dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Suddenly I feel like I want to sing "We Are The World"... 😉
Dave
Dave
Ricoh GR Digital announced
- Thread starter aizan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 86
- Views 5K
justins7
Well-known
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.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
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
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
Last edited:
ZeissFan
Veteran
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.
bmattock
Veteran
dcsang said:
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
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
bmattock said:
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
bmattock
Veteran
kbg32 said:
Which means what to me? Almost all digital cameras have differing levels of JPEG and some form of RAW.
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.
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.
Most high-end digicams offer the same.
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
bmattock
Veteran
dcsang said:
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
aizan
Veteran
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.
bmattock
Veteran
aizan said:
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.
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.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
justins7 said:
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?)
kbg32
neo-romanticist
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
Cheers,
Keith
Little Prince
Well-known
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.
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.
aizan
Veteran
all cameras are strong at some things and weak in others. digital is no exception.
S
Socke
Guest
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 🙂
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 🙂
S
Socke
Guest
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!
Set to 2 meters at f2.4 its sharp from 1 meter to infinity!
bmattock
Veteran
kbg32 said:
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
bmattock
Veteran
aizan said:
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
einolu
Well-known
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.
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.
bmattock
Veteran
Little Prince said:
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
Similar threads
