, it's also a RF rather than crappy digi compact and a Digital Hexar would be a death knell for the X100.
Imagine, full frame Sony sensor in a Hexar's body, with the speed and ergonomics to go with it!
Posted 13 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
They still need to solve the vignetting issues with small lenses on a full frame sensor. The solution is almost here, but not quite.
The Fuji X100 is more like a Hexar AF, but still lacks sharpness at f2 at close distances. The bokeh isn't particularly special, either.
I think we will need to wait a couple more camera generations, at least, before a real digital substitute for the Contax G2 is in our hands.
Posted 12 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I suppose it will have to be a Leica M9 with a Zeiss lens then
Posted 12 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think it's fantastic that we are still talking about this 2 years after the original post! Perhaps it is time for Kyocera et al to recognize that there really is a viable market for a digital Contax G camera, and act upon it.
Posted 12 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
IMHO, Sadly, by choosing a partner that abandoned the product and customers, Zeiss has suffered what is likely to be irreparable harm to the Contax brand. A digital G2 would very very likely require the patents held by others: examples: imager and micro lenses by Kodak; OVF and EVF held by Fuji; firmware; and the list goes on. The cost of such is high. After 20 years, Zeiss and any future new partner have been effectively shut out by the competition. Seemingly, the only choice left for Zeiss is to make lenses for other bodies, or continue a film format under its own brand, as is done now.
Posted 11 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Perhaps the forthcoming Fuji 300 will be the answer to our orphaned G lenses.
Posted 11 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Why on Earth would anyone wish to bastardise and screw up the G2 by turning it Digital? Just use Film instead of allowing it to die - results are almost always better than digital anyway unless you want ISO3200+ handheld indoors for some bizarre reason (?)
Why're your G lenses 'Orphans'? Can't be bothered to shoot film any more? Or lost the knack?
I don't understand all this yearning for a digital G - go and use the G2 for Pete sakes, load up a roll of film and shoot away and stop whinging about lack of a Digital G - if you want digital buy a digi cam and use it - if you crave instant results that badly!
I'm happy with my G2 and can wait for my negatives or slides and am not really craven to get my pictures up on screen in an instant!
I wanted to shoot some digital so bought myself an Olympus XZ-1 for firing away with.
Wait away for the X300 or whatever gadget Fuji dishes out next (or Olympus EP3) but it will not be a G
Originally posted 11 months ago.
(permalink)
Sultan Vahdettin edited this topic 11 months ago.
|
|
|
Sultan, I do appreciate your response.
What I have found is that I do not have a reliable, cost effective film processor available locally (north eastern USA).
The major reason for a digital G is to have the ability to print my own pictures on my home printer (yes, I know I can always get an enlarger, developer, etc. etc.), and control the process closely.
Perhaps you (or others) can advise me as to a good quality, reasonably priced photo finisher to use?
Posted 10 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
As of now, and maybe forever, there is nothing close to a G2 in digital. I shoot both film and digital, but almost gave up on digital completely after discovering film (started with a DSLR about 2 and a half years ago). So, I get the appeal of digital. Instant results are nice, film and processing are expensive.
I traded in some of my Canon lenses for a Ricoh GXR a few months ago and have been very happy. Of course, as stated above, nothing digital compares to the G2. But I am very happy with the GXR as a street camera, if that's your thing.
Posted 10 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
same here justin, i used to shoot film, then digital from 2003 to 2005 (I bought my Minolta Dynax 5D then 7D) then to almost exclusively Film since 2006.
Posted 10 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
agree with Sultan. do not let the G2 die. buy film! the more of us that keep using film, the more reason for Fuji to continue producing it. use Provia. get a good projector and screen. have family outings for photos, then have a night regularly to view the images. it's a great way to share time and be a family. but don't stop there, do the same with your friends and even new acquaintances. photography is a great way to connect with people.
Posted 10 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Rong - can you recommend a good projector and screen which doesn't cost an arm and a leg please?
Posted 10 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
screen: Maxtar 60x60. ebay for about $50 new?
projector: Zeiss Ikon, Perkeo. I have this model, and recommend highly. I see it selling on ebay UK for GBP 99.
ok?
Posted 10 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hi everyone. I really want to continue with film, but as mentioned above have had a real hard time finding quality reasonably priced processors here in the USA. Does anyone have any recommendations?
Thanks!
Posted 9 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thanks, any others?
Posted 9 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Try north coast photo services in san diego. I use them. I heard about them on Ken Rockwell's page (no affiliation with either! - Ken Loves the G2, by the way). I've been using them for about 2 years, including for my wedding photos that my friend took on my Contax 645. They do a good job, are fast, and reasonably priced. I live in Boston, and if I have them in the mail on Monday, they are often times back by Friday or Saturday. Pretty darn good for USPS! I also use them for scanning since I don't have a scanner. I just use their basic scan choice.
Posted 9 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thanks Jon, I'll give them a try. I still long for a digital G2 though!
Posted 9 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It's official, I think we finally have the digital G2:
www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilmxpro1/
I'm assuming someone will make a Contax G adapter as well in the near future, although the Fuji prime lenses will probably be no slouches.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
^^^^ I'll save others the hassle of commenting:
Maybe when Fuji makes a Full Frame version.
Originally posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
kahlil h. edited this topic 5 months ago.
|
|
I still want a film G2! :-)
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It has Fuji lenses and isn't a RF and lacks the G2's ergonomics - brilliant cam, but alas not a Digital G2, though I can understand why people think it's the closest, and it probably is so far.
If anyone wants a G2, get a G2! Film is so in and digital is so boring
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The proposed price of the Fuji X-Pro 1 and its lenses is astronomical. I agree with Sultan, get a full-frame G2 and discover (or rediscover) the wonders of film photography. The lenses are second-to-none, it’s small and inconspicuous, and fun to use. Digital seems so sterile. I only use digital for the occasional job and family snaps.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thanks to Sultan and the others, I "rediscovered" film, and am in love once again. I totally agree that digital is no where near what film is, was or will be.
Forget the new almost clones, and get yourself a G2 or even an M6 or M7, and enjoy photography!
Posted 4 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Digital G2? Just scan your negatives!
Posted 4 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The Fuji X-Pro certainly is pretty close in terms of concept (not that I've tried one) The rangefinder thing is not an issue, as the G2 is not a pure rangefinder, relying as it does on it's autofocus. The lenses will be of the highest quality, though they are not Zeiss. However the Leica M9 is a pure RF digital camera and with the new Zeiss ZM lenses so is still the closest.
Still it comes down to the question of why you would want a digital G2, film is film, digital is digital. The G2 is one of the finest ever 35mm film cameras, full stop!
Posted 4 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Contax G1&G2 /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Contax G1&G2 discussion threads
