John Gellings
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,472
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 9,345
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
GR IV, will we ever see one?
- Thread starter ChristianHass
- Start date
Jeff Biscuits
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,746
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,351
As someone whose first Ricoh was the original GR1 back in the 90s, I’d love to see a return of the integrated viewfinder. And given Ricoh’s unmatched snap focus capability, I’d even be happy with an OVF. I know we’ve always had the option of an add-on finder, but they turn a neatly-pocketable slab of camera into a mess of corners and edges that get caught on pockets and bags.
As for changes, if they can make a weatherproof version with a monochrome sensor then I’m in. Though I confess the GR III lost me purely on its ergonomic changes (I hate touchscreens and rear-facing control dials, and the loss of the dedicated exposure compensation was also a shame), so I’m guessing any GR IV might fail to interest me for much the same reasons.
Jeff Biscuits
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,746
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,351
I’ve had a GRD2 image printed on canvas at about 40x40” (so around 60dpi) before
(Yes, I realise that won’t work in all cases
but in this case it did look absolutely fine even close up.)
Last edited:
Tungsten Nordstein
Senior Member
At some point sensors go out of production and companies have to source new sensors. The new sensors will have more megas. A new model has to be introduced for the new sensor. It's inevitable.
If people don't want the extra megas they can set their GR to a lower resolution mode. M, S, XS to emulate earlier models.
If people don't want the extra megas they can set their GR to a lower resolution mode. M, S, XS to emulate earlier models.
John Gellings
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,472
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 9,345
Exactly...people seem to not realize this even though we have seen it over and over.
True.
I think I was listening to the Leica Red Dot forum from Leica Miami and they were stating that for those people who love the sharpness of it all..... more MP actually deters from the image as opposed to helping it. That is why Leica has not quite jumped on the gun with the huge MP although admittedly to me, a 47 is pretty high. At least it is not 100 as others have. So maybe Ricoh is again, looking at it's niche and as street photographers, rarely do we print 40 x 40 or whatever, so ...is it worth putting in mp just for the sake of a number.
I know I use a 16 MP camera all the time (GR11) so really, is it worth it? Not for me.... jim
Jeff Biscuits
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,746
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,351
Hmm. I see it this way: If you zoom into 1:1 magnification then, all else (eg lens) being equal, the higher-MP image will look less sharp. But you’ll be looking at a smaller portion of the overall image than you would with the lower-MP image. If you look at the same area of the image in both cases then the higher-MP image should not look less sharp.
TL;DR: pixel-peeping can be misleading.
John Gellings
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,472
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 9,345
Well if you only look at 100% maybe…on a screen that is not made for that resolution… otherwise, no.
Well, there are not any FF 100mp sensors.
Yes, they have to consider the users that will use it and everyone else can use a lower resolution. You do realize that at 300dpi, the difference in print size vs 26mp comes down to a few centimeters right? It’s not a huge difference.
Tungsten Nordstein
Senior Member
I'm kind of curious what the Leica users mean by this statement. How does increased resolution give them a sense of less sharpness?
John Gellings
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,472
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 9,345
Canvas is notoriously used to hide low resolution. It works with canvas.I’ve had a GRD2 image printed on canvas at about 40x40” (so around 60dpi) before
(Yes, I realise that won’t work in all cases
Jeff Biscuits
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,746
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,351
Indeed. In this case it was also ISO 400 (which is quite noisy on the GRD2) and B&W, which I think also helped.
I do recall in the past (like 15 or so years ago) seeing some very impressive large gallery prints (on paper) from 6MP cameras—I can’t recall actual sizes, but it surprised me how big they could go without looking digital even at relatively close inspection.
None of which is to say higher resolution is a bad thing, or that low resolution fares well in all scenarios. But sometimes it seems like maybe it’s tempting take the capability of a modern A4 printer and assume that the same resolution is required for a picture that’s intended to be viewed from six feet or more away.
enigmatico
Leading Member
- Messages
- 798
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 1,116
Jeff Biscuits
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,746
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,351
Indeed. Also, shooting from the hip is much easier with a wide lens and the ability to crop heavily.
Plus a 40MP sensor would give the ability to shoot the same resolution as the GR III/IIIx at a 35mm-equivalent crop and the same resolution as the GR I/II at a 43mm-equivalent crop, which means you’ve got all three focal lengths at resolutions that are plenty good enough for 99% of likely use cases..
Last edited:
John Gellings
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,472
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 9,345
Yes, that would help.
Yes, of course...but 6mp was the norm then and expectations have changed.
Right, what I am trying to say is that 40mp isn't a huge high resolution print... it will also help you print smaller prints at very high ISOs due not having to print anywhere near 100%.
Well, intentions are one thing, but you cannot control what people do in a gallery. Many people get in close for details. In Japan, some people even bring loupes to a gallery to really see small details. The nice thing about digital is that we can see all of these little details now even when using small format cameras.
Jeff Biscuits
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,746
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,351
Analogue pixel peeping? Double weird
Appreciate all the comments in this thread
I’m a Sony full frame user who is tired of the heavy gear.
if I knew the griv is more than a year off… I’d pull the trigger on the gr iii now…. If it was less than a year… just the chance of weather sealing alone makes me want to wait as I’d use the camera mainly for some adventures. Also agree with others that a new high res sensor could make it close to a pocket one camera one lens solution.
I’m a Sony full frame user who is tired of the heavy gear.
if I knew the griv is more than a year off… I’d pull the trigger on the gr iii now…. If it was less than a year… just the chance of weather sealing alone makes me want to wait as I’d use the camera mainly for some adventures. Also agree with others that a new high res sensor could make it close to a pocket one camera one lens solution.
thelps
Leading Member
- Messages
- 926
- Reaction score
- 672
Its anyone's guess as to when one will be released but I look at it this way.
A GR III will lose some value once a IV comes out, but there will be someone willing to buy your used GR III at the right price with some $$ loss to you. So is the loss of $$ in the "upgrade" worth the images you might make with a GR III in the meantime ?
Only you know your financials as to if its a burden.
Some held off of buying a GR II when the GR III was coming and then were disappointed with the GR III features.
thelps
Leading Member
- Messages
- 926
- Reaction score
- 672
This is what does drive the new model design and add to this the other components that are upgraded and could go out of stock...
The Microcontroller (CPU), LCD panels, Power control ICs and even batteries. Many have long lifespans but could be hard to get at some point.
I suspect that if Ricoh could be convinced to make a GR1v film camera again some of the electronics would have to be updated or special order.
--
DPReview Quote: Ricoh GR III shooting experience: "Shut up and take my money"
Last edited:
John Gellings
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,472
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 9,345
Well, of course people made big prints that were soft, had artifacts, were low in DPI, etc. I mean, people made huge prints from 35mm film too. They relied on people viewing it from far away. If you wanted higher resolution, you shot medium format or large format film and many people did just that. Now, things have changed as things tend to do in technology. People like to get up close and look at details. We have handheld cameras capable of high resolution and fine detail. It isn't to say that 40-100mp is needed, but I gave the argument as to why it is useful to some people and how it isn't really a huge print if you want detail. I'm not sure why that causes an issue with some people.Now I’m wondering how all photographers did before 40mp. I have been to a lot of photography galleries, with larger prints than 16x24. It must be some kind of witchcraft.
--
https://www.johngellings.com
Instagram = @johngellings0
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum