Najinsky: I glanced at nearly all the comments and don't understand why I seem to be the only one concerned about focussing manual focus glass. That's what the rangefinder part of the M is for.
So take away the rangefinder, and you get a camera that takes manual focus lenses, without the part that helps you focus?
Let's hope it comes with some stellar focus confirmation aids.
@T3 - You have picked up on the wrong emphasis. It's not about the removal of the rangefinder, or rangefinder quirks, it's about what focus confirmation aids WILL be included. That's what will peak my interest in using this camera.
If you're truly happy with FP and magnification, I'm happy for you and good luck with your shooting.
But I don't understand why you try to turn it into an argument or debate. Your personal preferences will not be influencing my decision one jot.
I'm assuming the sensor and ergonomics will be great; the three important unknown factors are performance, size and how quickly and accurately I can achieve focus. So I'll be hoping for something a notch up from the current standards of FP and magnification.
@T3 I've used focus peaking on my Ricohs and Sony's so no need to look it up, and while I'm a fan I don't see it in its current incarnation as something to rely on for every shot, all the time. Too many false positives and a bit of luck needed to nail critical focus.
We really need something much better than current standards of FP.
I can't believe you are serious about magnification, I find it useless for anything other than static product photography. I hate losing sight of the composition.
The Fuji X100S split view focus using PD sensors looks interesting on the DPR demo, but I haven't seen how well it works in practice.
I glanced at nearly all the comments and don't understand why I seem to be the only one concerned about focussing manual focus glass. That's what the rangefinder part of the M is for.
Najinsky: @DPR: Did these get edited?
In the linked article and website the images have a softer palette and tone, more like the image bottom right.
But on this site the first two look a lot more saturated and contrasty. Were they edited for display here or is there another reason for the difference?
Thanks for the response. I'm using Safari 6.0.4 on OSX 10..8.3 and a calibrated Retina display. I don't usually experience colour management issue with the browser. Perhaps the other sites aren't including the colour profile in their image display.
Based purely on personal preferences, I think the first image looks much better on this site and benefits from the additional contrast, although some of the other images do suit the lower contrast appearance I see on the other sites.
@DPR: Did these get edited?
rocklobster: Pity that there is a pop-up flash where an EVF should go. But I suppose that if you really want an EVF then you should buy an E-M5 and anyway I prefer the ergonomics of the E-M5 with the two control dials that readily fall to the thumb and forefinger of my (albeit) small hand.
Also, I would hope that the in-built flash performs better than the clip-on 'kit' flash.
I guess we're all different. The dial placement of the EM-5 is its absolute worst feature. Still bugs me now after nearly a year shooting with it, and the E-P5 looks no better.
My thumb is a good 1/2 inch too short to turn the rear dial from the shooting grip. I have to take the weight of the camera with my left hand and then move my right hand up from the shooting grip to reach the rear dial with enough purchase to turn it.
With both my Ricoh GXR and Canon DSLRs, I could operate both front and rear controls from the shooting grip, holding the camera in one hand, with no danger of loosing my grip on the camera.
Try holding the EM-5 in one hand above your head (like shooting over a crowd with the swivel screen for framing). Then try to quickly and accurately turn the rear dial with your thumb. I bet most normal thumbed people would drop the camera!
I'd like to see a youtube video of someone managing to operate it. That would be one big flexible thumb!
Anepo: One of his photographs on his website can literally be called a pedophile photograph, it is an underskirt photo of an underage girls bloodied underwear, an EXTREMELY inappropriate photograph that screams "call the cops".
Excellent solution. Call in the authority to protect the people the authority already failed to protect. I see it so clearly now.
I originally interpreted the photo as "sanitary products are hard to come by when you illegally ride the freight train", and I don't think that's a pleasant situation whether you're 12 or 40.
But if you wan't to give it a pedo meaning, I'd go with "escaping the 'protection' of authority".
So first I wake up inexplicably early this morning, and now it looks like my girlfriend has drugged my coffee.
I'm hallucinating that DPR have posted rumours and pictures of a camera they'll almost certainly have under NDA, if not today then a few days before it's release next week.
Are NDA's retroactive? Can you still sign them if you've done the D'd?
Can't wait for the drug to wear off and see what story I really posted this against.
Najinsky: Sigma are the real maverick.
They make some stunning glass, especially under this new Art series banner. The announced 18-35/1.8 could be a transformation lens for APS-C.
But they've made some real dogs too!
I just hope the 'A' isn't just for show when it comes to the M4/3 versions and that they deliver the performance to back it up.
With both Zeiss and Sigma targeting the NEX (and Zeiss backing Fuji's X mount too) m4/3 is in danger of losing a key advantage over other mirror-less systems, it's range of lenses.
Still, things are hardly standing still in m.4/3 land, so I'm not losing sleep just yet. The OM-D and a selection of excellent glass is serving me very well.
But for the future, with Sony holding a pile of Oly shares, the excellent sensors, ridiculously compact bodies for the features, and now a growing range of compelling glass, it doesn't take a hugely warped imagination to think of a wall with some writing on it.
Maverick - "An unorthodox or indépendant-minded person".
Sigma is a family owned business and the largest independent lens maker.
But unpredictable; you never know what you are going to get. A stunning optic at half the price of a competitor or a bit of a turkey.
A compact camera with Medium Format IQ, taking an hour or two to focus.
And don't mention sample variation.
Last year they made a commitment to customers and quality. Not just with words, but with a new quality verification system and a revamp of their product line.
So far they've delivered.
So I'm hoping it's all for real and they take m43 seriously and deliver a high quality optic at a competitive price.
But currently, their m43 line up / announcements suggests they see m4/3 as the low end of the scale. Reserving their higher quality offerings for APS-C and FF bodies.
I don't see that as in m4/3's favour. NEX is already outselling m4/3 despite its lens offerings. These high quality lenses can only help NEX further.
Sigma are the real maverick.
peevee1: Another fixed focal length fixed lens cam? Do you ALWAYS shoot at a single focal length and don't care about composition and perspective at all? How many people are like that? They all have been served by X100 2 years ago (and a few of them may upgrade to X100s, maybe). RX1, Nikon A, Ricoh GR etc will just fail in the market, because the market is too small. If any customer will buy a camera like that by mistake, they will return it as soon as they find out that it is just as limited as their phone, only there is no even the "pinch to zoom" digital zoom.And this GR does not even have any stabilization, at all, so it sucks even compared to a good smartphone.
Zooms offer great convenience, especially as you move towards the Tele end. But they can also make you a bit lazy with your compositions where you simply zoom to make it better, rather than explore to make it best.
I periodically force myself to use a single focal length to help develop my seeing eye. The X100 was great for this but quite hefty.
A few months ago, I would have been disappointed at 28mm, preferring 35mm for a single FL, but more recently I've been discovering just how versatile this FL can be and I'm ready to give it a go, so the new GR just ticks all the right boxes for me.
The Imaging resource site has just posted their test scene from the new GR and the rendering from the lens/sensor is just sublime. GR is a real stunner. I could examine the raw straight away, thanks to the use of DNG.
jacketpotato: There was sufficient body girth (looking at handgrip) to put F2.Maybe even F1.8 with a litte extra portrusion that the phtographers this is aimed at would been fine with .. what a camera that woud have been.
F/2 is not important for me anymore for this type of camera.
Performance is clearly great wide open across the frame. Even my Fuji suffers a bit wide open. I look through my X100 images and it's very clear I'm getting my best images mostly in range from F/2.8 to F/6.7.
F/1.4 would bring something real and tangible, but F/2 vs F/2.8, where the's F/2 really need to be stopped down anyway, it's a 1 to 3% advantage at best.The key figures here are:
◦ 16.2MP APS-C ◦ 28mm/2.8 ◦ 245 g ◦ 117 x 61 x 35 mm
The smallest lightest fixed lens APS-C.
But not only the smallest and lightest, it's got the full Ricoh ergonomics and control interface for un-compromised shooting.
Add in the excellent Sony sensor, then a GR lens. Seriously sweet, serious compact.
Many people will take comfort in their F/2 camera, and I'm happy for them. But I almost lost my shorts on many occasions thanks to the X100 weight, risking serious indecent exposure!
245 g is a new league of serious compact.
I have to say I'm delighted with how this has turned out.
I heard the rumours of the APS-C sensor and feared it would pass over an imaginary 'compactness/performance' threshold that lives in my head and manifests itself in my subconscious decisions not to take a camera out with me.
But looking at the size, weight, features and performance, it looks like they may have just bang-on nailed it.
Really looking forward to your updates in the coming weeks.
Re: WB not available on the ADJ button.
This would be good feedback to give directly to Ricoh if you get the chance. They have a history of listening to user feedback and releasing feature enhancing firmware to implement the more practical suggestions.
qwertyasdf: Ricoh GR has a loyal albeit small fan base, curious to know what's the magic of the GR series?
Now, for almost the first time, you don't need to sacrifice great IQ to enjoy the richer shooting experience. A great day for Ricoh fans.
Now, those who strive towards great IQ don't need to tolerate/compensate a sub-standard shooting experience. A great day for a new wave of soon to be Ricoh fans.
All in all, a great day for photography I think.
It's a design thing.
GR is Ricoh's high grade brand of lens. GR Digital is a compact body designed to enjoy the lens through photography.
Usually, compact bodies take their cues from consumer electronics and the photographer spends a lot of time fighting with poorly placed and/or poorly thought-out controls.
Ricoh gets it right. Putting the right controls in the right place and implementing them from a photography perspective. Once you customise the controls for your shooting style (or set multiple configurations if you use multiple styles) you're good to go.
Your mind is free to contemplate the photography, not the camera operation.
It's a very simple concept, but can make a huge difference in enjoying photography. It's not magic, and the real mystery is why more camera makers can't get it right!
There's lots of small design details too that you come to appreciate in actual use. Like the recessed strap lugs mean there are no snagging points when you stow and un-stow the camera.
Najinsky: Will this do the software correction for the lenses prior to encoding?
Many of the m43 lenses require significant software correction to remove distortion. There are a handful of lenses with low distortion (for example the 2 45mm's, the 25/1.4 and the 75/1.8, perhaps the 12/2) but most of the rest will need correcting.
If the capture is only 1920 x 1080, wont there will be noticeable resolution loss with some lenses due to the severity of the distortion?
Mainstream raw converters correct the distortion during conversion so relatively few people ever see how bad it is. But pre-corrected distortion can be very extreme, almost like a fish eye in some cases and would be very noticeable if uncorrected.
You can use a dcraw based raw utilities to view the uncorrected files, but for some lenses it's best to avoid eating for a least a few hours before viewing ;-)
With such distortion resolution loss is unavoidable.
However, I've since read the sensor is 2k x 2k. And from that snippet I'm now guessing:
a) BMCC will probably correct for distortion.b) The distortion will lead to a resolution loss with some lenses.c) But in reality it's probably not a big deal.
Just use the cost savings from the camera to buy the good lenses with low distortion. And even for the more distorted lens, some resolution loss away from the centre will be acceptable anyway.
Will this do the software correction for the lenses prior to encoding?
Najinsky: LOL. That one wouldn't have even made my keeper list, let alone my portfolio. I'm going to have to check my archives to see what hidden treasures I missed.
Sometimes I think I 'get' the concept of art, but then the ethanol wears off and I'm just left with a headache.
Is the artist allowed to like or not like his images too? If so he must be free to choose which images he takes forward with him, and which to abandon. It's the artists call.
The respect for this image seems to come from it's subsequent role in photographic history. Long after the artist decided to compose, shoot, process and print. And long after he decided if it went to his keepers pile.
I like to think of my comments as relating to the artist at the human level. The self criticism of ones own work and achievements.
That image wouldn't have made my keepers list. It's a simple and honest and human comment.
The fact that it's attracted a harsh critical response by todays art snobs, who as always have the gift of hindsight, though rarely foresight, only leads me to wonder if one day historians will consider it an iconic post that changed the boundaries of commenting as we know it.
What's interesting, is the edited version shown at the smithsonian site linked to below.
It has the car bumper at the photo's right edge cropped out.
It's interesting to contemplate how this happened.
For example was this done by the editor at the smithsonian site, who thought to himself, that bumper to the right of this iconic image looks a bit messy and should really be cropped out.
Or maybe the artist himself struggled with the artistic interpretation of the bumper and his decision to leave it in the frame.
Or perhaps this is a change he made when producing the new print, to counteract the possibly of a lawsuit by showing the images are not the same.
Riveting stuff, no?
For those to tired to hunt for the link I'll copy it here: