Nowadays nearly anything can be put into the 'Art'-Department, turning it into a subject of belief. And there's always a lot of believers out there who don't know that good art is really rare.
Cal22: I totally agree to Barnaby Britton! It has always been a privilege to enthusiasts to shoot just for fun without having to carry around a heavy-weight equipment. And now, as mirrorless cameras are competing with DSLRs as to image quality, I guess more and more professionals begin to wonder why to stick to bulky DSLRs and all that heavy stuff they come along with. Of course, there are situations you'd still prefer a DSLR to a compact, but they are becoming fewer.
I have suggested Ricoh lately to give its GR a sibling with a short tele lens (or short tele zoom). Such two compacts with accessories (wide conversion lens, EVF ...) could be chosen as companions by many street and travelling photographers and other photographers, by enthusiasts and professionals likewise.
Oh, sorry for my mistake in the name: It's of course Barney Britton I agree with!
I totally agree to Barnaby Britton! It has always been a privilege to enthusiasts to shoot just for fun without having to carry around a heavy-weight equipment. And now, as mirrorless cameras are competing with DSLRs as to image quality, I guess more and more professionals begin to wonder why to stick to bulky DSLRs and all that heavy stuff they come along with. Of course, there are situations you'd still prefer a DSLR to a compact, but they are becoming fewer.
Moondancer: The moon was actually sitting just above, but outside of the framing for the first shot. For the second shot, I panned straight up a bit to bring the moon into the frame. The first shot was around 15 or 20 sec exposure (if I remember correctly) with same amount for in camera long exposure noise reduction. So I am guessing it might have been 1 min or so between the first and second exposure.
If I were to shoot this in portrait orientation, the moon would have been inside the frame but it would be completely blown out.
Thanks for explaining!
Congrats on this picture! You used the best equipment for it as to the camera/lens combination. In the film era it would have taken at least a 6x9 cm camera to achieve such a technical quality. I'm curious, why a double exposure here and how did you do it? To avoid an overexposed moon you hid it in the first exposure, which had a shutter speed of several seconds, and then - with 1/60 sec - you let the bright moon come in? The shadow of the bridge seems to be telling about the moon having moved between the shots from the left to the right.
Lens tests shouldn't ignore the issue of flare! How does the lens react to brigtht lights in the frame or just out of it? And how does the wide-angle adapter perform in terms of IQ?The GR might be versatile and customizable and deliver high image quality. But it lacks the option for an EVF (as does the Coolpix)! It's a device that makes the difference between a toy and a tool. And the EVF should be articulated allowing you to shoot from ground level.
Yes, a compact with a good zoom or with interchangeable lenses makes more sense. The RX100 for instance seems to be a better bargain, if you don't need an EVF.
Back to the GR: This camera should be given a sibling - a camera with all the handling and features of the GR and with a slight tele lens of about 70 mm (ff equiv.). You could master quite a lot of photographic challenges with such two cameras (and EVF of course)!
zodiacfml: Awesome cameras and review, as though, you're exhausting every bit of difference/advantage between the two. I would like to see the difference of AF performance though, such as in a video.
While you're at it, why not include the Sigma DP1 Merrill in the comparative review? After all, it's DP1/DP series which started it all.
There's an interesting review of the DP1 Merrill on Imaging Resource with a side-by-side comparison including the Coolpix A as well as the Ricoh GR; the Ricoh falls behind the Nikon at high ISOs.
And, R. Butler, thanks for your review! My wish is, you'd test the lenses also for lens flare!
The E-P5 seems to be a fine MFT-camera, indeed. But the only significant advantage to the E-PL5 is an even better image stabilizer, IMO. Are the other differences important enough (if you're not keen on Wi-Fi), to justify the camera's much higher price? Wouldn't you better buy - for the same money - a weathersealed OMD with its built-in EVF?
jon404: Can you put a polarizer, or an ND filter, or any other kind of filter on it?
There's an optional adapter for a lens hood as well as for 43mm filters and for a wide-angle converter making the lens a 21mm (ff, equiv.)!
With aperture wide open the GR provides obviously better sharpness than the Coolpix A does. With F 5.0 the Nikon is above the Ricoh. I'd like to know how their lenses cope with sun inside the frame. Furthermore, the GR might offer more versatility, if its 21mm adapter proves usable and doesn't kill IQ. Therefore I'm hoping for additional test shots with this accessory.
Generally, all these cameras (including, of course, the Sigma with its impressive IQ at low ISOs) are pricy. And prices in this sector are constantly coming down as new rivals are pushing into the market.
No judge can decide whether new prints decrease the value of older ones. It's the market! Of course, the exorbitant high prices for photographs (and for so many other things, by the way) might be ridiculous. But these prices have nothing to do with photographic or artistic value. The higher the price the more significance is being put into the collector's item - and in the collector himself. It's the input of humans imagination.In the 70s and 80s, when I saw Egglestone's photographs (among them the kid's bike) I was interested but didn't attach great importance to them. My view hasn't changed since then. I wonder if photography regarded as art will be good or bad.
Howsoever this portraiture has been made, it's justified. It's the result that counts. Even the background with its blurred colors is adding to it. Congratulations!
IQ is okay IMO. And the picture of this old dusty cash box is the one I like most. But how does the lens react when the sun is just outside or just inside the frame? The X100 is said to have serious problems with such lighting conditions.
Cal22: You can't ignore the disadvantages this adapter comes along with (more CA, lower contrast, corner softening, poor AF, more weight and bulkiness of FF lens/adapter). That's why it won't be a tool for any photographer in the mirrorless sector. But for some the adapter might prove useful, especially if it comes to wide angle or high aperture FF lenses you possess anyway.
Question: What about the adapter combined with a wide angle shift lens? Will shiftening be increasing optical flaws?
Dan_168:That's what I mean! This SB is not made for any mirrorless shooter (who likes AF, e.g.) but for people like you having FF lenses already. And you should be aware of the risk of optical flaws. Adapting a FF lens at a mirrorless camera comes along with a crop factor of 1.5, which might be an advantage or a disadvantage. But there's no affecting IQ. This new adapter is different! Its glass elements affect IQ more or less, depending on each lens/adapter-combination. You will have to find out which lens of yours the SB works well with!
Alphaloki: I agree with you basically, although I don't think there will be an SB for my Carl Zeiss lenses from the film era.And: I had a teleconverter but didn't like it because of its flaws in back light. Not any device can fulfill your expectations.
It's a very interesting new thing albeit no magic device. I guess since this adapter brings additional glass between the lens and the camera sensor, you should not expect it to deliver high image quality regardless of the lens you combine it with. In optical terms the adapter is a compromise because it has been designed to be used with many different lenses and not with one specific lens only. Therefore it might work well with this lens of yours and in a different lens/adapter-combination deliver disappointing results.
I'd like to know how the adapter performs with super wide angle lenses!
You can't ignore the disadvantages this adapter comes along with (more CA, lower contrast, corner softening, poor AF, more weight and bulkiness of FF lens/adapter). That's why it won't be a tool for any photographer in the mirrorless sector. But for some the adapter might prove useful, especially if it comes to wide angle or high aperture FF lenses you possess anyway.
A wonderful photo indeed!
sorinx: Faster focusing. Tiltable screen. Touchscreen. It just needs a good all-around lens. 16-70 F4, or something like that.
The 20-50 mm is so lightweight, it's no problem taking it with you all the time. It's no lens for all purposes but for many. It has a reduced focal length, you can't deny, but I bet, the more you get familiar with the lens, the more it will serve to your convenience. (I had and still have a full-frame Zeiss 35-70mm) More important than focal range is IQ.
I don't like these wide range zoom lenses (like this 18-200mm). They promise to be the right tool for many situations and yet you will be not satisfied with the pictures they deliver. And very soon you will be wondering what this heavyweight thing in your camerabag might be good for. This is how I see it.
And as to the IQ of these 2 lenses, go to PHOTOZONE - Lens Reviews! The testresults are astonishing!