GR Digital V to have APS-C sensor

dcsang said:
I'm not a mod but .. maybe "Exdsc" can start a thread about this somewhere else and we can get this thread back ON TOPIC regarding the Ricoh? :)

Just a thought.

Cheers,
Dave
Click to expand...

Excellent thought, Dave.

Exdsc: if you wish to continue discussion of your thoughts about LCD vs OVF, please open a thread in the Philosophy of Photography forum to address this topic. If you do so, let me know and I'll move the related posts from here into that thread.

Leave this thread to discussion of the Ricoh GR, its design and use.

G
 
Godfrey said:
Excellent thought, Dave.

Exdsc: if you wish to continue discussion of your thoughts about LCD vs OVF, please open a thread in the Philosophy of Photography forum to address this topic. If you do so, let me know and I'll move the related posts from here into that thread.

Leave this thread to discussion of the Ricoh GR, its design and use.

G
Click to expand...

+1.

I'm looking forward to high-ISO samples from the GR. It's done and sold itself in every other respect, but I won't commit until somebody tests how it fares in low light. The ISO 100 samples from Ricoh don't leave me worried, but aren't convincing in and of themselves.
 
erikhaugsby said:
+1.

I'm looking forward to high-ISO samples from the GR. It's done and sold itself in every other respect, but I won't commit until somebody tests how it fares in low light. The ISO 100 samples from Ricoh don't leave me worried, but aren't convincing in and of themselves.
Click to expand...

Same sensor as the Pentax K-5 latest iteration. Nothing to worry about there.
 
the gr-d continues to hold my interest even though its equivalent focal length is wider than i like. much looking forward to seeing some work done with the new cam ...
 
Aristophanes said:
Curses! Foiled again.

Pentax*ist which I have is a shade smaller than the X100.

The X100's are NOT "small" in cameraland.
Click to expand...

Um, no. Dimensions:

Pentax *ist: 129 x 95 x 60 mm (5.0 x 3.7 x 2.3 in) 650 g w battery
Pentax *ist DS: 125 x 93 x 66 mm (4.92 x 3.66 x 2.6″) 605 g w battery
Pentax K-x: 122.5mm x 91.5mm x 67.5mm (4.8 x 3.6 x 2.7 in) 580g w battery
Fuji X100: 127 x 74 x 54 mm (5 x 2.91 x 2.13″) 445 g with battery

The DSLRs are listed without a lens. Add even the DA40 Limited and the Pentax DSLRs are still quite a bit thicker and heavier (read that as larger) than the Fuji X100.

Earlier models of the Pentax DSLRs weren't available, so I compared against the K-x ...
Pentax K-x vs Fuji X100: http://camerasize.com/compare/#229,133

PentaxKx_vs_FujiX100.png


I could easily stick a Fuji X100 into a jacket pocket, could never do that with a Pentax DSLR.
G
 
paulfish4570 said:
the gr-d continues to hold my interest even though its equivalent focal length is wider than i like. much looking forward to seeing some work done with the new cam ...
Click to expand...

28 is also not my preferred focal length... I use the dp1m which is a 28fov but it does not get used as much as the dp2m which is a 45fov. Since this camera has a 35 crop view I am most likely going to use it if crop view mode.. Loosing the mega pixels does not bother me since I don't ever print that big versus a pocketable camera w/ hopefully great iq.

Gary
 
Even though I have the Coolpix A I still may venture to the GR - especially seeing as it's close to it's predecessors in terms of design/shape.

It truly WOULD be incredible if Ricoh would produce a 35mm version but I don't think that's to be. . one can dream though.

Cheers,
Dave
 
Godfrey said:
Just read the last several pages on this thread.

The thesis that an LCD doesn't provide some mystical connection to the subject is absurd. I started photography with a 6x6 cm screen view in a 1949 Rolleiflex ... A dim and difficult viewing/focusing environment compared to any of today's excellent LCD displays. And, wow, the image is reversed left to right too. Talk about being disconnected from the subject.

The truly absurd part of this thesis is that a GR, like most of the high end cameras in this class, can easily be fitted with a top notch optical viewfinder if you prefer that point of view. I use my GXR and X2 cameras set up that way quite often as I do often like to use an eye-level viewfinder. However, I use them just as often with only the LCD or with their EVFs too. All three viewfinder types have their plusses and minuses, and are advantageous in some circumstances.

Dogmatic drivel about the mystical connection embued by an optical viewfinder makes no sense, it's not rational or objective. It just marks a particular individual's personal bias and prejudice, their emotional attachment to a particular way of using a camera. Nothing wrong with that, but let's not attempt "philosophical" on something so absurd.
Click to expand...


Well said.
 
Yep all three types have their uses. Why limit yourself? On LCD only usage, once af lock has been achieved, nothing stops one from looking directly at your subject just prior to shutter release. Eye contact is one thing, but more important to check for things u may have missed prior to taking the picture.. That slight change in perspective helps a lot for me whether I am using ovf, evf or LCD.

Gary
 
Godfrey said:
Just read the last several pages on this thread.

The thesis that an LCD doesn't provide some mystical connection to the subject is absurd. I started photography with a 6x6 cm screen view in a 1949 Rolleiflex ... A dim and difficult viewing/focusing environment compared to any of today's excellent LCD displays. And, wow, the image is reversed left to right too. Talk about being disconnected from the subject.

The truly absurd part of this thesis is that a GR, like most of the high end cameras in this class, can easily be fitted with a top notch optical viewfinder if you prefer that point of view. I use my GXR and X2 cameras set up that way quite often as I do often like to use an eye-level viewfinder. However, I use them just as often with only the LCD or with their EVFs too. All three viewfinder types have their plusses and minuses, and are advantageous in some circumstances.

Dogmatic drivel about the mystical connection embued by an optical viewfinder makes no sense, it's not rational or objective. It just marks a particular individual's personal bias and prejudice, their emotional attachment to a particular way of using a camera. Nothing wrong with that, but let's not attempt "philosophical" on something so absurd.

G
Click to expand...

I would say: "Relax..."
It's not a "thesis", just a post on a public internet forum.

I happen to agree that composing using a viewfinder attached to the camera helps me to focus better on the task at hand, that is taking a picture. Nothing philosophical about it, I just prefer it.

I tolerate LCD composing on my GRD IV because I'm too lazy to carry around the OVF, same case as my Pen E-P2.
 
shadowfox said:
I would say: "Relax..."
It's not a "thesis", just a post on a public internet forum.
...
Click to expand...

LOL! I'm perfectly relaxed.
Just because you agree with the fellow's thesis doesn't make it any less a thesis.

But remember: we're talking about the Ricoh GR in this thread, not some discussion of which type of viewfinder is the best.

G
 
erikhaugsby said:
+1.

I'm looking forward to high-ISO samples from the GR. It's done and sold itself in every other respect, but I won't commit until somebody tests how it fares in low light. The ISO 100 samples from Ricoh don't leave me worried, but aren't convincing in and of themselves.
Click to expand...

A couple at higher settings here (click the "i" icon to bring up EXIF) -- http://jimfisher.smugmug.com/keyword/ricoh gr#!i=2462185621&k=h6wxmtD

Shot Raw, processed in Lightroom. PM me if you want to take a look at a specific DNG.
 
well, I see a lot of people complaining about the lack of viewfinder?
I had a grd2, ..... and sold it because of the resolution! My prints were just not good enough. But I had leicas, hasselblads, rf645 and so on, and this was my favorite camera of all the cameras I have ever owned.

In the meantime, I became a leica user, love the camera, and everything about it ....but I must say:

I did a trip to NY in 2009 with my grd2 and made great pictures...really great (but very disapointed with my prints because of small sensor)

I went back in 2012 with my Leica M6... and really missed the freedom I had with my ricoh!

Same place, same situation, but different camera

I always had the grd2 in my pocket in 2009 versus leica m6 in my backpack in 2012....

About the external viewfinder: I prefer to compose on LCD screen! really!
It's like composing on a matte screen on the fly.
I bought an external viewfinder and never used it... so I sold it.
Actually , composing on an LCD screen really makes sense to me.
Anyway, I am a diehard film user, but I think I am gonna buy the new gr because of its sensor and ease of use.
Just my thougts, not gonna argue about whether or not a leica/viewfinder camera is more legitime....
 
Taking the camera to my eye slow down my shooting, whereas LCD framing can be done quickly. So I associate VF with more contemplative shooting and LCD with quick get it or miss it grab shot. I think that is the philosophical difference between x100/s and A/GR
 
aleksanderpolo said:
Taking the camera to my eye slow down my shooting, whereas LCD framing can be done quickly. So I associate VF with more contemplative shooting and LCD with quick get it or miss it grab shot. I think that is the philosophical difference between x100/s and A/GR
Click to expand...

I don't understand your point about the x100 series. The x100 can be setup to have full LCD capability as well as ovf or evf.

I can chose to shoot LCD mode or ovf/evf.

Gary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom