Owners of both Coolpix A and Ricoh GR - seeking your advice

At that point I might be interested in the GR successor if it will come with a built in viewfinder. I think I would have gotten a GR this time around too, if money weren't a consideration as much. Video use would be very occasional, I just thought it was nice to have better quality footage.
There is another thread now running which purports to show the front view of a GRII. It is basically almost unchanged from the GR. There is some hint of change on the top plate and a higher populated sensor is not ruled out. But in the end the GR (in true Ricoh fashion is not going to be fully superseded by its mid-model makeover. This means that present GR owners investments will not be trashed and that there will possibly be a firmware update to bring many of (any) new features back into the present model GR. Something that tends to built support for the brand in our community.
I'm wondering about the black and white tonality--is it difficult to reproduce the GR results with some judicious post processing? I have Lightroom 5, free Perfect Effects 9.5 with lots of monochrome customization, DxO 10.
Ray Sachs is a better guide in that department.
 
Ray, I'm using a little pocket RX100, and this thread inspired me this morning to put on manual focus at about 10'-15', and then set the Auto-ISO on 125-1600, and color mode to B/W.

This is fun! Running around with the aperture at f/7.1, it gets everything in focus, and the shutter speed is fast enough for most scenes. If I put it on shutter priority, 1/500, I lose the aperture DOF. Can't find any way to set your minimum shutter speed outside of Tv mode... and it won't let me use Auto-ISO in manual mode.
That's an interesting take on using the RX100. I tend to prefer the f/5.6 aperture as I've discovered that it gives me the least amount of lens colour cast (magenta-yellow corners; worst at 28mm and 100mm, best at 70 and 50mm). I tend to work with the single-shot AF (Center) and Multi-metering at Aperture priority but the defaulting to 1/30 shutter speed forces me out of the A mode which I prefer using on my SLR. It's a pity the Sony isn't like the GR or the Coolpix A in this respect.
 
Ray, I'm using a little pocket RX100, and this thread inspired me this morning to put on manual focus at about 10'-15', and then set the Auto-ISO on 125-1600, and color mode to B/W.

This is fun! Running around with the aperture at f/7.1, it gets everything in focus, and the shutter speed is fast enough for most scenes. If I put it on shutter priority, 1/500, I lose the aperture DOF. Can't find any way to set your minimum shutter speed outside of Tv mode... and it won't let me use Auto-ISO in manual mode.
That's an interesting take on using the RX100. I tend to prefer the f/5.6 aperture as I've discovered that it gives me the least amount of lens colour cast (magenta-yellow corners; worst at 28mm and 100mm, best at 70 and 50mm). I tend to work with the single-shot AF (Center) and Multi-metering at Aperture priority but the defaulting to 1/30 shutter speed forces me out of the A mode which I prefer using on my SLR. It's a pity the Sony isn't like the GR or the Coolpix A in this respect.
I have a Canon G7X, which is pretty similar to the RX100 series with the same sensor and a similar but more ambitious lens (with some good and some bad associated with that). But I never shoot that camera at anything smaller than f4, which is both the sweet spot and is a useful aperture for zone focus, being nearly hyper-focal with the 24mm equivalent lens. I use aperture priority with auto ISO, much as I do on the Coolpix A. Canon doesn't give you as much fine control as Nikon does over shutter speed in this mode, but it has a "rate of change" setting that gets at the same thing, albeit kind of crudely. But the bottom line is it works pretty well for me, even though it forces a faster shutter speed than I generally want, so I get a lot of shots at a higher than necessary ISO. But the sensor is good enough to cope in almost any situation...


-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
 
Well, so far we haven't talked about workarounds. Here in San Diego, heard a debate on the radio about whether the police were picking on the nude, or almost nude, dancers at Cheetah's, a local strip club. So I though, those poor girls, maybe I'll go there and give them some money to just hold still during that pole dance, click. But then it said you have to pay $300 just to join that club, which put an end to my daydream about advanced photography techniques...
 
Have the GR and and appreciate AF and impressive DR.

This camera is not for street only.

 
Last edited:
Ray, if you are still following this thread and you have a minute, could you explain further how you are using the Nikon Auto-ISO with its Av mode? I'm curious how this differs from my Pentax's TAv mode ... and what advantages you are getting from your way of going at it.
Sure. With TaV mode (or any other name for setting aperture and shutter speed manually while letting ISO adjust automatically), you set two variables and let the third float. BUT, you still have to keep an eye on that third variable and adjust one of the other two when the third gets too close to the end of it's range. In TaV, you generally keep an eye on shutter speed and adjust it when ISO gets too high or low. This can be an issue when there's too MUCH light or too LITTLE light. It's really not much different than shooting in Aperture priority mode with manual ISO - there you have to keep an eye on the shutter speed and adjust the ISO when the shutter speed is getting too slow, or in the case of very bright light, faster than the camera's maximum. There's still a lot of monitoring and adjusting going on in bright or low light, and particularly as you move between changing light situations.

The way the Coolpix A works (as well as a few other cameras by Nikon and other manufacturers) is that you use Aperture Priority mode and auto-ISO. Within the auto-ISO menu, you can establish your base ISO, a maximum ISO, and a minimum shutter speed. You set the aperture manually and then the camera will stay at the lowest ISO it can while still maintaining the minimum shutter speed you've designated. If there's an abundance of light, the ISO will stay at it's base setting and shutter speed will automatically go as high as needed to maintain a proper exposure. In TaV mode, you'd have to keep an eye on the meter and raise the shutter speed manually in this situation.

As light decreases below where the camera can maintain both the minimum shutter speed and base ISO, it will automatically raise the ISO, but only as much as necessary to maintain your minimum shutter speed. It will continue like this until the camera hits the maximum ISO you've designated. Only if there's so little light that the camera can't maintain your minimum shutter speed at the maximum ISO you've designated will the camera then violate the minimum shutter speed and reduce the speed by exactly as much as needed to get a proper exposure. You don't have to do anything but recognize that in very low light, you may end up at a slower than optimal shutter speed and adapt your shooting to that situation.

This is the exact same sequence of adjustments I'd make if I was setting things manually or if I was using TaV, or Av with manual ISO. But I don't have to think about each incremental step - I only need to be aware of it at the extremes. As I move between light and shadows and even extreme shadows, all I need to do is work the exposure compensation control and the camera will handle the rest until it gets darker than my settings will support and then I have to check to see if the shutter speed is coming down below my minimum.

With I'm using the Coolpix A for street shooting, I set the camera for a maximum ISO of 6400 with a minimum shutter speed of 1/500. I'm often shooting moving subjects while I myself am moving. I find that I need to maintain a shutter speed of 1/500 whenever possible to get the highest percentage of shots not affected by either subject movement or camera shake (or a combination of the two). I shoot using zone focus (which is what Ricoh's "snap focus" is essentially a very convenient shortcut for), so I'm trying for a lot of depth of field, which requires a relatively small aperture - usually f7 or f8 when possible. When I'm out shooting on a bright day with deep shadows (a pretty common occurrence), the camera will automatically bump the shutter speed up well above 1/500 when bright conditions require it, and will crank the ISO up well above the camera's base ISO to maintain that 1/500 setting when I hit some fairly deep shadows. I don't have to think about that - I just have to read the light and adjust the exposure comp to bias the exposure when needed. With TaV mode, I'd frequently have to adjust the shutter speed either in very bright or very dark situations. If I'm staying in really consistent light, that's not usually much of a hassle, but I'm usually in changing light one way or another and the camera handles it on the Nikon, freeing me up to just try to nail the moment. Only when I move into really low light, by moving indoors or shooting at night, do I have to change this basic setting. Then I'll usually open up the aperture to f3.5 or even 2.8 and just stay aware that my "zone" of focus, my depth of field, is much narrower than when I'm shooting in good light. And I have to be aware that my shutter speed may also come down a bit as well, even with those brighter apertures. But I don't have to worry about setting that - just taking note of it and adapting to it.

The GR does have this same basic feature and uses this same type of logic - the only problem for me is that it doesn't let you set the minimum shutter speed any faster than 1/250. That's fast enough for a lot of people and it's fast enough for me for some types of shooting, but it's not fast enough for me when I'm shooting on the street. The Nikon goes up to 1/1000, faster than I'd need with for anything with a 28mm focal length, but there's no harm in offering it. On their DSLRs, they allow pretty much the full range of the camera's shutter speeds and they offer an auto setting for the minimum shutter speed to deal with zoom lenses - it adjusts the minimum based on the focal length. It uses the 1/focal length convention as a default and then you can bias it up or down by one or two full stops to account for shooting action at the fast end, or maybe to using a stabilized lens for a static subject at the slow end. Samsung uses pretty much the same system with it's APS mirrorless bodies. And Fuji has raised it's minimum shutter speed to 1/500, which is enough for me with most of their great wider prime lenses, but it's still a silly restraint given that they do have longer lenses that someone may try shooting action with and where 1/500 may still not be fast enough for those uses. Some other makers, like Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, and others, don't allow for ANY sort of shutter speed control in Av mode with auto-ISO, so Ricoh is ahead of many - they just don't take it as far as I need them to for how I shoot on the street.
Since Rondom referenced this post in a more recent thread, I read it again and felt obligated to update it slightly and give credit where credit is due. With their latest camera releases (RX100 IV, RX10 II, and A7R II), Sony has gone from having ZERO shutter speed control in their auto-ISO setup, to adopting essentially the same industry leading method that Nikon and Samsung have been using. DPR calls it "best practices" and I agree. So camera makers continue to see the need/advantage of such a system. Sony went from being one of the worst to one of the best in one quick step... Hopefully the few remaining holdouts will jump aboard and those who are doing more limited, less useful, versions will also up their games...
-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/
 
Last edited:
Disclaimer: I'M SORRY for bringing up this discussion, as I'm sure you must have seen it 1000 times now!

I'll explain why I'm confused in whether to select a Ricoh GR or a Coolpix A for my secondary camera: it is meant to be my secondary carry-everywhere camera when I don't use my E-M1 with various lenses that I love (such as Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4 for people shots or low light situations). For travel, I will probably still be using my E-M1. What I really want is a slim camera that fits into my purse and that I can take with me to work and random out and about walks just like I'd take my cell phone. Something I can pull out like a cell phone but get much much better quality photos.

That's where Coolpix A and Ricoh GR come in. They are both very slim in their low-protruding lens design and have large sensors. They will both easily fit my small shoulder bag or jacket pocket.

That aside: I don't do much monochromatic photography. I know Ming Thein really praised the GR for it's black and white tonality, though I'm not sure if that's after processing in Lightroom and applying his own effects/tone curves or whether his photos from GR in B&W are representative of black and white JPEGs one can get straight out of the camera.

And I appreciate the more accurate color rendition of Coolpix A, as I mostly do color photography.

Here's what I can't decide on: it seems that Ricoh GR is an easier to operate faster camera overall with a better grip and ergonomics, but it's currently more expensive then Coolpix A. Coolpix A goes for $300+, and Ricoh GR is mostly in the $500+ range. It's the opposite of how their prices differed initially, but the current prices are what I'm considering now.

The practical person in me says I should buy the $300 camera, since it has at least as good of performance overall (like better high ISO performance, more accurate color), but then the picky part in me wonders if Ricoh GR is going to be worth the extra $100-200.

Another part of my indecision comes from the fact that most of the reviews are old: they use old firmware versions for both cameras. I'd like to know how they compare right now, after all the firmware updates. Like whether AF speed has been improved, whether WB color accuracy has been improved for the GR, whether Lightroom does better with GR RAW colors, etc., etc. Ming Thein wrote that GR's RAW files possibly incorporate some noise reduction, which I find a negative--is that true? Which one has better out of camera JPEGs? I do mostly RAW processing, but it's refreshing to have a camera that I can be lazy with at times and just share OOC JPEGs instead of spending a few hours on post processing.

So if anyone here has both Nikon Coolpix A and Ricoh GR and could comment constructively on how the two compare in their most recent states, I would love to read that. (Also I realize that I'm posting in the Ricoh section, so people might be more biased toward Ricoh here, but it makes more sense to ask here, since the Nikon areas are more diverse and ILC/zoom-oriented).

Thank you.
I owned both the A and the GR. I just happened to be the unlucky user who encountered dead pixels on the GR on receipt of it and dust inside the lens assembly of the A five weeks into ownership.

So, my GR use was nil but enough to know before returning it that it is a great camera for black and white street type shooting. That in my view is its true strength and heritage. It's color profile is deemed cold, its performance in the noise department is not better than the A. The lens is sharp as a razor and it has a feature set that is unequaled for this sort of camera, albeit a limited grouping. I am interested in picking one up again specifically for black and white.

The A is better for some of the strengths noted by R.Sachs here as well as some others that appeal to me; better color profile, wider ISO usability for my liking and an equal to the GR lens quality.

Take a read of Ming Thein review and comparison of the two cameras. You won't find a more in-depth analytical take of them.

I ordered the nicely discounted A this past week.

--
SD
 
Last edited:
Helpful discussion good ideas. But the back and forth makes me wonder, how do you suppose that other street shooter, Henri Cartier-Bresson, ever got along with manual everything: focus, shutter, aperture (no ISO at all)? And some of his photos were actually pretty fair.
 
Helpful discussion good ideas. But the back and forth makes me wonder, how do you suppose that other street shooter, Henri Cartier-Bresson, ever got along with manual everything: focus, shutter, aperture (no ISO at all)? And some of his photos were actually pretty fair.
A point that's made a lot. Not a bad perspective check, but kind of silly. He used the best tool that was available for the task at hand AT THE TIME! Do you doubt that he'd be doing the same thing today? He might be shooting with a GR or an A or a Fuji or a modern DSLR or current Leica. All of which employ lots of modern features and capabilities he didn't have. I did some of my best shooting as a young man with a Pentax K1000 in the '70s but if you asked me to go back to that technology given what we have available today, I'd politely decline.

Todays gear doesn't give anyone a better eye for an image, but it greatly improves the odds of any shot today working on a technical level, which makes it more likely that the best 2-3 shots you took on any given day are actually usable. Instead of two of the three ending up in the trash bin, as wasn't unusual back in the day. Thats not everything, but it's a loooong way from nothing!


-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
 
Helpful discussion good ideas. But the back and forth makes me wonder, how do you suppose that other street shooter, Henri Cartier-Bresson, ever got along with manual everything: focus, shutter, aperture (no ISO at all)? And some of his photos were actually pretty fair.
 
I don't know how HCB worked but I can guess.

Exposure. A meter reading at the start of the day/session OR without - you know your latitudinal location, you know the weather, the sun/cloud coverage, the time of day, the time of year. You then know the exposure. This is experience or simply using an exposure table. Easy to work out and accurate enough. Adjust by a stop to compensate for contra-light shooting, for example. All down to experience.

Choose your slowest shutter speed to maximise depth of field - same as today.

Focus use the lens markings to see if your subjects are withing DOF - judge the distance, rotate to the marking. Or focus real-time through the VF.

The rest is just framing, planning and timing - same as today.

'And some of his photos were actually pretty fair.'

Little to do with the camera. :)

--
'I don't take photographs, I steal them.'
Tungsten Nordstein, 1999
Those are some pretty good guesses. But you probably misspoke. Shutter speed has nothing to do with depth of field. For depth of field you want to adjust your aperture. In film days photographers had an aphorism they liked to quote to each other: "f/8 and be there." Which meant that if you set your aperture to f/8, and you were there, you were pretty much assured of getting a picture and having it be in focus. If by chance it wasn't quite in focus, though, HCB had that covered, too. ("Sharpness is a bourgeois concept.")

Print film has a lot of exposure latitude. Unlike jpegs, you could overexpose film by several stops (or even underexpose quite a bit) and still get a printable negative. As long as you were in the ballpark you were good. Black & white film in the 1940s probably had an ASA rating (what we now call ISO) of 100. Back then, photographers usually followed, roughly, the "sunny 16 rule": when in open daylight, set your shutter speed to match your film speed (1/100 of a second in this case) and set your aperture to f/16, in order to achieve acceptable exposure. To be on the safe side, go one stop over that, to f/8. As it gets dark (or if you go indoors) adjust accordingly.

Lastly, in a contre-jour (shooting into a bright light source) situation (or while shooting on a sunny beach or on bright snow), you want to overexpose by two stops, not one.

In some ways shooting was easier in HCB's day. His exposure was set, his depth of field was sufficient (usually), and he only worked with one focal length, so he knew what he was going to see before he brought the camera to his eye. All he had to do was point, and shoot.
 
Last edited:
I don't know how HCB worked but I can guess.

Exposure. A meter reading at the start of the day/session OR without - you know your latitudinal location, you know the weather, the sun/cloud coverage, the time of day, the time of year. You then know the exposure. This is experience or simply using an exposure table. Easy to work out and accurate enough. Adjust by a stop to compensate for contra-light shooting, for example. All down to experience.

Choose your slowest shutter speed to maximise depth of field - same as today.

Focus use the lens markings to see if your subjects are withing DOF - judge the distance, rotate to the marking. Or focus real-time through the VF.

The rest is just framing, planning and timing - same as today.

'And some of his photos were actually pretty fair.'

Little to do with the camera. :)

--
'I don't take photographs, I steal them.'
Tungsten Nordstein, 1999
Those are some pretty good guesses. But you probably misspoke. Shutter speed has nothing to do with depth of field. For depth of field you want to adjust your aperture.
firemonkey, I know that, but if you think about it it makes sense. If you want maximum DOF, then you first choose the slowest shutterspeed you can (given your subject). Hence the smallest possible aperture is available as the next move to get correct exposure :)
--
'I don't take photographs, I steal them.'
Tungsten Nordstein, 1999
 
Last edited:
Good guesses, good information, a bit of history, etc. But all of this is about how he shot with a fully manual film Leica 50+ years ago. Do you honestly think he'd be shooting the same way with the same gear if he was doing the same type of work today?

Today's gear can be set up to "get out of the way" every bit as well as shooting with the "sunny 16" or "f8 and be there" from the past, but with technology that gives much greater odds of more technically successful shots. And at ISO/ASA values well north of 100!!! I don't believe for a second that if HCB or Winogrand (or Adams or Weston for that matter) or any other of the film masters were shooting today, they'd be using the same technique or gear if they were shooting today. They used the best gear for the task at the time and they'd do the same thing today, and that's NOT the same gear they were using then. They'd take full advantage of tools like aperture priority, auto-ISO, burst mode shooting. Hell, some might even use auto-focus! (Although a lot of street guys still use zone focus rather than AF today, for very good reasons...)

The art hasn't changed, the ability to see an image is still the ability to see an image. But the craft that's used to realize that art has changed dramatically and the best of today are using that newer gear with it's newer tricks, and with probably different techniques based on the capabilities of the gear. And most current shooters are probably getting a higher percentage of technically proficient shots from which to choose the always rare artistic gems.

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
 
firemonkey, I know that, but if you think about it it makes sense. If you want maximum DOF, then you first choose the slowest shutterspeed you can (given your subject). Hence the smallest possible aperture is available as the next move to get correct exposure :)
Personally, I would choose the aperture according to the depth of field I want, and only then set my shutter speed. Or shoot in aperture priority mode on auto ISO and let the camera worry about it. Or just follow the Sunny 16 rule. But to each his own.

By the way, here is a link to the HCB quote about sharpness: LINK
 
Good guesses, good information, a bit of history, etc. But all of this is about how he shot with a fully manual film Leica 50+ years ago. Do you honestly think he'd be shooting the same way with the same gear if he was doing the same type of work today?

Today's gear can be set up to "get out of the way" every bit as well as shooting with the "sunny 16" or "f8 and be there" from the past, but with technology that gives much greater odds of more technically successful shots. And at ISO/ASA values well north of 100!!! I don't believe for a second that if HCB or Winogrand (or Adams or Weston for that matter) or any other of the film masters were shooting today, they'd be using the same technique or gear if they were shooting today. They used the best gear for the task at the time and they'd do the same thing today, and that's NOT the same gear they were using then. They'd take full advantage of tools like aperture priority, auto-ISO, burst mode shooting. Hell, some might even use auto-focus! (Although a lot of street guys still use zone focus rather than AF today, for very good reasons...)

The art hasn't changed, the ability to see an image is still the ability to see an image. But the craft that's used to realize that art has changed dramatically and the best of today are using that newer gear with it's newer tricks, and with probably different techniques based on the capabilities of the gear. And most current shooters are probably getting a higher percentage of technically proficient shots from which to choose the always rare artistic gems.

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/
I never said they wouldn't. The question I was answering was "How did he do it back then?"
 
Last edited:
I don't know how HCB worked but I can guess.

Exposure. A meter reading at the start of the day/session OR without - you know your latitudinal location, you know the weather, the sun/cloud coverage, the time of day, the time of year. You then know the exposure. This is experience or simply using an exposure table. Easy to work out and accurate enough. Adjust by a stop to compensate for contra-light shooting, for example. All down to experience.

Choose your slowest shutter speed to maximise depth of field - same as today.

Focus use the lens markings to see if your subjects are withing DOF - judge the distance, rotate to the marking. Or focus real-time through the VF.

The rest is just framing, planning and timing - same as today.

'And some of his photos were actually pretty fair.'

Little to do with the camera. :)
 
firemonkey, I know that, but if you think about it it makes sense. If you want maximum DOF, then you first choose the slowest shutterspeed you can (given your subject). Hence the smallest possible aperture is available as the next move to get correct exposure :)
Personally, I would choose the aperture according to the depth of field I want, and only then set my shutter speed. Or shoot in aperture priority mode on auto ISO and let the camera worry about it. Or just follow the Sunny 16 rule. But to each his own.

By the way, here is a link to the HCB quote about sharpness: LINK
I understand you can do it that way. But it seems historically unlikely to me. What happens? You choose an aperture and then you suddenly find you have an unusable shutter speed. Especially with older slower films.

We were talking about how it worked in his day, weren't we? I'm pretty sure HCB did not have access to auto ISO or anything much beyond focus, shutter and aperture, on his mechanical Leica.

 
Personally, I would choose the aperture according to the depth of field I want, and only then set my shutter speed. Or shoot in aperture priority mode on auto ISO and let the camera worry about it. Or just follow the Sunny 16 rule. But to each his own.

By the way, here is a link to the HCB quote about sharpness: LINK
I understand you can do it that way. But it seems historically unlikely to me. What happens? You choose an aperture and then you suddenly find you have an unusable shutter speed. Especially with older slower films.

We were talking about how it worked in his day, weren't we? I'm pretty sure HCB did not have access to auto ISO or anything much beyond focus, shutter and aperture, on his mechanical Leica.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Cartier-Bresson#/media/File:Cartier-Bresson's_first_Leica.jpg
 
Last edited:
.....
As far as HCB goes, he matched his shutter speed to his film speed, and set his aperture to f/8. Then, he left the house and shot all day. That was how it worked.
Do you really believe this?

Then explain me, how HCB was able to get that blurred background in most of his famous shots, while having F8 set on his 50mm or 35mm lens?
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top