GR Digital V to have APS-C sensor

Paddy C said:
Having looked at the DPreview samples (the "test chart" one) I can only conclude that there's something off. Either with the cameras themselves, or in the taking of the images.

The upper left crop they sampled is by far the worst corner for the Nikon. I would actually say the the far left side favours the Ricoh. The right side is a different story. In some areas the Nikon is clearly better and that includes an area in the upper right just before the corner. The Ricoh only tops the Nikon in the extreme right corners and that, I think, is down to better handling of CA.

I don't think you can draw any absolute conclusions from these samples.
Click to expand...

Agreed - right now, although I've heard some explanations wrt the test images that DP Review has posted (lens differences mainly are the reason I've been told) no one (here or otherwise) has been able to explain the issue that is seen in the Ricoh full size sample - specifically as it pertains to the right side of the Kodak gray scale and the playing cards. Weird.

Also, as an FYI to those interested in the Ricoh. I just found out the camera does NOT come with a charger. Charger sold separately.

Cheers,
Dave
 
dcsang said:
Also, as an FYI to those interested in the Ricoh. I just found out the camera does NOT come with a charger. Charger sold separately.
Click to expand...

What? :rolleyes::(:eek::bang:

Perhaps you charge it via power cable straight to camera... yes, that's how it works. That's fine with me. You scared me for a minute.
 
The battery is charged in camera via a (very small) USB to AC adapter. Battery is labeled DB-65; can probably pick up a generic charger that supports it for not much money, but it's a shame that it isn't included in the package... but I guess if Sony can get away with selling a $2800 camera sans charger, Ricoh can do the same with an $800 one.
 
I haven't purchased a digital GR before but does it usually come without a charger? Or is this the first time?
 
jpfisher said:
The battery is charged in camera via a (very small) USB to AC adapter. Battery is labeled DB-65; can probably pick up a generic charger that supports it for not much money, but it's a shame that it isn't included in the package... but I guess if Sony can get away with selling a $2800 sans charger, Ricoh can do the same with an $800 one.
Click to expand...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/761003-REG/Ricoh_171873_BJ_6_Battery_Charger_for.html

Extra $50 (that may or may not be "not much money" but it's the Ricoh charger).

It's the only charger that comes up in a B&H search when you type in "DB-65 Battery Charger".

Cheers,
Dave
 
Honestly for $800, several hundred dollars cheaper than the competition, I'll buy my own charger.

I could have sworn when I was looking at the "Whats in the Box" earlier this morning that it listed a charger either on the Ricoh site or the B&H site but not now.

Oh well. Too bad it won't be available before I leave on a trip in mid-May. Guess I'll keep my GR III for that. Let the initial wave of GRD III & IV sales percolate through the classifieds...
 
dcsang said:
Agreed - right now, although I've heard some explanations wrt the test images that DP Review has posted (lens differences mainly are the reason I've been told) no one (here or otherwise) has been able to explain the issue that is seen in the Ricoh full size sample - specifically as it pertains to the right side of the Kodak gray scale and the playing cards. Weird.
Click to expand...

Just realized I was looking at the 5.6 samples not the 2.8. Although the same issues appear in both.

I would be tempted to say that the Ricoh exhibits wavy field curvature and that Ricoh optimized the lens for centre and edge sharpness. Whereas Nikon gave up the corners. However, it's not consistent.
 
I love shiny new toys, but since I just recently bought an RX100, I'm desperately trying to justify keeping it instead of buying a new GR or Coolpix A.

A few things that jumped out at me...

At 28mm wide-open, the RX100 resolves more lines of resolution than the GR (2126 for Sony vs. 2105 for Ricoh), has a higher pixel count (20 vs. 16), when shooting at 35mm equivalent the Sony is full-resolution (Ricoh drops to 10MP), in RAW the RX100 shoots 5fps (Ricoh, 4fps), the Sony Zeiss zoom has less distortion over its entire range than the Ricoh prime (.2 vs. .3 for Ricoh), and little bonuses for usability...the Sony has a zoom and image stabilization for both still and video.

PC Mag reports the same amount of noise for the Sony at 1600 ISO as the Ricoh at 6400ISO (a 1-stop advantage for the Ricoh).

So, I feel better now. The GR (and to some extent the Coolpix A) are much more specialized tools, whereas the RX100 will do the same PLUS be a bit more flexible.

I won't take anything away from these awesome street shooters, but the RX100 is still an awesome beast :D
 
PC Mag reports the same amount of noise for the Sony at 1600 ISO as the Ricoh at 6400ISO (a 1-stop advantage for the Ricoh).
Click to expand...

I didn't do a direct comparison between the RX100 and the GR when putting the review together as we classify them as different types of cameras... but I just pulled up my studio samples and did some quick compares at identical ISO settings in Lightroom.

It's a little tough to get a real idea of what's doing better, as I framed the color chart tightly with the RX100 and was limited to a looser framing with the GR's wide-angle prime. But Raw images at 1600, 3200, and 6400 are pretty damned close between the two. I'd give a very slight edge to the Ricoh, because the noise is in a tighter pattern. Very little color noise showing up in either image looking at them in Lightroom 4.4 with default develop settings, mostly luminance based.

I'd give the RX100 an edge in JPG starting at 3200, but we shoot our review samples with default settings; I think tweaking the noise reduction would put the GR on even footing, given just how close in quality the Raw files are to each other.

But if we're talking ergonomics, I really loved the GR; it's been a good while since I picked up an RX100, but I remember having some issues with the way the controls were set up. Seemed to get in the way more when shooting, while the GR stays clearly out of the way.
 
jpfisher said:
But if we're talking ergonomics, I really loved the GR; it's been a good while since I picked up an RX100, but I remember having some issues with the way the controls were set up. Seemed to get in the way more when shooting, while the GR stays clearly out of the way.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is what it comes down to these days. They are all good enough IQ wise for pocket cams.
 
Thanks for the additional comments Jim. I've heard time and time again that Ricoh users love the ergonomics of their GRs.

I wasn't trying to tear down the GR, or the Coolpix A...I was simply trying to justify (in my own mind) keeping the RX100 and not running to the store. I held a Coolpix A just yesterday, and thought it was an awesome camera in the flesh (I don't think photos do it justice). I'm just happy to see that the RX100 still punches way above its weight. I'll keep it for now. Who knows...a mythical "RX10" with an APS-C would have my cash, sight-unseen. I guess I've gotten used to the crappy Sony ergonomics :D
 
David, didn't think you were trying to tear either camera down. In a vacuum, I like the Coolpix A a lot; but with the GR available as an alternative, I like it a bit less.

I shot with them side-by-side and just found that the GR was the camera I preferred using--the A has an edge when shooting at absurdly high ISOs -- 3200, 6400 -- but the GR was snappier to focus and focused a lot closer without having to engage macro mode. (Which slows down the Coolpix A's focusing quite a bit.)

It will be interesting to see what Sony does it if it ever decides to release an APS-C in the RX series. I just have to wonder if it'll be a prime lens or a zoom like the old R1.
 
FYI - I am not dissing this camera because it doesn't come with a charger - all I'm saying is people should be aware that it does not come with an external charger :)

I have already said how much I adored the ergonomics due to my previous history with the GRD II and III - I just am waiting to see the "other" results (and for the camera to be available too) :D

Cheers,
Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom