Ricoh GR Digital announced

[bmattock]

Totally disappointed. This camera is crap. The Caplio GX8 on which it appears to be based would have been a better choice. No optical viewfinder? Lens has to 'extend' when power is applied, even though it does not zoom? Small image sensor? Worthless.

 

[KoNickon]

I have a problem with there being no viewfinder. An optional accessory finder doesn't cut it, in my opinion. The images look pretty good, though.

 

[dreilly]

I think people might be being a little harsh a little too early. The info out there is pretty fresh, and nobody has actually held/used this thing. It's charms may yet be manifest.

It has a fixed lens, something that does set it apart from almost every other digital camera--and the GR-1 film cameras had to extend as well, so I don't see that as negative.

It might have a more useful interface than most digital cameras, with seperate aperture/shutter speed dials. That's always been my complaint about digicams. Too obtuse in usage.

There's a lot we dont' know for sure: how fast it really is, how long the batteries last, and how good the photos really are. I won't be calling it crap just yet. I also won't be buying it until the reviews start coming in.

 

[bmattock]

I have a problem with there being no viewfinder. An optional accessory finder doesn't cut it, in my opinion. The images look pretty good, though.

Nobody cares if the images are good. They're all good these days. Without an optical viewfinder, small size, manual control, and the ability to give excellent shot-to-shot speed, fast startup, and aperture-controlled DOF tricks, it is just another PnS hunk of junk. Bravo the images are good. Not $750 dollars good.

 

[bmattock]

I think people might be being a little harsh a little too early. The info out there is pretty fresh, and nobody has actually held/used this thing. It's charms may yet be manifest.

Are you suggesting that maybe it actually has an optical viewfinder after all? Without one, it is crap.

It has a fixed lens, something that does set it apart from almost every other digital camera--and the GR-1 film cameras had to extend as well, so I don't see that as negative.

Fixed lens is lovely if it conveys the advantages that all fixed lenses on AF film cameras convey - speed and image quality. 1.7 second shot-to-shot? Might as well be a zoom.

It might have a more useful interface than most digital cameras, with seperate aperture/shutter speed dials. That's always been my complaint about digicams. Too obtuse in usage.

The manual knobs for shutter speed and aperture control are the most useful features that this camera appears to have. I'll give it props for that.

There's a lot we dont' know for sure: how fast it really is,

Manufacturers routinely exaggerate - they say 1.7 seconds shot-to-shot. If normal testing holds true, it is actually even slower than that. Unacceptable.

how long the batteries last,

Umm, yeah. I want to spend $750 USD on a camera because the batteries last a good long time.

and how good the photos really are.

The cult status of the film GR series cameras was achieved because the image quality was cracking - but lots of lenses can do that. It was completed by the fact that it was small, fast, quiet, and easy to control. A 'pro' point-n-shoot, if you will. The announcement suggests that this digital GR is small and perhaps quiet. I could really give a rip about the image quality - I expect excellence these days as a minimum standard.

I won't be calling it crap just yet. I also won't be buying it until the reviews start coming in.

I won't be buying it at all, and yes, I feel quite comfortable in announcing it's crapitude. No optical viewfinder? Pfah!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ZeissFan]

You know what is interesting? If one fell swoop, Sony has now redefined the P&S market with the RD-1. The ability to put an APS-C sensor into a P&S camera has now altered the expectations of other cameras in this category.

I agree that it seems a bit unnecessary to mention a seven-blade design and bokeh when the real-world lens is just 5.9mm.

Also, packing 8MP into that small sensor -- I don't know ... maybe they know how to deal with the noise better than other camera makers.

 

[Rob]

Think i would rather have one of these Canon A610 or A620s for a lot less money.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082202canona610a620.asp

 

[akalai]

Even if the GR has a brilliant interface the question will be is it worth twice the price of a GX8 (or almost twice as much as the newly released R3) for what would appear to be similar if not tuned performance...and a magnesium casing?

Thing is RICOH could have carved a whole new niche for itself if it had delivered the goods, ie. a 4/3rds or APS-C size sensor P&S with suitable, quality fixed wide angle lens. Would have been a lot of interest generated by both pros and serious amateurs alike. Looking at all the accessories available for this digi P&S and options such as getting the "GR Lens 5.9mm" customised to an all black part instead of the stock chrome makes it appear as though its been aimed at those who are more into kneeling down at the altar of the GR than anything else....unfortunately.

...to paraphrase,"It could have been a contender!"

Battery shooting capacity:
Using DB-60: Approx. 250 pictures (Normal)
Using AAA alkaline batteries: Approx. 30 pictures (Normal)

And from the Ricoh press release:
"Even with 8,130,000 effective pixels, the shooting interval is just 1.7 seconds. When shooting continuously, you can shoot at this interval until the memory is full."

Doesn't mention in what mode but I doubt it would be in the Adobe DNG mode...

PS. It would have been more useful if it had a scroll dial to change ISO than aperture with a sensor of this size....but then it would need exceptional low level noise which (while from a pre-production camera) the pics on DC.watch show it doesn't have....

 

[dreilly]

Well, I suppose I was trying to point out that not everyone's definition of crap is limited to having/not having an integrated optical viewfinder. All those Bessa L users, for one.

Let's talk about film cameras again, seems to generate less bad vibes (at least on RFF).

 

[Terence T]

I must admit I'm a bit disappointed with the advertised specs but unlike Bill, I think I'll wait till I try out the real before I pass my judgement. I recently felt quite strongly against the R-D1 until I had the opportunity to try and eventually own one myself.

 

[vha]

well i still think it´s sounds interesting, of course i would like to see some test images and to feel the camera in my fingers first, but if it gives images at same level as my Olympus C8080wz I'm in to it. And yes its a bit expensive, but it´s also available in black 😉

vha

 

[bmattock]

You know what is interesting? If one fell swoop, Sony has now redefined the P&S market with the RD-1. The ability to put an APS-C sensor into a P&S camera has now altered the expectations of other cameras in this category.

I agree that it seems a bit unnecessary to mention a seven-blade design and bokeh when the real-world lens is just 5.9mm.

Also, packing 8MP into that small sensor -- I don't know ... maybe they know how to deal with the noise better than other camera makers.

I imagine that the camera will not be a big hit. It is too expensive for the PnS crowd, who could care less about manual control and non-zoom and DOF effects. They don't care about sensor size - only megapixel rating and how many x's in the optical zoom (3x, 10x, 12x, etc). They're interested in happy snaps, and hundreds of less-expensive models will give it too them.

This camera was obviously aimed at the big boys, but they missed the mark.

Obviously, there must be a larger sensor in order to even begin to replicate film's ability to create creative DOF effects - selective focus is BASIC to real photography.

There is no excuse not include an optical viewfinder. Peering at an LCD from arm's length is hardly a 'street shooting' positive, and the clip-on optical viewfinder is just one more thing to snag in a pocket and drop hard on the ground.

They could have left out the flash altogether, and should have. An APS/C sensor and ISO 1600 or 3200 combined with a REAL f2.8 / 28mm lens would have been (barely, but still) sufficient for available-light street work. A hotshoe would be welcome in that case for rare instances of needing an external flash - pros usually disdain built-in flash anyway. It would have been forgiveable to eschew the hotshoe in favor of a tripod bush and a simple PC socket.

This camera is neither fish nor fowl, this is a joke. Sad. Ricoh had a shot, and obviously the bean-counters got their mitts on it. Back to making copiers, Ricoh!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[kbg32]

http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/press/release/nr_gr_a.html

From the Ricoh site. I find this camera interesting and await a production review.

Cheers,

Keith

 

[bmattock]

Well, I suppose I was trying to point out that not everyone's definition of crap is limited to having/not having an integrated optical viewfinder. All those Bessa L users, for one.

Let's talk about film cameras again, seems to generate less bad vibes (at least on RFF).

No, I can define crap for everyone. It's crap. There. You're welcome.

Bessa L is not marketed, intended, or commonly used as a Point-n-Shoot street camera for pros and advanced amateurs. The Ricoh GR series film cameras were and are.

Sorry if I seem to be giving off bad vibes, but I'm seriously disappointed. I'll get over it. In the meantime, saying the camera has 'nice images' is like telling me that my car with no engine has a nice paint job. Who cares at that point - you can't use it as it was intended to be used!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

I must admit I'm a bit disappointed with the advertised specs but unlike Bill, I think I'll wait till the try out the real before I pass my judgement. I recently felt quite strongly against the R-D1 until I had the opportunity to try and eventually own one myself.

Bill doesn't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows. Prediction? Major suckage, with light screams of agony. Clear skies tomorrow, chance of rain.

 

[bmattock]

And yes its a bit expensive, but it´s also available in black 😉

Oh, well, then. That's completely different! (grin)

 

[kbg32]

No, I can define crap for everyone. It's crap. There. You're welcome.

Bessa L is not marketed, intended, or commonly used as a Point-n-Shoot street camera for pros and advanced amateurs. The Ricoh GR series film cameras were and are.

Sorry if I seem to be giving off bad vibes, but I'm seriously disappointed. I'll get over it. In the meantime, saying the camera has 'nice images' is like telling me that my car with no engine has a nice paint job. Who cares at that point - you can't use it as it was intended to be used!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Bill,

With all due respect, I think you are absolutely wrong. People think 1/2 frame cameras are crap, and in the hands of someone capable, can produce fantastic images. In the end it doesn't matter what you use. It's your vision and what you have to say that matters.

Who cares if one drives a '59 VW Bug or a new Beemer. They both both get you where you want to go. One might be a bit more comforatble in the Beemer, but I'll take the Bug any day. You never know what might happen along the way!

Cheers!

 

[Socke]

Let's talk about film cameras again, seems to generate less bad vibes (at least on RFF).

Yes, because Yashica Electro, Canonet, Olympus XA, Ricoh GR1 etc.pp give us what we want. Pretty good lens end image quality in a very portable package.
Up to now, I don't see a substitute even for my Contax T-VS.

So back to cameras with decent "sensor size".

 

[dreilly]

Well, I for one am holding out that there is in fact an optical VF on the new GR--it's just hidden in the production shots because it's the same crappy VFs common to all digicams.

 

[bmattock]

Bill,

With all due respect, I think you are absolutely wrong. People think 1/2 frame cameras are crap, and in the hands of someone capable, can produce fantastic images. In the end it doesn't matter what you use. It's your vision and what you have to say that matters.

Who cares if one drives a '59 VW Bug or a new Beemer. They both both get you where you want to go. One might be a bit more comforatble in the Beemer, but I'll take the Bug any day. You never know what might happen along the way!

Cheers!

It depends on how you define your camera, like the automobile analogy you used.

If Ricoh had said - here's a camera with some manual capabilities and a very lovely lens, perhaps I'd not have said it was crap. But they aimed it at the pro and serious amateur market and they called it the 'digital GR' camera. It isn't that.

1/2 frame film cameras are lovely and yes, they can take excellent photos. Who cares? Lots of cameras take excellent photos. Cameras have other qualities besides being able to take good photos. They are small, or fast, or quiet, or blah blah blah. Those other qualities fit them into a niche, and it is there that they will live or die. 1/2 frame cameras were supposed to be more economical with film - and without a huge decrease in photo quality. And in that role, they succeeded admirably. Note that not many pros use them today - because the role they were created to fill no longer is seen as a problem.

BMW and Volkswagon? I'd drive the VW too. But if I wanted to win a race, which one would be appropriate?

If you're saying that all cameras have their good and bad qualities, and we should enjoy each according to what its qualities actually are, then happy moonbeams to you, my friend. Non-judgemental, accepting of everything, this is the way the world has become.

I'm judgemental. I'm critical. I am the consumer and I demand - it is for manufacturers to meet my desires, not for me to find the hidden qualities of their products.

Ricoh had a film camera that fit into a tiny little niche - a Point-n-Shoot camera that was of high enough quality to fit the needs of many pro and serious amateur photographers. Small, fast, well-made, excellent controls, great lens.

The digital GR has to compare to THAT - or why did Ricoh bother positioning it as the 'digital version' of the legendary GR series cameras?

It doesn't compare. That's crap, happy moonbeams aside.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks