Reading mode: Light Dark

Passing on the GR IIIx

Go to last post
Tungsten Nordstein said:
joslocum said:
I agree with you, add as many ratios as you want or that are viable. But ultimately, any ratio other than the native 3:2 the user is removing information in the camera and will never be able to regain it later. I would probably prefer to crop in post.
Click to expand...
I've never understood these 'removing information' ways of thinking about digital photography. You're not removing anything choosing a non-native sensor ratio (like 1:1 or 4:3) - you're just choosing the image ratio you want, at source. You decided to crop the sensor to match your requirements knowing that you will not start thinking about 'lost information' later in the day. You choose a ratio, you might also choose a lens and then you deliberately frame a scene with what you have chosen.

Also, aside from this philosphical aspect, you then get to see exactly the ratio you want in the viewfinder.

But I suppose if for some people, it's really about wanting as much information as possible in the image, then those people might also need to think about using the widest lens possible, so they can crop down later.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. But I guess that photography these day are all about taking 1 million photos a day and then see what you can save in post. I can’t understand why all the “just crop in post”-people can’t see why anyone would like to see their framing in camera. For me framing is the most important part of taking a picture, therefore it’s very important to see my framing live, not in post.
 
Landberg said:
Tungsten Nordstein said:
joslocum said:
I agree with you, add as many ratios as you want or that are viable. But ultimately, any ratio other than the native 3:2 the user is removing information in the camera and will never be able to regain it later. I would probably prefer to crop in post.
Click to expand...
I've never understood these 'removing information' ways of thinking about digital photography. You're not removing anything choosing a non-native sensor ratio (like 1:1 or 4:3) - you're just choosing the image ratio you want, at source. You decided to crop the sensor to match your requirements knowing that you will not start thinking about 'lost information' later in the day. You choose a ratio, you might also choose a lens and then you deliberately frame a scene with what you have chosen.

Also, aside from this philosphical aspect, you then get to see exactly the ratio you want in the viewfinder.

But I suppose if for some people, it's really about wanting as much information as possible in the image, then those people might also need to think about using the widest lens possible, so they can crop down later.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. But I guess that photography these day are all about taking 1 million photos a day and then see what you can save in post. I can’t understand why all the “just crop in post”-people can’t see why anyone would like to see their framing in camera. For me framing is the most important part of taking a picture, therefore it’s very important to see my framing live, not in post.
Click to expand...
Could not have said it better 😌👌
 
Landberg said:
Tungsten Nordstein said:
joslocum said:
I agree with you, add as many ratios as you want or that are viable. But ultimately, any ratio other than the native 3:2 the user is removing information in the camera and will never be able to regain it later. I would probably prefer to crop in post.
Click to expand...
I've never understood these 'removing information' ways of thinking about digital photography. You're not removing anything choosing a non-native sensor ratio (like 1:1 or 4:3) - you're just choosing the image ratio you want, at source. You decided to crop the sensor to match your requirements knowing that you will not start thinking about 'lost information' later in the day. You choose a ratio, you might also choose a lens and then you deliberately frame a scene with what you have chosen.

Also, aside from this philosphical aspect, you then get to see exactly the ratio you want in the viewfinder.

But I suppose if for some people, it's really about wanting as much information as possible in the image, then those people might also need to think about using the widest lens possible, so they can crop down later.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. But I guess that photography these day are all about taking 1 million photos a day and then see what you can save in post. I can’t understand why all the “just crop in post”-people can’t see why anyone would like to see their framing in camera. For me framing is the most important part of taking a picture, therefore it’s very important to see my framing live, not in post.
Click to expand...
Seems like that's the way to me, but I guess other people have different ideas. I suppose it's down to what branch of photography you take as an inspiration or model for technique. There are plenty of professions where cropping is part of their tools of the trade. Journalism, sports, fashion I think are some examples.

Framing in-camera is a method that we might imagine is from the domain of 'art/documentary' photography.
 
reeluff said:
Did THE Harold666 put any effort into his claim and prove his statement -

"AND less vignetting at full aperture"

Or did we conclude he talks 75% junk words to try to justify his pointless emotional attachment to the GR2 to the internet. Did this person appoint themselves as the high lord priest of the GR2 in their own little head and they have to justify and defend this highest status to the death like a dodgy politician protecting the kings jewels from the peasantry.

Smaug01, made a very reasonable post - we got mr. condescending-pedantic, nitpicking over the terms of 50% more resolution. Who cares if the absolute right term was used, the 16>24 is 50% more. It was correct. Making up junk false information about a camera he hasn't used, then attacking little inconsistencies in someone else's opinion after having tears about not being able to have his own opinion in this day and age. *insert sarcastic smilies* 😜🤣🤓
Click to expand...
I think you should say what you really think
 
Tungsten Nordstein said:
Landberg said:
Tungsten Nordstein said:
joslocum said:
I agree with you, add as many ratios as you want or that are viable. But ultimately, any ratio other than the native 3:2 the user is removing information in the camera and will never be able to regain it later. I would probably prefer to crop in post.
Click to expand...
I've never understood these 'removing information' ways of thinking about digital photography. You're not removing anything choosing a non-native sensor ratio (like 1:1 or 4:3) - you're just choosing the image ratio you want, at source. You decided to crop the sensor to match your requirements knowing that you will not start thinking about 'lost information' later in the day. You choose a ratio, you might also choose a lens and then you deliberately frame a scene with what you have chosen.

Also, aside from this philosphical aspect, you then get to see exactly the ratio you want in the viewfinder.

But I suppose if for some people, it's really about wanting as much information as possible in the image, then those people might also need to think about using the widest lens possible, so they can crop down later.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. But I guess that photography these day are all about taking 1 million photos a day and then see what you can save in post. I can’t understand why all the “just crop in post”-people can’t see why anyone would like to see their framing in camera. For me framing is the most important part of taking a picture, therefore it’s very important to see my framing live, not in post.
Click to expand...
Seems like that's the way to me, but I guess other people have different ideas. I suppose it's down to what branch of photography you take as an inspiration or model for technique. There are plenty of professions where cropping is part of their tools of the trade. Journalism, sports, fashion I think are some examples.

Framing in-camera is a method that we might imagine is from the domain of 'art/documentary' photography.
Click to expand...
 
rondom said:
Tungsten Nordstein said:
Landberg said:
Tungsten Nordstein said:
joslocum said:
I agree with you, add as many ratios as you want or that are viable. But ultimately, any ratio other than the native 3:2 the user is removing information in the camera and will never be able to regain it later. I would probably prefer to crop in post.
Click to expand...
I've never understood these 'removing information' ways of thinking about digital photography. You're not removing anything choosing a non-native sensor ratio (like 1:1 or 4:3) - you're just choosing the image ratio you want, at source. You decided to crop the sensor to match your requirements knowing that you will not start thinking about 'lost information' later in the day. You choose a ratio, you might also choose a lens and then you deliberately frame a scene with what you have chosen.

Also, aside from this philosphical aspect, you then get to see exactly the ratio you want in the viewfinder.

But I suppose if for some people, it's really about wanting as much information as possible in the image, then those people might also need to think about using the widest lens possible, so they can crop down later.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. But I guess that photography these day are all about taking 1 million photos a day and then see what you can save in post. I can’t understand why all the “just crop in post”-people can’t see why anyone would like to see their framing in camera. For me framing is the most important part of taking a picture, therefore it’s very important to see my framing live, not in post.
Click to expand...
Seems like that's the way to me, but I guess other people have different ideas. I suppose it's down to what branch of photography you take as an inspiration or model for technique. There are plenty of professions where cropping is part of their tools of the trade. Journalism, sports, fashion I think are some examples.

Framing in-camera is a method that we might imagine is from the domain of 'art/documentary' photography.
Click to expand...
I like the idea of revisiting a photograph during postprocessing. I think in itself that could be totally different and valid artistic exercise. This is not to say that initial conception and framing in unimportant. When I take multiple shots of a particular scene, the one that i tend to like most is usually the very first one. So, thinking and shooting is the way to go about it. The fact that we can take hundreds of shots of a scene should not yield to laziness and carelessness and mindless pressing of the shutter. But...there is separate joy in reframing rethinking and recomposing in front of a monitor. Two very different and equally interesting things. I wouldn't want to stop doing that because it is considered a sin by some old school master. You know, one of the most iconic images of Henri Cartier is a crop. It's good to be open to ideas and avoid self imposed limitations.
Click to expand...
I'm reminded in what you say of the process of making art. In fact I just this evening read an interview with Peter Fischli where he and the interviewer both agree that gestation is an important aspect of making art. Sometimes a work can - or even need to - sit around for months or years before it is able to fully reveal itself (its true intention) to the maker. So, yes - I agree this can be the case with photography too. No need to get precious about so-called decisive moments, let time do the talking.

And yes – all tools are permitted in the production of work - whatever the medium. Editing is one of them. Or as William S. Burroughs said “Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted”.
 
Tungsten Nordstein said:
  1. Tungsten Nordstein wrote:
Landberg said:
Tungsten Nordstein said:
joslocum said:
I agree with you, add as many ratios as you want or that are viable. But ultimately, any ratio other than the native 3:2 the user is removing information in the camera and will never be able to regain it later. I would probably prefer to crop in post.
Click to expand...
I've never understood these 'removing information' ways of thinking about digital photography. You're not removing anything choosing a non-native sensor ratio (like 1:1 or 4:3) - you're just choosing the image ratio you want, at source. You decided to crop the sensor to match your requirements knowing that you will not start thinking about 'lost information' later in the day. You choose a ratio, you might also choose a lens and then you deliberately frame a scene with what you have chosen.

Also, aside from this philosphical aspect, you then get to see exactly the ratio you want in the viewfinder.

But I suppose if for some people, it's really about wanting as much information as possible in the image, then those people might also need to think about using the widest lens possible, so they can crop down later.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. But I guess that photography these day are all about taking 1 million photos a day and then see what you can save in post. I can’t understand why all the “just crop in post”-people can’t see why anyone would like to see their framing in camera. For me framing is the most important part of taking a picture, therefore it’s very important to see my framing live, not in post.
Click to expand...
Seems like that's the way to me, but I guess other people have different ideas. I suppose it's down to what branch of photography you take as an inspiration or model for technique. There are plenty of professions where cropping is part of their tools of the trade. Journalism, sports, fashion I think are some examples.

Framing in-camera is a method that we might imagine is from the domain of 'art/documentary' photography.
Click to expand...
One other thing: in film the boundary of a frame is a physical threshold between what's exposed and what's not. A print that showed you the full frame, the type of the film and the number of the frame etc. (No wonder instagram people love to create fake versions of it) but the real thing did have a meaning. Almost like metal plate intaglio. Very artistic, i wouldn't argue against that. No such edge condition exists in digital. Every frame, full or not is a stupid dull crop :) pixels end abruptly.
 
Last edited:
rondom said:
rondom said:
<snip>
Click to expand...
I like the idea of revisiting a photograph during postprocessing. I think in itself that could be totally different and valid artistic exercise. This is not to say that initial conception and framing in unimportant. When I take multiple shots of a particular scene, the one that i tend to like most is usually the very first one. So, thinking and shooting is the way to go about it. The fact that we can take hundreds of shots of a scene should not yield to laziness and carelessness and mindless pressing of the shutter. But...there is separate joy in reframing rethinking and recomposing in front of a monitor. Two very different and equally interesting things. I wouldn't want to stop doing that because it is considered a sin by some old school master. You know, one of the most iconic images of Henri Cartier is a crop. It's good to be open to ideas and avoid self imposed limitations.
Click to expand...
Which one? HCB took pride in not needing to crop, so I'm curious...
 
rondom said:
I wouldn't want to stop doing that because it is considered a sin by some old school master.
Click to expand...
No and it should not be the case . I always try to get the composition right the way I want it from the start but one should not be rigid about it .

There are times when a crop is necessary , especially in street photography and wildlife for instance .

when I shoot models in verticals , I think I like the 5.4 ratio even better to the 4.3 so sometimes I crop afterwards because of that
rondom said:
You know, one of the most iconic images of Henri Cartier is a crop.
Click to expand...
To the risk of being accused of nitpicking by some, his last name was Cartier-Bresson . the hyphen is there to show that he did not have two last names but just the one

and yes that picture " derriere la gare st Lazare " was a heavy crop but to be fair , he was not able to go behind the plank to frame that man jumping over the puddle ;-)
rondom said:
It's good to be open to ideas and avoid self imposed limitations.
Click to expand...
Absolutely
 
Harold66 said:
rondom said:
I wouldn't want to stop doing that because it is considered a sin by some old school master.
Click to expand...
No and it should not be the case . I always try to get the composition right the way I want it from the start but one should not be rigid about it .

There are times when a crop is necessary , especially in street photography and wildlife for instance .

when I shoot models in verticals , I think I like the 5.4 ratio even better to the 4.3 so sometimes I crop afterwards because of that
Harold66 said:
You know, one of the most iconic images of Henri Cartier is a crop.
Click to expand...
To the risk of being accused of nitpicking by some, his last name was Cartier-Bresson . the hyphen is there to show that he did not have two last names but just the one

and yes that picture " derriere la gare st Lazare " was a heavy crop but to be fair , he was not able to go behind the plank to frame that man jumping over the puddle ;-)
Harold66 said:
It's good to be open to ideas and avoid self imposed limitations.
Click to expand...
Absolutely
Click to expand...
 
rondom said:
Harold66 said:
rondom said:
I wouldn't want to stop doing that because it is considered a sin by some old school master.
Click to expand...
No and it should not be the case . I always try to get the composition right the way I want it from the start but one should not be rigid about it .

There are times when a crop is necessary , especially in street photography and wildlife for instance .

when I shoot models in verticals , I think I like the 5.4 ratio even better to the 4.3 so sometimes I crop afterwards because of that
rondom said:
You know, one of the most iconic images of Henri Cartier is a crop.
Click to expand...
To the risk of being accused of nitpicking by some, his last name was Cartier-Bresson . the hyphen is there to show that he did not have two last names but just the one

and yes that picture " derriere la gare st Lazare " was a heavy crop but to be fair , he was not able to go behind the plank to frame that man jumping over the puddle ;-)
rondom said:
It's good to be open to ideas and avoid self imposed limitations.
Click to expand...
Absolutely
Click to expand...
Oh there we go again :) so what's the problem?
Click to expand...
Not a problem at all. Just thought I mentioned it
rondom said:
It's not that I called him Jean Philippe Bresson? But sure, i understand.what you say. Cartier was part of the last name and i cropped it. But didn't we just agree that cropping was ok?
Click to expand...
Yes it is .. for pictures :-D:-D

Harold
 
rondom said:
rondom said:
  1. Tungsten Nordstein wrote:
Landberg said:
Tungsten Nordstein said:
joslocum said:
I agree with you, add as many ratios as you want or that are viable. But ultimately, any ratio other than the native 3:2 the user is removing information in the camera and will never be able to regain it later. I would probably prefer to crop in post.
Click to expand...
I've never understood these 'removing information' ways of thinking about digital photography. You're not removing anything choosing a non-native sensor ratio (like 1:1 or 4:3) - you're just choosing the image ratio you want, at source. You decided to crop the sensor to match your requirements knowing that you will not start thinking about 'lost information' later in the day. You choose a ratio, you might also choose a lens and then you deliberately frame a scene with what you have chosen.

Also, aside from this philosphical aspect, you then get to see exactly the ratio you want in the viewfinder.

But I suppose if for some people, it's really about wanting as much information as possible in the image, then those people might also need to think about using the widest lens possible, so they can crop down later.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. But I guess that photography these day are all about taking 1 million photos a day and then see what you can save in post. I can’t understand why all the “just crop in post”-people can’t see why anyone would like to see their framing in camera. For me framing is the most important part of taking a picture, therefore it’s very important to see my framing live, not in post.
Click to expand...
Seems like that's the way to me, but I guess other people have different ideas. I suppose it's down to what branch of photography you take as an inspiration or model for technique. There are plenty of professions where cropping is part of their tools of the trade. Journalism, sports, fashion I think are some examples.

Framing in-camera is a method that we might imagine is from the domain of 'art/documentary' photography.
Click to expand...
One other thing: in film the boundary of a frame is a physical threshold between what's exposed and what's not. A print that showed you the full frame, the type of the film and the number of the frame etc. (No wonder instagram people love to create fake versions of it) but the real thing did have a meaning. Almost like metal plate intaglio. Very artistic, i wouldn't argue against that. No such edge condition exists in digital. Every frame, full or not is a stupid dull crop :) pixels end abruptly.
Click to expand...
Interesting observation.

I guess in digital, the real edge is the sensor. Interesting that in some RAW converters, an edge is revealed at the sides - as a band of colour (?) . I have seen this using shareware converters, although I cannot find any examples online at the moment

Of course as you say, in film the edge is not the film, but the rectangular frame inside the camera. A trend now is those cameras that expose right to the edge of the film over the sprockets. I cannot say i like it, but people enjoy it, so who knows...
 
reeluff said:
"But for those who like to get information about the different models , throwing accusations because I was pointing an inaccurate assertion is not helpful

but if this is what ricks your boat or make you feel better about your GR3"

HAHAHA you are unbearable. Funny though.

I have both the GR2/GR3. I love both of them. They are both beautiful, flawed cameras and both could be improved. I want Ricoh to succeed and keep making and improving the GR, which the GR3 has done.
Click to expand...
I have a GR and GR III. I have in the past put the GR III down and taken out the GR. While the GR yields good images, I find myself wanting to go back to the GR III.

The IBIS has opened up a few new types of images that were not possible to get handheld with the older models.
reeluff said:
The GR is easily my favourite camera series. The GR4 will be better still.
Click to expand...
I hope so, but it will likely have some "engineering passed from the GR III.
reeluff said:
What do you get out of making your passive aggressive opinionated statements with false information trying to assert that the GR3 is a worse camera? It does not help ricoh at all. I do not come on here often, but i have seen at least 5 posts from you ranting about this subject.
Click to expand...
I pointed out that only decent sales will see the GR line survive. Ricoh are in it for sales.

With smartphone cameras ramping up better and better, we may be lucky to see cameras like the GR in the future.

--
DPReview Quote: Ricoh GR III shooting experience: "Shut up and take my money"
 
Last edited:
Tungsten Nordstein said:
rondom said:
Tungsten Nordstein said:
  1. Tungsten Nordstein wrote:
Landberg said:
Tungsten Nordstein said:
joslocum said:
I agree with you, add as many ratios as you want or that are viable. But ultimately, any ratio other than the native 3:2 the user is removing information in the camera and will never be able to regain it later. I would probably prefer to crop in post.
Click to expand...
I've never understood these 'removing information' ways of thinking about digital photography. You're not removing anything choosing a non-native sensor ratio (like 1:1 or 4:3) - you're just choosing the image ratio you want, at source. You decided to crop the sensor to match your requirements knowing that you will not start thinking about 'lost information' later in the day. You choose a ratio, you might also choose a lens and then you deliberately frame a scene with what you have chosen.

Also, aside from this philosphical aspect, you then get to see exactly the ratio you want in the viewfinder.

But I suppose if for some people, it's really about wanting as much information as possible in the image, then those people might also need to think about using the widest lens possible, so they can crop down later.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. But I guess that photography these day are all about taking 1 million photos a day and then see what you can save in post. I can’t understand why all the “just crop in post”-people can’t see why anyone would like to see their framing in camera. For me framing is the most important part of taking a picture, therefore it’s very important to see my framing live, not in post.
Click to expand...
Seems like that's the way to me, but I guess other people have different ideas. I suppose it's down to what branch of photography you take as an inspiration or model for technique. There are plenty of professions where cropping is part of their tools of the trade. Journalism, sports, fashion I think are some examples.

Framing in-camera is a method that we might imagine is from the domain of 'art/documentary' photography.
Click to expand...
One other thing: in film the boundary of a frame is a physical threshold between what's exposed and what's not. A print that showed you the full frame, the type of the film and the number of the frame etc. (No wonder instagram people love to create fake versions of it) but the real thing did have a meaning. Almost like metal plate intaglio. Very artistic, i wouldn't argue against that. No such edge condition exists in digital. Every frame, full or not is a stupid dull crop :) pixels end abruptly.
Click to expand...
Interesting observation.

I guess in digital, the real edge is the sensor. Interesting that in some RAW converters, an edge is revealed at the sides - as a band of colour (?) . I have seen this using shareware converters, although I cannot find any examples online at the moment

Of course as you say, in film the edge is not the film, but the rectangular frame inside the camera. A trend now is those cameras that expose right to the edge of the film over the sprockets. I cannot say i like it, but people enjoy it, so who knows...
Click to expand...
I have seen this exposure effect within the sprockets. can't think where. Maybe MF cameras with 35mm adapters.

As a side note:: I have shot 645 medium format slide film then mounted the slide in a special 35mm slide mount so that it could be projected in a standard 35mm projector. The slides were known as "super slides". They were essentially square medium format (45x45 ?) that came close to the edge of the mount. These slide mounts were quite expensive as they had anti-newton ring glass as part of the mount. I faced a problem with my Konica 35mm film scanner it did not "see" this extra image area. I can scan them on my medium format flat bed scanner. I still have the super slides that I took 30 year ago.

I did once propose a sprocket-less 35mm film be made and a camera with a wider gate or frame to suit. The 35mm canister the same but a bigger frame and lenses with a larger circle. It would have closed the quality gap on 645 but maintained 35mm size camera bodies.

Too late for that product now.

--
DPReview Quote: Ricoh GR III shooting experience: "Shut up and take my money"
 
Last edited:
Interestingly, the vast majority, about 8 billion people do not want GRIIIx. :-P
 
dv9973 said:
Interestingly, the vast majority, about 8 billion people do not want GRIIIx. :-P
Click to expand...
So are all 8 billion aware of it?

Maybe many more would want it if they knew of it existence ;-)
 
"again waiting to point out , leaving the vignetting comment for now, which of my other points are FALSE ?"

The vignette comment sums up exactly your problem entirely, your opinion is that the GR2 is better and for some reason you have to keep projecting your opinion on the internet trying to prove it to everyone else. You said the GR3 has worse vignetting, with no basis to make that claim then took a week to give the flimsy response of maybe,maybe you used the GR3 one time, you dunno what settings you used and maybe, maybe (obviously not) some other people confirmed the vignette observation, maybe. Lens quality is not an opinion, it can be measurable, your statement was completely false, thus your entire opinion becomes close to worthless.

Other false information from you just in this thread 1.that the GR3 does not have back button focus 2.that the GR3 does not have "one press M" mode 3. 3 extra fn buttons on the GR2. 4. that the GR3 relies on the touchscreen 5.the GR3 has a cheap rear wheel.

The only thing i agree with you is on 4:3 (and other aspect ratios), but that might be a simple firmware update.

Was it you who would pay 2k£$ for a GR2 with just the sensor upgrade and 2GB internal memory, HAHA, 2GB internal memory is a must have, BUT ibis and touchscreen, meh, not important. HAHA. We can all be glad THE Harold666 is not anywhere near the ricoh design department.

RICOH: implement 4:3 aspect ratio, if the sensor can not read out in other aspect ratio then consider adding aspect and crop lines as display overlays. H666 can then get a GR3x, he will then realise that the GR3 is a substantial upgrade in many ways, then he can make loud emotional posts screaming about how much better the GR3 is over the GR2. Otherwise, the internet will forevermore have his rants that the GR2 was the best GR ever with false information to back up his unwarranted opinion. Nobody wants or needs that. wink.
 
Last edited:
reeluff said:
"again waiting to point out , leaving the vignetting comment for now, which of my other points are FALSE ?"

The vignette comment sums up exactly your problem entirely, your opinion is that the GR2 is better and for some reason you have to keep projecting your opinion on the internet trying to prove it to everyone else.
Click to expand...
NO, this is ridiculous. I am not trying to prove to everyone else . Just passing the information to those who are asking

I am fully aware that lots of GR3 buyers are very satisfied with their choice
reeluff said:
You said the GR3 has worse vignetting, with no basis to make that claim then took a week to give the flimsy response of maybe,maybe you used the GR3 one time, you dunno what settings you used and maybe, maybe (obviously not) some other people confirmed the vignette observation, maybe. Lens quality is not an opinion, it can be measurable, your statement was completely false, thus your entire opinion becomes close to worthless.

Other false information from you just in this thread 1.that the GR3 does not have back button focus
Click to expand...
It does not . Look online at the picture of the gr2 and you will see the change. You are playing with words. What you are saying is that one of the few function button can be assigned to that function which does not make what i said false

Speaking of which , someone on this forum said that, even if you do assign that lock focus button to fn button it only locks it for one picture and not until you press the fn button again

Can someone here confirm if this the case
reeluff said:
2.that the GR3 does not have "one press M" mode
Click to expand...
this is not what i wrote . I said that Ricoh removed the lever forcing this to a fn button or touchscreen maybe
reeluff said:
3. 3 extra fn buttons on the GR2.

4. that the GR3 relies on the touchscreen
Click to expand...
3/ this is a FACT,😳. Anyone can check this in one minute online by looking at pics of the two bodies . How can someone even contest that ?
one can argue that he or she does not need those buttons and dials but arguing that they did not exist is living in what some called alternative reality

4/ It absolutely does if you need the direct shortcuts that you could get on the previous models with the different dials and levers that the III no longer features
reeluff said:
5.the GR3 has a cheap rear wheel.

N

The only thing i agree with you is on 4:3 (and other aspect ratios), but that might be a simple firmware update.

Was it you who would pay 2k£$ for a GR2 with just the sensor upgrade and 2GB internal memory, HAHA, 2GB internal memory is a must have, BUT ibis and touchscreen, meh, not important.
Click to expand...
This is NOT what i wrote . You are editing my sentence and changing their meaning

I mentioned other points in which the gr3 improves on its predecessor like facial recognition mode for indtance
reeluff said:
HAHA. We can all be glad THE Harold666 is not anywhere near the ricoh design department.

RICOH: implement 4:3 aspect ratio, if the sensor can not read out in other aspect ratio then consider adding aspect and crop lines as display overlays.
Click to expand...
waouh you are really clueless aren’t you ? Overlays are useless since you have to crop every single image again in post , without even knowing the exact way you framed.

this is one of the most idiotic suggestions that i have read several times on this forum
reeluff said:
H666 can then get a GR3x, he will then realise that the GR3 is a substantial upgrade in many ways, then he can make loud emotional posts screaming about how much better the GR3 is over the GR2. Otherwise, the internet will forevermore have his rants that the GR2 was the best GR ever with false information
Click to expand...
information is not false .with the possible exception of the vignetting issue , everything else is verifiable
reeluff said:
to back up his unwarranted opinion. Nobody wants or needs that.
Click to expand...
I always get suspicious when someone claims to know what EVERYONE ELSE wants .

This Gr2/ Gr3 debate on this forum often feels like a F.X news show where one repeatedly denies facts and instead of argumenting their opinion just launch personal attacks at those who dare to have dissenting opinions 😳🤨🤯

--
FOLLOW me on IG @ledaylightstudio.
thedemandingtraveler.org
www.haroldglit.com
IG :thedemandingtraveler
 
Last edited:
Is Harold a troll/ internet bot? Always get instant incoherent replies.

Anyway, I am done with this thread. It was fun highlighting the nonsense of H666, the user is full of it.

Last comment : Harold666, get a GR3 and use it alongside the GR2 for a long period of time. Then make ONE well presented respectful post, comparing both models highlighting your opinion on the pros and cons of both. Provide evidence for any technical difference claims, such as lens quality. Otherwise, you just come across as a pointless disrespectful troll, intentionally denigrating Ricoh current product and effort.

Thankyou, goodbye.
 
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