Ricoh GR1 Digital

[aizan]

the lc1 doesn't really count because its 28mm only works in 16:9 mode.

if you want a stealthy p&s, there is the minolta tc1. it's even better than the original gr1, imho.

 

[fgianni]

the lc1 doesn't really count because its 28mm only works in 16:9 mode.

Still I fail to see why 28mm on a 16:9 form factor does not count as a wide angle, so given the form factor what would you count as a wide angle on a 16:9, and what about the the x-pan?
If you don't consider the diagonal a good way to determine how wide is a lens, which method do you propose?

if you want a stealthy p&s, there is the minolta tc1. it's even better than the original gr1, imho.

I do agree, I have one and even if I am not sure about the "Better that the original gr1 thing", it is a mighty fine camera, but if you are looking for a digital compact the TC-1 just does not fit the bill.

 

[aizan]

at 3:2 and 4:3, the widest is 35mm. that's why i don't think it counts.

and all you gotta do with the tc1 is scan it! digital isn't good for stealthy, robert frank-style coat pocket shooting anyway. not enough latitude.

 

[bmattock]

at 3:2 and 4:3, the widest is 35mm. that's why i don't think it counts.

and all you gotta do with the tc1 is scan it! digital isn't good for stealthy, robert frank-style coat pocket shooting anyway. not enough latitude.

But I thought digital was better than film in every way?

LOL!

As a person who loves film and digital, I am often attacked by both sides when I point out flaws in the ointment. In the case of digital - I love it, and I'd like to have a REAL digital version of a stealthy point-n-shoot like the film-based GR series. All anyone can point out to me are a series of compromises. When we exhaust that list by rejecting all of them on one failing or another, the person who adores digital usually finally throws their hands up and says "Well, no one would want that anyway."

In other words, when digital is as good as or better than film, yahoo. When digital fails to even come close to what film can do, well, let's pretend that's not important anyway - it is a rediculous thing to want - no one would want that, etc.

So I continue to wait. I am sure that at some point, something more like the film-based GR cameras will appear, and I'll be happy and buy one. But I'm not going to pretend in the meantime that this steaming pile of horse hockey is anything like the incredible GR film-based camera series. 'Cause it ain't. And my requirements may be outlandish - but they are my requirements, and that's all that matters to me. The film GR can do it, why can't the digital version?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[simonankor]

Seems like a few people have looked at it and like everything else it is not perfect. I would be careful with deriding it as a camera the is only for the cult- following GR market , you could apply that to a lot of what Leica has put out.

Bob

This is true, but I don't own or even aspire to own a Leica 😛 so I can deride all I like! 😀

 

[fgianni]

at 3:2 and 4:3, the widest is 35mm. that's why i don't think it counts.

and all you gotta do with the tc1 is scan it! digital isn't good for stealthy, robert frank-style coat pocket shooting anyway. not enough latitude.

Actually the 35mm equivalent focal lenght at 4:3 is 34mm and at 3:2 is about 31mm, it is due to the fact that the sensor itself has a form factor of 16:9, and for other form factors pixels are simply chopped off at the sides.

So using form factors other than 16:9 is a bit silly, like having an x-pan and adding a mask that lets you use only the central part of the negative.

Of course if you don't like the panoramic format then look elsewhere, but saying that the 28mm don't count because the sensor does not have the 4:3 form factor is like saying that on a Leica the 28mm don't count because if you crop the 3:2 to 4:3 the equivalent focal lenght becomes 30mm.

 

[aizan]

ok, if you aren't looking for a panoramic camera, and want a 28mm lens, the lx1 isn't for you. but if you do want a panoramic camera, it's just the thing.

 

[Nikon Bob]

This is true, but I don't own or even aspire to own a Leica 😛 so I can deride all I like! 😀

I do one one and there is alot of the BS surrounding them but they do have some very good points too. I guess that is the trouble with a cult anything.http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif
Smile