I never "made sport" of the reds problem. I, and others, assumed it was an issue of getting the color profile right, not a flaw with the camera. Most of the "sport" or early discussions of it revolved around finding a color profile that worked before Adobe updated their support. I never viewed that as a negative of the camera or discussed it as such. Although I do remember clearly that you continuously accused me of doing exactly that when what I (and others) were doing was trying to SOLVE the issue because we didn't know how long it would take Adobe to get around to it! And so then I'd have to defend myself in those threads against your accusations (jeez, the more things change, the more they stay the same) in the midst of trying to come up with a good interim solution!
I don't believe I commented much on the "A", here at least, before the GR was released or at least announced. I may have said some positive things about it, but in anticipation of the GR, I was very positive on IT too...
I didn't over blow it. I was one of several people who found it and couldn't solve it. But it was not a deal breaker for me. I still found TaV, whether on the Ricoh or the equivalent use of Manual mode on the Nikon, as the best option short of the one I eventually figured out to use on the Nikon. To this day, I absolutely prefer being able to use Av mode with a auto ISO that allows me to set an ISO ceiling and a minimum shutter speed. Ricoh and Nikon use exactly the same logic there - it's just that Ricoh limits their minimum shutter speed setting to 1/250. Fuji used to limit theirs to 1/125, which was completely useless, but they finally saw the light and now allow 1/500 in their newer bodies (and via firmware in some of their older bodies). I still hope and assume that Ricoh will raise that silly limit, maybe in the next version of the GR?
I didn't get an early copy of the GR. My loaner shipped the very day that pre-orders shipped to the first paying customers. I had it the same time as the earliest adopters, but not before. I did have some official information about it about two days before the official announcement - that was as far as my early access to anything went.
The reds issue went away for me well before that - a few of us managed to find a way to install a beta version of the color profile before Adobe officially supported it. THAT was what the discussion was about and we got it done, with others helping much more with the technical end than I, but I did help push the issue forward until it was solved.
Nope, just a Sony RX1, which led me to full frame and then Nikon DSLRs. I'd already had quite a bit of experience with other brands, through the loaner program I was part of for more than a year, but really haven't tried much new since the GR, A, and RX1. I already had a LOT of experience with m43 and Fuji, but have since sold off all of that stuff. My gear now is limited to a Nikon DF, with mostly old manual focus lenses, the Coolpix A, and the little Canon G7X for the rare occasion I want a pocket sized zoom with me.
Yes, I found two things to dislike about the GRDIV, but only relative to the GRDIII, which I had and loved. I thought the IV was better at ISO, but after some back to back testing, discovered they'd merely inflated the ISO numbering without changing anything functional about the sensor. Fuji does that also, and it ticks me off there too. The other thing was making changing snap focus distances much more difficult and adding that auto-snap feature which I thought (and think) was bunk. The later made it possible to use snap focus more like in previous models through a FW update, but I still didn't see any compelling reason to switch from the already excellent GRDIII. I never ever said anything negative about the GRDIV relative to any other brand, just to other Ricohs that I didn't think it improved on at all...
I liked snap focus and I like it still, but I don't like it exclusively. It's a really good way to skin the zone focus cat, but it's far from the only good way. I really like the tactile approach that both Olympus and Fuji have used with their "clutch focus ring" prime lenses, which I find just as quick and more enjoyable than snap focus, but obviously not any more effective to the task. I also love doing the same with my DSLR, which offers a manual focus over-ride of AF on many available lenses, which is the best approach I've found, albeit at the expense of a good deal of size and weight! I've found the Nikon A almost as quick to move between zone focus street shooting and AF shooting as snap focus. Not AS fast as the Ricoh, but fast enough that the difference wasn't an issue for me. Snap focus is a great feature and something I'd love to have on the Coolpix A, but it was not a big enough positive FOR ME to overcome the auto-ISO setup on the Nikon, which I'd never used UNTIL I shot with the Coolpix A.
I did not leave Ricoh for he Coolpix because of anything I perceived Ricoh had done WRONG with the GR. It was as good a camera in every possible way as my much beloved GRDIII and GXR-28 and obviously much better in some key ways. I thought it was a winner altogether and fully the equal of the Nikon except for one detail that mattered immensely to me, but obviously not to a lot of others. I chose the Nikon because of something they did extremely RIGHT, not because of anything Ricoh did wrong! It was something I wasn't even aware of until I tried (and spent a while getting to know) the Coolpix A, so I couldn't have anticipated it before I did that comparison.
For me, the way the Nikon allows me to setup the three key exposure variables (Aperture, ISO, and shutter speed) was a revelation that I came to during that month of shooting with both cameras. It still is, as I explained in some detail in my previous post. And enough camera makers now offer that functionality that I don't see any need to look at cameras without it going forward. I fully suspect it'll be nearly universal within a few years as other makers catch up...
I think the only sin I can reasonably be accused of was defending the Nikon against loud detractors in this forum, where such defense probably wasn't best placed. But I was still in the throes of the comparison and was still a Ricoh owner and user (I had the GXR-28 for quite a while after I eventually bought the Coolpix A), so I still hung out here quite a bit. I do not believe I ever trashed the GR in any way - I merely explained why I'd come to prefer the Nikon and why I considered them basically equivalent cameras with slightly different pros and cons that would appeal to different shooters differently. I still feel that way - I don't think the Nikon is a better camera. I do think it's an equally good camera with one key feature over the GR that matters a great deal TO ME...
No, I'm not a Ricoh fan boy, but I could have reasonably been accused of being one until that period in early 2013 when I shot with these two cameras. Even when I was not falling in love with the GRD IV, it was only because I didn't think it improved on the GRD III enough to justify an "upgrade". I had and loved the GRDIII and GXR and I'm sure I went overboard in my praise of both at times. I did jump off of Ricoh's ship a couple of years ago, though, and now you can probably reasonably call me a Nikon fan boy. I absolutely love their DSLR interface and sensors and lenses. And I like the Coolpix A as much as ever.
And I don't DISLIKE almost any cameras out there! I disliked the Olympus EPL1 a few years ago, but loved most of the other Olympus models. I dislike the Sony RX100 quite a bit but absolutely loved the RX1. I like Fuji bodies pretty well and absolutely love their prime lenses - I just came to like something else even more. These are good times for photographers and photo gear heads. There are very VERY few bad choices out there, or even less than excellent choices. I simply found something I liked better than what I had liked best at one time.
-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
