Just Posted: Ricoh GR preview

2 words - SNAP Focus :)

It's a dream camera for street photography.

You never use wides on your DSLR or MILC?

Wides are the most interesting, and dynamic focal length great for landscapes, architecture, groups of people, environmental portraits, near/far compositions, close-ups, you name it.

If all that sounds boring to you then perhaps your imagination is the limiting factor, not the camera or wide angle lens.

Coolpix A video (and audio) looks most impressive but without VR you're going to have to rig it, or stabilize it (or stop drinking coffee).

Ricoh should hire Doug Menuez to shoot their GRD V samples.
I wonder how many A's he sold just based on his wonderful sample images.

Coolpix A short
https://vimeo.com/61378282

Or you could pick up a GH3, GH2 or RX100 for video?

in that case get the GH3 or even NEX6 , a much better camera for Video work.

I'll correct it first thing in the morning:

The Coolpix A, you can set exposure before you start recording movies, then adjust exposure comp while shooting (in S or A modes).

The Ricoh gives you no control at all - when you're in move mode no exposure controls work before or during shooting.

Maybe they bought Pentax for a reason.

The GXR with 28mm module was already smaller than the X100 and jacket pocketable, and it was released in 2009 / 2010.

Think of that as the precursor :)

The K-30 and K-01 have 12-bit RAW (DNG) only and the K-5, like the D7000 and Coolpix A, have 14-bit RAW (NEF).

All three of the 14-bit RAW cameras get around 14 EV Dynamic Range on DxOMark, while the K-30, K-01 scored about 1 EV lower than the K-5, Coolpix A, D7000.
All five of these cameras use the excellent Sony 16 mb Exmor sensor, which has been kind of benchmark since it's release, but for whatever reason Pentax limited the RAW files to 12-bits.

Good point Don. When the Coolpix A was announced, every other comment as about "slow f2.8 lens". Strangely (or selectively) quiet about the max aperture. Hmm...

Conclusion: dpreview trolls do not read non-Nikon posts...

It wasn't mentioned because it's not true. From the review:

"The camera is charged via the USB socket, though it comes with a fast-charging 1A adapter."

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/ricoh-gr/3

Based on what I've seen via B&H the camera does not come with an external charger - unless there's an error on B&H's site. Based on "What's In The Box" - the camera is charged via USB - therefore you have to have the battery in the camera and the camera plugged into the USB adapter to charge the battery. There is/are external chargers available (both Ricoh and third party) but they will add cost to the camera. Just an FYI - not dissing the camera.

Cheers,
Dave

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 don't think that f2 was necessary either, mainly because of the focal length. You can get away with 1/30s.

Sorry Plastek, gotta disagree with you. I had the GRD2 and the UI was the best of any compact camera I've ever used and beat some of the larger cameras too. I'm not sure about their compacts. It's definitely should be near the top and probably at the top for most people.

The Nikon A images don't look better to me.

It's annoying to use a wide angle lens specifically because you want to capture something at the edge of the frame, and have it turn out mush. That has happened to me dozens of times.

The Ricoh images are sharp into the corners. Some of the images were captured specifically so that could be examined. Take a look.

If it doesn't deviate from the smaller-sensor GR-Ds (which it doesn't seem to), then it's poised be one of the best (if not the best) "photographer's P&S" in the market for a long time.

this will eat a good portion the target market that Fuji X100s and Sony RX-1 currently has.

Marike6

I don't believe that you are being "fair" by saying that the Nikon images are sharper in the center. If they are, the difference is minimal. I don't need to look at your cherry-picked examples. I looked at both images full-size, in separate tabs.

My impression was the Ricoh in fact was sharper in many places, the Nikon in others, although I thought the Nikon tones were smoother and the Ricoh had a little bit of an oversharpened look. This may be due to the default sharpening.

However, the preview specifically points out that the Ricoh jpeg engine isn't getting as much out of the sensor as the Nikon--did you read the preview? This seems to suggest that Ricoh raw images are better than the jpegs.

Where is your usual harping on "only raw images count" and so on in this case? You posted something along those lines many, many times, yesterday alone.

P.S. The Ricoh sample images were sharp in the corners. The Nikon images had no details in the composition in the corners.

@Marike6
From what I have seen, the Ricoh is just as sharp in the center and definitely sharper at edges. IQ wise: the Nikon should have some advantage in DR, because it is generally shares internals with D7000 while the Ricoh with Pentax K-30. But Ricoh definitely has better lens. And you sound like a typical Nikon zealot, sorry.
Controls are much better with Ricoh too: two wheels and the whole interface of GR/GXR series is superior over the Nikon P&S.

Bobbarber, I was one of the folks arguing with you...

The Ricoh was not in the mix when we were comparing cameras at the corners...The cameras compared were the Sony RX1, RX100, FujiX100s, and in all these cases the Nikon A seemed to be outperforming these.

I have looked back and forth at these images, the Ricoh is doing an excellent job in the far corners, and is outperforming the Nikon A at the extreme edges.

The Nikon is sharper in the center, as Mareki6 pointed out in his post.
In fact if you take a look at the top right corner with the plant you can easily see that the Nikon is already pulling ahead.

Both seem to excellent cameras and you will be hard pressed to take a bad picture with any of the mentioned cameras.
I looked at your posting history and it seems that you have become very vocal since the Nikon A came out, are you a Ricoh shill?

As far as Jpeg engine out of the Ricoh; DPReview said that the samples against the Nikon A were shot in Raw and then saved as Jpegs.

@Emacs23 I don't sound like a typical anything, just calling it the way I see it. I'm a Ricoh GRD user since version three and will be buying this GRD V. But claiming that the Ricoh "is definitely a better lens" when you haven't used either camera or seen any side-by-side RAWs but f2.8 is absurd. Certainly you didn't decide the Ricoh was a better lens by the above GRD V sample gallery, as it is far from impressive in the way the Nikon images are.

Try to engage brain first in future!

As they mentioned, this is mirrorless... that aside, this is a fixed lens mirrorless, while the other two you mentioned are exchangeable lens mirorless. They are not competing, unless someone considered one of those bodies as a secondary camera for 1-2 focal lengths only.

Even mirrorless users are interested in cameras like these: For a certain focal length, is getting a lens better, or one of these fixed fl cameras? A dedicated camera for classic lengths like 28 and especially 35 make for smaller and easier walk around cameras, and you can still use your system camera for your more demanding needs. This is a compliment, not competition.

bobbarber - it's compact.
Not every camera without mirror is mirrorless. Unless you really want me to use full expression each time. So here you go, especially for you: Mirrorless INTERCHANGEABLE LENS camera

INTERCHANGEABLE
INTERCHANGEABLE
INTERCHANGEABLE

There's no such thing as mirrorless with fixed lens. Mirrorless isn't an expression for every camera without a mirror that was created through the history of universe. It's a name for one specific types of cameras like these in m4/3 or NEX system.

agentul - uh? o_O what kind of garbage is that?

Plastek

Could you please give me an example of a compact camera with a mirror in it? I'm willing to admit I'm wrong.

Otherwise, I'm going to continue to believe that all compact cameras are mirrorless, since every compact I've ever seen, handled, looked at, or read about has been mirrorless.

The vast, vast majority of digital cameras, including MILC system cameras, compacts, phone cameras, etc. are mirrorless, and have been for some time. Putting a lens mount on a camera so that lenses can be changed does not change the fundamental design of a camera. Neither does adding an EVF, which some compact cameras, like Fuji, had before MILCs came along. A mirrorless camera, that gives an image preview from the sensor and uses CD autofocus, is a mirrorless camera, whether you call it Nex or Ricoh GR or Olympus stylus, or whatever.

I hope this helps.

P.S. And of course, an excellent camera like this adds to the STRENGTH of the mirrorless sector. It does not debilitate it.

It's not a mirrorless camera, It's a large sensor compact.

bobbarber - you missed last 4 years? We use "mirrorless" only for cameras with interchangable lenses. NOT compacts.

Obvious thing is obvious. No matter how ridiculously silly you try to be about semantics.

Moreover - I'd even argue that rangefinders are not MILCs as MILCs got quite a few distinct characteristic that distinguish them from rangefinders - notably AF with live view or/and EVF. But that's a topic for different discussion and the border between these might be little blurred. Still though certainly it's nothing alike large sensor compact vs mirrorless. Difference between these is very clear. It's only your problem that you don't see it, but please, don't force your extreme point of view on others.

Plastek

No, YOU are using semantics. You are trying to finesse the definition of mirrorless, so that it doesn't include cameras that are obviously mirrorless, i.e., they don't have a mirror!

No matter how much you want to wave your arms in the air about what mirrorless means on these forums or whatever, the Ricoh GR is a mirrorless camera. It does not contain a mirror. It gets it's image preview from the sensor.

That's the fundamental difference in cameras these days, whether you get a preview from a mirror, or whether the mirror is absent and you get a preview from the sensor. If you get a preview from the sensor, and there is no mirror in the camera, it's a mirrorless camera.

That's why terms like MILC, EVIL, etc. exist, to distinguish mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses from other mirrorless cameras. But that doesn't make the GR NOT a mirrorless camera, no matter how studiously people avoid the term. It obviously IS a mirrorless camera. There's nothing to debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_interchangeable-lens_camera

The Mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera (MILC) is a popular class of digital system cameras. Unlike a compact digital camera, a MILC is equipped with an interchangeable lens mount and unlike a digital single-lens reflex camera, a MILC does not have a mirror-based optical viewfinder.

We know all compacts don't have a mirror, why should they? But we don't call them mirrorless. The term mirrorless came when the G1 came out with interchangable lenses without a prism or mirror box so we called them mirrorless to distinguish them from DSLR 's. This camera is designed as a compact.

Jacob,

That's a sensible answer. But even though we don't usually call a camera like this mirrorless, it IS.

I mean, if how a camera works to you is important, then you should be clean with your terminology.

When MILCs came into vogue, many DSLR users were like, "What's mirrorless?", without realizing that they had been shooting with mirrorless cameras for years--their compacts. MILCs and compacts have the same method of preview (sensor-based, viewed on a screen or through an EVF), the same method of autofocus, the same strengths and foibles, such as manual focus and screen lag. They act the same because they ARE the same.

I'm not a "DSLRs, please disappear" guy--I always want the option to buy a camera with a mirror. But not to realize that most cameras already are mirrorless--and work in the same way--would be unfortunate.

The "mirrorless = system camera only" terminology is from the industry anyway, not real life. It is meant to categorize things on shelves, that's all.

We all understand you. We just don't agree.

@ bobbarber do you go around calling P&S cameras mirrorless too?.....

Actually, I don't CALL point and shoots mirrorless, usually, except in a discussion like this, but I THINK of them that way. They ARE mirrorless. The point is inarguable.

I understand your guys' point too. You're comfy with language that makes out MILC system cameras as the only mirrorless cameras around. However, the language is deceptive by omission. Your argument is essentially, "The language may be wrong, maybe compacts are technically mirrorless too, but that isn't the standard way to say it."

Well, you're welcome to express yourself any way you want. I applaud you for it.

However, I will continue thinking of compact cameras as mirrorless, because they are. It will be difficult for anyone to shake me from this position, because I am correct. Your appeal is for me to go along with the herd. Well, good luck stating your case. You might persuade me! Stranger things have happened. Normally, though, I'm guided by facts.