View Full Version : Ricoh GR Digital announced
http://kamerabild.mkf.se/
not as great as i'd hoped, but still pretty sweet. i think i'll get one of these, as well as an olympus c-5050.
Too bad I don't speak Swedish.
Too bad I wasn't Swedish. Love those women!
here's what i can make out:
• Image Sensor 1/1.8", 8.1 effective megapixels.
• Maximum image size 3264 x 2448 pixel
• ISO from 64 to 1600
• File format JPEG and DNG (Adobes open RAW format)
• Fast wide angle 5.9 mm / f:2.4
• Adjustable aperture in exposure modes P, A and M. Minimum aperture is 8.6
• Seven blade aperture for fine bokeh (reproduction of blurred areas in fore- and background).
• Autofocus, manual focus and hyperfocal focus (”snap” in ricoh-speak).
• 30cm to 1 cm in macro mode.
• Exposure metering in three modes, evaluative, center-weighted and spot.
• Shutter speed from 180 seconds up to 1/2000 second.
• Custom functions
• Memory cards type SD/MMC
• Accepts two battery types - lithium ion and alkaline AA-batteries.
• Weighs 205 grams without batteries, dimensions are 107 x 25 x 58mm.
Official launch date is Sep 13 (from the Aug 30 announcement of the announcement), so we should see the official page up later this evening or tomorrow.
• Fast wide angle 5.9 mm / f:2.4
What would the focal length equivalent be in 35mm, with that sensor size?
Sensor size is rather disappointing....bigger would have been better as would have a slightly faster lens considering the massive DOF this camera will now have with such a small sensor.
Having said that if the final image is good and the high speed ISO holds up then I would still get one. Mmm now to await some image samples...
Here it is: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0509/05091301ricoh_gr.asp
allright, tiny sensor with lots of megapixels for close to 600 Euro.
That's not what I wanted :-(
Beniliam
09-13-2005, 02:05
Sensor size is rather disappointing....bigger would have been better as would have a slightly faster lens considering the massive DOF this camera will now have with such a small sensor.
Yes, its a pity. I imagine better size. Sony demostrated that one CMOS APS-C can put in a ´compact digicam´. Even the 4/3 sensor can be ok... Bad disappointment
• Seven blade aperture for fine bokeh (reproduction of blurred areas in fore- and background).
What bokeh they talk about with camera based on a 1/1.8 sensor?
Samples from the cam are located here:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/09/13/2281.html
(note: in Japanese)
Cheers
Dave
Beniliam
09-13-2005, 02:56
Great link Dave.
Only put images with low iso 64 and 154!!! What is 154 iso. Its a new feature of the digicams!!!! :(
RObert Budding
09-13-2005, 03:58
I agree with you, Frank, I like Swedish women, too (my wife is 1/2 swedish).
Robert
I think it's a nice little machine, but the price is just too steep for a camera with such a small sensor.
I am really disappointed with this release, RICOH could have really delivered a knock out camera instead they seem to have merely cashed in on the good name of the GR1 series, admittedly they had a high level of expectation set by the original GR cameras but they just haven't delivered...
To see the marketing focus on silly points like it being "Equipped with a generous seven- blade aperture" is annoying , who cares that it has 7 aperture blades.... not going to make much difference with f2.4 and a 1/1.8"sensor.
Looking at the sample pics at ISO64 and ISO154 on DC Watch I can't say I'm impressed, where is the low noise??? Show me the BOKEH....I can't see that either...
...and from the DP Review website,"• ISO 1600 (not available in RAW mode)."
Why is that? I'm not a digital user and therefore might be missing some really obvious technical reason why this is so, but it would have made more sense to me if it said ISO1600 ONLY available in RAW mode. Is there a reason for this?
Also just looking at the specs for the GR on the RICOH website, ( http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/gr/gr_digital/specs.html ) it would also appear it only accepts SD cards upto 1Gb....? Hopefully something cured by a firmware upgrade, but why release something with a spec below what is readily available (ie. 2Gb SD cards) so that out of the box it requires an upgrade?
I was really looking forward to this camera, namely because I don't have a digi camera and was considering it as my first, but I will now have to see some better (ie. more impressive) final images, especially high ISO images and find out if its proclaimed ease of use/interface really is worth the 80,000yen asking price.... too high for what it is... how much is an Olympus E300 with lens kit going for now?
PS. At least it looks like Cosina Voigtlander is making some funds from the optional extra "optical" finder...and that optional square hood looks like it has the touch of CV as well... :) http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/compact/2005/09/13/2291.html
I'd like to add some positive feedback for the camera.
Firstly, the retention of the old form factor and the use of an external VF will make for a very 'non-digital' shooting experience.
Secondly, the street price is sure to be less than the RRP, at least after a month or two.
Also, the sample pictures are likely to be from a pre-production model, so it may well be tweaked before the ones we get our hands on. Anyhow, in my humble (and I must admit pretty inexperienced) opinion, I think the pics are pretty good, and the GR digital does fulfill its brief in being a compact and straigtforward camera capable of producing good quality pics over which the photog retains control.
I don't really need a new digicam, but if I did, it would be the GR digital unless I won the lottery and could afford an EOS 1DS MkII
David
Is it just me or are the DCwatch samples lacking sharpness and details?
Colors seem fine but isn't the noise a bit over the top for roughly ISO200?
The results I've seen from my Oly-5050 had less noise, much better sharpness, more details yet it "only" had 5MP. The bokeh of the f/1.8 lens wasn't bad either, and the macro mode gave me very consistent (and good!) results too.
The Ricoh wins hands down looking at the specs, and I hope the camera they took the snaps with is only a preproduction model, but until now I can't see anything "professional" about this camera - except that it comes in black. :mad:
Cheers,
Phil
1/1.8" Sensor, please tell me it is a joke!
And they call it a GR?
If that thing is a digital GR we probably can call the DLux a digital Leica M ;)
Oh well, looks that the RD-1 is still the only sensible digital option.
bmattock
09-13-2005, 07:32
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
09-13-2005, 07:42
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.
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
09-13-2005, 07:48
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
09-13-2005, 07:54
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
09-13-2005, 07:57
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.
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
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....
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
09-13-2005, 08:10
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.
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
09-13-2005, 08:12
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
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
09-13-2005, 08:17
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
09-13-2005, 08:19
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
09-13-2005, 08:20
And yes its a bit expensive, but it´s also available in black ;)
Oh, well, then. That's completely different! (grin)
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!
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".
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
09-13-2005, 08:42
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
Suddenly I feel like I want to sing "We Are The World"... ;)
Dave
justins7
09-13-2005, 09:05
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.
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
ZeissFan
09-13-2005, 09:23
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
09-13-2005, 09:41
Suddenly I feel like I want to sing "We Are The World"... ;)
Dave
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
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
heh.. Bill, you're preaching to the choir here :D
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 :D
Cheers
Dave
bmattock
09-13-2005, 09:58
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.
Which means what to me? Almost all digital cameras have differing levels of JPEG and some form of RAW.
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.
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.
10. Manual, Program, Program shift AE and Aperture Priority modes allow for greater flexibility and freedom of expression.
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.
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.
Most high-end digicams offer the same.
I guess I'll take my moonbeans......
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
09-13-2005, 10:08
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.
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
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
09-13-2005, 10:42
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.
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.
"I haven't got another parrot."
"Well, what have you got?"
"I've got a slug."
"Does it talk?"
"No."
"Then it's hardly a replacement then, is it?"
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.
"Lovely bird, the Norwegian Blue. Beautiful plumeage."
"The plumeage don't enter into it."
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
KoNickon
09-13-2005, 10:48
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.
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?)
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
Little Prince
09-13-2005, 12:32
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.
all cameras are strong at some things and weak in others. digital is no exception.
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 :-)
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!
bmattock
09-13-2005, 14:01
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
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
09-13-2005, 14:13
all cameras are strong at some things and weak in others. digital is no exception.
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
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.
bmattock
09-13-2005, 14:18
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.
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
bmattock
09-13-2005, 14:22
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
a direct replacement was never likely. i don't see why you're so disappointed.
bmattock
09-13-2005, 15:05
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
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
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?
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
09-13-2005, 15:24
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
09-13-2005, 15:29
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!!
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
09-13-2005, 15:46
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
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?
There's an interesting article by Mike Johnston over on Luminous Landscape (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-oct-24-04.shtml) 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.
Aizan as long as I want to take shots like I used to do, I need a bigger sensor.
http://www.hett.org/web/files/0001/cuba_001920400.jpg
bigger (http://www.hett.org/web/files/0001/cuba_00192.jpg)
http://www.hett.org/web/files/0001/IMG_67400400.jpg
bigger (http://www.hett.org/web/files/0001/IMG_6740.jpg)
http://www.hett.org/web/files/0001/cuba_001210400.jpg
bigger (http://www.hett.org/web/files/0001/cuba_00121.jpg)
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
09-13-2005, 18:50
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
09-13-2005, 19:06
There's an interesting article by Mike Johnston over on Luminous Landscape (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-oct-24-04.shtml) 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
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 :)
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
09-13-2005, 20:09
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
09-13-2005, 20:14
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
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.
bmattock
09-13-2005, 20:26
Open specs are better than closed ones, so for that, yes, Adobe is far better than yet another proprietary RAW format!
And as I mentioned earlier - I'm not mad - sorry if it seems that way. I must come across really bombastic; my apologies. I am just emphatic - but I guess it's hard to see a smile on my face when you just read what I'm typing.
My disappointment stems from the fact that I really WANT what Ricoh seemed to be promising - and even on a very limited budget, I would have considered scrimping and saving or selling off some kit to afford one. But not this one - it just isn't what it should and could be.
I'm not attacking digital - I really want it to be better. And I refuse to make allowances and apologies or to try to deflect criticism. Digital has to stand and take its knocks - it does so many things better than film, but not all, not yet. If the market dictates that it is going to replace film, then fine - but it needs to get better faster. My 2 cents.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
No apologies necessary Bill, I for one wasn't taking anything personally... in fact, I was having fun with the discussion.
It's ironic too, since I was out on Labor Day with my Coolpix 8700 (story in another thread in the "completely different" forum) and came back totally disgusted that I'd spent so much money on the camera. I was very disappointed with the results and promptly started fondling my film cameras again.
bmattock
09-13-2005, 20:40
No apologies necessary Bill, I for one wasn't taking anything personally... in fact, I was having fun with the discussion.
It's ironic too, since I was out on Labor Day with my Coolpix 8700 (story in another thread in the "completely different" forum) and came back totally disgusted that I'd spent so much money on the camera. I was very disappointed with the results and promptly started fondling my film cameras again.
In my case, it was a set of scanned negs from a Agfa Karat IV circa 1958 that I used to photograph Linville Falls alongside my Pentax *ist DS this last weekend. The Pentax images were great - no problems there. But the Agfa scanned images offered so much more detail - I could have cropped all day and still had useable prints - not so with the 6 mp Pentax image - not much room to crop and still have something printable. And my prime Pentax M42 lenses and Canon FD glass - even better than the *ist DS in terms of absolute quality. BUT - the digital offers me much more in the way of convenience. The negs I got back this time were unscratched and scanned like a champ - but that's not always the case. I spent weeks laboring over 300+ frames scanned of a wedding I shot - all negs were scratched, spotted, and so on. Digital I could have processed that same day.
So it's film for me - for important personal stuff and 'fine art' if that be something I'm actually capable of - and digital for things to make money with, such as parties and weddings and so on. But, every day brings new digital breakthroughs. I just wait and hope...
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
bmattock
09-13-2005, 21:00
Egad, I forgot to mention. A coworker showed me her family trip photos - a river-rafting vacation. She sensibly brought a couple of waterproof single-use film cameras. The images; not so good. Why? She doesn't know - she bought 800 speed film - that's 'better' than 400, right? Higher numbers are better? It costs more too, so that proves it. 800 is better.
This is what we're dealing with. More megapixels, bigger zooms, smaller cameras. That's all the masses care about.
No kidding. It took me several months to find the non-digital-optimized version of the Sigma 50mm lens in SA mount. It used to be easy to get a normal lens.
well, it doesn't look like we'll have to wait very long until big sensors make their way into smaller cameras. the sony r1 is just the beginning, and someone will figure out the angle of acceptance thing sooner or later. who that could be, i don't know. canon, fuji, panasonic...
shutterflower
09-13-2005, 23:44
Jag tala lite svenska, men jag har inte talade om manga kameror. And what significance is the GR lens? I don't know anything about Ricoh cameras.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.