Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: mbridgers on March 28, 2007, 04:12:13 pm
-
An interesting new pocket camera from Ricoh:
GX-100 (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07032801ricohgx100.asp)
24-72mm equivalent lens, RAW (DNG) and JPG, external EVF option, and sensor-based stabilization.
And more:
Ricoh site (http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/caplio/gx100/)
-
Based on the spec, this is by far the most interesting compact digital camera ever released IMHO.
It's high on my spring shopping list.
Regards,
Bernard
-
It also seems relatively reasonably priced. If the initial reviews are favorable I think a lot of us with give it a shot for casual walkabout shooting.
-
Based on the spec, this is by far the most interesting compact digital camera ever released IMHO.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109270\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But if it has the same lousy RAW performance as the GR1-D, it's also useless.
The GR1-D was nearly my ideal pocket camera, but up to 14secs to write a RAW file, duh!
-
Actually a full frame or larger sensor would be evenmore ideal. I like shallow Dof F
-
Actually a full frame or larger sensor would be evenmore ideal. I like shallow Dof F
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109365\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm with you there. It supposedly has this beautiful 7-blade shutter. Why not exploit it?
Full frame and f/2.
-
But if it has the same lousy RAW performance as the GR1-D, it's also useless.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109364\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yep, that would be a serious annoyance for most people.
If you look at it like a tiny 4x5 camera with a built in tripod, then 14 sec isn't so bad though. That's about the time it takes to change Quickloads...
I could probably deal with a limited raw buffer if the rest is right on.
We'll find out in 3 weeks I guess.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If you look at it like a tiny 4x5 camera with a built in tripod, then 14 sec isn't so bad though. That's about the time it takes to change Quickloads...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109380\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's one way of looking at it, though if I want the speed of a 5x4 camera, I'll use a 5x4 and have near zero deth of field too, not to mention quality many leagues better.
Oddly enough the two sorts of camera I fancy most are an XA sized, 35mm quality digital compact, f2 24mm lens and a wooden 5x4!
Though a 5D the size of My OM4ti would be very cool too. Or even a 5D with a viewfinder as big as the OM4, which is about half the size!
-
How well do the sensor stablising thingies on these P&S cameras work? I would love to be able to be interested in it but 10 megapixels on that tiny sensor isn't worth my hassle. The DR is probably horrible..
-
i'm afraid that like their wide-angle camera it will have poor high-ISO performance
if a mfg had the guts to make a really good compact wide or wide-medium camera i would pay nearly Leica money for it
-
i'm afraid that like their wide-angle camera it will have poor high-ISO performance
if a mfg had the guts to make a really good compact wide or wide-medium camera i would pay nearly Leica money for it
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109532\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think you won't be alone there.
-
i'm afraid that like their wide-angle camera it will have poor high-ISO performance
if a mfg had the guts to make a really good compact wide or wide-medium camera i would pay nearly Leica money for it
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109532\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It really depends on what your expectations are. Canon 5D class noise in a super compact package is simply not achievable with today's technology.
You are probably better off buying a Nikon D40. It seems to offer the best high ISO pixel quality per gram.
Regards,
Bernard
-
i'm afraid that like their wide-angle camera it will have poor high-ISO performance
if a mfg had the guts to make a really good compact wide or wide-medium camera i would pay nearly Leica money for it
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109532\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sigma DP1, it will be out in a month or two.
-
Sigma DP-1, too slow a lens, too wide a lens, too big a package with the hood and finder, certainly too expensive (IMO).
-
I would have suggested Canon G7 if it had RAW and a OVF which would be aligned correctly and without the 80% tunnel vision. So, Leica M8 then?
-
I wish! Problem for me is that my manual focus is awful due to a slight problem with my right eye that reduces contrast making precise focusing a nightmare.
Oh and the cost!
-
It looks like a GRD with a zoom lens. Actually, a very interesting zoom lens, starting at 24mm equivalent.
I used to have a GRD, it was very good ergonomically, but the RAW writing time was annoying. I could live with it when shooting off a tripod and doing IR, or landscapes, but for "normal" shooting, it wouldn't do.
I hope Ricoh has improved that aspect with this really interesting camera. I am also very curious about what the new GRD will look like; perhaps this GX100 is a show case for some of the innovations that will be implemented.
All in all, it is nice to see that Ricoh are still commited to build these interesting cameras. It would be nice to see other companies do the same; Sigma will release the DP1.
How about Leica releasing a digital version of the CM, or Fuji releasing a digital version of their Klasse W or S?
-
.... Canon 5D class noise in a super compact package is simply not achievable with today's technology.
...[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=109581\")
Why is that so? My little Olympus XA did nicely with a full size 35mm film frame. And I still have a Pentax 28-90 zoom 35mm compact that's reasonably small.
What keeps a manufacturer from dropping a FF sensor, or even a 1.3x or 1.6x sensor, into a compact body like that? Surely the associated electronics aren't so bulky?
This is something I've long been curious about.
Nill
~~
[a href=\"http://www.toulme.net]www.toulme.net[/url]
-
24-72mm equivalent lens, RAW (DNG) and JPG, external EVF option, and sensor-based stabilization.
I think a sensor-shifting stabilization could be an advantage, when it comes to interchangeable lenses and where the "interchanged" lenses don't come with IS.
In fact for a fixed lens camera, it is actually a disadvantage over a true Optically stabilized version, since the sensor shifting mechanism will not stabilize the image in the viewfinder...your viewfinder image will still be shaky !! When implemented in a fixed lens camera, it is a cheap alternative to a good optically stabilized system.
The question is, is the Ricoh an interchangeable lens camera or is it a fixed lens camera ?
-
In fact for a fixed lens camera, it is actually a disadvantage over a true Optically stabilized version, since the sensor shifting mechanism will not stabilize the image in the viewfinder...your viewfinder image will still be shaky !! When implemented in a fixed lens camera, it is a cheap alternative to a good optically stabilized system.
You are kidding right?
Or do you have shakey vision due to the DTs or something? It's not an SLR and even if it was it wouldn't matter as I don't use my retina to do the image capture.
The question is, is the Ricoh an interchangeable lens camera or is it a fixed lens camera ?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110605\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Again, you've got to be kidding!?
-
Why is that so? My little Olympus XA did nicely with a full size 35mm film frame. And I still have a Pentax 28-90 zoom 35mm compact that's reasonably small.
What keeps a manufacturer from dropping a FF sensor, or even a 1.3x or 1.6x sensor, into a compact body like that? Surely the associated electronics aren't so bulky?
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110579\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nill,
I misunderstood your initial point, sorry. Yes, there are probably not technical reasons why a compact with an APS sensor couldn't be done.
The reason why manufacturers aren't doing it is simple margins... the small sensors appear to be very cheap, almost free... but since most buyers only look at the MP figure, they would mostly not be willing to pay more for a larger sensor, which would mean much smaller margins.
Another reason I believe is that consumers have been used to compact digital cameras with zoom lenses covering a huge range. Look at the Sony 828 to see how big a lens has to be to cover an APS sensor with a similar range.
Besides, the camera manufacturers probably try to keep selling DSLRs that are a potentially much more profitable business in the long run thanks to lenses sales... and thanks to the fact that a DSLR kind of forces the customer to stick to the brand.
Finally, Sony appears to be the only provider of APS sensors on the market today, do we know for a fact that they agree to sell these sensors to companies willing to use them in compact digital cameras?
Considering all these facts, established camera companies appear to have all agreed not to go there. Sigma, playing their traditional role of independant company, is trying something now.
Regards,
Bernard
-
You are kidding right?
Or do you have shakey vision due to the DTs or something? It's not an SLR and even if it was it wouldn't matter as I don't use my retina to do the image capture.
Again, you've got to be kidding!?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110676\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why do you think I am kidding ? Why is a shaky image in your viewfinder, connected to "shakey vision" ? It is a fact that these sensor-shifting IS systems DO NOT stabilize the image that you see in your viewfinder which you use to frame and meter. Especially significant at longer focal lengths. Do you feel otherwise ? Explain please.
Granted the above is not an issue at the types of focal lengths we are looking at, in this particular Ricoh.
-
Why do you think I am kidding ? Why is a shaky image in your viewfinder, connected to "shakey vision" ?
Missed the point.
It is a fact that these sensor-shifting IS systems DO NOT stabilize the image that you see in your viewfinder which you use to frame and meter. Especially significant at longer focal lengths. Do you feel otherwise ? Explain please.
Yes. It doesn't matter, unless you have shakey vision!
It's only the sharpness of the captured image that matters.
It's not only relevent to long lenses as short lenses and low shutter speeds have just a big a problem with camera shake.
But it's not really important when looking through viewfinder.
Granted the above is not an issue at the types of focal lengths we are looking at, in this particular Ricoh.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you think it's not relevent. why even mention it?
-
It's only the sharpness of the captured image that matters.
Really ? Ever tried metering a terribly shaky image in your viewfinder (or LCD as the case may be) ?
I find your post had a lot of quotes but very little substance.