Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Rangefinder Photography Discussion

Rangefinder Photography Discussion General discussions about Rangefinder Photography. This is a great place for questions and answers that are not addressed in a specific category. Take note there is also a General Photography forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 09-13-2005   #41
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
 
dcsang's Avatar
 
dcsang is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Toronto Canada
Age: 54
Posts: 4,708
Suddenly I feel like I want to sing "We Are The World"...

Dave
__________________
I own a Leica and I am NOT a dentist (I don't even portray one on TV!!!)

I have an idea what I'm looking for but it only becomes real once I see it - Constantine Manos

ITS THE MAGIC I SEE IN THE Light, Texture, & Tone
that Intoxicates Me - Helen Hill

My Flickr - it's where I post my RF and P&S shtuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #42
justins7
Registered User
 
justins7 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 170
I am surprised that you rangefinder guys care about a built-in optical viewfinder. Those found on digital P+S are horrible. I would gladly use my Cosina brightline finder with ANY digital camera and pretend it's a film rangefinder. Brightline finders have incredible advantages over the other types. The lack of built-in-crap-finder seems like a welcome advantage.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=122'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #43
kbg32
neo-romanticist
 
kbg32's Avatar
 
kbg32 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 5,592
Bill,

From the Ricoh site -

8. Images can be captured in various combinations of resolution and compression. RAW compression and RAW with JPEG can be selected for ultimate quality.

9. An aspect ratio of 3:2 can be selected, the same aspect ratio as 35mm and most digital SLR’s that allows images to be printed in standard sizes without cropping.

10. Manual, Program, Program shift AE and Aperture Priority modes allow for greater flexibility and freedom of expression.

11. Three metering modes are available: 256 multipoint, spot metering and centre weighted average metering giving the photographer the freedom to compose shots as they please under various lighting conditions.


I guess I'll take my moonbeans......


Cheers,

Keith
__________________
Keith

http://keithgoldstein.me/
Keith’s Gallery

Last edited by kbg32 : 09-13-2005 at 09:13.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #44
ZeissFan
Registered User
 
ZeissFan is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,211
Bill, I agree that this camera is a disappointment. Possibly down the line, Ricoh might consider stuffing an APS-C sensor into that camera, which might make for a more interesting product. Even with the APS sensor, you still would need a 14mm real-world focal length to get to 21mm at a 1.5x crop. But 14mm is a big jump up from 5.9mm.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #45
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcsang
Suddenly I feel like I want to sing "We Are The World"...

Dave
Dave,

My point is that different standards seem to apply when judging digital cameras than there are when judging film cameras. When a film camera sucks, nobody is afraid to say so. When a digital camera sucks - well, it must have other good qualities. Ah well, all in the name of being nice, I guess.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #46
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
 
dcsang's Avatar
 
dcsang is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Toronto Canada
Age: 54
Posts: 4,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmattock
Dave,

My point is that different standards seem to apply when judging digital cameras than there are when judging film cameras. When a film camera sucks, nobody is afraid to say so. When a digital camera sucks - well, it must have other good qualities. Ah well, all in the name of being nice, I guess.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
heh.. Bill, you're preaching to the choir here

Personally I would pass on this camera in a heartbeat .
Why?
Mainly because it's something that I already have - a digital point and shoot camera.

If this were something similar to the mythical "digital M" and it had interchangeable lenses etc. etc. then I may look a bit harder at it.

Way back when the Canon G1 first arrived (ya.. "way back".. it was only 5 years ago or so; seems like a lifetime in terms of digital camera progress though) I likened it to a rangefinder style of camera. Sure it was autofocus, but when it was switched to manual focus it required you to approximate distance (IIRC) to the subject similar to, say, the Bessa T/L ?

Anyway, since then, as far as I'm concerned, the bulk of the digital cameras that have been released have been just point and shoots with very little real "rangefinder" qualities to them.

Maybe it's me, but when I think of a rangefinder, even if it's the Contax G series - I think of interchangeable lenses or, if not, then a fixed lens camera that can be manually focussed.

Perhaps I'm just a simple guy when thinking about this sort of stuff

Cheers
Dave
__________________
I own a Leica and I am NOT a dentist (I don't even portray one on TV!!!)

I have an idea what I'm looking for but it only becomes real once I see it - Constantine Manos

ITS THE MAGIC I SEE IN THE Light, Texture, & Tone
that Intoxicates Me - Helen Hill

My Flickr - it's where I post my RF and P&S shtuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #47
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbg32
Bill,

From the Ricoh site -

8. Images can be captured in various combinations of resolution and compression. RAW compression and RAW with JPEG can be selected for ultimate quality.
Which means what to me? Almost all digital cameras have differing levels of JPEG and some form of RAW.

Quote:
9. An aspect ratio of 3:2 can be selected, the same aspect ratio as 35mm and most digital SLR’s that allows images to be printed in standard sizes without cropping.
Still means nothing. They shaped the sensor so that you can print to a 4x6 without cropping. Try printing to an 8x10. Whoops. Same problem film has. You have to crop.

Quote:
10. Manual, Program, Program shift AE and Aperture Priority modes allow for greater flexibility and freedom of expression.
My ancient Olympus digicam has that too. So what? Freedom of expression? OK, I want selective focus effects in a portrait shot. What's that? It can't do it? Not very free with the expression, I must say.

Quote:
11. Three metering modes are available: 256 multipoint, spot metering and centre weighted average metering giving the photographer the freedom to compose shots as they please under various lighting conditions.
Most high-end digicams offer the same.

Quote:
I guess I'll take my moonbeans......
I guess you're missing the point.....

If I were to show up on the football field and declare myself a football player, many people would say that I was a terrible one. And it would be true. But I suppose some bright fellow would say "But he rides a bicycle well." And that would be true as well, but nobody cares. If I present myself as a football player, then I'm expected to BE a football player. It is on that criteria that I am fairly judged. To point out all the ways in which I am most excellent on a bicycle means less than nothing to the football-watching public.

There are a lot of Point-n-Shoot film cameras out there. A few found favor with pros and advanced amateur photographers, and became cult classics. They fit into a niche which is small, but intensely appreciated by those who needed to fill it (not everybody does, of course).

The Ricoh GR series of PnS cameras were small, took excellent photos, they were fast, light, very controllable, concealable, quiet, and well-made. In short, they were pocket/stealth cameras par excellence for pros and select others. If there were cameras out there with sharper lenses, it hardly mattered - the Ricoh fit into a specific niche which few other cameras did, and it was on that basis it was judged.

Now comes the Ricoh 'digital' GR camera - and Ricoh would like to position and sell it as the digital successor to the cult classic it produced with the film-based GR series. Since that is what it is supposed to be, then that is how it should be fairly judged. It fails - miserably. Just on inspection of the specifications alone. I don't need to handle a cow pat to discover its buddha nature.

It hardly matters how well it rides a bicycle; it is no footballer.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #48
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcsang
Personally I would pass on this camera in a heartbeat .
Why?
Mainly because it's something that I already have - a digital point and shoot camera.
I would love a digital point-n-shoot camera that exhibited the same characteristics as the film-based Ricoh GR series cameras. Yes, I love interchangeable lenses, and I'd also love to own the RD1 or something very much like it, but that's a different kettle of fish.

The film-based GR cameras filled a very narrowly-defined niche - but it was still a PnS camera, no mistake about it. But I can appreciate a fine PnS - it just has to provide a minimum level of functionality - digital or film, it makes little difference.

Since I'm moving into the digital realm, though - I would prefer a digital PnS.

I guess that's why I'm a bit put out over this Ricoh bag of garbage. Fine camera? Maybe, but to me, since it fits none of the requirements it defines as solving, it is useless.

Grrr.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #49
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,780
while there are many disappointments in this camera, i can't say selective focus is one of them. this is not a camera for headshots or "artistic effects". if a 1/1.8" and accompanying lens is all they can fit in a pocket p&s, i'm just going to have to live with that and hope they don't go overboard with the NR. I prefer more noise to that pasty look.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #50
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan
while there are many disappointments in this camera, i can't say selective focus is one of them. this is not a camera for headshots or "artistic effects". if a 1/1.8" and accompanying lens is all they can fit in a pocket p&s, i'm just going to have to live with that and hope they don't go overboard with the NR. I prefer more noise to that pasty look.
And that's what I've been saying about digital cameras - they are held to a different standard than film cameras. If a film camera cannot do X well, then it can't do X well, and everybody says so. If a digital camera cannot do X well, then let's ignore that and note how well it does Y. "i'm just going to have to live with that" becomes a standard expression when dealing with digital cameras.

And bear in mind - I'm a big fan of digital cameras - I love them like I love film cameras, and I am quite aware that they are the future of photography. No luddite, I. But I refuse to pretend that the Emporer has clothes - he's buck nekkid. If my digital cameras are going to replace my film cameras, so be it - but they had better well do as they promise, or it's hardly a replacement.

Quote:

"I haven't got another parrot."

"Well, what have you got?"

"I've got a slug."

"Does it talk?"

"No."

"Then it's hardly a replacement then, is it?"


We cannot drive the capabilities of digital cameras forward if we keep settling for whatever dross the manufacturers see fit to push out of their factories and making excuses for the shortcomings of same. They take a consumer-level camera and paint it black? No, that joke stopped working in the 1970's.

Quote:

"Lovely bird, the Norwegian Blue. Beautiful plumeage."
"The plumeage don't enter into it."



Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #51
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
 
KoNickon is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hartford, CT USA
Age: 61
Posts: 3,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by justins7
I am surprised that you rangefinder guys care about a built-in optical viewfinder. Those found on digital P+S are horrible. I would gladly use my Cosina brightline finder with ANY digital camera and pretend it's a film rangefinder. Brightline finders have incredible advantages over the other types. The lack of built-in-crap-finder seems like a welcome advantage.

Sure, if the optical built-in viewfinder is a little tunnel-like affair that crops a fair amount of the actual image, that's not a good thing. But an accessory finder that can fall off, and which has parallax limitations, is always a less than ideal compromise. Peering through a built-in finder gives me a much surer feeling when taking a picture (and it's a lot steadier than holding the camera in front of you and peering intently at the LCD screen). And have you ever tried using an LCD in bright sunlight? No, a real camera needs an optical finder -- even if it's not a great one.

Maybe the paradigm is shifting away from optical viewfinders -- but then the mass market cameras are marketed to people who don't care about photography the way members of this list do. (They seem to want movie mode, for instance -- anyone here ever use this? How much space/memory does that useless feature take up in a digital camera?)
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #52
kbg32
neo-romanticist
 
kbg32's Avatar
 
kbg32 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 5,592
Is it fair to pass judgement on something we can only surmize from a website? I remain open on judgement until I read a full hands on review, or I can hold and experience the camera myself. For me, it's usually both.

Cheers,

Keith
__________________
Keith

http://keithgoldstein.me/
Keith’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #53
Little Prince
Registered User
 
Little Prince is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 403
I'm with Bill on this one (mostly). I wouldn't be so mad though. But that's probably because I wasn't looking to buy one.

For what it's supposed to be, it needs to have an optical VF. IMHO, no optical VF = crap. But I can live with an external VF. So as the picture shows the possibility of mounting an external VF, that's solved. In fact, without having any personal experience with external VFs I surmise that they are better than built-in VFs. Not convenience-wise, just judging by qualtiy and size. But then I've never been comfortable with AF (non-SLR) cameras having optical VFs.

The main disappointment is the minuscule sensor. If it does not allow shallow DOF effects, it is MAJORLY handicapped and nothing more than a PnS. No matter how nice it looks or handles, it can make NO claims to professionalism. From where I'm looking, that is the end of the story.

Of course, having shutter speed and aperture dials deserves kudos. That's the one good thing. But are you going to pay, what, hunderds more than for a zillion other cameras that do everything just as well and have just as good form factors for that alone? Note that I'm only speculating here about price.

Regardless of how it tests in the real world or anything else, so much can be concluded from the specs alone. Sadly, it will be just another also-ran. Certainly not what is purported to be. Let's remember that you are going to be hard pressed to find any digital PnS in that (or lower) price range without good image quality.
__________________
---not all those who wander are lost---
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #54
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,780
all cameras are strong at some things and weak in others. digital is no exception.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #55
Socke
 
Posts: n/a
I'm with Bill, 600 Euro for a P&S is a lot of money and I expect a lot from an expensive camera.

A built in brightline viewfinder with paralax markings is not too much to ask from a P&S in this price range. Two shots a second should be possible, too.

And after all, I can't believe it has better high ISO performance than a Nikon D2x :-)
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #56
Socke
 
Posts: n/a
Just thinking about AF on digital P&S, this one doesn't need AF!

Set to 2 meters at f2.4 its sharp from 1 meter to infinity!
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #57
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbg32
Is it fair to pass judgement on something we can only surmize from a website? I remain open on judgement until I read a full hands on review, or I can hold and experience the camera myself. For me, it's usually both.

Cheers,

Keith

Ricoh published the press release. So far, no reviews - all we have is what they say the camera is. So yes, I'd say it is fair to pass judgement. If they say it has no optical viewfinder (for example) then I'd say that it doesn't. And since that sucks (for what the camera is intended to be) I can make a fair judgement.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #58
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan
all cameras are strong at some things and weak in others. digital is no exception.
If the manufacturer says something they built has quality X and it does not, the fact that it has quality Y instead means little to people who wanted it to have quality X.

Lots of film cameras tried to be what the Ricoh film-based GR series cameras were - they failed. They suck and we're not afraid to say so. Ricoh tried to duplicate their GR success with a digital - they claim that they have done so. They have not. It sucks. But apparently, we have to make excuses because it is digital.

Sorry, doesn't fly. It either is or it is not a straight-across replacement for the GR series of film cameras. I say it is not.

Ricoh didn't position this as just another PnS, in which case, yes, everybody weighs the merits and decides what it is good at and what it is bad at. Ricoh positioned this thing as a digital version of the film-based GR series. It fails miserably just on paper based on their own specs alone.

And since it doesn't have the qualities one associates with most PnS cameras these days, it is not very likely to hit a home run with the consumer-oriented digicam crowd, either.

So, it pretty much sucks. Sorry, but it is what it is.

I don't know when it became so unhip to point out that something smells bad when it is so obviously stinking up the joint.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #59
einolu
Registered User
 
einolu is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 777
Seems like just another digital camera to me. Whatever, I like most digital cameras, even tiny point and shoot things. They have forever changed the way people look at photography.

Im just on the verge of buying something new to replace my aging minolta dimage x and will probably pick up a dimage x1 since it would make for a great casual shooter. Ill probably pass on this Ricoh, because seeing samples from prior Ricoh digital cameras, the picture quality is horrible. Also, I wouldnt call this thing pocketable.
__________________

einarsodinecs.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #60
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Prince
I'm with Bill on this one (mostly). I wouldn't be so mad though. But that's probably because I wasn't looking to buy one.

For what it's supposed to be, it needs to have an optical VF. IMHO, no optical VF = crap. But I can live with an external VF. So as the picture shows the possibility of mounting an external VF, that's solved. In fact, without having any personal experience with external VFs I surmise that they are better than built-in VFs. Not convenience-wise, just judging by qualtiy and size. But then I've never been comfortable with AF (non-SLR) cameras having optical VFs.

The main disappointment is the minuscule sensor. If it does not allow shallow DOF effects, it is MAJORLY handicapped and nothing more than a PnS. No matter how nice it looks or handles, it can make NO claims to professionalism. From where I'm looking, that is the end of the story.

Of course, having shutter speed and aperture dials deserves kudos. That's the one good thing. But are you going to pay, what, hunderds more than for a zillion other cameras that do everything just as well and have just as good form factors for that alone? Note that I'm only speculating here about price.

Regardless of how it tests in the real world or anything else, so much can be concluded from the specs alone. Sadly, it will be just another also-ran. Certainly not what is purported to be. Let's remember that you are going to be hard pressed to find any digital PnS in that (or lower) price range without good image quality.
I agree - except that the external viewfinder, while it may indeed be an optical triumph of engineering, will not travel well. The idea behind the GR series of cameras was that they fit into a shirt pocket with ease. This won't, unless you take off the external viewfinder. Then you'll drop the danged viewfinder. You'll replace it at about $200 USD. That will happen once, then it will sit at home on a shelf.

Like a pig with wings, it seems like a good idea on paper, until the flying pigs start dropping presents on your hat. Then you wonder what the engineers were thinking.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #61
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by einolu
Seems like just another digital camera to me. Whatever, I like most digital cameras, even tiny point and shoot things. They have forever changed the way people look at photography.
If you mean 'forever define downwards what people find acceptable in a photograph," then I agree.

Quote:
Im just on the verge of buying something new to replace my aging minolta dimage x and will probably pick up a dimage x1 since it would make for a great casual shooter. Ill probably pass on this Ricoh, because seeing samples from prior Ricoh digital cameras, the picture quality is horrible. Also, I wouldnt call this thing pocketable.
I agree that there are tons of digicams out there for the PnS folk and those who just want a fun go-anywhere digicam to pocket and take with. Most of them are pretty good. I've owned three generations of them, they were all acceptable for what they were.

I don't know if the image quality of the Ricoh is good or horrible - and I don't care. That's hardly the point. But I suggested a Dimage S304 for a friend, and he loved it. Kodak for another, he loved that. I think it is getting hard to go wrong.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #62
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,780
a direct replacement was never likely. i don't see why you're so disappointed.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #63
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan
a direct replacement was never likely.
Care to explain why not? Or are you just yanking my chain now?

Quote:
i don't see why you're so disappointed.
a) Because I am a fan of digital (and film) but I expect manufacturers to produce what they say they produce. Ricoh is claiming that this IS the digital GR. Well it ain't.

b) Because I would like a PnS digital camera that is a 1-to-1 digital replacement for the Ricoh GR series cameras. The specs for the film-based GR are exactly in line with what I want in a digital PnS. I have a DSLR, and it works wonderfully for me. But is hardly pocketable.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #64
Socke
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan
a direct replacement was never likely. i don't see why you're so disappointed.
It has a great name but does not live up to it, that's all.

Imagine Porsche releasing a car named 550 Spyder with a 25KW electro motor, powersteering and a real soft suspension
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #65
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,780
it's not like it would have had a big sensor and a non-retrofocus lens. i'm bummed they didn't do something with microlenses on this prime lens. i'm guessing that at least is still possible. i don't know because i haven't read anything authoritative about it.

i expected they'd keep the internal brightline viewfinder, though. the 28/35 minifinder is pretty small, so that's another option. it'll fit in my khakis or light jacket. what kind of pocket were you hoping to fit it in?
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #66
einolu
Registered User
 
einolu is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 777
Bill, what I noticed is that when people buy 'serious' digital cameras, you end up seeing a bunch of flower macros and insect shots. I find good ol' party pictures much more interesting, heh.
__________________

einarsodinecs.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #67
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan
it's not like it would have had a big sensor and a non-retrofocus lens. i'm bummed they didn't do something with microlenses on this prime lens. i'm guessing that at least is still possible. i don't know because i haven't read anything authoritative about it.

i expected they'd keep the internal brightline viewfinder, though. the 28/35 minifinder is pretty small, so that's another option. it'll fit in my khakis or light jacket. what kind of pocket were you hoping to fit it in?
Shirt pocket, just like the original GR1V (et al). With viewfinder - since it's built in and all. An external is just something else to snag on a pocket (if attached) and fall off when fumbling with it in a hurry (in a crowd). Exactly at you'd expect to be using it, since that's what the GR was for.

As to the big sensor, I understand Sony is doing it in a digicam now, right? So what's the problem. Non-retrofocus lens? I didn't say anything about that.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #68
Silva Lining
CanoHasseLeica
 
Silva Lining's Avatar
 
Silva Lining is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Awld Lahdahn Tahn
Age: 46
Posts: 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by einolu
Bill, what I noticed is that when people buy 'serious' digital cameras, you end up seeing a bunch of flower macros and insect shots. I find good ol' party pictures much more interesting, heh.
Unless you have a 'bring your own insect' party......

As a GR1v user I am a little disappointed in the specs of this camera. I have also been disappointed generally with Ricoh digital image quality. Some of the chromatic abberations were horrendous. Whlist acknowledging that the sample pics might be from a test or pre-production model, there is a lot of noise in there...

So I think I'll continue to enjoy my GR1v for a little longer!!

Talking of digital RF dreams - I would love it if Voigtlander would produce a Digital Bessa T so that I could have digital fun with all my exsiting Russian optics!!
__________________
------------------------
Phill

My Gallery
Currently Shooting - Leica M6 + Zeiss Planar 50/2 Ultron 28/2- PanF
In the bag - Voigtlander Perkeo IIIe - TRi-X
Fuji X-E3 and Summilux 50/1.4
My FLICKr
[url="http://www.pbase.com/phillbrown/"]
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #69
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,780
well, all i can suggest is a change in working method. carry the camera and viewfinder in your pockets to where you're taking pics, then set up when you get there and have at it.

telecentric wide angles for an APS sensor would be too big to fit on a camera the size of the gr1. it'd have to be non-retrofocus to fit, just like the film version, which will apparantly only work with current sensors if the microlenses are tweaked to work with the single focal length. or something like that.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #70
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan
well, all i can suggest is a change in working method. carry the camera and viewfinder in your pockets to where you're taking pics, then set up when you get there and have at it.

telecentric wide angles for an APS sensor would be too big to fit on a camera the size of the gr1. it'd have to be non-retrofocus to fit, just like the film version, which will apparantly only work with current sensors if the microlenses are tweaked to work with the single focal length. or something like that.
Hmm. Seems I can put an ultra-wide lens on my DSLR and no micro-lens adjustment is required. If it won't fit, then perhaps it is not yet time for a digital GR. But instead of giving it time for the technology to make it work, Ricoh announces that they've done it. Except they haven't.

And again - excuses for the shortcomings. First we deny that it has any, then when forced to admit it, we suggest that the 'old way' of evaluating a camera are no longer worthy, then finally we suggest that people abandon the quest for excellence and lower their standards.

I have a DSLR, I love digital cameras, and I fully accept that they're taking over. But I won't pretend they don't have shortcomings, nor will I make lame excuses for those shortcomings. And I really won't redefine photography to include a 'dumbed down' version of decent photography because digital can't do that yet.

So why is it people rush to make excuses for sub-standard digital cameras? I don't understand.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #71
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,780
blech, nix 'retrofocus' from my last post. replace it with whatever rangefinder lenses are like. is there a word for that? slr lenses are retrofocus, and they work fine, or at least ok on dslrs.

i don't think the 1/1.8" sensor sucks, and it's not that big a deal if it doesn't have a built-in viewfinder.

maybe they'll never increase the angle of acceptance of digital sensors to have FF rangefinders and pocketable p&s. is that too horrible a fate? is there no way to pull a nice print out of a 1/1.8" sensor set to ISO 400-1600?
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #72
DougK
This space left blank
 
DougK's Avatar
 
DougK is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Westlake, OH
Age: 49
Posts: 1,548
There's an interesting article by Mike Johnston over on Luminous Landscape regarding sensor size in digital cameras. I have to agree with him on this issue, a little too much is made over sensor size for my taste.

I looked at the specs for the camera and it looks like a solid product to me, if not exactly what film GR fans were hoping for. The sample images from the camera looked pretty good too.
__________________
Doug K.

Last edited by DougK : 09-13-2005 at 16:58.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #73
Socke
 
Posts: n/a
Aizan as long as I want to take shots like I used to do, I need a bigger sensor.




bigger



bigger



bigger

The guy selling pimientos was taken with a Contax G2 and Planar 45/2 at f2 on Sensia 100 and the lizard with a Canon D60 with a 75-300/4-5.6 at 200mm and f5.6. The street szene on Fujipress 800 in a Contax T-VS at 28mm f3.5.

As I don't want to carry the dSLR everywhere, I use the G2 much for low light and the TVS as my pocket camera. A regular bus in Cuba is not the place to take a big SLR to, it is realy crowded!
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #74
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan
blech, nix 'retrofocus' from my last post. replace it with whatever rangefinder lenses are like. is there a word for that? slr lenses are retrofocus, and they work fine, or at least ok on dslrs.

i don't think the 1/1.8" sensor sucks, and it's not that big a deal if it doesn't have a built-in viewfinder.

maybe they'll never increase the angle of acceptance of digital sensors to have FF rangefinders and pocketable p&s. is that too horrible a fate? is there no way to pull a nice print out of a 1/1.8" sensor set to ISO 400-1600?
Is it too horrible that the camera can make good prints? No. That's peachy.

Is it too horrible that the camera is not even close to GR series Ricoh and Ricoh is claiming it is? Yep.

I'm not saying it is a horrible camera. I'm saying it is not a digital replacement for a film-based Ricoh GR series camera - not even close.

If your point is it takes good photos, then whoopdee-do. A gazillion digital cameras take good photos, and they do it cheaper, better, and with zoom + 28mm equiv.

But if you're looking for a digital Ricoh GR, this ain't it - and Ricoh says it is - and that sucks.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #75
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkirchge
There's an interesting article by Mike Johnston over on Luminous Landscape regarding sensor size in digital cameras. I have to agree with him on this issue, a little too much is made over sensor size for my taste.
I read the article, well written - and wrong.

Image quality is not the be-all of sensor size. Megapixel is not the be-all either.

With an APS/C sensor, you get a crop factor (not a multiplication factor) using standard 35mm lenses, but the difference is not such that you cannot use selective focus. This is not some trick in a photographer's bag, this is a staple of photography. With a 1/8 sensor, you cannot do it unless you're talking macro. f2.5 be danged - the focal length is what it is - 8mm or whatever the equivalent is to 28mm is such that selective focus is all but impossible.

Selective focus is important to photography. Attempting to redefine photography to not include things that digital cameras can't do won't work. We dinosaurs won't let it. Digital cameras must more closely approximate what film cameras can already do - and that is NOT about image quality only.

Quote:
I looked at the specs for the camera and it looks like a solid product to me, if not exactly what film GR fans were hoping for. The sample images from the camera looked pretty good too.
a) Not exactly? Not exactly? Yeah, and my house is 'not exactly' the same as the Empire State Building. That's about how much they have in common, the new GR and the film GR.

b) Sample images good? Again - not the point.

This camera is neither fish nor fowl. For the people who would be impressed by the image quality, it has no zoom - and although it is 28mm equiv, many zoom digicams have 28mm as their max width. And for consumers right now, it is megapixels, optical zoom, image stabilization, battery life, and so on. This offers very little of that.

And for those who would have wished that this was indeed the digital equivalent of a Ricoh GR series film camera - as I've exhaustively stated, this ain't that, either.

So, a failure. It isn't what it is supposed to be, and having a lovely image isn't going to save it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #76
DougK
This space left blank
 
DougK's Avatar
 
DougK is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Westlake, OH
Age: 49
Posts: 1,548
Wow, lots of emotion in this thread but a good discussion. Last post for me on this topic, then I'll shut up.

I reread the Ricoh press release and the only thing I can find in there referring to the previous GR camera series is that
The new GR Digital inherits the superb image quality that made the award winning GR Series (first launched in 1996) of 35mm compact film cameras so popular, as well as the depictive performance to satisfy professional photographers, distilled into a compact 25mm thin body.
I'm not sure where they ever said that it was a digital version of the GR which some folks seem to be taking away from the press release, only that it would inherit the same image quality. OK, so they reused the model name, but they aren't the first camera manufacturer to do something like that. Am I disappointed it isn't simply a GR with digital sensing? Yeah, somewhat, but I don't see where Ricoh promised anyone that it would be.

That said, I think this camera looks like a solid contender for an advanced point-and-shoot on its own merits, if maybe a touch expensive for what you get. Will I buy one? Hell no
__________________
Doug K.

Last edited by DougK : 09-13-2005 at 19:34.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #77
DougK
This space left blank
 
DougK's Avatar
 
DougK is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Westlake, OH
Age: 49
Posts: 1,548
OK maybe one more comment... I do like the fact the RAW format is the DNG standard proposed by Adobe. Proprietary RAW formats are a PITA to deal with, especially if you've owned several different cameras like I have, each with a different RAW file format.
__________________
Doug K.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #78
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkirchge
Wow, lots of emotion in this thread but a good discussion. Last post for me on this topic, then I'll shut up.
I don't know - people keep saying I'm very emotional - I think it's just the way I write - with passion. I'm not angry or upset. Disappointed, but eh - no big deal.

Quote:
I reread the Ricoh press release and the only thing I can find in there referring to the previous GR camera series is that
Let me quote you a few...

August 30, 2005:

"A brief press release on the website of Ricoh Global today announces that the company will soon unveil a digital camera that follows in the footsteps of its GR-series of film cameras."

Also:


Ricoh Press Release:

On September 13 RICOH will announce the arrival of a new Super High Imaging Quality compact digital camera. This exceptional camera will be the digital version of the well-known GR analog camera series.


Hmmm. I think that's pretty clear, isn't it?

Quote:
I'm not sure where they ever said that it was a digital version of the GR which some folks seem to be taking away from the press release, only that it would inherit the same image quality.
They said it on their website prior to today's announcement of the actual camera.

Quote:
OK, so they reused the model name, but they aren't the first camera manufacturer to do something like that. Am I disappointed it isn't simply a GR with digital sensing? Yeah, somewhat, but I don't see where Ricoh promised anyone that it would be.
You had to actually look at the press releases they put out prior to today. That would be where they 'promised it'.

Quote:
That said, I think this camera looks like a solid contender for an advanced point-and-shoot on its own merits, if maybe a touch expensive for what you get. Will I buy one? Hell no
I can't see what it offers that anyone would want - point-n-shoot happy snapper or advanced amateur. Certainly not pro. But again, that's not the point - my objection is not about what it is - rather about what it is not. And it is not what Ricoh claimed it was (and I think we've established that they did claim that).

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #79
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkirchge
OK maybe one more comment... I do like the fact the RAW format is the DNG standard proposed by Adobe. Proprietary RAW formats are a PITA to deal with, especially if you've owned several different cameras like I have, each with a different RAW file format.
I have, and I agree about RAW formats. Except that I prefer www.openraw.org over Adobe, which must be licensed.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2005   #80
DougK
This space left blank
 
DougK's Avatar
 
DougK is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Westlake, OH
Age: 49
Posts: 1,548
OK, fair enough, I hadn't seen the previous press releases. Given that evidence, I'll agree that they did promise a true digital GR and based on that, you're right, they did not deliver the goods as promised.

I'll also agree that I would prefer OpenRAW (I signed up with that organization myself). The DNG format is still better than a zillion different formats and Adobe at least has a good track record of publishing the specs of their formats.
__________________
Doug K.

Last edited by DougK : 09-13-2005 at 20:18.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Forsaking all film for digital bmattock Rangefinder Photography Discussion 59 01-24-2006 13:13
Who Da Man? I'm Da Man... bmattock Rangefinder Photography Discussion 30 12-05-2005 16:50
Digital version of the Ricoh GR camera to be announced! Kin Lau Rangefinder Photography Discussion 37 09-15-2005 15:10
Epson Launches the World's First Rangefinder Digital Camera MP Guy Rangefinder Photography Discussion 25 11-17-2004 08:16
Leica SLR digital camera MP Guy Rangefinder Photography Discussion 0 10-02-2003 15:26



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 13:13.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.