RussellInCincinnati: Also what is the compelling need for Ricoh to innovate in this camera class at this moment? The GR is all of, what, 6 months old? Is there another camera with quite this low weight/size, and quite this lens quality that also has an APS-C or larger sensor?
Could see making fun of Ricoh's "lack of innovation" as evidenced by this cosmetic announcement, if the Ricoh GR was years old and way behind the times, say. Which would be true if you could buy an APS-C camera now with a noticeably sharper lens, or significantly less weight, or one that produces noticeably less noisy raw files. What would that much more modern camera be?
So all accurate descriptions of some of Ricoh's accomplishments, that do not happen to include descriptions of their Ricoh's mis-steps, are by definition mindless? Doubt you would talk this way to a person standing in front of you.
Also what is the compelling need for Ricoh to innovate in this camera class at this moment? The GR is all of, what, 6 months old? Is there another camera with quite this low weight/size, and quite this lens quality that also has an APS-C or larger sensor?
Not a bad deal at all if you planned on buying the name-brand hood and adapter anyway. You pay all of about $15 dollars more for this kit with hood and adapter, and you get some trim that somebody might even like.
This is a brilliant idea if the lens is super. Awfully fun to see it compared (or just as well, comparably tested so that we can make up our comparison), as others mention, with the new Zeiss 55/1.8, the Otus Zeiss 50/1.4, the best Leica 50's, the venerable Canon 50/1.4 and the Nikon 50/1.4 G, the Zeiss 50/2 macro and the old Zeiss 50/1.4, Sigma 50/1.4, Sony or Minolta AF 50/1.4, even the new Fuji 56/1.2 APS lens etc.
Long lenses especially favor a single-element or single-group design. Because you save money on having a lot of big elements. Can imagine a reasonably-priced 200mm F/4 for APS-C for example, perhaps with push-pull focusing.
Downside of single-element designs include saying good-bye to internal focusing, oh well.
Great article, suggests many avenues of improvement of simple (not necessarily one single spherical element) lens. How about what could be done with a single ASPHERICAL element? Or with a single cemented group of two (possibly aspherical surface) elements?
Also makes one think about the many aspects of photography that could be IMPROVED by computational enhancement of super-simple lenses, instead of just "focusing" on the limitations...
For example, let's think of how simple and predictable (i.e. so easily correctable) geometric distortion would be as the output of a single-element or better yet single-group lens.
Consider how low-flare/glare-resistant super simple lenses can be, and/or how inexpensive it is to shield or baffle such lenses.
When you've only got one or two lens elements in a single group, heck you can afford to use super expensive glass all of a sudden.
And how is easy it would be to mass-produce a "perfectly" CENTERED lens, a challenge with all consumer lenses.
According to this sample photo, this is a pretty serious 245 gram camera.
papparazzi: Canon will CRUSH them. Just wait and see. ;)
Let's see your photos that support your fact-free criticisms, one taken with a Canon sensor and the other with a Sony sensor of the same size, from similarly priced and similar-generation cameras and similar workflow, that show the Canon with terrible shadow noise compared to the Sony at reasonable image size. Otherwise, spare us your concern troll bloviation.
Lots of information, with humanistic context as to its significance. A lucid, carefully and well-written article, thanks.
Photomonkey: Objects for sure. Just look at the endless chatter about the cameras and lenses, endless photos of brick walls and cats etc. They are tools only to a few. The rest are consumerists that the manufacturers have painted large red bulls eyes on.
Fairly jerky thing to say in part, because brick wall photos tend to be tools for easy technical communication of qualities of lenses. Rather than a sign that people's artistic expressions are so pathetic that they can only think to use their cameras to take pictures of brick walls.
xtoph: i have not given anyone permission to 'download original' files of my photographs. dpr's inclusion of a dedicated button for this is bizarre, and suggests that i somehow do give such permission.
i am aware that people can copy my photos, but there's a difference between that being technically possible and it being actively encouraged and tacitly approved.
please change this. and shame on dpr, after facebook's photographer unfriendly changes (including a 'download original' button we have no control over) and the backlash against them, you would think that a photographer-centered site would have handled this differently.
Have never thought of DPreview forums as a place to attempt to advertise my photographs while also preserving their sale-ability. More importantly nor does DPreview intend for the general forums to be places where you get free advertising of thumbnails of photographs you want to sell.
Thus shame on you for complaining, that DPreview forums interfere with your plan to have DPreview generate free thumbnails and publicity of your for-sale photos.
Put more simply, if you aren't planning to sell any of your DPreview-forum-posted photos, i.e. if you aren't planning to misuse the forums to get free commercial advertising, what the heck do you care whether or not people download "the original resolution" photos you've posted.
Nice if there were a bit of high-resolution target right at the edge of one of the long borders, in the middle. Happily there seems to be an engraving in the middle of one of the short borders, that serves that purpose.
Seeing as how ordinary questions are, resolution/performance at center, at center of long border edge, and at center of short border edge. And for compulsive types, extreme corners.
Kinematic Digit: Great upgrade! I installed it before a model shoot yesterday and the focus was snappy and fast with the Fujinon 35mm in mixed lighting.
I agree about the lack of minimum shutter control. The X100 has this and it really makes a difference if you're not paying attention to the warning on the screen (or have it turned off).
I would love to have focus peaking as well (I have it now on my 5DmkIII and love it). But I also found a different technique to help with focusing.
Turn on RAW+JPG, change film simulation to BWg, Custom WB, 2500K, WB Shift to top right corner of R9 B9, Sharpness to +2, Highlight Tone -2, Shadow Tone -2. This will create a high contrast over sharpened image that should make it much easier to focus manually with. Throw out the JPG image after downloading.
It also helps in AF mode as you'll see the image peak for a brief second to lock onto focus.
Given how it looks like FujiFilm is committed to incremental updates, I'm sure more will be coming down the pipe.
Thanks for this interesting suggestion, that am going to explore using with a Nex camera. Perhaps can suppress some of or even turn off focus peaking if your idea can be applied and works well.
RussellInCincinnati: Pretty nice images for a phone. Should get out an old Minolta Dimage 7i and see if that bridge camera can match 'em.
Yes the 4S image on the left is sharper, surely due to less camera movement. Heck the news blurb said the newer camera runs at lower ISO maybe. We haven't the slightest idea what post-processing was or should have been done to either image, if any.
Interesting thing is that the presence of the iPhone 5 actually made the sea level rise.
Did not make it clear that was merely casting around for an illustrative example. The Minolta camera is an example camera that (a) have personal access to (b) was considered decent in its day and (c) as a sign of changing times, may indeed have been surpassed in image quality by a mere cellphone. All of which constitutes a mildly interesting marker, of the advance of photo technology and computational photography.
Pretty nice images for a phone. Should get out an old Minolta Dimage 7i and see if that bridge camera can match 'em.
"bradleyg5: How is it Sony hasn't been able to make a lens like this for the NEX system. This is basically a perfect mirrorless lens."
You've tested it already? And it's silent focusing like the Nex kit zoom? It has the same or better flare resistance? It costs no more than $100 dollars when you buy it bundled with a body, just like the Nex kit zoom?
Have little respect for boring comments about features of a camera that are obvious to all. Complaints about a fixed-lens camera because the lens is not interchangeable. Complaints about a thousand dollar camera because it costs $1000 dollars. Insulting to the intelligence of all forum readers who are capable of parsing written English.
Sergey for example, to make non-disprovable, non-informative statements such as "unreasonably high prices or lack of value" is a waste of forum space. Because it is unlikely that any reader needs to be informed of their own feelings about the Sigma DP2's price. Nor does your statement that the Sigma DP2's unique sensor (which can't be purchased in any camera costing less than 1000 dollars) give us any specific, non-obvious information as to a wise person's opinion of the relationship between the DP2's cost and its "value".
Just because some vague opinion can't be disproven doesn't mean it's worth posting.
dmanthree: Well, at least DP Review is outsourcing their camera reviews now. But I haven't seen a new lens review in quite some time. Time to rename the site?
Impressive reply to Chadley_Chad's quite unimpressive post, Mr. Butler. Making lemonade out of lemons.
Can't see any point (ha) to a display with more than 300 dots per inch resolution that also displays full colors per pixel (allowing for anti-aliasing). Am hoping the industry hews to increasing dynamic range and color accuracy and power consumption and stability over time and price and weight and thin-ness (transparency and flexibility?) and especially viewing angle, rather than endlessly chasing smaller-than-300-dpi pixels.
lxstorm: It would be really nice to see similar camera with a fix-focal lens of a better IQ like CZ Tessar T* that kind of little tiny fix focal lens might be realistically manufactured of decent real CZ quality while fitting into P&S budget.
Check CZ CP2 135mm E mount price tags to feel what kind of a real CZ quality might be delivered in the camera besides Latin letters saying CZ Sonnar especially taking into account it's a zoomable version of Sonnar.
Why would you mention a huge, heavy, "CZ CPT" (professional movie camera) $5700 dollar 135mm lens, for full frame 35mm sensors, in this context? Why not recommend people look at a $3000 dollar Super Angulon wide angle lens designed for an 8x10 inch view camera? Or recommend that we look at a toaster oven for design ideas?