Ricoh GR Digital announced

[bmattock]

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.

If you mean 'forever define downwards what people find acceptable in a photograph," then I agree.

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.

I agree that there are tons of digicams out there for the PnS folk and those who just want a fun go-anywhere digicam to pocket and take with. Most of them are pretty good. I've owned three generations of them, they were all acceptable for what they were.

I don't know if the image quality of the Ricoh is good or horrible - and I don't care. That's hardly the point. But I suggested a Dimage S304 for a friend, and he loved it. Kodak for another, he loved that. I think it is getting hard to go wrong.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[aizan]

a direct replacement was never likely. i don't see why you're so disappointed.

 

[bmattock]

a direct replacement was never likely.

Care to explain why not? Or are you just yanking my chain now?

i don't see why you're so disappointed.

a) Because I am a fan of digital (and film) but I expect manufacturers to produce what they say they produce. Ricoh is claiming that this IS the digital GR. Well it ain't.

b) Because I would like a PnS digital camera that is a 1-to-1 digital replacement for the Ricoh GR series cameras. The specs for the film-based GR are exactly in line with what I want in a digital PnS. I have a DSLR, and it works wonderfully for me. But is hardly pocketable.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Socke]

a direct replacement was never likely. i don't see why you're so disappointed.

It has a great name but does not live up to it, that's all.

Imagine Porsche releasing a car named 550 Spyder with a 25KW electro motor, powersteering and a real soft suspension

 

[aizan]

it's not like it would have had a big sensor and a non-retrofocus lens. i'm bummed they didn't do something with microlenses on this prime lens. i'm guessing that at least is still possible. i don't know because i haven't read anything authoritative about it.

i expected they'd keep the internal brightline viewfinder, though. the 28/35 minifinder is pretty small, so that's another option. it'll fit in my khakis or light jacket. what kind of pocket were you hoping to fit it in?

 

[einolu]

Bill, what I noticed is that when people buy 'serious' digital cameras, you end up seeing a bunch of flower macros and insect shots. I find good ol' party pictures much more interesting, heh.

 

[bmattock]

it's not like it would have had a big sensor and a non-retrofocus lens. i'm bummed they didn't do something with microlenses on this prime lens. i'm guessing that at least is still possible. i don't know because i haven't read anything authoritative about it.

i expected they'd keep the internal brightline viewfinder, though. the 28/35 minifinder is pretty small, so that's another option. it'll fit in my khakis or light jacket. what kind of pocket were you hoping to fit it in?

Shirt pocket, just like the original GR1V (et al). With viewfinder - since it's built in and all. An external is just something else to snag on a pocket (if attached) and fall off when fumbling with it in a hurry (in a crowd). Exactly at you'd expect to be using it, since that's what the GR was for.

As to the big sensor, I understand Sony is doing it in a digicam now, right? So what's the problem. Non-retrofocus lens? I didn't say anything about that.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Silva Lining]

Bill, what I noticed is that when people buy 'serious' digital cameras, you end up seeing a bunch of flower macros and insect shots. I find good ol' party pictures much more interesting, heh.

Unless you have a 'bring your own insect' party...... 🙂

As a GR1v user I am a little disappointed in the specs of this camera. I have also been disappointed generally with Ricoh digital image quality. Some of the chromatic abberations were horrendous. Whlist acknowledging that the sample pics might be from a test or pre-production model, there is a lot of noise in there...

So I think I'll continue to enjoy my GR1v for a little longer!!

Talking of digital RF dreams - I would love it if Voigtlander would produce a Digital Bessa T so that I could have digital fun with all my exsiting Russian optics!!

 

[aizan]

well, all i can suggest is a change in working method. carry the camera and viewfinder in your pockets to where you're taking pics, then set up when you get there and have at it.

telecentric wide angles for an APS sensor would be too big to fit on a camera the size of the gr1. it'd have to be non-retrofocus to fit, just like the film version, which will apparantly only work with current sensors if the microlenses are tweaked to work with the single focal length. or something like that.

 

[bmattock]

well, all i can suggest is a change in working method. carry the camera and viewfinder in your pockets to where you're taking pics, then set up when you get there and have at it.

telecentric wide angles for an APS sensor would be too big to fit on a camera the size of the gr1. it'd have to be non-retrofocus to fit, just like the film version, which will apparantly only work with current sensors if the microlenses are tweaked to work with the single focal length. or something like that.

Hmm. Seems I can put an ultra-wide lens on my DSLR and no micro-lens adjustment is required. If it won't fit, then perhaps it is not yet time for a digital GR. But instead of giving it time for the technology to make it work, Ricoh announces that they've done it. Except they haven't.

And again - excuses for the shortcomings. First we deny that it has any, then when forced to admit it, we suggest that the 'old way' of evaluating a camera are no longer worthy, then finally we suggest that people abandon the quest for excellence and lower their standards.

I have a DSLR, I love digital cameras, and I fully accept that they're taking over. But I won't pretend they don't have shortcomings, nor will I make lame excuses for those shortcomings. And I really won't redefine photography to include a 'dumbed down' version of decent photography because digital can't do that yet.

So why is it people rush to make excuses for sub-standard digital cameras? I don't understand.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[aizan]

blech, nix 'retrofocus' from my last post. replace it with whatever rangefinder lenses are like. is there a word for that? slr lenses are retrofocus, and they work fine, or at least ok on dslrs.

i don't think the 1/1.8" sensor sucks, and it's not that big a deal if it doesn't have a built-in viewfinder.

maybe they'll never increase the angle of acceptance of digital sensors to have FF rangefinders and pocketable p&s. is that too horrible a fate? is there no way to pull a nice print out of a 1/1.8" sensor set to ISO 400-1600?

 

[DougK]

There's an interesting article by Mike Johnston over on Luminous Landscape regarding sensor size in digital cameras. I have to agree with him on this issue, a little too much is made over sensor size for my taste.

I looked at the specs for the camera and it looks like a solid product to me, if not exactly what film GR fans were hoping for. The sample images from the camera looked pretty good too.

 

[Socke]

Aizan as long as I want to take shots like I used to do, I need a bigger sensor.

bigger

bigger

bigger

The guy selling pimientos was taken with a Contax G2 and Planar 45/2 at f2 on Sensia 100 and the lizard with a Canon D60 with a 75-300/4-5.6 at 200mm and f5.6. The street szene on Fujipress 800 in a Contax T-VS at 28mm f3.5.

As I don't want to carry the dSLR everywhere, I use the G2 much for low light and the TVS as my pocket camera. A regular bus in Cuba is not the place to take a big SLR to, it is realy crowded!

 

[bmattock]

blech, nix 'retrofocus' from my last post. replace it with whatever rangefinder lenses are like. is there a word for that? slr lenses are retrofocus, and they work fine, or at least ok on dslrs.

i don't think the 1/1.8" sensor sucks, and it's not that big a deal if it doesn't have a built-in viewfinder.

maybe they'll never increase the angle of acceptance of digital sensors to have FF rangefinders and pocketable p&s. is that too horrible a fate? is there no way to pull a nice print out of a 1/1.8" sensor set to ISO 400-1600?

Is it too horrible that the camera can make good prints? No. That's peachy.

Is it too horrible that the camera is not even close to GR series Ricoh and Ricoh is claiming it is? Yep.

I'm not saying it is a horrible camera. I'm saying it is not a digital replacement for a film-based Ricoh GR series camera - not even close.

If your point is it takes good photos, then whoopdee-do. A gazillion digital cameras take good photos, and they do it cheaper, better, and with zoom + 28mm equiv.

But if you're looking for a digital Ricoh GR, this ain't it - and Ricoh says it is - and that sucks.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

There's an interesting article by Mike Johnston over on Luminous Landscape regarding sensor size in digital cameras. I have to agree with him on this issue, a little too much is made over sensor size for my taste.

I read the article, well written - and wrong.

Image quality is not the be-all of sensor size. Megapixel is not the be-all either.

With an APS/C sensor, you get a crop factor (not a multiplication factor) using standard 35mm lenses, but the difference is not such that you cannot use selective focus. This is not some trick in a photographer's bag, this is a staple of photography. With a 1/8 sensor, you cannot do it unless you're talking macro. f2.5 be danged - the focal length is what it is - 8mm or whatever the equivalent is to 28mm is such that selective focus is all but impossible.

Selective focus is important to photography. Attempting to redefine photography to not include things that digital cameras can't do won't work. We dinosaurs won't let it. Digital cameras must more closely approximate what film cameras can already do - and that is NOT about image quality only.

I looked at the specs for the camera and it looks like a solid product to me, if not exactly what film GR fans were hoping for. The sample images from the camera looked pretty good too.

a) Not exactly? Not exactly? Yeah, and my house is 'not exactly' the same as the Empire State Building. That's about how much they have in common, the new GR and the film GR.

b) Sample images good? Again - not the point.

This camera is neither fish nor fowl. For the people who would be impressed by the image quality, it has no zoom - and although it is 28mm equiv, many zoom digicams have 28mm as their max width. And for consumers right now, it is megapixels, optical zoom, image stabilization, battery life, and so on. This offers very little of that.

And for those who would have wished that this was indeed the digital equivalent of a Ricoh GR series film camera - as I've exhaustively stated, this ain't that, either.

So, a failure. It isn't what it is supposed to be, and having a lovely image isn't going to save it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[DougK]

Wow, lots of emotion in this thread but a good discussion. Last post for me on this topic, then I'll shut up.

I reread the Ricoh press release and the only thing I can find in there referring to the previous GR camera series is that

The new GR Digital inherits the superb image quality that made the award winning GR Series (first launched in 1996) of 35mm compact film cameras so popular, as well as the depictive performance to satisfy professional photographers, distilled into a compact 25mm thin body.​

I'm not sure where they ever said that it was a digital version of the GR which some folks seem to be taking away from the press release, only that it would inherit the same image quality. OK, so they reused the model name, but they aren't the first camera manufacturer to do something like that. Am I disappointed it isn't simply a GR with digital sensing? Yeah, somewhat, but I don't see where Ricoh promised anyone that it would be.

That said, I think this camera looks like a solid contender for an advanced point-and-shoot on its own merits, if maybe a touch expensive for what you get. Will I buy one? Hell no 🙂

 

[DougK]

OK maybe one more comment... I do like the fact the RAW format is the DNG standard proposed by Adobe. Proprietary RAW formats are a PITA to deal with, especially if you've owned several different cameras like I have, each with a different RAW file format.

 

[bmattock]

Wow, lots of emotion in this thread but a good discussion. Last post for me on this topic, then I'll shut up.

I don't know - people keep saying I'm very emotional - I think it's just the way I write - with passion. I'm not angry or upset. Disappointed, but eh - no big deal.

I reread the Ricoh press release and the only thing I can find in there referring to the previous GR camera series is that

Let me quote you a few...

August 30, 2005:

"A brief press release on the website of Ricoh Global today announces that the company will soon unveil a digital camera that follows in the footsteps of its GR-series of film cameras."

Also:


Ricoh Press Release:

On September 13 RICOH will announce the arrival of a new Super High Imaging Quality compact digital camera. This exceptional camera will be the digital version of the well-known GR analog camera series.


Hmmm. I think that's pretty clear, isn't it?

I'm not sure where they ever said that it was a digital version of the GR which some folks seem to be taking away from the press release, only that it would inherit the same image quality.

They said it on their website prior to today's announcement of the actual camera.

OK, so they reused the model name, but they aren't the first camera manufacturer to do something like that. Am I disappointed it isn't simply a GR with digital sensing? Yeah, somewhat, but I don't see where Ricoh promised anyone that it would be.

You had to actually look at the press releases they put out prior to today. That would be where they 'promised it'.

That said, I think this camera looks like a solid contender for an advanced point-and-shoot on its own merits, if maybe a touch expensive for what you get. Will I buy one? Hell no 🙂

I can't see what it offers that anyone would want - point-n-shoot happy snapper or advanced amateur. Certainly not pro. But again, that's not the point - my objection is not about what it is - rather about what it is not. And it is not what Ricoh claimed it was (and I think we've established that they did claim that).

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

OK maybe one more comment... I do like the fact the RAW format is the DNG standard proposed by Adobe. Proprietary RAW formats are a PITA to deal with, especially if you've owned several different cameras like I have, each with a different RAW file format.

I have, and I agree about RAW formats. Except that I prefer www.openraw.org over Adobe, which must be licensed.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[DougK]

OK, fair enough, I hadn't seen the previous press releases. Given that evidence, I'll agree that they did promise a true digital GR and based on that, you're right, they did not deliver the goods as promised.

I'll also agree that I would prefer OpenRAW (I signed up with that organization myself). The DNG format is still better than a zillion different formats and Adobe at least has a good track record of publishing the specs of their formats.