Reading mode: Light Dark

Ricoh's new camera

Go to last post
Excuse me for something that might be a totally 'noob' question -

Aside from he impressive VGA screen and the f1.9 (compared to f2.0), what advantage does this camera have compared to the LX3 - which costs much less and has a 24m-60mm zoom?

Is the lens/processor quality that good indeed?
The previous Ricoh didn't impress me that much...
 
Mickey Spittoon said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is a OVF and you even have the choice between two excellent ones.

You can get the GV-1 or GV-2 external OVF, it is very bright and will beat any built in tiny hole as you find in the G10. Most internal OVfs are absolutely useless and you are better off just guessing where you frame, the Ricoh external OVFs are of very high quality and made by CV.

--
http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/
http://ricohgrdiary.wordpress.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cristiansorega
 
I consider DPP's correction unusable - it probably uses the same bicubic interpolation method as most other proprietary software.

Proper interpolation with very little loss of detail (lanczos/sinc256) as well as a far better set of correction parameters can be found in GIMP, Panotools and Hugin, but this means exporting an "intermediate" image and finishing it in another program. This is what I'm currently doing, but I certainly like to skip it if possible, especially because sinc256 uses loads of CPU power and these programs don't support multithreading for single operations.
 
R Butler said:
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?'
Click to expand...
Choices..do users have the option to disable the distortion correction in jpegs on Panasonic cameras??

What happens if you want to use non correction supported raw software?
Richard Butler said:
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?
Click to expand...
But what happens when companies make claims, but are using tricks to beef them up?

For example

http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/Products/LUMIX+Digital+Cameras/Stylish+Compact/DMC-LX3/Overview/1464999/index.html

A direct quote from that:

"The f/2.0-f/2.8 bright Leica DC VARIO-SUMMICRON Lens guarantees premium quality with minimal distortion and edge-to-edge sharpness. Even with the 24mm wide angle,the DMC-LX3 displays less distortion than competitor models thanks to Leica DC lens"

Now I don't expect a reply, but the problem is less using corrections, but not being honest about it! And to go even further..to make specific "optical" claims, which we know are simply not true at all.

So it's not purely anti corrections..it's about choices, and being upfront about it.

Users should be able to bypass the corrections (real raw, not modified raw), and jpeg too.

Companies should not make claims about lenses, when they are using software to do it.

I won't link to the tests of the LX-3 optics, but let's just say, Robin Hood would be put to shame ;-)

So I am not anti corrections 100%, just we need to be careful here..smart maybe, but potential sneaky as well.
 
Barry Fitzgerald said:
JortS29 said:
VladimirV said:
JortS29 said:
Most used RAW converters correct it automatically aswell.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
No, ofcourse you're not "stuck". Many converters (RT too) offer you the option to do this manually and there's always 3rd party software to do these corrections with 1 click (PTL comes to mind). You have the choice of slightly wider angle with distortion, or the stated 24mm without distortion an everything inbetween.
Member said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's one of the issues I have with the Adobe converters (lightroom, ACR), they need to add this ASAP.
Member said:
Better optics will always be more desired, let's not let companies off by using software tricks..
Click to expand...
When you want things to be as compact as possible, it's hardly a sacrifice.
 
Barry Fitzgerald said:
Choices..do users have the option to disable the distortion correction in jpegs on Panasonic cameras??
Click to expand...
Do you have the choice to disable corrective lens elements?
Member said:
What happens if you want to use non correction supported raw software?
Click to expand...
Then you use something like PTL with a profile for your camera.
Member said:
But what happens when companies make claims, but are using tricks to beef them up?

For example
Click to expand...
[snip]

Now you're arguing about advertisement, which is totally unrelated to what this discussion was and should be about: the resulting images.
 
Harold66 said:
BUT you have a viewfinder . you can actually choose between two of them the Gv1 and gv 2 so I don't see what's your problem
Harold
Click to expand...
Harold...Harold...Harold...

Show me the viewfinder on the camera in the photo.

Whats your problem?

--
-------------------------
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.'
Reply #4 - 'Ha HA!'



.
 
VladimirV said:
JortS29 said:
When you want things to be as compact as possible, it's hardly a sacrifice.
Click to expand...
It is if you are doing it to save money. Ricoh shows that it is possible to design a 24mm lens with little distortion in a smaller camera as the GX100/200. Or a faster 28mm lens in a camera even smaller and without any distortion as in the GRD 3.
Click to expand...
How do you know the GRD 3 lens has no distortion? And lets not forget its a prime lens and less wide than the LX3 lens, which has a 2.5x zoomratio. The lens on the GX series is a zoomlens too, but quite a bit slower and not free from barrel distortion either. There is no free lunch.
 
JortS29 said:
Now you're arguing about advertisement, which is totally unrelated to what this discussion was and should be about: the resulting images.
Click to expand...
I think it's very related to things. A specific claim, that is clearly misleading potential buyers.

Imagine RT user, who buys the camera thinking it's got low distortion..well they are in for a big shock. That's rather iffy on ads front..and possibly in breach of regulations as well. False advertising is not something to be taken lightly
 
Barry Fitzgerald said:
JortS29 said:
Now you're arguing about advertisement, which is totally unrelated to what this discussion was and should be about: the resulting images.
Click to expand...
I think it's very related to things. A specific claim, that is clearly misleading potential buyers.
Click to expand...
It is if they care for bragging rights. As long as the images are good, there isn't much to complain as for quality output. Misleading marketing claims are nothing new, not Panasonic specific and not the subject of this discussion. Your initial argument, similar to the one before me, was: "You are stuck with mega fisheye lens distortions". Which isn't true.

Now you're trying to shift from that towards the marketing claim argument. You've made your point on that case more than a dozen times already.
Member said:
Imagine RT user, who buys the camera thinking it's got low distortion..well they are in for a big shock. That's rather iffy on ads front..and possibly in breach of regulations as well. False advertising is not something to be taken lightly
Click to expand...
See above. I use RT for my FZ18, which does the exact same "trick", just to a lesser extend. I have no problem with it, since it's MY converter of choice, not the one supplied. It's all too easy to correct still.
 
Jim144 said:
So with a spare battery or 2 this would be around £600.
Click to expand...
Seems a hefty increase since last time (£400 odd?)

I like the idea, and it's great to see companies try to cater for more serious photogs, but the price is really not good at all. I wouldn't pay that..not a hope.
 
I think the most important aspects likely are:
  • More control elements, especially more wheels. The Panasonic LX3 (which I own) is really lacking in this regard. The LX3's joystick is a nice concept, but analog wheels are better.
  • Dedicated software for street shooting. The serious compacts from Ricoh are allegedly better for getting well focused snapshots.
  • A prime lens has usually less lens flare, is sharper, and has fewer transmission losses (at f/2 it might be slightly brighter than the LX3's lens).
 
Barry Fitzgerald said:
"The f/2.0-f/2.8 bright Leica DC VARIO-SUMMICRON Lens guarantees premium quality with minimal distortion and edge-to-edge sharpness. Even with the 24mm wide angle,the DMC-LX3 displays less distortion than competitor models thanks to Leica DC lens"

Now I don't expect a reply, but the problem is less using corrections, but not being honest about it! And to go even further..to make specific "optical" claims, which we know are simply not true at all.
Click to expand...
While I don't think lens correction is necessarily a bad thing (and we'd usually attempt to show it, even if we didn't think it was an issue), I'm not sure we'd let a comment like that go by, if we picked up on it at the time.

Richard - dpreview.com
 
I often find my 35mm lens on my P&S a bit too long when shooting on vacations when I need to shoot interiors or building facades and some landscape. I think the wide angle is quite welcome. I can always use the zoom on my other camera.

I like my SLR, but two P&S cameras are still smaller than my SLR and lens kit.
 
Mickey Spittoon said:
mickey spittoon said:
BUT you have a viewfinder . you can actually choose between two of them the Gv1 and gv 2 so I don't see what's your problem
Harold
Click to expand...
Harold...Harold...Harold...
Click to expand...
Oh come on e , you know better
you buy the optional viewfinder and you slide it on the hotshoe

everyone can do that. and for that you get a viewfinder just over the lens with a large view
what more to ask ?
harold
mickey spittoon said:
--
-------------------------
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.'
Reply #4 - 'Ha HA!'



.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.model-mayhem.com/haroldglit
 
EthanX said:
Excuse me for something that might be a totally 'noob' question -

Aside from he impressive VGA screen and the f1.9 (compared to f2.0), what advantage does this camera have compared to the LX3 - which costs much less and has a 24m-60mm zoom?
Click to expand...
Better quality lens. Thinner. Lighter. And primes force you to think more before you shoot. Plus, as you mentioned, faster lens. And currently a more recent sensor (but an update to the LX-3 can change that quickly).
 
The GR Digital III is a niche camera and a good one at that. Trying to compare it to a zoom compact is logical suicide. Still, it shouldl attract more users now than ever in GR history.

It is a fixed prime camera that competes directly against the Sigma DP 1/2, to be fair.

This camera is about simplicity, using your feet for a zoom and having a nearly distortion free lens (a real one, not just claimed and fixed in software), with excellent low light capability and image quality.

It will attract less buyers than a GX200/300 product but thats ok. There are very specific needs photographers using the GR cameras have, and Ricoh is meeting those wishes/demands very well considering one design is trying to fill so many requests. They really listen to their users.

Either optical viewfinder (gv-1/2) while limited in close up use accuracy, blows away any compact in camera optical viewfinder, to include it would negate one of the major advantages of the GR III, size and weight. Until you've looked through one, you can't have a real opinion, sorry.

Ricoh focused a lot on image quality in 3 ways, lens first, then sensor, then processing. It is apparent that Ricoh already had a great body design, so they could allow resources to improve another area and weakest point of the design.

I've used a GR III, there is a bit too much talk it without having done so, which is often the case of a new camera product.

Carl
 
David Rosser said:
It's a 6mm f/1.9 not a 28mm, an 8.6mm f/1.4 might be more difficult.
Click to expand...
Why would it be more difficult? It's easier to design a fast lens close the "normal" focal length for any format, whether it's 1/2.5" or 8x10".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top