Reading mode: Light Dark

GR IV, will we ever see one?

Go to last post
John Gellings said:
...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.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm some people.

And the issue I have with the sharper-is-better crowd is how often it overwhelms the discussion on what really makes a "great" photograph.

And because I feel you may ask - by what subjective measure should we judge a photograph? For me it all starts (and basically ends) with content and timing.
 
sprouty115 said:
John Gellings said:
...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.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm some people.

And the issue I have with the sharper-is-better crowd is how often it overwhelms the discussion on what really makes a "great" photograph.

And because I feel you may ask - by what subjective measure should we judge a photograph? For me it all starts (and basically ends) with content and timing.
Click to expand...
Of course, it is content, framing and light. I'm not a sharper is better guy, but some photos have a lot of detail and the whole frame is the subject while others have a main subject. My point is that there is no one way to make photos and that some people use detail across the frame in big prints. It is the exact reason why people used 4x5" and 8x10" cameras on tripods in the past. Now we can do the same with handheld cameras.
 
sprouty115 said:
John Gellings said:
...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.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm some people.

And the issue I have with the sharper-is-better crowd is how often it overwhelms the discussion on what really makes a "great" photograph.

And because I feel you may ask - by what subjective measure should we judge a photograph? For me it all starts (and basically ends) with content and timing.
Click to expand...
I have come across many who look at a photo and if it isn't sharp.....it is not even looked at. I am not a fan of sharpness at all....My eyes don't see like that, so why should my lens?
 
lmans100 said:
sprouty115 said:
John Gellings said:
...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.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm some people.

And the issue I have with the sharper-is-better crowd is how often it overwhelms the discussion on what really makes a "great" photograph.

And because I feel you may ask - by what subjective measure should we judge a photograph? For me it all starts (and basically ends) with content and timing.
Click to expand...
I have come across many who look at a photo and if it isn't sharp.....it is not even looked at. I am not a fan of sharpness at all....My eyes don't see like that, so why should my lens?
Click to expand...
Maybe our eye-brains do not see like that. Except of course when we look at photographs. Then we do see this concept of 'sharpness'. So the eye-brain can see like that – it's just that as humans we choose how to be attentive to the various qualities of the visual world. When I look at the world, my eyes are moving and scanning, and perhaps the senses of movement and spatial depth tend to occlude a sense of sharpness. But when I look at the marks on a flat surface I can definitely be aware of the sharpness.

So, as we look at photographs in a different way to the way we look at the 3 dimensional world around us, it seems like asking cameras and their photographs not to be sharp is like asking them not to perform on their own terms. And I'd rather have the possibility of shaprness as a starting point for the human gaze.

Personally the photograph is an object for me, and objects I always look at from many angles. I enjoy the whole – the image, the tones, the style, the composition etc.. But I enjoy the parts – the material (if a print), the edges, the textures. For example, I love looking at bromide prints and being able to seeing the actual grain, the fibres of the paper, the gelatin surface. But I can also enjoy the textures in a photograph viewed on screen. So for me sharpness merely represents another element of the picture. I'd hate to think that as a tool, it was denied to us. And surely we can choose to ignore it or to temper it in post-processing or using less image resolution, or by adjusting focus?

If people only see the sharpness, then they are not really looking and we should perhaps ignore their comments, or direct their attention to the other aspects of what we want them to see.
 
Tungsten Nordstein said:
lmans100 said:
sprouty115 said:
John Gellings said:
...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.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm some people.

And the issue I have with the sharper-is-better crowd is how often it overwhelms the discussion on what really makes a "great" photograph.

And because I feel you may ask - by what subjective measure should we judge a photograph? For me it all starts (and basically ends) with content and timing.
Click to expand...
I have come across many who look at a photo and if it isn't sharp.....it is not even looked at. I am not a fan of sharpness at all....My eyes don't see like that, so why should my lens?
Click to expand...
Maybe our eye-brains do not see like that. Except of course when we look at photographs. Then we do see this concept of 'sharpness'. So the eye-brain can see like that – it's just that as humans we choose how to be attentive to the various qualities of the visual world. When I look at the world, my eyes are moving and scanning, and perhaps the senses of movement and spatial depth tend to occlude a sense of sharpness. But when I look at the marks on a flat surface I can definitely be aware of the sharpness.

So, as we look at photographs in a different way to the way we look at the 3 dimensional world around us, it seems like asking cameras and their photographs not to be sharp is like asking them not to perform on their own terms. And I'd rather have the possibility of shaprness as a starting point for the human gaze.

Personally the photograph is an object for me, and objects I always look at from many angles. I enjoy the whole – the image, the tones, the style, the composition etc.. But I enjoy the parts – the material (if a print), the edges, the textures. For example, I love looking at bromide prints and being able to seeing the actual grain, the fibres of the paper, the gelatin surface. But I can also enjoy the textures in a photograph viewed on screen.
Click to expand...
Its like food for the eyes.

I still recall a superb sublime image that was one lone photo in an art gallery full of paintings. But this photo gave me a real emotion from its masterful printing. As simple subject, balanced and masterfully printed. I've only seen a handful as good since.
Tungsten Nordstein said:
So for me sharpness merely represents another element of the picture. I'd hate to think that as a tool, it was denied to us. And surely we can choose to ignore it or to temper it in post-processing or using less image resolution, or by adjusting focus?

If people only see the sharpness, then they are not really looking and we should perhaps ignore their comments, or direct their attention to the other aspects of what we want them to see.
Click to expand...
I subscribe to the content is king. BUT - If the content is sharp and it looks good that is fine. If its a wonderful content and soft, I still enjoy it and maybe for a split second wonder if it was better being sharp then forgive it and care not about the lack of sharpness.

I've seen many a wonderful photos of misty scenes where a sharp lens made the image and there is nothing but softness.
 
thelps said:
Tungsten Nordstein said:
lmans100 said:
sprouty115 said:
John Gellings said:
...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.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm some people.

And the issue I have with the sharper-is-better crowd is how often it overwhelms the discussion on what really makes a "great" photograph.

And because I feel you may ask - by what subjective measure should we judge a photograph? For me it all starts (and basically ends) with content and timing.
Click to expand...
I have come across many who look at a photo and if it isn't sharp.....it is not even looked at. I am not a fan of sharpness at all....My eyes don't see like that, so why should my lens?
Click to expand...
Maybe our eye-brains do not see like that. Except of course when we look at photographs. Then we do see this concept of 'sharpness'. So the eye-brain can see like that – it's just that as humans we choose how to be attentive to the various qualities of the visual world. When I look at the world, my eyes are moving and scanning, and perhaps the senses of movement and spatial depth tend to occlude a sense of sharpness. But when I look at the marks on a flat surface I can definitely be aware of the sharpness.

So, as we look at photographs in a different way to the way we look at the 3 dimensional world around us, it seems like asking cameras and their photographs not to be sharp is like asking them not to perform on their own terms. And I'd rather have the possibility of shaprness as a starting point for the human gaze.

Personally the photograph is an object for me, and objects I always look at from many angles. I enjoy the whole – the image, the tones, the style, the composition etc.. But I enjoy the parts – the material (if a print), the edges, the textures. For example, I love looking at bromide prints and being able to seeing the actual grain, the fibres of the paper, the gelatin surface. But I can also enjoy the textures in a photograph viewed on screen.
Click to expand...
Its like food for the eyes.

I still recall a superb sublime image that was one lone photo in an art gallery full of paintings. But this photo gave me a real emotion from its masterful printing. As simple subject, balanced and masterfully printed. I've only seen a handful as good since.
thelps said:
So for me sharpness merely represents another element of the picture. I'd hate to think that as a tool, it was denied to us. And surely we can choose to ignore it or to temper it in post-processing or using less image resolution, or by adjusting focus?

If people only see the sharpness, then they are not really looking and we should perhaps ignore their comments, or direct their attention to the other aspects of what we want them to see.
Click to expand...
I subscribe to the content is king. BUT - If the content is sharp and it looks good that is fine. If its a wonderful content and soft, I still enjoy it and maybe for a split second wonder if it was better being sharp then forgive it and care not about the lack of sharpness.

I've seen many a wonderful photos of misty scenes where a sharp lens made the image and there is nothing but softness.
Click to expand...
 
Yep embrace imperfection. Some of my favourite photos are blurred, soft or the subject is out of focus. But they have an innate character to them despite their faults, which is why I love them.
 
Imperfection. I guess that's why dust is so popular around here.

Just joking.

Seriously I think we all want cameras that can be sharp. Easier to make a sharp camera soft than make a soft camera sharp.

If you all want a soft lens then buy another camera.

--
Tungsten Nordstein, Frogtographer. 2145
https://www.flickr.com/photos/156257994@N08/
 
Last edited:
Tungsten Nordstein said:
Imperfection. I guess that's why dust is so popular around here.

Just joking.

Seriously I think we all want cameras that can be sharp. Easier to make a sharp camera soft than make a soft camera sharp.

If you all want a soft lens then buy another camera.
Click to expand...
^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

I realize from an artists' standpoint that they may wish a photo to be soft or even heavily blurred. Both from a starting standpoint the lens has to be sharp for me to buy it.

This was one of the main deciding factors in my purchase of the GRIII.
 
markot1 said:
As for wishes for the IV: I have something controversial. I'd like it to record video reasonably well. Here I am not even talking about control - let it be all auto if need be - but recording quality.

My GR2's lens renders video beautifully, but from the noise profile it is obvious that not all pixels on the sensor are used for video. I am fine with 1080p or even 720p, I'd just like a compete and not pixel-skipped read out.

I like having just a single camera. It would be nice if the next GR handled occasional family videos better.
Click to expand...
I think the reason it’s considered controversial is because people think in terms of a zero-sum game. If video is added, the camera must have something else skimped on. I agree that good video would be a welcome addition. It’s one of the reasons I’ve wanted an X100V instead.
 
As much as i love to see an updated LCD, battery and AF, there will not be a successor coming in the next two years at least. They just released the x and will certainly not risk to cripple any sales
 
Tungsten Nordstein said:
If you all want a soft lens then buy another camera.
Click to expand...
Yes totally agree… it doesn’t get much sharper than the GR. What I meant is there’s a whole movement around out of focus, sort or imperfect photos and some of my favourite shots are those which I didn’t quite get, where the main subject is off, but the shot it still amazing because of the movement or the character.
 
Last edited:
Tungsten Nordstein said:
Imperfection. I guess that's why dust is so popular around here.

Just joking.

Seriously I think we all want cameras that can be sharp. Easier to make a sharp camera soft than make a soft camera sharp.

If you all want a soft lens then buy another camera.
Click to expand...
 
HenryO12 said:
Tungsten Nordstein said:
If you all want a soft lens then buy another camera.
Click to expand...
Yes totally agree… it doesn’t get much sharper than the GR. What I meant is there’s a whole movement around out of focus, sort or imperfect photos and some of my favourite shots are those which I didn’t quite get, where the main subject is off, but the shot it still amazing because of the movement or the character.
Click to expand...
Yes. I agree. I know what you mean, and all-over sharpness is never a thing I personally pursue. But what I do like is a mix of sharp and soft across the picture space. To that end having a nice lens is an advantage as a starting point.
 
John Gellings said:
Nobody said anything about wanting a soft lens. Some people assume a 40mp Ricoh would not be sharp. Of course it would be.
Click to expand...
Sure 40MP Ricoh GR will sharp as GRIII if oversampling to 24MP.

If 40MP image crop to 26MP, are it still sharp if didn't redesign lens?

Are small battery of GRIII enough handle huge data volume of 40MP.

IMO GR series primary selling point is pocketable, not high resolution.

If next GRIV :
  • Still pocketable
  • Dust sealing
  • EC button come back
  • Dual shutter release button (each has own snap focus distance setting)
  • Support single UHS-II SD card slot
 
Last edited:
forest dream said:
John Gellings said:
Nobody said anything about wanting a soft lens. Some people assume a 40mp Ricoh would not be sharp. Of course it would be.
Click to expand...
Sure 40MP Ricoh GR will sharp as GRIII if oversampling to 24MP.

If 40MP image crop to 26MP, are it still sharp if didn't redesign lens?
Click to expand...
Yes of course…
forest dream said:
Are small battery of GRIII enough handle huge data volume of 40MP.

IMO GR series primary selling point is pocketable, not high resolution.

If next GRIV :
  • Still pocketable
  • Dust sealing
  • EC button come back
  • Dual shutter release button (each has own snap focus distance setting)
  • Support single UHS-II SD card slot
Click to expand...
 
forest dream said:
John Gellings said:
Nobody said anything about wanting a soft lens. Some people assume a 40mp Ricoh would not be sharp. Of course it would be.
Click to expand...
Sure 40MP Ricoh GR will sharp as GRIII if oversampling to 24MP.

If 40MP image crop to 26MP, are it still sharp if didn't redesign lens?

Are small battery of GRIII enough handle huge data volume of 40MP.

IMO GR series primary selling point is pocketable, not high resolution.

If next GRIV :
  • Still pocketable
  • Dust sealing
  • EC button come back
  • Dual shutter release button (each has own snap focus distance setting)
  • Support single UHS-II SD card slot
Click to expand...
Interesting!

I have my Snap set to the Fn button so basically just as fast. Fn > Shutter button.
 
forest dream said:
  • Dual shutter release button (each has own snap focus distance setting)
Click to expand...
Personally I think dual shutter buttons would inevitably mean one of them will be in the wrong place, and I’d prefer this to be done via a firmly clicked control dial around the lens with marked positions as a lot of film cameras used to have. (Or a marked control dial on the top plate or front face, which used to be done in film cameras too.)

Like the example below, except on a GR I’d go for positions of: AF-C, Macro AF, AF, Snap 1, Snap 2, Infinity, and Auto hyperfocal.

I’ve seen digital cameras offering focus rings that click between AF and MF, but not one that offers zone focusing positions.

62642d176eb040a5b60449439f0e6968.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
GR IV Missing in Japan!
2
Replies
33
Views
58K
Tom Caldwell
T
E
Ricoh GR: Legacy vs. innovation
Replies
5
Views
12K
Tungsten Nordstein
Tungsten Nordstein
J
GR IIIX vs Ricoh WG-8 image comparison
Replies
0
Views
24K
Jon in Tombstone
J
Ned-B
Popularity of GR DIGITAL IV
Replies
9
Views
26K
Ned-B
Ned-B
Shooters on My Squad
New Ricoh GR IV And GR IV m Dropping In Q1 2025 And Later?
2 3
Replies
45
Views
92K
Jaime100
J

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