The Ricoh GR series is a perennial staff favorite, and in this week's episode, Chris takes the new GR III to an industrial area, does some street photography in the sunny city, and drinks a tasty beer at a new brewery. Oh, and he'll also tell you what he thinks about the camera.
A friend of mine, who is a big GRII fan got his hands on the 3rd generation and wrote his impressions, which are pretty controversy to what's written above. It seems, that his new account + external url will not pass the moderation. Here are his thoughts, which may represent another point of view:
I've tested GRIII on streets of Budapest for 5 days. And it turns out, AF on GRIII struggles MUCH more than on GRII even in decent conditions during the day.
As for "immediately knowing the camera" — yep, and in a painful way, by feeling the difference. The grip and controls are so much worse than they were, if you shoot street, you will damn new shortened body.
I was so emotional about all of this so I've sat and wrote a full-length review with comparison pictures and real-life street photos.
I just received mine today. A couple notes I haven’t seen mentioned in reviews:
1) The latest iPad Pro will charge the camera when connected via a usb-c cable
2) Bluetooth is broken for iOS devices. Supposedly Ricoh is working on a firmware fix
3) The JPG settings are very customizable! Surely not news to existing GR owners but it looks flexible enough to deliver good results SOOC depending on taste. This is going to require a lot of trial and error to get it set right.
Great review thanks guys. Just got mine, it's the third GR I've owned over the years, so I'm obviously a fan and I think it's the best GR yet. The only thing that's a little disappointing for me is the battery life, but it's a good tradeoff for image stabilisation, sensor cleaning and a touch screen, like Chris said an extra battery is a good idea. I cycle everywhere and the one handed operation, snap focus and the 28mm focal length make it a fantastic camera for one handed shots while riding. All in all it's a fun to use high quality little camera that can live in your pocket, I love it! BTW mine has the slightly wobbly control dial some people are concerned about, to be honest I wouldn't have noticed it and it doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Looks like a fantastic update to an already-great camera! It seems a little pricey, but maybe that will come down with time. I also wish this had a flip screen, as waist-level shooting works really well for me in trying to be unobtrusive.
What about the handling? For example, it doesn't say anything about missing the exposure compensation and AF-S - C-AF controls which for me it's so good to have, that's why I just bought a GR II for half of the GR III price.
The handling is much much worse. If you operate the camera with both hands, the shortened body is all right. For single-handed shooting (and shooting only) it's awkward but okayish, but if you want to adjust anything, it's painful (and risky).
Yes, you can disable the SR, and the camera even offers an 'Auto SR' mode that disables SR when the camera is using faster shutter speeds. Handy, battery saving feature.
But also, the Ricoh happens to be a follow-up to a long series of legendary cameras. It is much easier to review such a camera since a lot of things (like lens, UI, general camera behaviour etc) are carryovers from previous iterations.
The S1/S1R are brand new, very expensive cameras that for sure require the testers to spend a lot of time getting acquainted with the camera before they can even start the review process. No such problems with the GR.
Understandable,...but doesn't get DpReview off the hook. The S1 and S1R were announce/available weeks ago,....I'm just hearing of the GR-III and the review is complete already;.....what,...within a week! That's all I'm saying.... I was especially interested in the S1/S1R comparison to the Z6/Z7 more than anything.
Dude, what about the hotshoe you put the viewfinder on ... can't you put a small flash on that ... is it for a flash ... if so is it TTL with a Pentax flash?
This is a really good camera. I did like it from the review. But as an X100 series fan, can't wait for Fuji to up their game in the fixed prime lens camera field. It's been 2 years already Fuji what are you doing?
If you don't know or value the advantages of a dedicated camera over a phone – with or without the help of above video-review – then I guess you're better off sticking to your phone.
Happy owner of the Ricoh GR III and Huawei Mate 20 X - one of the best camera phones.
I prefer the Ricoh GR III for:
1) Photos which are displayed on large 4k monitor (way more sharpness).
2) Night shots without ugly lens-flares around the street lights.
3) Sharp photos of a moving children in available light, because it is easier to adjust the minimum shutter speed with the dedicated camera with 3 user modes on the dial.
4) Any post-processing in Lightroom.
Huawei is better for:
1) DOF control (SW based but still quite good). Shame the Ricoh doesn't have a f/2 lens.
cellphones are , decent image makers in good light at iso 20 and are mostly idiot proof and automatic , they serve their audience well of people who know little or nothing of photography .... what is amusing to see is when one of the cellphone newbies actually take a serious interest in creative thinking photography and starts outfitting these camerasphones with all manner of gadgets to make them behave like a real camera until they resemble a absurd contraption...... when all they need is a decent compact camera or a small ilc to grow
i could say you know nothing about real cameras .....couldn't i ?
instead i will tell you a truth that most cellphone users dont have the intellectual honesty to face ... a real camera with a real lens, with actual working apertures with sensors 10 to 50 times size of the 1 to 3 sensors used computationally in the latest cellphones make mincemeat of any cellphone ............ any ..... as i said iso 20 in good light can give a good image
why not accept that?
the truth is , even with all these sensors and all the computational magic and ai image "fusing " cellphones at iso 400 or 800 look like what real cameras do at iso 51200 or worse they offer little creative freedom .... and look like crap to those who know and use actual cameras with real lenses and sensors ...........................period
and im here every day ......lol
real shooter use real lenses and cameras ....not using lenses that at f 2 are f 11 to f 16 in equivalency like cellphone are
and you talk like a koolaid aficionado for the cellphone follies
the actual camera chemical to digital nhas been around for 150 years a decent cellphone camera for what the last 5 to 10 deppending on how low your standards are?
youre adorable .............dont ever change ...... some people seems to champion what ever they personally use and have bonded to emotionally
which is why you hear this nonsense about the death of the headphone jack .... or the best camera has miniscule sensors fusing 2 or 3 images into a passiable image that been happening for the last .....what 3 years ? lol or a cellphone screen is good if it has bulletholes or trapazoidal cutouts? ....lol
i dont know what a bobble is , but i do know what a real camera sensor, a real camera lens, a real working aperture , and machine to house them is , and will continue to use one
you keep using the cellphone idiot slab until you throw it away in 18 months to 2 years eand get the next idiot slab with 5 or 6 substandard sensors fused in an unholy alliance !!!! until you toss that in 2 years
its great and it makes a passable image when i must send something to a friend or family member
when i need more i use a camera ..... because i take photography seriously ... and importantly know how to use one .... which i suspect is unmentionable root of the problem
if you cant understand how your gx8 and nx 500 surpass a cellphone in every metric .... most importantly creativitity and choice ,, iso behavior etc etc etc etc
please read my comments carefully ,,,, as they are written carefully
i never spoke of your ability to use a camera, i simply am addressing your understanding of the actual differences between say a gx8 , nx500 and a cellular camera.... i believe you have a strong affection for the abilities of a cellphone .... ive never said they cannot take a passable image
but they are inferior to your cameras in every and all metrics .... they lack the convenience of the cell phone to be sure , and i concede that
but i would suggest you conside what your cellphone actually does compared to a camera for iso dynamic range and creative control
there is no comprison of the overwhelming domination of a camera over a cellphone ....ok currently .... i suggest you compare a iso 3200 image from your cell to a camera
there is no comprison of the overwhelming domination of a camera over a cellphone ....ok currently .... i suggest you compare a iso 3200 image from your cell to a camera
I have already compared them....the cell phone at iso 4000.
i would welcome you iso 4000 cellphone images done at hmmm lets say 1\60 sec . vs a camera apsc for instance ... if you fuse 3 to 9 images taken 1\10 of a sec apart .... that not real time shooting
As I mentioned awhile back in another posting/comments section, I don't know what to think of the GR III. I personally (subjective) like the output, size, the fact that it (finally) has IS, a dust buster, and a 28 MM lens. All of these things tick off the right checklist for me. However, I can't get over that $900 USD price. Now if this were priced at $600 USD, then there'd be no hesitation on my part.
I think I'll just sit back and wait (and watch) to see if these are selling in droves that will cause Ricoh to keep it at the current price level - or, if the sales are not what was originally anticipated. In that event, I would wonder if Ricoh would drop the price some? My not having had a previous Ricoh camera (other than a 35 MM model used back when I was a Marine in VietNam in 68/69), is Ricoh/Pentax known for dropping the prices after a period of time? I know that with some brands you'll rarely see a price drop.
It’s like the Nikon A, in that regard. These cameras don’t make it easy to extract their full IQ, and have a lot of limitations, compared to some 1in cameras.
So I really hope the used market price plummets the same way the A did ;).
Ben the GR II had an MSRP of $799 and is currently selling at B&H for $549. As you know history has a tendency to repeat itself so after the early adopters pay the piper I easily see it dropping to a more stomach-able price range
Prices of GRs typically are stable over several years. You may need to wait several years to see the $300 price drop you are hoping for. The GRii is under $600, maybe that’s an option for you?
I have the XF10. I like it, but it is heavily compromised by design. Arguably, Ricoh can get away with charging as they do because Fujifilm put on such a poor show. There’s nothing else to compete with Ricoh in the segment they now own.
Not really the same segment. The difference between 28mm and 35mm is more significant than you might think. Then there’s the hybrid VF and added bulk. The X100 is its own segment.
I tried the XF10 for a week as soon as it became available. Overall its a very nice and a reasonably priced camera. I liked the image quality, design and usability. But its AF is both slow and unreliable even in room light. The GRII at that moment was already out of stock. Fortunately, I came across a new Nikon A that got stuck at one of local stores for all these years. I got an offer I couldn't resist and bought it. I love it a lot.
I don't get it. It is significantly better than the xf 10, which is longer on the market and thus has a lower street price and it trumps the x100f in sharpness across the frame and some other areas, which still costs 400$ more. Seems like a reasonable position. I see it as a highest quality 28mm lens, where 600-800$ would not be too much - a Zeiss 28 2.8 Biogon is 1141$ - with an attached sensor and with sensational one-hand operability and all adjustment possibilities of a professional camera in a pocketable body.
tinetz... how is it "significantly" better than the XF10 (which was introduced at $500)? It's AF isn't any faster, they both have 24mp sensors, both lenses produce quality images (for non pixel peepers), etc ... Don't get me wrong...I prefer the GR, but it is $900 and has many flaws.
Seriously? I don't get some people's ability to have an absolute price meter for cameras. The Nikon A has been introduced for 1100€, the GRII for 800€, the Fuji X100F is for 1300€, the GRIII has IBIS, a newly developed corner to corner sharp lens and is ergonomically and sizewise a descendent of a family of cameras from Ricoh people seemed to like that much, that they sold every single piece as fast as they could produce it. In which world would you consider a price of 399 for this product in 2019 just at the introduction in any way sensible? If you think the Fuji gives you the same for this price, go for it. But I'm not alone in thinking that you get with both what you pay for.
Where did I ever say $399? After 5 years...the GR III still has antiquated focus compared to most other cameras in 2019. It hasn't improved in high ISO too much either in 5 years. I've used 5 of the 7 Ricoh GR digital models and even a film version. I've checked out the GR III. I've used the XF10. Have you?
That said, I'll likely buy a GR III eventually... but it needs some serious firmware help and some QC assurance from Ricoh after the recent recalls.
Is this a plea for the XF10 or just a complaint about the GRIII? However, if you are so happy with the first, why wasting time with the latter? My joyful experience with GRII was never related to the AF-speed but the excellent sharpness. If speedy AF is your thing, you might not the target group, but maybe the Fuji might also not be the best choice.
My point of view is coming from using the XF10, which I thought didn't get the job done compared to my other Fujis. It also comes from waiting for a proper update to the GR / GR II for many years just to have them drop the ball on the AF. After many years, most Fuji cameras finally have decent AF speed. I figure Ricoh would join them. Most cameras have excellent sharpness IMO. You could be right about me no longer being the target, but I sure was the target when I used the other GR models over a 20 year period. I'm just a little disappointed as a former user. But I'll get over it and buy a GR III used eventually.
Well sad. Can't comment on the Xf10 AF, but the tenor seems to be a negative. And the GR should at least top that. But it will not be a sport style tracking cam though. Good luck.
I agree it is expensive, but XF10 or X70 are not really cameras that left an impression like GR did. I'm guessing they're targetting all users who were satisfied with previous versions, and after 4-5 years of being happy with a GR, maybe buying the new one with some of the originals shortcomings fixed is not a bad idea. I'm just guessing...
The GRII has one thing over all other APSC cameras, it happens to be truly pocketable. More so than the rx100 series due to lens size. This is priceless, as I’ll actually take it with me. Can’t pocket the X100 Or XF10 even
Good review. Potential buyers of the GR should be clear about what this camera is for - which is photography, especially street photography, landscape, travel, kids at the playground. It's a great and fun walk around camera.
if you're concerned about what this camera can't do it may not be for you. It's not a system camera. It's not meant to be used in all applications. it's tiny. it's the kind of camera you can have on you at all times, and if you don't end up using it you won't be kicking yourself for lugging a bigger ILC camera around.
Hey guys, a comparison to one of the better camera.phones would be great.
Pixel 3, iPhone X etc.
My Pixel is amazing me, especially low light (night sight) not sure I'd want to carry a point and shoot around without knowing how much better the dedicated camera could be.
Genuinely interested in a comparison, even just studio scenes.
Yeah, I agree it would be interesting to have some metrics as to the difference, especially in situations which would highlight the difference such as low light. (if only to show it's still a dumb comparison)
I've looked at many of the comments, and I'm surprised at how few people have commented about the nearly $1000 official price. This community must have more accommodating spouses than I do!
Perhaps most people (at least those who are really interested in the camera and don't want to just leave a comment) weigh up whether the GRII for $550 (introductory price was also $800) or the GRIII for $900 more suits their needs. Both are excellent cameras and both have unique selling points despite the common concept. It's great to have such a choice.
Thanks for including some B/W. I still shoot an old GRD III with a stuck and non-retracting lens occasionally just for its gritty B/W jpg engine. :) I'll be getting one of these.
looking forward to this. Still wish Nikon would make another Coolpix A, and I would love to see Sigma do another DP Merrill compact revamp, perhaps with some of things borrowed from Ricoh GR
The Fuji group on facebook shows you how wrong fuji is. For every 10 cameras posted there, at least 7 has added grips to it. Makes not sense at all. Look at the sony's A6xxx series. Compact and a great grip. But my complain for sony is the menus. I have a added grip to my camera X-T20, otherwise I could not hold this horribly designed camera. But I had to glue it to the camera, because the added grip screws on the bottom, making the SD card way more difficult to be taken out.
Far less compact? Are you saying that before or after you stick a 4 to 10 inch lens in front of it? This makes no sense at all. This compactness BS. I'm talking about 1/2 inch material in front with the grip. Smaller than the camera's battery. So you don't hurt your hand trying to hold on that tinny grip they have. I guess if you use the 27mm it's not a problem, but anything bigger it's pain.
@Rihas I guess some of us like the x-t20 because we like shooting with small compact primes. I would argue that if you want to shoot with fuji’s Larger lenses they make other models more suitable for that, and I’d rather they didn’t ruin my experience by catering to large lens shooters when they already have good options.
The most successful apsc camera on the market has a "huge grip". A6400 is extremely comfortable. But hey, you like the X-T20. Good for you. I glued a grip to it. Besides the grip, the camera is pretty solid.
A6xxx series. I mention the A6400 because it's almost the same as the other ones. Mirrorless is definitely one of the best selling. The other one would be canon M50 that also has a conformable grip.
I used Sugru to make a grip for the front of my X100F. No worries about access to the battery compartment. Sure it looks a bit funky but it works and doesn't add any bulk....and it's cheap and easy to remove if needed.
I use the 18mm, 23mm f/2 and 35mm f/1.4, all of which are bigger than the 27mm. I also adapt old manual lenses for use on Fuji. I have large hands and holding the X-T20 is not a problem.
For the uninitiated beware of snap focus at small apertures at f2.8 one really needs to be aware exactly how far the subject is from the camera at f8 well with the extra dof there is less to worry about
Slight correction...doesn't the Fuji X100 have a 23mm lens that is 35mm effective focal length on it's APS-C sensor?
A nice camera, but a small built in flash is a serious omission. With the electronic shutter I assume you could get very high flash sync speeds for outdoors fill-flash, like you can with the X100. I'd pass based on this...one of the best features of the X100 series.....
every gr and gr d had a flash a superb one that could be tuned manually to 1\64 power .... ...its why i dont have this on my short list ..... someone at the company with too much power ... diminished this venerable line
I've shot with a Ricoh GR on the street since it came out. For my style of street, there is no comparison. Not Leica, not Fuji, Not Sony. I've owned all of them.
The flash I have used maybe twice, so removing it and the dreadful exposure compensation rocker switch were to plusses in my book :)
The battery life decreasing is the biggest issue, but I shoot with the screen off and will turn off IS, so I'm hoping it's not as bad as people make out...
evil, flash is useful .. and important to creativity and emergency light use , uven if you were not able to warm to it ...the 1 \ 64 or 1\32 flsh manually could turn a garbage sunlight eyesocket shadow disaster into a lovely portrait shot
old school is the best school i had a gr 21 film back in the day and also olympus xa and minolta m mounts cle w rokkor 40 and would use manual flash sometimes with calculation
I wish Sony, with its miniaturisation know-how and electronic expertise, would make the same camera, but with its 1-inch sensor, similar to its RX100 but with a fixed 28mm lens. That would mean better AF, longer battery life, an EVF, tilting screen, a built-in flash, and possibly a faster f/2 lens, fixing all the weaknesses of this Ricoh street shooter. For such a camera, a small loss of IQ (from the GR) is not important.
How big would you want such a camera to be? I would love such a camera that's around the GR's size, I find smaller hampers handling a bit. I think Sony could easily fit a f/1.4 or even faster lens if it's a 1-inch sensor on a body that size.
@Och, I think it depends on how big a battery Sony needs to put inside its GR-like camera. All those extra features, like PDAF sensor, Eye-AF, etc needs power to work. I would think that f/2 is already a big improvement for such a camera, and, that more depth of field and small size, if not longer battery, are more important than more bokeh for a street camera.
Sony RX100 series manage to get much more than just 200 shots ,with flash on half of the time on its tiny battery ,than this Ricoh without flash at all. And Sony does this with a viewfinder, OIS , 4K and many other features lacking in this Ricoh. Needless to say it is also smaller. The 24-70 Zeiss lens starts at F1.8 , by 28mm it gets to F2.2 which is still brighter than a sucker 2.8.
My advice for people who are curious about this camera:
If you are not into street or candid shooting, move on. This is a camera is specifically made for that, not for you. Compromises are well chosen, even the lack of flash and the limited battery life. No, it does not double as a family camera or travel camera well. For the street shooter, it is the best there is. The only real disappointment for me is the lack of a tilt screen.
I wish there was some comment about the resolution in cropped (35mm EFL) mode, as that is a potential significant improvement and another reason for upgrading (besides the new features already mentioned), given the higher resolution of this new sensor.
Owning the GR and waiting for my GRIII, I disagree as to its use being limited to street and candid shooting. I rarely shoot "street", I shoot landscapes, travel and nature(utilizing the macro mode for flowers and insects). It's small form factor and excellent images make for a great camera when hiking or traveling.
@mgm2. No, it's not "limited" to only street and candids. You can of course use it for hiking, travelling etc, but then the lack of a zoom, EVF, articulated screen plus the high price would make most people wonder, as pointed out by numerous posters.
@Sergey Borachev, @unbelievable, If you think you'll miss zooming or changing lenses then clearly you're not the target audience. However, there are already a lot of cameras that suit your needs.
@Duchamps, Read my two posts again. I think you misunderstood my messages. I.was arguing that if street or candid is not one of your interests, it would be hard to justify this camera. I myself love the camera with a fixed prime. There are those however who mentioned travel etc, which can be done with this camera for sure, but they could use better cameras for such use cases.
@Sergey, you were not arguing in your first post. "My advice...If you are not into street or candid shooting, move on. This is a camera is specifically made for that, not for you... No, it does not double as a family camera or travel camera well" is not arguing is simply saying "that is, period". I own the GR and took my best travel shots because it's so small and IQ is so good. And I'm one of those who carry also a full mirrorless set in a bag while traveling but the GR is always in my hand ready to shoot.
There’s no reason to try and box it off and say it is or isn’t for certain forks! This is a camera for anyone who likes 28mm that requires great IQ and a pocket size...
There is something about the images coming from this camera that just doesn't trigger my enthusiasm. Funny thing is: images from version II have this power. I don't know if the "problem" are the colors, contrast or whatever.......anyone have any ideas about this?
Yes! That would be very useful. When phone IQ isn’t enough but don’t want to bring a lot of gear outdoors or where nature and the elements are an issue. Fit in a jacket pocket or cargo shorts kind of size. At least for me, that comes up a fair amount. I’ve taken the ILC or dslr on such trips but inevitably worry about the gear or they get banged up pretty good.
The one thing that I always wonder with these mirror less and point and shoot type of cameras is how responsive it is when you use it like for instance how long it takes the shutter to react when you push the shutter button to take an image, and how long before it is ready to take the next image, blackout etc. To me this is a very important factor to consider. It is the one thing I hate with my Canon M5, I never quite know when it takes the picture after I push the button. I cant try to time a head movement to get the shot when I want it. I appreciate that this a subjective, how I feel type of measurement. But would love to know this for a camera like this. I suggest a subjective rating comparison system with say a high end DSLR like a D500, D5, 7DMKII or 1Dx Mark II as a 10 and a mobile phone at say 3-4 as a reference.
I guess you mean shutter lag and consistency of shutter responsive time, there're too many things happened on a mobile phone. As for GR series I don't think it will outperform any mid-to-high ILC in term of shutter lag, but definitely enough, the only question is how well the IBIS works because GR series never tend to be a camera for someone take image 'regularly' and 'properly'
Andreas Berglund, I own both D810 and Nikon A. The latter is reasonably fast. I guess the GR should be of similar speed. This weekend I shot with the Z7 with 105/1.4 with studio lighting and this combination was much much slower! Reminded me of my XF10 experience!
Thank you for the comments, my comments where mostly directed to the reviewers ( chris nicholls) of cameras that this is a very important point and it would be great if the could incorporate "responsiveness" as a criteria in the review
Advantage in price only. the canon is taller, thicker and heavier (without the lens). the 22mm lens would also be a 35mm equivalent, which Chris has said previously he doesn't like
The comment is a little help stroke to the Canon. [Dust on sensor is much more likely to occur on an interchangeable lens camera, whenever the lens is swapped, than with a fixed lens camera].
I really think it's a better camera to most people. The big thing is there's a full eco system, meaning you can put an UWA if you wanted to for that trip, or put that 55-250 when you need to, and keep the 22mm for the street photography thing the Ricoh is aiming for, and you can customize the experience, by buying an m50 to get an EVF, you can buy an EF adaptor and get into professional video production, etc
Is it really enough if a difference to justify it? The 24mp APS-C Canon sensor is brilliant with very high resolution, enormous dynamic range and very competitive lowlight performance. And the 22mm is one hell of a sharp lens!
But so do many manufacturers. Ricoh knows how to make a sharp lens with good colour. Canon doesn't, even if Canon does so accidentally once in a while.
Can you shoot that Canon at ISO 10,000 (in raw) easily? The Ricoh is excellent at ISO 10,000.
You have to get raws, not DPR studio samples, shot with the different lenses under very similar light, ideally outdoors.
Make sure the raws are the same bit depth and there's no lossy compression. And of course, the gain (ISO) needs to be similar. An exact match in pixel count isn't especially important. Nor does it matter if you're comparing APSC to FF framed or the reverse. (At higher ISOs, it's best to make sure full mechanical shutter was used.)
Of course the samples were shot with the lens fully open.
It's quite easy to see how much better very good lenses render colour and light.
The reason for this stopping down helping, which is something that can help even very good lenses from say Leica, is something you'll have to figure out.
Up to a point, when lens tests say "this is the best 50mm full framed lens" that's an indication of better colour rendering. However lens testing doesn't actually test for what's easy to see. Such tests could likely be worked out.
pentaust, still dust finds it way to the sensors of the fixed lens cameras and the only way to clean it is to almost completely disassemble the little camera! Usually this means sending it to a lab for 2-3 weeks and paying +/-$80.
@HowaboutRAW I just don't see or believe that what you claim is true, that Canon lenses somehow have imferior colours to Ricoh or as a matter of fact, to any other manufacturer including Leica and Zeiss. Colours out of Canon cameras (Lens and colour science) look absolutely lovely, either RAW or Jpeg, in fact it's the widest claimed advantage to Canon systems made by every single source out there, everyone compliments Canon RAW and JPEG colours.
As of lenses, I have Canon lenses that are beyond Zeiss lenses I owned, at ridiculously cheaper prices, these are the 22mm & 32mm primes, the 35mm f/1.4 II L, the 16-35mm 2.8 L III and the new 50mm RF. All of these are simply the absolute best on the market, with no direct apple-to-apple rival offering the same IQ at the same price point,
You can criticize every single thing Canon does right now, expect lenses and colours, so it's strange you choose these two specific things exactly to put down
That someone told you Canon has better colour science isn't material here either. Canon, like other manufacturers, can do a very good jpeg engine when they bother.
Canon makes optically decent lenses at best. They're helped if stopped down. The new 85mm f/1.4 L is a promising increase in optical quality from Canon.
Nowhere have I pretended that all Zeiss are excellent optically, but excellent and the very bestest from Zeiss surpass Canon for colour+light and this result is easy to see; hence no beliefs needed.
As I said, your beliefs are immaterial. Try not misquoting me.
Your views are plenty material: Pretty much anyone when viewing a file, raw originally, shot with a better Zeiss lens says "this has better colour."
Your beliefs about Canon are immaterial. They are likely received wisdom. And they are not born out when viewing images shot side by side with better Zeiss lenses of similar focal length and speed.
As I say, the Canon 85mm II is a big improvement for Canon.
Colour science: It's pretty clear that Leica and Zeiss (amongst others) have a better understanding of colour, and they apply this understanding to their better lenses--so that's not all lenses from either.
HowabouRAW: Maybe it's because English isn't my first language I got immaterial wrong and took offense in it.
So, I am genuinely curious, do you have any samples that show how Zeiss or Leica lenses produce different colours from Canon lenses?
In my experience (and it isn't small, shot tests on every brand out there) lenses really never make any meaningful difference in colours, sometimes some are warmer than the others, or has chromatic abberrations giving funky colour on edges, but that's it, any difference is so small it could be corrected in seconds.
However different camera bodies, picture profiles make the most difference in colour reproduction.
Here's a test and there isn't any colour difference between Canon, Leica R and Zeiss https://youtu.be/xapiFu5xcXI
i believe in our modern age of lens sensor interface and coordination we are likely to see lenses behave in a manner predetermined by processing as much as actual cromatic transmission across lens elements
as a user of many many vintage manual lenses one of the reasons i delight in their use is their rendering of color and their specific ability to have unique slightly imperfect contrast and color transmission , giving them "character " and "personalities " less seen in lenses that talk to the bodies ,and less seen in lenses with deep amounts of computer control and processing to remove "defects" related to vignetting color and contrast , and tuning which makes the computerized lenses perform at a very high level , if with a bit of sterility if i may be critical
i think the difference in the makers products have more to do with color profiles the manufacturers try to maintain as much as any intrinsic differences in the latest optical formulas
It ain't simply colour profiles, because then the colour rendering to which I refer could be fixed in post given a decently exposed raw file shot with say the Canon L 50mm. But that's simply not possible--making a Canon L's so so colour look like the colour from an excellent Zeiss. Nope, not even if you have Photoshop and know to try Selective Color (basically a Photoshop only option--which is based a on better understanding of colour).
Think of it this way, Canon L lenses give things a cyan tint (many Nikon lenses produce a yellow tint), you can remove said tint in post, but you can't do so without messing up the rendering of all of the colours in the image.
I looked at the YouTube video, and for the first model, none of the examples are lighting that would render subtle colour well. But her hair is basically better rendered with the Leica and Zeiss lenses.
The second model (the guy with the guitar) just looks like some highly compressed video shot with not very good lenses. This is the problem with using YouTube. I'd guess that were he a decent performer, and the amplification for the guitar decent, + the images raws, one could see a difference. (Yes, such that I'm referencing is dependent on other factors.)
Then careful, many of the examples were shot at f/4.0, which would be an f-stop that would help improve the Canon L results. I've made clear that stopping Canon's good L lenses down helps them a good bit.
So the rendering differences would be seen in RAW stills and not in video footage? That would make sense that I see zero colour difference since I only shoot video and Jpegs, never RAW.
My new 50mm f/1.2 RF and my 1970's Zenit 58mm f/2, the zenit is a little warmer. When you adjust the warm slider in Premiere's Lumetri Colour they match perfectly.
The other example I just tried is my Zeiss Jena flektagon 35mm f/2.8 and my Canon 35mm f/1.8 RF, again a very old lens FULL of charachter versus an extremely sharp and sterile lens, is that the zeiss is on the cooler side. Give it a nudge to warm in lumetri, both identical based on how C-Log is rendering colour.
The charachter I love from these old lenses come from many things and colours are not one of them, they come from low contrast, from funky looking bokeh with onion rings and swirly corners, too much abberrations and fringing, lower resolving power,
So I am buying glass right now, what would you recommend for a lens that makes me feel a difference in colour rendition? (Hopefully a charachterstic look?) And hopefully not too expensive.
FYI I own: -Nikon 18-55 AF-P -Nikon 35mm f/1.8 prime -Zeiss Jena 35mm f/2.8 flektagon -Canon 10-18mm IS -Canon 35mm f/1.8 RF IS -Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM -Canon 50mm f/1.2 RF -Zenit 58mm f/2 multicoated -Canon 24-105mm f/4 RF IS -Photax-Paragon 135mm f/2.8
And a few other old crappy primes from the soviet era.
I LOVE GLASS, and a lens with distinctive colour rendition that truly makes a visual difference would be awesome (and not just warm-cool)
actually there are very few bad lenses .... the ones that are "unusable " open can stop down and improve
ive played perursed owned sold had borrowed and gifted 100s of lenses mostly vintage..... and frankly there are very few modern lemon lenses out there , and many that suck do so because of decentering or other snafu
virtually any helicoid slr lens as a prime is a fun thing to own ..... and very mountable on mirrorless ..... stopping down make even avg lenses sharp
some zooms are near unredeemable i concede like the early 43-86 nikkor zoom or the 40-80 pentax 110 zoom
Not really a question of "lemon", but the SonyZeiss 35mm FE isn't more than good.
Stopping down does often help with colour.
I've been disappointed by some Panasonic m4/3 lenses. Can't say I've tried every Canikon kitzoom. Fujis often aren't as good as they think they are. Pentax has some terrible kitzooms--it also has some excellent kitzooms, and generally excellent new APSC fixed focal length DSLR lenses.
But Leica and Zeiss are making the lenses with magic light and colour. Right, not all Leica and Zeisses have it.
Non-ILC: The zoom on the Sony RX100 Mark II is really crap, except when shot wide.
Milvus ha? Do these have particularly good colour rendition compared to my lens line-up I previously mentioned?
There are zero return policies in buying camera gear in Egypt and whatever I choose to buy if I don't like, I lose 50+% in resale value. It sucks.
I don't own an 85 and thinking of that Milvus, would it truly offer a different colour rendition from my 50mm RF?
If it doesn't, my 50/1.2 can be used in 4K mode on the EOS R mode to give me an 85/2.4-ish look, which is nearly identical DOF & FOV (i.e., almost identical to the 85 milvus) and I shoot at 1920x1280 and 8mp 3840x2160 resolution anyway so: if the Milvus has no distinct colour to Canon glass as you say I'd be screwed :)
I've not tried it extensively, as in done what I'm about to recommend, since I tested it wide open: But that Canon RF 50m f/1.2 should have good colour stopped down to about f/4-f/5.6.
If you had a Pentax body, ideally APSC, there are very good APSC DSLR fixed focal length lenses for that system, for example the f/1.4 55mm lens; it's not exactly cheap.
That Panasonic S 50mm f/1.4 has excellent colour, just as good as the Leica 50mm SL. But neither is cheap, and the bodies aren't cheap. But you get AF. (The Milvus 50mm is likely better--and definitely cheaper.)
Perhaps you could find a older Zeiss manual focus lens used with the Canon EOS mount. The 85mm has excellent colour, the 50 f/1.4 does too, but it's not sharp all the way open.
Or there's the Ricoh GR2, excellent, not the high ISO body of the GR3.
Samsung had some excellent lenses for the NX system: The bigger S zoom, the 30mm, 85, and 45.
The 50mm and 85mm Milvus are new lenses. The 135 Milvus isn't really. There are other Milvi that are based on the old designs.
As I say above, your Canon RF 50mm f/1.2 should be good for colour stopped down a bit. If you want to spend money this specific BW UV filter (type 415) may help a bit, no colour isn't simply about filtering out UV:
Thanks for the information. Looking at it again, the ZF is indeed Nikon mount, but I think I'll still go with the F mount as the Nikon mount lenses have a manual aperture ring that I really value and of course I have simple F to EF rings, means I'll also be able to use it on my Nikon D3400 or when I may switch to a z6 when the RAW firmware is out.
So you're not sure if these older designs have the same excpetionally good colour as the newer Milvus ones?
I am thinking 85mm, or I might go for the 135 as the old film manual focus 135/2.8 is uselessly low contrast if you know for a fact the 135 has exceptionally good colour?
I tried stopping down my 50mm RF and I am not seeing any colour shifts, not even slight ones in RAW files shooting an X rite Passport
I always drooled over these Zeiss ZF lenses and almost paid 5K for one (A CP.2, ZF in a cine housing) back in the day, that I can buy them new now for 900$ is absolutely lovely!
"So you're not sure if these older designs have the same exceptionally good colour as the newer Milvus ones?"
I am sure that the ZF older 85mm and 50mm f/1.4 have excellent colour. I am also sure that open to 1.4 the 50mm is not especially sharp--I owned it.
The 135mm has very good colour/light. That was new just a few years before the Milvus line came out.
I'm not referencing colour shifts. I'm saying the lens will see subtle colour differences better. But I've not tried stopping the Canon 50mm f1.2 RF lens down.
Right, the ZF lenses have the aperture ring, which is essential if you plan on using the lens on a mirrorless body via a dumb adapter--so on a Samsung, Fuji, Leica, Olympus, Panasonic. Or Canon.
I have been sinking hours of my life into this lens colour theory and still cannot find a single circumstantional/visible proof of its existence but really interested to really know it, I've been a proper lens geek and hobbyiest collector for years but never thought of how lenses could affect colour, the only thing I've seen them do is colour shifts, warm or cold, and the increase in contrast usually gives an impression of cleaner colour but again, it's a visual trick.
Can you search me any sample of a test image or article on this Howabout? I'd really appreciate it.
I did order a 135mm ZF with Nikon F mount and aperture ring for it to be "universal", after I read all the reviews and saw the Zeiss chief engineer saying it's the only lens in thier line up that could just get yellow paint and be called an Otus! Quite the claim from a reliable source
"'I've been a proper lens geek and hobbyiest collector for years but never thought of how lenses could affect colour,"
Well, the easiest way to see it is to use Leica binoculars in the same place you're using Nikon binoculars. Now, many Pentax and Olympus binoculars are also much better than Nikons or Canons. Other good binoculars for colour: Swarovski, Meopta, and yes some of the really inexpensive good Chinese made binoculars.
As for the theory that would explain why Leica's better lenses render colour better, I'm not going to go into that here. It is NOT obvious, and challenges preconceptions.
Here's a hint: Read the May 1959 Edwin Land cover article in Scientific American. Make sure you get a copy in colour.
Some Otus lenses are what I think Zeiss calls colour "neutral"--bluish. Normally, Zeiss is kind of warm. That said, the Oti all render subtle colour well.
The 135mm ZF Milvus is excellent, though I don't remember if it's "neutral".
I read the article and it's truly fascinating, I still can't get over the experiment of producing a full colour gamut using two black & white celluoid films just shot through green & red filters, colour truly is a wave, and length determines it all as he describes. Fascinating stuff.
Since lenses do vary subtly in how they deliver wavelengths to the pick-up sensor/film negative, there must be a difference in how they produce different colours, a very subtle one,
But then again, it's theory, and whether the difference is large enough to be picked up by human vision or a 14bit camera sensor, is the question I've been trying to answer
Right, and Land never managed to [publicly at least] explain that staggering experimental result.
No, Land did not explain the result in the follow up article from 1977 in Scientific American. His points about human colour vision are a distraction.
"Since lenses do vary subtly in how they deliver wavelengths to the pick-up sensor/film negative, there must be a difference in how they produce different colours, a very subtle one,"
You're making an assumption in there.
Yes, there is a there is an explanation for the results Land produced.
its possible to acquire numerous slr lenses for a pittance especially in the 50 mm range , and adapters , simple ones , are very inexpensive
its here when looking at output of many lenses , thay one can see the type of subtle but real differences related to color transmission in legacy lenses
even coating in these lenses can affect color transmission every bit as much as differences in the optical formula
it is with a large set of lenses and frequent use that one can begin to develop an appreciation for these nuanced differences and the different characters different older lenses can offer
i do admit to not knowing much about modern dslr lenses , but i feel that whatever difference may be existing in the optics , is overshadowed by color profiles used in computerized lens\ sensor outputs in modern cameras ... at least thats what i think
Try, if you can find it for demonstration, the Otus 28mm, also the Milvus 50mm, 85mm and 135mm.
You're going have a very hard time recreating that colour in post with other DSLR lenses--with a possible exception of things like the APSC Pentax 55mm f/1.4.
Now there are mirrorless lenses should give you files you could work to something close, but they're not inexpensive lenses.
My general point remains that better, not all, Zeiss lenses render colour better than say Nikon--though that $6000 f/2.0 200mm is excellent, and the Z lenses look a like step in the right direction.
And the same applies to Zeiss being better than Canon's good lenses for colour.
This is suprisingly good. Instead of dwelling on what isn't there (that's for DPR comments) Chris explains where the GR excels and that it's fun to use. If you need other features, don't like a 28mm lens or want a camera that isn't fun to use, the GR would be a poor choice.
Excellent video review which quickly points out pros (and cons) of the GRiii. Demonstrating usb charging in a real life situation was a nice touch given that battery life is low.
I may have missed hearing it mentioned (although I did see it in action); for me one of the advantages the GR series has over either my iPhone or K-1 is the ability to use it single handed. It may seem like a small point, but in use it makes a huge difference for street photography.
Thanks for compiling and posting this review, even if consequently it's going to cost me!
PS The clip on GV-2 viewfinder is, for me at least, a must have and much neater than the GV-1.
The single-hand operation is nice, and a feature I enjoy with Nikon 1 cameras, like the V1 and V2, but most thought out with the old Olympus C-8080, where everything is easily accessible with your right hand, even the zoom.
That would be a camera for Olympus to reissue, with an m43 sensor, of course!
I don't like video reviews. I hope they ain't became DP's default review format. Reading a review I need to continously go back and forth searching or comparing data. I need to examine graph and charts with calm, something very difficult to do with a videoclip.
Video reviews and written reviews are not mutually exclusive and each serves a different purpose. Doubtless DPR will compile a detailed written review as well. I certainly found the video review both informative and persuasive for a number of reasons. Well done Chris and DPR.
The videos are fine as a supplement. They're great to hook in the youtube crowd and the photographers turned cinematographers. And video is so very much NOW, like 8mm in the '60's.
But please, anchor that video to a properly written review. As easyliving points out, videos can not be absorbed and processed to the same extent as a written one.
Fully agree. Much easier to jump to sections of interest and read instead of all this talking. It is fine as a supplement as someone says, but not for a full review.
I love the menus below the video review that make it possible to quickly access the items of interest. Makes the video review much more useful. With that menu, I now find them great for a quick look rather than a deep dive into a product I am considering buying.
The video reviews are nice, but it is essential to also have the written ones. Hopefully the written ones also help many of the members to improve their poor spelling skills.
Still waiting for traditional cam companies to make a camera that is an Android device, w easy WIFI connection, capable photo editing including AI processing and easy uploading to cloud and SNS, then it will sell.
If traditional cam companies can't beat back smartphones, they will lose market at 20%-30% a year until their investors consider the companies are wasting valuable resources and force them to exit.
The customers who stopped buying cameras, and are happy with their smartphones, won't return to the camera market no matter what features are added to the cameras. The smartphone crowd simply doesn't find dedicated cameras appealing, because everything they need is right there in their pocket already.
Many mirrorless cameras offer a pancake lens or other compact option. If you’re willing to carry on a wrist strap instead of in your pocket, you can forego the dedicated purpose. I do this quite often.
I imagine pocket carry is a big part of the appeal here, even the smallest mirrorless cameras (GM1) with the smallest possible pancake (14/2.5) isn't gonna fit into pants pockets or a shirt pocket without an unsightly bulge... I dunno where the GR falls exactly in that spectrum but if it's the size of a GM body sans lens or something like a Canon G9X then I can definitely see the appeal and the advantage vs say a Fuji X100.
We're spoiled for choices these days really... After owning the GM1 & GX850 and recent phones I'm not sure I'd want anything in between personally but I can easily see why others would. The meh low light AF and video limits the GR's appeal somewhat for me tho.
Just my own opinion but this is a camera without a strong place. No viewfinder I don’t like the lens focal length. I tried 28mm on my Nikon F3 and I just don’t like it. Nice and small which is great for street for sure but when shooting street I really only post the images on social media. And my iPhone rocks for that and nobody can see any IQ difference at those now online resolutions. For me photography is far more about lens than camera and being able to choose the right lens for the shot is important. Something you can’t do with this camera. Better to buy something like a small MFT Olympus EM10, EM5 or Pen F. Or just bite the bullet and get a larger Sony or Nikon, Canon mirrorless. Personally I am looking right now for a new camera and in a few days will be trying a Fuji. But hey whatever works for you is good right
I'm pretty much the opposite of you, i print my images and never show them on web, pretty much because i got the attitude of my photos are my photos. The iphone is pretty costly is it not, i have seen it being as expensive as used cameras at least. I payed 99 for a smartphone which i can use to get to the internet and see my bank balance, and i got the oly em 10 kit for photo, total price is probably near iphone
The GR are for people who want to have a streamlined camera. If you are looking for features rather than flow its not the camera for you. There are considerable advantages to a fixed lens and, every other decision behind the design and feature set of the GR. Most photographers will understand if they try it out. Doesn't mean it's for everyone. The idea that it's only for street is wrongheaded it's a 'snapshot camera' as advertised.
The iPhone is not costly at all. Got to consider how much you use it and everything it does. Phone Netflix HBO YouTube games art photo processing ordering stuff at Amazon’s :) smart phones are a massive value
@Good Knight - agree about the viewfinder but I the rest of your argument, I am sorry to say, doesn't hold. The GR is designed as a fixed-lens compact and criticizing it for lack of interchangeable lenses is like criticizing a CaNikon pro sports camera for not being pocketable. it isn't designed to be.
Some people like 28 mm, some like 35. They had to make a choice. Other compacts come with a 35mm (or equivalent); both have their fans.
I'd love for Ricoh to make a fixed-lens cam with a 21-50 equivalent fast lens, a tilt screen and a viewfinder while keeping the overall operation similar. I had a Ricoh small sensor 24-70 eqiv. compact and it was awesome but too slow in low light. An APS-C one will be a killer cam.
It is a shame Nikon is not capable to give a successor to the Nikon Coolpix A.
Nikon was certainly disappointed that nobody agreed to pay a (large) premium for an APSC compact camera. But Ricoh was able to do similar for lesser price.
But Nikon could have created a great momentum with a better marketing, and more firmware updates (including a "snap focus"-like option).
I am sure they are capable but it doesn't seem as if they feel it worth their while. Sad as I love my CPA but this GRiii does seems to have a lot going for it.
The Fujifilm X100F and Ricoh GR III are two very different cameras, but they're broadly aimed at the same audience. We take a detailed look at how they stack up against each other, and who might be better served by each.
We've updated our 'best fixed prime lens camera' buying guide, adding the Leica Q2, Fujifilm XF10 and Ricoh GR III. Despite some solid competition, the Fujifilm X100F remains as our top choices in this category.
Firmware version 1.11(an upgrade from firmware version 1.10) fixes a few minor issues and overall smooths out the stability of Ricoh's GR III camera system.
The Panasonic Lumix DC-G100 (G110 in some regions) is a mirrorless camera designed for vlogging. Its 20MP Four Thirds sensor is paired with clever tracking audio technology, but we have our reservations.
The Olympus PEN E-PL10 is the latest in the company's entry-level mirrorless line-up. It's a beginner-friendly camera that does many things well, but ultimately doesn't stand out amongst its competition.
The Nikon Coolpix P950 is a powerful superzoom compact camera, built around a 24-2000mm equivalent zoom lens. Successor to the popular P900, the P950 adds an improved EVF, Raw capture and 4K video. So is it worth $800?
The Fujifilm X-T4 brings image stabilization, faster shooting and a bigger battery to the X-T series. It's not without its shortcomings but we found it to be an excellent stills and video shooter.
With its unusual form factor can the Tourbox aid the editing process? Will its price and variety of tactile controls appeal to photo and video editors who would like to streamline their workflow?
What’s the best camera for under $2000? These capable cameras costing less than $2000 should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $2000 and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.
We've updated our 'best cameras over $2000' buying guide, and the Sony a7R IV is now our favorite mirrorless camera in the $2000-4000 price range. It sits alongside the Nikon D850, which is our choice for those who prefer DSLRs.
If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that might be a bit older but still offer a lot of bang for the buck.
What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.
The Verge Video Director, Becca Farsace, shows how she built a custom Raspberry Pi camera with effectively zero coding knowledge over the course of just three days.
The EOS R5 has been in the works for some time, and Canon has published a handful of specifications, but there's still plenty we don't know. What are you hoping to see from Canon's forthcoming flagship camera?
Canon's CE-SAT-IB satellite camera was destroyed alongside six other satellites during Rocket Lab's ironically-named 'Pics or It Didn't Happen Mission.'
This sample gallery includes images from our recent review of the Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Di III RXD zoom lens. Check out these photos to see how it performs, from wide-angle to telephoto and everything in between.
The Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Di III RXD provides a wide zoom range in compact, weather-sealed design. Find out why it's Chris and Jordan's new favorite travel lens.
Kodak Portra 800 is a wonderful and versatile color film. And any rumors of it being discontinued, we're pleased to report, are simply untrue. That's a good thing, because it's capable of producing lovely results in all sorts of conditions.
Boering has left the World Press Photo without much of an explanation from either him or the organization, but he tells DPReview the COVID-19 pandemic is forcing the WPP to change the way it makes money.
The Sony ZV-1 and Panasonic Lumix DC-G100 are the first cameras we've seen that are overtly designed with vlogging in mind – and the changes they represent could have implications for the future of all cameras.
Olympus is showing final images of its under-development 150-400mm F4.5, which it says will arrive this winter. An unspecified macro and 8-25mm F4 Pro have also been added to the lens roadmap, and the E-M1X's AF gains bird detection.
Fujifilm is one of just two producers of tape media (the other being Sony) and it is hard at work on a breakthrough that will allow single tape storage drives to offer 400TB capacities in the coming years.
The National Parks Service says it's investigating the incident, which took place just two days after the park opened following a shutdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Professional full frame lenses are usually large and have fast apertures. In this episode of DPReview TV, Chris and Jordan argue that there's a need for slow professional lenses – inspired by some of their favorite Micro Four Thirds lenses.
NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) photographs the sun every 0.75 seconds. In its first decade in space, the SDO has captured more than 425 million images of the sun. NASA has compiled these images into an amazing time lapse, come check it out.
The lens is available for Leica M, Sony FE, Nikon Z and L-mount camera systems, and now holds the title as the world's widest rectilinear lens for full-frame camera systems.
Tamron's new 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 is a versatile zoom lens for Sony E-mount. Well-suited for travel photography, it's compact, lightweight, and fast/quiet to focus.
Fujifilm's latest lens is a sharp, reasonably compact and well-built wide-angle for the company's GFX medium-format cameras. We took it out and about in the warm Seattle summer with the company's 50 and 100 Megapixel camera bodies to see what it can do.
Although the channel is still growing, it currently has nine videos that offer concise overviews of just a few of the cameras Japan Camera Hunter founder Bellamy Hunt has sitting around his Japanese storefront.
ON1 has launched ON1 360, the latest version of ON1 Photo RAW 2020 with ON1's new Photo Mobile application for iOS, iPadOS and Android mobile devices. The new solution syncs raw processing between your mobile device and computer.
Switching screw-on filters between lenses of different thread sizes is much quicker with the Revoring adjustable step-up ring. It uses a sprung iris that expands to fit a range of filter thread sizes, so a single filter can be used on multiple lenses
Kodak's discontinued Aerochrome film gets a digital remake in the form of a new Lightroom preset pack from film emulation specialists Really Nice Images.
We've updated our Best cameras under $2000 buying guide, and the Fujifilm X-T4 is our top pick for those seeking a camera that excels and both stills and video shooting.
Comments