Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>I was thinking of buying one for my wife to use as an >advanced point and shoot, but am warned off by the 6-10 bodies that >are always available used at my favorite photo shop. The G2 more than fully meet the needs of those who wish to use it as an advanced P&S if you are not fussy about not having a zoom lens. I am quite happy to snap away with either my 35 or 50 planar on the camera, my legs serving as my "zoom". There are many reasons why there are so many G2s in dealers' shelves but I do not think the camera is traded in due to major malfunction or unreliability. I have many friends who have bought the G2 thinking that they now have a Leica M "substitute" in their hands. Many were soon disillusioned because the M and the G2 are different cameras with differing strengths and weaknesses. Many have traded in their G2s because the Leica was what they should have bought in the first place. Then there are those who never got accustomed to the AF of the G2. The AF is comparatively slower than, say, my Nikon F90. There is a learning curve in the use of the AF and unless your style of shooting revolves around the way the G2's AF works, one is likely to get disappointingly blurred shots. I was initially disappointed until I got round to the quirks associated with the G2's AF mechanism. Then there are those who decry the lack of fast lenses. I am not disappointed by the lack of lenses faster than f2 in the G2 system as I am quite used to carrying the "photojournalistic" combination of 35/2 and 90/2.8 lenses around - both of which are available under Leica and Contax names. In low light shooting, I would merely resort to my M6 + Noctilux or Summilux or merely push process my B&W films. Dan K.