“we just want sharp focus. [:-)”

And THAT was the whole problem! With an optical rangefinder, you could at least be sure where the rangefinder patch sat on the subject (even if you couldn’t be sure all the associated coupling gizmos were coupling correctly.) With the G, since you couldn’t see what the phase detectors were detecting, you knew it was focusing accurately on SOMETHING, but not what! Maddening. It sometimes frustrates me that I didn’t hang onto my G1 and G2 outfit to cash in on today’s prices (especially for the little soft-leather system bag, which was beautiful but is now insanely priced considering how difficult it was to squeeze anything into or out of it) but I don’t actually miss using the cameras at all…

“Leaving aside the question of whether an external phase-detect autofocus system constitutes a ‘rangefinder’… ”

I suppose technically it is not, since it is measuring light convergence within the camera body. Yet so are the rangefinders on classic cameras. For a time Polaroid made autofocus cameras that used a sonic rangefinder. But technically only measuring time lapse between sound pulses. Effectively all are “maximum focus achievers”, even classic rangefinder cameras. We don’t actually care what the distance is, do we? We are not lobbing projectiles; we just want sharp focus. [:-)

If you are, David, than I am as well. Never liked the Nikon lens twist. But i know many excellent photographers who never minded. JP

Hi Martin,

Thanks for commenting. I fact, the old Contax bayonet would have been ways too small to incorporate electronic contacts or an autofocus drive. So, they had to invent something new. In fact, there were not alternatives available. The Leica M Mount can‘t accommodate all the necessary functions of a modern camera/lens interface. So, it was clear from day one that this would stay a niche product. Maybe it also was a prestige project for the Yashica/Kyocera company. Similar things are being said about the Konica Hear RF rangefinder project – they, however, did not opt for autofocus and used the Leica M-Mount after the patent had expired.

Best wishes, JP

Dear Jean, thanks for your feedback. Only you can say if retuning to analogue is right for you, but I can say that I enjoy it from time to time. I hope I have, at one point, the opportunity to do extensive work with the Contax cameras and lenses. In this case, proper reviews might follow. This article is more meant as an overview. But it is nice to see that it rings a bell for quite a few readers. And yes, some nostalgia is justified when we consider that such a beautifully designed and made system was doomed to such a dead end. Best wishes, Jörg-Peter

Dear David,

sorry for replying only so late. Thank you so much for all the knowledge you are adding here. There is a lot of expertise in what you are writing, and it is all in line with what I have learned so far. Maybe we can come back to you when we pick up the topic again, especially when it comes to digital performance of the G lenses. It would definitely be worth while to have a closer look at the whole system, but especially the lenses. The 45 is a stellar performer in the M-Mount conversion (with focusing helicoid and all) as performed by Funleader. So the other lenses might bring beautiful results as well…

All the best, Jörg-Peter

Hi Brian, good to here that there are still people around who know and like the G System from the day back then. I was by no means able to afford it in the 1990s, but the look and feel the the products was gorgeous indeed. But it was, sadly, a dead end… All the best, Jörg-Peter

Hi Bryan,

thanks for your comment sorry for replying so late. You are right, the Zeiss ZM lenses were designed and launched together with the film-loading Zeiss Ikon camera. I wrote on this an episode for our long-running series, The M Files. Only the 35/1.4 came later and was obviously designed for the digital era.

In practical use however, many ZM lenses perform very well on digital sensors. Some others have issues with colour drift on the margins (the notorious „Italian flag“ effect). One key point is the distance between the rear nodal point and the light recording surface. In analogue use, a short distance can be quite desirable, and the Contax G 21mm lens is a good example for this – when used on a sensor, the light rays are coming in at ever steeper angles the farther you are away from the axis. The result is that the light might not or not entirely reach the bottom of the pixel well. And this problem is not easy to correct in post processing.

All the best, Jörg-Peter

I think it is more of an issue on rangefinder cameras and mirrorless digital cameras, with the lens sitting closer to the film or sensor. Even so, many rangefinder lenses originally made for film cameras still work well on digital cameras. I was just pointing out that I don’t think the Zeiss ZM lenses were designed specifically for digital.