farrukh
Veteran Member
An f1.9 in a compact, could this give the LX3 a run for it's money?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Ricoh's new camera
- Thread starter farrukh
- Start date
VladimirV
Veteran Member
It certainly will give it a run for it's money as it will the Fuji. The Ricoh has a fast lens without the massive distortion the LX3 has, the sensor is also improved and should outperform the Fuji with it's slow lens easily in low light.
--
http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/
http://ricohgrdiary.wordpress.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cristiansorega
--
http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/
http://ricohgrdiary.wordpress.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cristiansorega
...it didn't have a 28mm equiv. fixed lens. A 35 or 40mm equivalent would be much more interesting to me.
Other manufacturers of "premium" compacts should take a hard look at the dual control wheels the Ricoh has, that's the way it should be done.
Well, for most P&S users a fixed lens will be a major "flaw". So I would say the GR D III will remain a niche camera, as the previous incarnations. Now, if they would take that sensor and place it in a GX series body/lens for a competitive price, that would be a very bold move, and would result in the best "small compact" to date.
However, Ricoh seem to be happy with their small market share and niche approach, and the GX-200 is already a great camera with very little marketing (outside Japan); no review here even, and I expect the potential GX-300 to be another great but rather obscure product.
However, Ricoh seem to be happy with their small market share and niche approach, and the GX-200 is already a great camera with very little marketing (outside Japan); no review here even, and I expect the potential GX-300 to be another great but rather obscure product.
I agree. 28 mm equivalent is a bit too wide for a fixed lens. Something from 32 mm to 40 mm would a better compromise. I would be easier to design and make really well, too. I bet you could design a 40 mm f/1.4 lens that would have a better optical quality and about the same weight and size as a 28 mm f/1.9 lens.
Yep. Ricoh compacts are still the only ones with a true photographers control layout.
David Rosser
Veteran Member
It's a 6mm f/1.9 not a 28mm, an 8.6mm f/1.4 might be more difficult.
--
Dave
http://www.rosser.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.pbase.com/dgrosser
sphexx
Leading Member
dpreview says in its preamble:
"it continues the Ricoh tradition of high resolution screens, becoming the first compact to offer a 920,000 dots VGA panel"
whereas in the preamble to announcement of the Ricoh CX-1 dpreview wrote:
"but increasing the screen resolution to 920,000 dots (unusually good for a compact camera)"
They have never reviewed the Ricoh CX-1 though they have used photos taken with one in comparisons in other tests. What is going on? Did they break the sample camera and now Ricoh won't let them have another?
--
Richard
"it continues the Ricoh tradition of high resolution screens, becoming the first compact to offer a 920,000 dots VGA panel"
whereas in the preamble to announcement of the Ricoh CX-1 dpreview wrote:
"but increasing the screen resolution to 920,000 dots (unusually good for a compact camera)"
They have never reviewed the Ricoh CX-1 though they have used photos taken with one in comparisons in other tests. What is going on? Did they break the sample camera and now Ricoh won't let them have another?
--
Richard
For some reason, I'd remembered the CX1 as having had a 460,000 dot screen. I've now corrected the news story. (It's still true that Ricoh tends to be at the forefront of providing good, hi-res screens on its compacts)
Sadly we've been too busy to review the CX1. We will try to, at the very least, include the GRD III in a comparison as soon as we can. However, we've been told that there are not any production cameras in the country yet, so there will be a bit of a delay before that happens.They have never reviewed the Ricoh CX-1 though they have used photos taken with one in comparisons in other tests. What is going on? Did they break the sample camera and now Ricoh won't let them have another?
Richard - dpreview.com
sphexx
Leading Member
--
Richard
Richard
JortS29
Veteran Member
You tested the new Ricoh in RAW?
And the distortion is hardly an issue these days.
I'm not making bets here. And let's hope Ricoh adressed their high ISO smearing for Jpegs.
VladimirV
Veteran Member
It is only hardly an issue if you use JPGs or software which automatically corrects it.
The JPGs are much better now as you can see on the official Ricoh samples: http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/gr/gr_digital3/index.html
But as always I would say using RAW is the best option for getting better quality.
The Fuji has a great sensor but pared with a mediocre body without any proper manual controls or RAW and a very slow f3.3 lens it is not the low light camera the Fuji F10-30 were and the LX3 easily beats it due to the faster lense and good high ISO. So the question is more can the GRD III outperform the LX3 in low light as this is the real challenge.
--
http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/
http://ricohgrdiary.wordpress.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cristiansorega
JortS29
Veteran Member
Most used RAW converters correct it automatically aswell.
VladimirV
Veteran Member
This is true but it still remains a heavily distorted lens, it can be fixed in software and won't matter to most people but for a lens with a Leica brand it is very disapointing to have to resort to these software tricks.
--
http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/
http://ricohgrdiary.wordpress.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cristiansorega
JortS29
Veteran Member
Size has everything to do with it. My bet is that in 5 years, practically all cameras resort to these "tricks" for that very reason (and cost savings aswell, obviously). It's the image that counts, not so much how the camera got there.
Harold66
Forum Pro
Yes a 40mm equivalent would have been so great. I also think a lot of users of grd/grd2 are attached to their camera and if ricoh had come up with a new focal length , they might have decided to buy the new one but keeping the old one with the 28mm
because of its great user interface , a GRD with a 40mmm could have become sort of the digital Rollei 35 or digital Minolta CLE
wonder also why they can't put an IS in the body while the GX has it
Harold
--
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.model-mayhem.com/haroldglit
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
Different folks will want different things. I am ok with 28mm, though I admit I like doing landscapes, and 28mm is a pretty good place to be there.
40mm would be less interesting from my point of view, but others would like it.
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
The "issue" with corrections is simply this.
Not using ACR (and let's not forget ACR sucks for high ISO raw), or Silkypix (which is not bad, but odd GUI and slow)
You are stuck with mega fisheye lens distortions. And some folks will be avoiding ACR, and using C1 or RT etc etc. Better to "get it right" than to cop out with a software routine.
Also the other interesting thing is Adobe are willing to adjust pannie raw files for distortion, yet unable to provide their paying customers who use LR, with even a simple slider for distortion corrections, rather odd to say the least.
Better optics will always be more desired, let's not let companies off by using software tricks..
You know how much I hate to disagree with you, Barry, but I think writing off lens corrections as 'software tricks' is a rather simplistic and reductive way of looking at things.
Nikon has been doing CA correction in-camera and Canon's DPP will correct for lens distortion. How do you judge the point at which image optimisation tips over into 'software tricks?'
And if it allows the creation of lenses that are smaller and more convenient (and produce similar results when processed using the methods used by the vast majority), than would be possible otherwise - Micro Four Thirds, for example - is that still trickery or is it making intelligent use of the available technology?
Richard - dpreview.com
mickey spittoon
Forum Enthusiast
Put a viewfinder on it or I won't look any farther. What do I care about a 920,000 screen on the back if I'd have to put my reading glasses on to get a good look at it?
A viewfinder....yes, that would be a dealMAKER.
--
-------------------------
Select from the below as needed in reply to your comment...
Reply #1 - 'Yes, you're right. I was completely wrong'
Reply #2 - 'I stand corrected. Clearly I didn't know what I was talking about'
Reply #3 - 'Thanks for pointing out my error! I feel better now.'
.
A viewfinder....yes, that would be a dealMAKER.
--
-------------------------
Select from the below as needed in reply to your comment...
Reply #1 - 'Yes, you're right. I was completely wrong'
Reply #2 - 'I stand corrected. Clearly I didn't know what I was talking about'
Reply #3 - 'Thanks for pointing out my error! I feel better now.'
.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum