GR-D Vs Pro1/G6

As my collection of SLR lens is dwindling, for the past year, I have been out shooting with a normal zoom on my 300d/rebel body, it's getting old quite a bit in the resolution department and it's got to a point that I have decided to upgrade/or downsize.

I'm retiring to only shooting my holidays these days, so the wife would kill me if I get a big chunck of camera like the 5d and a barrage of expensive lense.

I have budget for the GR-d, seems to fit the bill as on my holidays I seem to do fine with cropping if I want reach, but I always want more wide angle, especially when mounting my 28-something lens on the 300d (I dont like the 17-something canon) So I think I can handle the GR-D fine

I like:
the distortion free-lens
manual controls
no unnecessary finder
hot shoe - this is important as I like shooting bounced flash
Lag-free, I hate lag, low frame rate I can live with.
Pocketability

No-nonsense design, although the digital zoom rocker seems to be the only distraction.

My concerns are that:

DOF, with lens that wide and small, I'm not goint to be able to do portrait the way I'm used to, long and wide open, granted, the other compact in this range might have a tele but they're also quite abysmal in this department. Is it even possible to have a tele-converter on the GR-D?

Flash-Metering, what kind of metering does it do? normal TTL? I've been lazy with my Canon E-TTL That's why my other choice are all canon, in ths price range? should I be considering any other contender?

Questions;
Does the GR-D has hyperfocal setting like the old one?
How far can I crop at that resolution?

I have considered the leica/panasonic LX1, the price is a bit high for the benefits. The epson would be a dream, only at the price, it's a bit of a let down.

The only reason I consider the Pro1 was that it's Canon, it's quite cheap and I can get away with putting it in my pocket.

Point and shoot without manual control just won't do, the GR-D seems to be best in this regard, Should I be considering other compact prosumer? like minolta?

Otherwise I might just get back to film

Hey Powerbook,

I am the owner of both the GR-d and the Canon Pro1. Both cameras have their benefits and weaknesses. I would not recommend cropping with the GR-d, there is noise reduction that will disappoint you. The depth of field is great but when you view at 100%, you definitely see an out of focus distance. I think the lens was designed to give you less depth of field than a regular 28mm lens. I have read this somewhere but cannot remember where. I am using the GR with the 21mm adapter exclusively. Have used all day shooting in bright sun, white glaring snow, rich blue sky and have not had any burnout or flair! I shoot lowest contrast setting and can point right into the low sun! All I get is the little green aperature images but the the picture is crystal clear!

The Canon Pro1 is one of the nicest cameras I have ever owned. It is a real work of art for the price! The lens is supposed to be an L lens but there are problems with it. But all in all, it is a real keeper of a camera. I don't see how you can call it pocketable! It is big!
--
Gleaming the Cube as always,
Jim

Thanks, if that's the case with the shallower than normal DOF then that sounds like I'll be getting the GR-D then, that is exactly what I need.

How's the wide adaptor though? is it really good? I might have to budget for it and the finder as well if it is as good as you say it is. Is it really designed to be used with the 28 or has it been put on as an afterthought?

As for the Pro1, I really have a big jacket pocket there's probably not going to be another camera like the pro1 judging by the way Canon is going, but it seems to be a footnote in Canon's history, rather something truly unique, If it has a mechanical zoom and lower shutter lag, I'd go for it in a heartbeat.

powerbook duo said:

Thanks, if that's the case with the shallower than normal DOF then
that sounds like I'll be getting the GR-D then, that is exactly
what I need.

Click to expand...

I suggest you get a good look at some samples before you decide DOF is as shallow as you want it to be. From what I've seen, I don't think would match your expectations (other than in macro shots).

powerbook duo said:

How's the wide adaptor though? is it really good? I might have to
budget for it and the finder as well if it is as good as you say it
is. Is it really designed to be used with the 28 or has it been put
on as an afterthought?

Click to expand...

I don't have a GR-D, but it's obvious this adaptor is not an afterthought. The camera was designed from the beginning to replace two classic Ricoh film cameras - the GR-1 (28mm lens) and the GR21 (21mm lens).

powerbook duo said:

As for the Pro1, I really have a big jacket pocket there's
probably not going to be another camera like the pro1 judging by
the way Canon is going, but it seems to be a footnote in Canon's
history, rather something truly unique, If it has a mechanical zoom
and lower shutter lag, I'd go for it in a heartbeat.

Click to expand...

Then you might want to search stocks for a Minolta A2. It has the same lens range, but has mechanical zoom and lower lag (not to mention much better EVF and AntiShake). It is somewhat larger though.

Prog.

Canon cameras probably make 4:3 aspect ratio only. I personally don't like this and won't buy any camera that does not offer classic 3:2 ratio as option.

powerbook duo said:

Thanks, if that's the case with the shallower than normal DOF then
that sounds like I'll be getting the GR-D then, that is exactly
what I need.

Click to expand...

If you want a shallow DOF and are already used to your 300D, the GR-D will most likely disappoint you as it has a really small CCD sensor (just 1/1.8") combined with a very short focal length, thus resulting in a very large DOF.

Haven't laid my hands on one of those so far, but I don't see how the DOF could be much different from other compact, non-SLR digicams with the same sensor size.

Remember: due to the small sensor, the actual focal length of the GR-D's lens is just 5.9mm. The shorter the focal length, the larger the DOF...

I was in a similar position you a while back. I own a D70 but wanted something smaller, more inspirational, with a bit of character. Having gone through a couple of smaller 8mp cameras from Canon and Olympus, I've been disapointed. You will find the quality of the GR d very poor compared to your 300d.

I toyed with the idea of the GR digital when it was first annouced, but the more I read about it, it became obvious that I'ld be continuing to make compromises in quality and handling. So I still use a Contax G1 with a 35mm Sonar. The camera is a joy to and the lens glows. See the low res scan below.

My advice would be keep the 300d AND use film.

Some of the samples on this page seems to indicate that the GR-D have more shallow DOF than most other digicams:

http://mf.air-nifty.com/mf/2005/10/index.html

--
Joakim Engerstam

I don't see any images that would indicate that DOF is shallower than one would expect. The only shallow DOF images (other than a few taken by a Nikon DSLR) are macros, which is a shame, since the OOF areas when doing this are quite nice.

The inability to use DOF as a photographic tool is the largest reason I'm still waiting for a large sensor compact. Even the original GR's 28mm f2.8 lens on 35mm film isn't quite shallow enough to be useable. I'm hoping that something like a 24mm (about 35mm equiv) f1.8 lens on an APS sized chip in a compact might do the trick.

You're right, I saw now that those pictures were taken with the D70.

--
Joakim Engerstam

There are situations when shallow DOF can be really nice - portraits being the obvious one, and long-zoom wildlife photography.

But another way of looking at the small sensor / lens combination is that it makes it possible to get a very large DOF! This is really desireable when photographing landscapes, architecture and macros. SLR and DSLR users have to stop down a lot in order to approach the kind of near and far focus limits that users of small sensor compacts enjoy. In doing so, they squeeze the amount of light coming through the lens such that a slower shutter speed and / or higher ISO is required. I'd much rather be shooting low-light landscapes at f2.4 than I would at f8+.

A 28mm lens isn't meant for portraits really, you'd want an 85mm - 100mm lens to keep the facial features in proportion. A 28mm lens is ideal for landscapes, architecture and the GR-D does excellent macros with pretty fine DOF (read: large) wide open!

Perhaps this is an aspect to be cherished rather than bemoaned?

Mathias Tornqvist said:

I don't see any images that would indicate that DOF is shallower
than one would expect. The only shallow DOF images (other than a
few taken by a Nikon DSLR) are macros, which is a shame, since the
OOF areas when doing this are quite nice.
The inability to use DOF as a photographic tool is the largest
reason I'm still waiting for a large sensor compact. Even the
original GR's 28mm f2.8 lens on 35mm film isn't quite shallow
enough to be useable. I'm hoping that something like a 24mm (about
35mm equiv) f1.8 lens on an APS sized chip in a compact might do
the trick.

Click to expand...

Suggestion to use film is good one, however, I was also first dissapointed by GR-D samples. However, I have now seen some very good images made with it and I have also printed some images and they are very good for a P&S when printed. GR-D images have different look and are more 3D, film-like than most other P&S cameras. The lens also is amazingly distortion free.

The problem with most these sample images areound is that most are taken by people who don't know what they are doing. The camera is very contrasty, it is easy to blow highlights. Seems it must be handled more like slide film, not just fully automated "everything average gray" type of P&S.

I'm hoping to get hands on one soon.

how about a minolta tc-1? great 28/3.5 lens. fits in a shirt pocket, titanium covers.

--
aizan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raizans/

DOF is not something that is controllable - it is a direct consequence of Aperture, focal length and sensor size. The only reason a GR-digital might have a smaller DOF for that sensor size and focal length is that it's a relatively large aperture (f2.5?).

Don't forget that, apalling though the idea may seem, some very similar effects to narrow DOF can be acheived in post-processing (eg. Photoshop).

I think when it comes to film, there's plenty of choices of p&s with primes to chose from, like the original GR-1 or plenty of contaxes even some of the leicas, or even Rangefinders,

I like the idea of the GR-D that it needs no optical finder, lending itself to a very clean design and if should I need one, It can be attached

Compared to more conventional compact like the Canon S70, the finder is hardly ever used.

I might go back to film actually, for the price of the GR-D, I can get a couple of nice M-Mount 21mm

I hear you. I've found myself back with 35mm film and I'm really enjoying it. I still use my digitals where convenience or immediate feedback is desired, or really low light favors the DSLR.

I haven't handled a TC-1, or GR1, but the best viewfinder I've seen on an inexpensive compact 35mm is on the Ricoh R1E that I have. It's large and bright with framelines like a rangefinder ovf. The lens is f/3.5 and 30mm, and really pretty nice. Not a contax or minolta tc-1, or gr1 perhaps, but neither was it a major expenditure. I found it at http://www.ceid.com , a canadian distributor of Ricoh. On close out for $15.00 USD plus postage. Works very well.

I liked the results from the 35mm compacts enough to purchase a Pentax MZ-S for a film body to compliment the *ist DS. It's a fine camera with handling unmatched by any digital I've used to date, including the DS.

powerbook duo said:

I might go back to film actually, for the price of the GR-D, I can
get a couple of nice M-Mount 21mm

Click to expand...

Please let me know where you can find M mount 21mm lenses so cheap!

--
Ian Gianni

http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtlen.htm
http://www.cameraquest.com/adaptltm.htm

most of them are screwmount and need an adapter ring.

--
aizan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raizans/

The pictures do look nice, but I see no evidence of any shallower DOF than with any other 1/1.8" sensor digicam.