If it was good enough to photograph Kate Moss...

Having used a lot of the cameras here, except notably the T3, I'd say get a GR 1 and/or a Yashica T4 for less than the price of a T3.

The GR1 is the best of the bunch if you want control and you want it to be small enough to actually take with you all the time. Besides the lens and controls which both rock, it's THIN. Like the same depth as a roll of film. This makes a big difference if you are thinking whether to bring a camera with you if say you are going out on the town and want to travel light without a bulging pocket.

It lives in my jacket pocket and the controls are usable. On some of these you have manual control but they are too fiddly to actually use.

I like the T4 over the Contax T2 because it's lighter and I like the way the Tessar lens separates the out of focus areas much better than the Sonnar, even though it's a stop slower (2.8 vs 3.5). It lacks any sort of manual control, besides flash, no flash, red eye and infinity (by cycling through a single button) but the photos it produces with color slide film are increadible and really I don't miss the control. It's also weather sealed. Makes a great travel camera. I leave it in beach bag during the summer.

Also since you brought it up, it's done plenty of ad campaigns and model shoots in the hands of Terry Richardson and the like. I think that kid Ryan whatshisname who shoots half naked photos of friends uses one too.
 
Brit In New York said:
Looks like I am mulling between a Contax T3 and a Ricoc GR-1.... now if on the Contax came with a warranty I'd plump my cash down.

Have a great day all!
Click to expand...

Absolutely no buyer's remorse here, but i got mine before the high prices we see today.

I cannot say the T3 is a problem camera. Only had one repair done in 4 years of heavy use. It's always with me and I shoot in any reasonable weather condition: snow & light rain. It worked perfectly in sub-freezing temperatures on the beach.

I would choose according to your budget. To me the T3 has everything you need but a heavy tag price.
 
Not that I have owned all of those models

but I do own the Yashica T4 I find it fantastic as a overall walk around/party camera

To your reference to shooting Kate Moss? I guess it depends on the photographer your referencing; but Terry Richardson Always uses a couple of T4s for his shoots and that shot of Kate Moss I linked to
 
The Ricoh GR-1 and GR-D both slip into a pocket without problems. I've swapped my carry everywhere film camera for a GR-D 1 and never hand any regrets. Wife does not get on me for another $10 roll of film and processing. I shoot RAW it works great with my Mac. Only thing I wish for is a GR-DT with a 65mm lens on it.

B2 (;->
 
I've got a Ricoh GR1s (had two in fact - first got stolen). Great little camera - fab lens for a P&S, easy to use, small size (fits in your jeans pocket) and light as a feather. I use it more than my Rollei 35s. I take it travelling as my film P&S - highly recommended

Charlie
 
A couple of years ago I found myself looking at the same cameras. I bought a T2 then sold it. Bought a T3 and then a GR1 and still have both.

Some thoughts:

Anyone considering a high end point and shoot should be aware that the GR1 and the T3 are the best of the bunch when it comes to shutter lag. Both of these cameras actually focus the lens with a half press of the shutter. When you fully depress the shutter button, the shutter is tripped, and a photo is taken. With the GR1 or the T3, you can acquire focus and then wait for the decisive moment.

Most point and shoots only determine the focus distance with a half press. Then, when the shutter button is fully depressed, the lens is moved into focus and the shutter is tripped. This is the case with the T2, the Oly Stylus, the Leica CM and Minilux, and the Nikons. Trying to capture a decisive moment is far more difficult. You must be very good at "anticipation".

As far as reliability, I've heard more stories of bad circuit boards in GR1s than in T3s. I suppose you should try to get a late model of either one.

Another thing to consider is manual ISO. Only with the GR1v can you manually set the ISO. With the GR1, GR1s, or T3, you must use exposure compensation to push or pull your film.

Ergonomics are better with the GR1, but the viewfinder display is better in the T3. The info in the GR1 viewfinder can be difficult to see in sunlight.

The thickness of the T3 makes it less comfortable to carry around in a pocket.

Finally, as nice as these cameras are, they remain full of compromises. The lenses are great and you can get some great shots, but I still find both cameras fidgety. I find that I get far fewer keepers on a roll compared to my results with a rangefinder. So when I want to go small and light, I will usually grab the Bessa R3A with the 40mm Nokton f/1.4 and wear it on a sling. The benefits are almost always worth it.
 
Quinn Porter said:
Most point and shoots only determine the focus distance with a half press. Then, when the shutter button is fully depressed, the lens is moved into focus and the shutter is tripped. This is the case with the T2, the Oly Stylus, the Leica CM and Minilux, and the Nikons. Trying to capture a decisive moment is far more difficult. You must be very good at "anticipation".
Click to expand...

The Leica CM also brings the lens into focus on half depress, like the GR1 and T3 as you mention.

One thing about autofocus cameras which I have found an occassional problem is that selective focus work can be tricky, but it's something you learn to live with.

(Speaking of Terry Richardson, I recall one of his "bullfighting series" ads some years back for Sisley, with a bull facing off with a model in a pit: in the 2-page magazine spread the back-focus was obvious)
 
Quinn Porter said:
A couple of years ago I found myself looking at the same cameras. I bought a T2 then sold it. Bought a T3 and then a GR1 and still have both.

Some thoughts:

Anyone considering a high end point and shoot should be aware that the GR1 and the T3 are the best of the bunch when it comes to shutter lag. Both of these cameras actually focus the lens with a half press of the shutter. When you fully depress the shutter button, the shutter is tripped, and a photo is taken. With the GR1 or the T3, you can acquire focus and then wait for the decisive moment.

Most point and shoots only determine the focus distance with a half press. Then, when the shutter button is fully depressed, the lens is moved into focus and the shutter is tripped. This is the case with the T2, the Oly Stylus, the Leica CM and Minilux, and the Nikons. Trying to capture a decisive moment is far more difficult. You must be very good at "anticipation".

As far as reliability, I've heard more stories of bad circuit boards in GR1s than in T3s. I suppose you should try to get a late model of either one.

Another thing to consider is manual ISO. Only with the GR1v can you manually set the ISO. With the GR1, GR1s, or T3, you must use exposure compensation to push or pull your film.

Ergonomics are better with the GR1, but the viewfinder display is better in the T3. The info in the GR1 viewfinder can be difficult to see in sunlight.

The thickness of the T3 makes it less comfortable to carry around in a pocket.

Finally, as nice as these cameras are, they remain full of compromises. The lenses are great and you can get some great shots, but I still find both cameras fidgety. I find that I get far fewer keepers on a roll compared to my results with a rangefinder. So when I want to go small and light, I will usually grab the Bessa R3A with the 40mm Nokton f/1.4 and wear it on a sling. The benefits are almost always worth it.
Click to expand...

Excellent info.

T3 also has focus lock, and I believe if you manually set your focus to 5m at f8 you're hyperfocal.

About the keepers part, personally it's not so true with for me. But, I have realized the T3 made me kinda lazy (and therefore got less keepers) due to it's full automation. If you do spend the time to understand it and frame properly instead of shooting from the hip and such (which also works and can get you some nice images), then it's just a formidable machine:

I think the keepers are a user mindset issue related to the type of camera used...I know it to be true for me, that's why I invested in a ZI w/ 50/1.5 Sonnar to get back to slow and thoughtful photography.

I'll post a selective focus shot from last week-end when I get home tonight. Perfectly doable, you just have to take the camera more seriously than it appears to be.

p.s.: I love the wait level viewfinder of the T4, great idea!
 
Thanks for all the great insight.

I essentially want something that is a more spontaneous than M6 where somethings are left to chance. I love photographing with my M6 and find the experience comparable to painting a stylized view of the world. My interest in a T3 is a to create a series of images when the photographer is essentially passive capturing what's there objectively.

I just need to find a willing seller of a T3 now :)
 
Last edited:
I purchased the T3 a year ago and have no buyer's remorse.

When I'm too lazy to put a camera over my shoulder, the T3 goes in the back pocket and therefore gets shots that my M6 doesn't. (The trick here is to wear something like cargo pants, rather than jeans, because jeans pockets are too tight for the T3 to fit comfortably.)

In fact, after months of deliberation, I chose the T3 over my M6 and its accompanying lenses to take to SE Asia and I don't regret the decision. It was imperative to travel light in the heat. And I believe the lens on the T3 is sharper than anything I have for my Leica.

The T3 is certainly not a replacement for an M camera, but I think it's a terrific companion.

The T3 is also my overpriced light meter for unmetered cameras.
 
I actually picked up a GR 1 for the same reason you mentioned, basically LESS deliberate photography. I tend to be a bit more careful composing with my M and use the point and shoot as a way to break out and get some more interesting framing and inject a little more spontaneity into my photography.

It works great for that but any of the choices mentioned here would as well. You could do it with the M too. It's really a mental state rather than anything mechanical but often having a different physical tool snaps you into that mode.

However, the idea of the photographer being "passive and capturing what's there objectively" is sort of a myth. You aren't going to escape your own subjectivity however you can make it less obvious or perhaps more artful.

Good luck finding a T3.
 
I often backpocket my T3 as a light meter when I bring out my Rollei. And when I stop to shoot on the Rollei, I'll often shoot a couple shots on the T3 for comparison's sake. Though I've rallied on this thread for the T3, it is interesting to look at the side by side results. Granted, it's not a fair comparison because, in this particular scenario, I tend to be more careful with the Rollei's framing (and obviously the Rollei is much harder to transport) but I think the Rollei has a way of adding character to mundane scenes.

T3:

3255867891_12b90d543b.jpg


Rollei:

3095895114_a4a8cd4c47.jpg


T3 (botched auto-focus while rushing):

3255867865_3fd4b66bf1.jpg


Rollei:

3095895146_8a34649849.jpg
 
you know what, i confused this thread with another one and thought you were weighing a P&S vs a Rollei TLR. i apologize for taking it off topic.
the Rollei those were shot with is an E2 Planar 2.8 TLR.

the scans are low-res (500k?) files from a small NY lab. suitable only for internet viewing, not printing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom