Ricoh GR Digital Announced

#1 Carsten Ranke

mixed feelings after the hype... Will wait for tests of optics and preformance. 1/1.8" sensor is disappointing, external viewfinder also. But - first images look fine
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/09/13/2281.html

11:13 am - Tuesday, September 13, 2005

#2 Gordon J. Millar

Sounds good, although Sonys new aps-c 10 megapixel sensor would be perfect. I hope it's weather and dust resistant, a must have for me in a pocket camera. It's nice to see after the release of 100's of "x"mp 3x zoom crap cameras from most manufacturers.

Gord

12:06 pm - Tuesday, September 13, 2005

#3 Eddie Cranbourne

A a very proud and satisfied Ricoh GR1s 35mm (the camera has shot 100's of rolls and won me a few major competitions) I cant wait to get my hands on this digital version. Ricoh seem to be specialsts at producing high quality wide angle lenses so lets hope this is a beauty.

12:08 pm - Tuesday, September 13, 2005

#4 Carsten Ranke

Eddie - may I ask you as an 35 mm GR1 owner about the real dimensions of the analog model ? It seems to be kind of cheat fro Ricoh the stated dimensions of the digital GR, because they give us the dimensions of the body, without the protruding elements on the right side and/ or the body plus lens. It is quite an important issue for me, the "pocketable" size of the digital GR. Otherwise, I could go for the LX1 or S70 alternatively.

1:00 pm - Tuesday, September 13, 2005

#5 guy villeneuve

very good but imagine if they decided to make the GR21 That would be the TOP of all toi me as i have all the ricoh GR maybe they can do it.

1:37 pm - Tuesday, September 13, 2005

#6 Wigwam Jones

Absolute crap. Image sensor too small for 'bokeh' effects (so much for the 7-bladed aperture leaves), no optical viewfinder, shot-to-shot latency and power-on too slow. Completely worthless. This may be a lovely Point-n-Shoot for the masses, but it is hardly a digital recreation of Ricoh's classic and professionally useful GR-series P-n-S cameras. They had such a lovely chance - completely blew it to make just another junk camera. How sad.

2:36 pm - Tuesday, September 13, 2005

#7 shoepal

I'm disappointed as well. The 35mm GR1 is/was nearly perfect (thin, great optics, film-pre-wind). This might take amazing photos, but it does have some serious drawbacks, including the price.

3:31 pm - Tuesday, September 13, 2005

#8 Mauro Zeltzer

It looks very good . Loved the high ISO . But a pocket camera without optical zoom is not for me .

9:33 pm - Tuesday, September 13, 2005

#9 Wigwam Jones

Mauro, the ISO is not nearly high enough - 3200 would be acceptable. The zoom? You're looking for a PnS digicam, not a digital version of a legendary Ricoh GR series camera. They didn't have zoom for specific reasons that appeal to pros and serious amateurs. There are a gazillion digicams with zoom - buy one of those. This was intended to be something other than a consumer-grade PnS digicam - but it fails at that, too. Very disappointing.

10:10 pm - Tuesday, September 13, 2005

#10 GARY POGODA

I suspect that, many of those initially interested in the GR, are still interested, despite the fact that it is not all that was hoped.

Carsten, it looks like the lens is fully retracting since there is no lens cap accessory.

11:19 pm - Tuesday, September 13, 2005

#11 simon dee

the first images (link in comment 1 above) show the high noise levels and dreadful blue fringing that have plagued all Ricoh's wide-angle digicams. check out the shot of trees through a window - very disappointing

2:12 pm - Wednesday, September 14, 2005

#12 Paul Treacy

I'm interested in this camera as a pro. I still have yet to find a compact that is silent, fast, high quality and strong with at 28 or wider lens. This may be it. I'm not bothered really about the viewfinder as with a lens like this you have plenty of depth f field. I want to replace my Hexar for street shooting and as my all the time camera. I cam seriously looking at the Olympus C7070 and was about to buy one when I heard of the GR Digital. My pro kit is Nikon but their Coolpix cameras are all EVF which I hate. The C7070 is optical.
ANY PROS READING THIS THAT HAVE USED THIS GR, PLEASE RESPOND AND GIVE US YOUR VIEWS.
Cheers.

5:16 pm - Sunday, October 2, 2005

#13 GARY POGODA

FYI, there is one 28mm Nikon Coolpix with an optical viewfinder, the
5400. It almost received the coveted "Highly Recommended" rating
from DPReview.

One thing I do not understand. Why is everyone complaining about
the use of an 'external' viewfinder on the GR? By making it external,
it has to be of better quality than the tiny optical viewfinders normally
included with ultra-compact cameras, if you can even find one, since
all of the latest ultra-compacts have eliminated the optical viewfinder
to accommodate the larger 2.5" LCD. The GR, it would seem, offers
the best of both worlds.

Still, I cannot picture using the GR, with its 28mm fixed focal length
lens, as your "all the time" camera. Compared to your Hexar 35/2,
you will end up doing a lot more cropping, which will definitely show
the limitations of a 1/1.8" CCD.

7:18 pm - Sunday, October 2, 2005

#14 Paul Treacy

No, I won't be cropping. I'll just have to get closer. A digital Hexar would be perfect. I even contacted Konica Minolta about such a camera. I'm sure many of us have.

In any case, I'm leaning towards the Olympus C7070. The Nikons are too slow. The 8400 comes close but it too has that crap viewfinder.

http://www.paultreacy.com

7:32 pm - Sunday, October 2, 2005

#15 GARY POGODA

While not an ultra-compact, the C-7070 is about as small a compact
as you can get, and certainly one of the most full-featured. I do not
see how you could go wrong with this DIWA award winning camera.

Have you read any reviews as to how quiet it is? Steve's Digicams
reported that it has a smooth and quiet zoom.

Good luck with your new website.

8:42 pm - Sunday, October 2, 2005

#16 Paul Treacy

My web site's been around for a long while, just going through a major overhaul. I'm trying to clear out the mediocre stuff and make it cleaner. There's a ways yet to go however. Might finish it tonight if things go smoothly.

Everything I've read on the C7070 says it makes a delicious file and when all beeps and other useless and annoying sounds are deactivated it's quieter than an M6 Leica. Probably as quiet as my wee Hexar in silent mode. No reason why it should be any louder.

I think I've made my decision. In fact, I've made a bid for one on eBay. Fingers crossed. It's a gamble that way, I know, but I have kids and so if I can save a little here and there, I'll try.

Thanks Gary.

http://www.lightstalkers.org/paultreacy

9:32 pm - Sunday, October 2, 2005

#17 Wigwam Jones

"FYI, there is one 28mm Nikon Coolpix with an optical viewfinder, the 5400. It almost received the coveted “Highly Recommended” rating from DPReview."

So what, Gary? Who cares? Is the Nikon a Ricoh GR? No. So shut up.

"One thing I do not understand. Why is everyone complaining about the use of an ‘external’ viewfinder on the GR?"

You don't understand because you're not very smart, are you Gary? The original film GR was famous because it was a stealthy pocket camera capable of making pro-level shots while still being a) affordable and b) discreet. A viewfinder hanging on a camera body is none of those things. Think about that if you can.

"By making it external, it has to be of better quality than the tiny optical viewfinders normally included with ultra-compact cameras, if you can even find one, since all of the latest ultra-compacts have eliminated the optical viewfinder to accommodate the larger 2.5” LCD."

You cannot take a stealthy photo while chimping over an LCD, Gary. The film GR series was designed to be a STEALTH STREET CAMERA, Gary. This is supposed to be the digital version of that, Gary. Obviously it is not that, Gary. Imagine I offered you a truck load of manure and you ordered french fries. You might complain that the manure was hardly a replacement. But I'd say - using your logic - that the manure makes things grow, and isn't that special? No, it is not, you say - if all you want it french fries. I give not two shits about the LCD, which would be turned off in any case. An external viewfinder is flat-out stupid on a stealth pocket camera, Gary.

"The GR, it would seem, offers the best of both worlds."

No, Gary, it offers the worst of two worlds. Step down to booth number two for the crack pipe.

"Still, I cannot picture using the GR, with its 28mm fixed focal length lens, as your “all the time” camera. Compared to your Hexar 35/2, you will end up doing a lot more cropping, which will definitely show the limitations of a 1/1.8” CCD."

Egads. The film version of the GR series cameras were never intended to be an all the time camera, Gary. Just a pocket stealth camera with high enough quality that pro might be willing to shove one in their pocket and take with them. Nobody said anything about it being their only camera, Gary.

Do you work for Ricoh, or do you flack for them for free?

4:43 am - Monday, October 3, 2005

#18 GARY POGODA

Wigwam, sounds like you are "less than thrilled" with the GR digital,
and maybe, rightly so. However, your expectation of ISO 3200 on a
digital ultra-compact is totally unrealistic. Same with your request for
a larger than 1/1.8" CCD. This is not a FILM camera, and it is not an
SLR, so get over it.

7:47 am - Monday, October 3, 2005

#19 Big Si

Mr Wigwam,

Please get over yourself and let people have an opinion of their own.

As the owner of a couple of 35mm GR's, I don't recall reading anywhere in the manuals about it being a "STREET STEALTH CAMERA". It's a high quality pocket camera, equally well suited to any number of shooting types.

So, shall we leave people alone here ? If someone wanted to use this external viewfinder to compose some landscape shots, or anything that isn't "STREET STEALTH", then what's the problem ?

How stealthy would using the viewfinder on any camera be ? The large black brick in front of your face gives the game away somewhat.

As a worryingly "STEALTH" obsessed individual, I would have thought you'd be aware that your true Stealth Shooter weapons are coming in the form of those super phonecams with 5mp knocking about in the far east at the moment - a true "all the time" device, if not the best cameras, but the ideal tools for whatever it is you're trying to take pictures of.

Personally, I like the look of this camera, technical foibles or not, just as I like the film GRs, especially with the oppotunity to attach that 21mm converter to get into territory none of my other digicams can get to.

I don't think I would ever aim to use this kind of camera to shoot at 4fps, so whilst the lag is disappointing, it's not going to be a dealbreaker.

I think there's only ever been 2 rolls of colour film through my GR's, so I don't imagine noise is going to be too much of an issue if I stick with the monochromes.

Tonal range though, that's another matter....

11:11 am - Monday, October 3, 2005

#20 Wigwam Jones

Let me explain a couple of things to you individuals. When someone sells something as a 'screwdriver', it doesn't matter much that it's actually a dandy 'hammer' - if it ain't a screwdriver then it ain't a screwdriver. Is that really hard to comprehend? Has the public school system left you unable to examine a set of facts and make a judgement, or do you just rely on TV commercials to tell you what to think?

Now, the GR-series Ricoh film cameras had and have a legend and a mystique about them - they are a 'cult camera' and for various reasons. You can deny that if you like, but facts is facts.

Ricoh wanted to recapture the fire with their digital GR series camera. But the camera fails in that regard - utterly. It is bad at everything the film GR series cameras were good at.

I'm sure that Ricoh did not put "And it's a cult camera folks, a real stealth street camera for pros!" in their documentation, but the fact is, that's what the film camera's reputation is and was, that's why it is a 'cult classic' and that's what Ricoh was trying to capitalize on when they designed the digital GR series camera.

They even said it on their website - this was going to be the direct digital replacement for the legendary GR film cameras. Well, it ain't.

And here's the part that really gets up my sleeve. I love film and I love digital - but I refuse to pretend that if a digital camera is not physically capable of doing what a film camera can do, then it MUST NOT BE IMPORTANT ANYWAY. 3200 ISO not feasible? Well, that ain't my problem, folks. The GR series film camera can handle it with ease, and it was a valued part of the overall value that pros placed on it. If digital can't reasonably do 3200 ISO yet in a very small form factor, then maybe Ricoh SHOULD HAVE WAITED UNTIL IT COULD - that's Ricoh's fault, and I'm not going to pretend that it is unreasonable to expect it. No it is not unreasonable - if Ricoh says it is a direct replacement for the film based GR series cameras, then that's what I expect. In no way can that be unreasonable.

The simple facts are these - as others have noted, this camera is not very well-suited as an all-round point-n-shoot. Lack of zoom and high price are probably the biggest factors - this will not be attractive to the point-n-shoot crowd. But it also fails at what it was designed for - according to Ricoh, anyway - so it isn't good for that, either. In other words, it just sucks at everything and is pretty much worthless.

You want to race out and buy one? Knock yourself out. You think it's a good camera for other reasons that I seem to be missing? Groovy.

But it ain't a digital version of the legendary GR series film-based Ricoh cameras, and that's the criteria on which it must be judged.

Ricoh didn't put this pile of steaming feces on the market and say "Well folks, here's yet another point-n-shoot camera, judge it according to its merits, ok?" No, they said "This is the digital successor of the legendary film-based GR-series cameras."

So that is what I judge it as. And I have found it wanting. Anyone with a brain should have little problem following my line of reasoning.

If you want to argue with me, argue about how it is actually a digital 'cult classic' GR as the film GR cameras were - show me where I'm wrong. But I'm not impressed with your protestations that this tool, advertised as a screwdriver, is actually a pretty good hammer, so let's not talk bad about it. Puh-leeze.

If Ricoh wants to hire people to flack their products, they need to step up and hire some people who can defend their points with logic - or I'll just keep eating your lunch for ya.

Wiggy

1:30 pm - Monday, October 3, 2005

#21 Paul Treacy

Lighten up everybody.
By the way, I'm not Gary and when I talk about an all the time camera, I mean a camera that is always in my pocket. Simple as that.
Wiggy, are you a pro? You seem to know in your own mind what a pro wants. Well I'm a photojournalist and I have many wants that are satisfied by many different kinds of cameras and I feel that this camera was a brilliant effort from Ricoh and worthy of serious consideration despite its apparent limitations. Pros are always dealing with equipment limitations as they may well do with this camera. I certainly appears to have a place in a pro's kit bag but it may be a different place for different pros and keen shooters alike.

2:22 pm - Monday, October 3, 2005

#22 Wigwam Jones

"Lighten up everybody." Good pun!

"By the way, I’m not Gary..." Good for you! I'm not Gary either.

"...and when I talk about an all the time camera, I mean a camera that is always in my pocket. Simple as that."

Great! Good for you. You had a point there?

"Wiggy, are you a pro?" Absolutely yes.

"You seem to know in your own mind what a pro wants."

Not at all. See, this is where the public school system is failing. Critical reading skills just seem to be lacking these days.

Let me explain.

You see, in order for me to "know what a pro wants," I'd have to be psychic, and all pros would have to want the same thing. Neither of which happen to be true. So no, I do not know what pros want.

However, I *do* know why the Ricoh GR series film cameras achieved cult status with various pro photographers - that's easy to discern by talking to pros who own them, reading reviews online, and drawing this thing we call a 'conclusion,' in which I pull together facts and information and form an opinion.

So, when I say that the Ricoh GR series of film cameras were cult classics with pros for reasons X, Y, and Z, I have a pretty good chance of being correct - because I've done my homework, and also because that's why *I* value the camera.

Are we clear on the difference, or should I begin again?

"Well I’m a photojournalist and I have many wants that are satisfied by many different kinds of cameras and I feel that this camera was a brilliant effort from Ricoh and worthy of serious consideration despite its apparent limitations."

See, that is magazine-speak. You admit that the camera does not fill the niche at which it was aimed, but then defend it on the grounds that it is good at other things which you find useful.

I'm glad it fills your needs. You should buy it, then. Anybody who likes it should buy it. I'm fine with that.

My point was and remains that it IS NOT A DIGITAL REPLACEMENT for the GR series film cameras of legendary cult status. Ricoh says it is, I say it is not. You even admit that it is not.

Whatever it *is,* I don't care. I am speaking of what it is *not*. And why would I speak this way? Because Ricoh made claims for this camera that are not correct.

I am disappointed because I would very much have liked to have been able to buy a digital GR series camera that was a close approximation of the original film cameras.

"Pros are always dealing with equipment limitations as they may well do with this camera."

All cameras have limitations of one sort or another. Pros tend to choose cameras that have fewer rather than more flaws - or those which have offsetting positive features that make them willing to put up with the deficiencies.

And while a good photographer can often make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, they often choose not to attempt it if there are more reasonable choices available to them.

"I certainly appears to have a place in a pro’s kit bag but it may be a different place for different pros and keen shooters alike."

Well, that would be 'opinion' about the relative merits of the camera. I don't agree, but you are of course entitled to your opinion - I won't dispute it.

My objection remains confined to the fact that the camera is not what Ricoh claims it is, and my continuing irritation that people rush to make excuses for why it sucks so badly - for reasons I cannot fathom.

Wiggy

3:26 pm - Monday, October 3, 2005

#23 GARY POGODA

You are reading much too much into Ricoh's claim that this camera
is a "digital successor to the GR" with its "superb lens characteristics
(which) guarantee sharp, clear pictures corner to corner," and that it
is this renowned 28mm GR lens "that brings one of the most popular
traditions in conventional film camera history to digital photography."

(all quotes from the Ricoh website)

If you wish to criticize the GR digital for its optical qualities compared
to film GRs, it appears from your comments, you are amply qualified
to do so. However, your technological comments regarding the GR's
(lack of) digital quality, leads me to conclude that you are out of your
element here.

8:32 pm - Monday, October 3, 2005

#24 Paul Treacy

How about the GX8? It appears to be quite good with some very interesting inovations.
http://www.paultreacy.com

8:58 pm - Monday, October 3, 2005

#25 GARY POGODA

Admittedly, I have not been following the GX8 because I have been
more interested in the R3 with its 28 - 200 mm, 7.1x zoom. But the
GX8 offers a more complete solution, with its manual controls, and
more expandability with its lens attachments. I prefer the R3's 2.5"
LCD to the GX8's 1.8" LCD and optical viewfinder combination, and
I also like the R3's vibration correction and skew correction functions.
I figure their noise characteristics to be about the same.

11:43 pm - Monday, October 3, 2005

#26 Carsten Ranke

Paul, the GX8 is on my list too. If size does not matter, I would vote for the C7070 because I love the flip-out display (on my good old G1). Wide is a must for me, so I am sitting on the fence for GR-D versus GX8 or R3. However, the R3 small sensor is probably too small for acceptable results, and C7070 / GX8 have the same 1/1.8" sensor size. The GX8 seems to be fast with reasonable handling (strange, but not much reviews available). I want a compact sized cam as backup for my DSLR, 28 mm eq. Maybe I end up with Canon´s S70, but handling and speed speak for the GX8. Will have to wait for the test results of the S80, should be faster than S70 (missing RAW is no buy-stopper for me).
Sometimes I think about the F11, small size and excellent for available light - but I would have to sacrifice the 28 mm FOV... Decisions, decisions...

4:06 pm - Tuesday, October 4, 2005

#27 Carsten Ranke

BTW, new GR-D shots (ISO 64) can be found at DCWatch:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/09/29/2355.html
Not so impressive, the chroma noise in the shadows. Sharpness is so-so

4:49 pm - Tuesday, October 4, 2005

#28 Carsten Ranke

A translated japanese review of (a preproduction ?) GR-D. Image quality 3 of five...

http://tinyurl.com/q2mg2

4:58 pm - Tuesday, October 4, 2005

#29 Wigwam Jones

Gary, you seem to have trouble with basic English comprehension. I am not criticizing the digital GR's optical or digital qualities, and I'm confused that you'd think I have been.

I have been, and continue to criticize the fact that the digital GR is not a replacement for the film GR.

Am I reading too much into it? Well perhaps. Was the Ford Mustang II a replacement and the worthy successor of the Ford Mustang? I'm sure Ford claimed it was, despite the laughs that must have gotten.

However, I'd like you to read this very carefully:

"On September 13 RICOH will announce the arrival of a new Super High Imaging Quality compact digital camera. This exceptional camera will be the digital version of the well-known GR analog camera series."

That's from THIS BLOG - August 31, to be exact, and it was a quote from a Ricoh press release. I believe they said "it will be a digital version of the well-known GR" blah blah blah. Well, it ain't.

But wait, there's more!

"The GR1 was first launched in October 96. Thereafter followed the GR1s, GR10, GR21 and GR1V. Although using 28mm and 21mm wide angle lenses, the quality was such that images were sharp right up to the edge; in fact a special L-mount version of the 28mm GR lens was made and rated highly by specialist reviews. As a result these cameras became popular with professional photographers and enthusiasts the world over. This is a response to a request from loyal GR serices customers."

Ricoh is claiming the inheritance and heritage of the justly-famous original GR cameras. They have failed utterly in every respect that can be measured.

This is not about how good of a lens the digital GR has. This is not about what the digital GR might be good for otherwise.

At the risk of repeating myself - if a screwdriver turns out to be a half-way decent hammer but a terrible screwdriver, then it is a piece of crap, because it fails to do what it was designed and advertised to do.

Am I "out of my element" here? Yes, if everyone here is a halfwit like the non-reasoning shaved apes I've run into thus far.

Do you understand, or do you need an interpreter?

Wiggy

5:17 pm - Tuesday, October 4, 2005

#30 GARY POGODA

You are looking for a screwdriver to replace your beloved screwdriver
that had a perfect size hardened steel tip, and could take any amount
of pounding, torque, or abuse without a scratch or dent. I offer to you
the most advanced electric screwdriver, providing the highest torque to
size ratio on the market today, and with the EXACT SAME TIP as your
beloved screwdriver, yet you complain it is not capable of applying the
same amount of torque you could apply manually, nor will it fit in your
pocket like the original.

WW, any way you look at it, Ricoh is claiming only the optical qualities
of the GR Digital to equal those of the original GRs. So far, I have not
heard a single criticism from you about the GR Digital's lens. Can we
assume then that you are in agreement with this claim?

6:14 pm - Tuesday, October 4, 2005

#31 Wigwam Jones

"...yet you complain it is not capable of applying the same amount of torque you could apply manually, nor will it fit in your
pocket like the original."

When those specifications were what made the film-based GR a worthy 'screwdriver' and fit for a particular purpose, then yes - the lack of those characteristics makes the so-called replacement a non-starter.

From Monty Python:
"I haven't got another parrot."
"Well, what have you got?"
"I've got a slug."
"Does it talk?"
"No."
"Then it's hardly a replacement then, is it?"

"...Ricoh is claiming only the optical qualities of the GR Digital to equal those of the original GRs."

No, that's not true. They said:

"A brief press release on the website of Ricoh Global today announces that the company will soon unveil a digital camera that follows in the footsteps of its GR-series of film cameras."

And they also said:

"Ricoh Press Release:

On September 13 RICOH will announce the arrival of a new Super High Imaging Quality compact digital camera. This exceptional camera will be the digital version of the well-known GR analog camera series."

Now, then. Let's break this down one item at a time. I'll address your points then.

1) The Ricoh digital GR has a internal neutral density filter that can come down and cover the lens. Why? Obstensibly so that the photographer can utilize selective focus techniques. I'll leave the question of how one can do that with a tiny sensor for another time - the point is, they don't put that in PnS cameras, because PnS people don't value that little trick.

2) They intentionally made the camera look like the film-based GR.

3) They called it the GR Digital.

4) They claimed in pre-released press releases, that the camera WAS IN FACT the digital version of the legendary GR film cameras.

Now, they just say it has a nice lens - they seem to have conveniently forgotten that they teased us with the rest of it. The film-based GR cameras were known for having a nice lens - but that was the tiniest part of what the GR cameras were cult items for. Lots of cameras have good lenses.

"So far, I have not heard a single criticism from you about the GR Digital’s lens. Can we assume then that you are in agreement with this claim?"

You can assume that I do not blithely shoot off my mouth with regard to things about which I know nothing. I have never examined the output of the GR Digital, and therefore I do not know how good or bad the lens is. But it does not meet my needs as a digital version of a GR, so I will never examine it thusly - like a broken pencil, there would be no point to it.

Wiggy

8:27 pm - Tuesday, October 4, 2005

#32 GARY POGODA

Finally, I think we are getting down to the real issue. It's not so much
what is currently being claimed on the Ricoh website that bothers you,
it is more all the pre-release hype that was generated.

So even if the optical properties of the GR Digital prove to be nothing
short of spectacular, you will STILL view the camera as a lemon, and
suffice it to say, you will NOT be making lemonade.

9:15 pm - Tuesday, October 4, 2005

#33 GARY POGODA

Carsten, you may be right about the poor noise characteristics of the
R3. It looks like it uses the same CCD as the HP Photosmart R817,
and according to Mark's review of the R817 today, it is terribly noisy.

9:26 pm - Tuesday, October 4, 2005

#34 Wigwam Jones

"Finally, I think we are getting down to the real issue. It’s not so much what is currently being claimed on the Ricoh website that bothers you, it is more all the pre-release hype that was generated."

By Ricoh. You forgot to say 'by Ricoh.' They said that it was the successor to the GR series film cameras. It wasn't 'the hype' it was 'their hype.' Despite flogging for Ricoh, let's keep that in mind.

"So even if the optical properties of the GR Digital prove to be nothing short of spectacular, you will STILL view the camera as a lemon, and suffice it to say, you will NOT be making lemonade."

The camera, whatever the quality of its lens, will not fill the same functional role of a film-based Ricoh GR series camera in the manner in which it earned its cult status. It is therefore useless as designed.

It will not fit easily into a pocket (with external rangefinder), it will not give true selective focus capability, it will not be an 'available light' camera with ISO 3200, and so on.

Of the list of attributes which the GR series film cameras possess that make them 'cult classics', it has only the small form factor and a potentially good lens going for it.

I have lots of film and digital cameras that fail at being a GR type camera in exactly the same way - sharp lenses and won't fit in my pocket. why on earth would I want another?

As I said originally - and I thought succinctly - this camera may well be swell and nifty for a variety of purposes; but not for the purpose it was designed, advertised, and sold. And due to that, it is an abject failure.

I predict that it will sit like a drug on the market until it is mercifully dragged into a back alley by Ricoh and put to death without protest. This is because it is far too overpriced and lacking in features to make it a good PnS camera (those guys want zoom, not a fixed-focal length) and it fails completely at being a digital GR. PnS guys don't care about seven-bladed aperture leaves or internal neutral-density filters that allow slower shutter speeds or wider apertures for creative effect. And film GR fans will find that only part of the longed-for solution.

The real issue, yes, is that it is not what Ricoh said it would be, and that is, in fact, what I had wanted and hoped for. Ricoh knows perfectly well that the GR series cameras are not cult classics because of the sharpness of their lenses alone - that was a side-benefit, albeit a very real one.

For Ricoh to pretend now that it is all about the lens, the lens, the lens which is the real successor to the GR film cameras is stuff and nonsense. They failed and they know it.

The second part of my ongoing problem is with the digital apologistarati, if I may coin a term. To them, there is no criticism that can be leveled at a digital camera, they're so on board with the whole digital photography thing. One cannot criticize a digital camera - why, if it is no good at what it was supposed to do, perhaps it is lovely at something else! A hammer, perhaps, or a bookend. But certainly worthy of being tucked into every pro's camera bag!

And if NO small digital camera can do what a small film camera can do, then let's redefine what is acceptable and make what was a 'must-have' for film cameras no longer necessary for digital cameras. Thus, we can declare equality with film cameras.

Johnny can't read? Well, reading is over-rated! There, solved that problem!

And being a fan of digital cameras, I find this offensive. Normally intelligent people pretending to be stupid to avoid confronting the nekkidness of the Emporer tick me off.

Wiggy

10:15 pm - Tuesday, October 4, 2005

#35 GARY POGODA

With the progress being made in CMOS sensor technology, it will not
be too much longer before a small sized sensor can rival the imaging
capabilities of 35mm film, heretofore only possible with large sensors.

As for the optical viewfinder issue, I do not see that happening. The
trend in ultra-compacts has been towards elimination of viewfinders
to make room for the crop of larger, brighter, higher resolution LCDs,
and I do not foresee any changes in that trend. The GR's attachable
viewfinder was a compromise solution, but one that works only if you
are open to using the LCD most of the time. The only "bright" spot in
this trend is that, as LCDs continue to improve in quality, the need for
an optical viewfinder may be totally eliminated.

As for the success of the GR Digital, I doubt that Ricoh was predicting
a huge market, even if it did fulfill all the hype. However, the fact that
Ricoh have set their sights on achieving a digital successor to the GR,
I have no doubt, in time, even you will be jumping on their bandwagon.

So until then, happy trails.

4:45 am - Wednesday, October 5, 2005

#36 Wigwam Jones

"With the progress being made in CMOS sensor technology, it will not be too much longer before a small sized sensor can rival the imaging capabilities of 35mm film, heretofore only possible with large sensors."

"Imaging quality" is not the only criteria for photographic excellence. This is for people who think that if a lens is sharp, then excellence has been achieved. It is only one small part of the formula.

With very small sensors, equivalent focal lengths change. A 9mm lens becomes a "28mm equivalent (in 35mm size)" lens, depending on sensor size. This is the much-mentioned 'crop factor' or 'multiplication factor' for lenses. But it affects much more than that. Physics remains physics, so a 9mm lens has the Depth-of-Field (DOF) characteristics of a 9mm lens, not that of a 28mm lens. It becomes impossible to render backgrounds as intentionally blurred as a photographer would prefer, unless we're talking about extreme macro shots.

The most common use of DOF effects (also known as 'selective focus') is for portraits. This can be done with digital sensors of reasonable size - such as APS/C, but not with the tiny 1/8 sensor this camera uses. It doesn't matter how high-quality the sensor is - small is small, and in most cases, small is bad for professional and serious amateur photography. Snapshots? Fine for that.

So please - 'quality' means much more than pixels and lens sharpness. It also means photographic control using physical properties that require - yes, require - the use of a larger sensor to achieve.

"As for the optical viewfinder issue, I do not see that happening. The trend in ultra-compacts has been towards elimination of viewfinders to make room for the crop of larger, brighter, higher resolution LCDs,
and I do not foresee any changes in that trend."

I agree with your assessment of the trend in LCDs vis-a-vis PnS cameras. I would stipulate that the optical viewfinder is a useless appendage in most PnS cameras.

THIS WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE A STANDARD PNS CAMERA. How hard is that to grasp?

The film-based GR camera achieved cult status in part because of it's stealthy qualities. You cannot STEALTH while you chimp over a bright shiny LCD. QED.

"The GR’s attachable viewfinder was a compromise solution, but one that works only if you are open to using the LCD most of the time."

You mean, only if you are open to accepting the fact that the GR Digital is NOT a GR camera in any way, shape, or form. Then yes.

My car is a great submarine as long as you are open to the fact that it isn't air-tight. How's that work for you?

"The only “bright” spot in this trend is that, as LCDs continue to improve in quality, the need for an optical viewfinder may be totally eliminated."

For most PnS digicams, there is no need for an optical viewfinder. My point was and remains this - if you have a street camera that is required to perform in a stealthy mode from time to time (as street photographers do, surprise), then an LCD is a useless appendage, good for nothing. An optical viewfinder is therefore the only appropriate solution. A stuck-on external viewfinder ruins the ability to put the camera in a pocket, so that's useless too.

Compromises are for general purpose cameras. This was not intended to be such a camera, therefore compromises such as these are idiotic, bad, and wrong.

"As for the success of the GR Digital, I doubt that Ricoh was predicting a huge market, even if it did fulfill all the hype. However, the fact that Ricoh have set their sights on achieving a digital successor to the GR, I have no doubt, in time, even you will be jumping on their bandwagon."

When they produce a camera that fulfills the premise and respects the genius of the original GR in a digital format, I'll be the first one in line to buy one. Obviously, Ricoh can do it - they did it before with the original. Until then, I'm going to continue to point out that this steaming pile of crap is not it.

Wiggy

1:55 pm - Wednesday, October 5, 2005

#37 GARY POGODA

You should stick to the facts, rather than the use of analogies. Case
in point, your paragraph about "selective focus" rings true, while your
car/submarine analogy leaves much to be desired.

I do not know what more Ricoh can do for the limited selective focus
of small sensors. Maybe a faster lens. Maybe even a slightly larger
sensor. There is not very much latitude here, as that "physics" thing
keeps getting in the way.

[BTW, have you read the article about how professional photographer
Donovan Wylie recently found great joy in the "flat look" obtained from
small digital sensors?]

As for a GR with its attached viewfinder not fitting in your pocket, you
could always try using two pockets . Actually, from the one picture
I have seen of the viewfinder, it does not appear to be all that big.

So far, I have read two favorable reviews of the GR Digital, and not a
single complaint about its lack of stealth, selective focus, or ISO 3200.
Not that this is any slam (Quigley Edmund) Dunk.

8:03 pm - Wednesday, October 5, 2005

#38 Wigwam Jones

"You should stick to the facts, rather than the use of analogies. Case in point, your paragraph about “selective focus” rings true, while your car/submarine analogy leaves much to be desired."

Sorry you didn't like my analogy, but it I think it illustrates the point. An LCD is completely unneccessary for the purpose the GR Digital was supposedly designed for. A viewfinder is a necessity. The fact that the GR Digital has the former and not the latter makes it a failure, not a success if the expected use is redefined.

"I do not know what more Ricoh can do for the limited selective focus of small sensors. Maybe a faster lens. Maybe even a slightly larger sensor. There is not very much latitude here, as that “physics” thing
keeps getting in the way."

Correct - a faster lens or a larger sensor is required. If neither is possible at this time, that's not Ricoh's fault. Pretending that it doesn't matter or isn't necessary is.

"[BTW, have you read the article about how professional photographer Donovan Wylie recently found great joy in the “flat look” obtained from small digital sensors?]"

No, but I'll look for it. Interesting though that may be, it does not suffice. Finding creative new uses for what would otherwise be shortcomings is a hallmark of artists, and I respect that. It hardly defines away the need for selective focus.

"As for a GR with its attached viewfinder not fitting in your pocket, you could always try using two pockets."

Meant to be facetious, I presume?

"Actually, from the one picture I have seen of the viewfinder, it does not appear to be all that big."

Not really the size of it, but rather that it sticks out. Yes, it must be small, but as important, it must not catch on a pocket coming out for a rapid shot. It must not have fiddly bits that require putting together or take lots of time to be ready to shoot.

"So far, I have read two favorable reviews of the GR Digital, and not a single complaint about its lack of stealth, selective focus, or ISO 3200. Not that this is any slam (Quigley Edmund) Dunk."

I have no idea how this camera will be reviewed. Early reviews are typically advance models sent out to magazine writers, who seldom have anything bad to say about new cameras. I would expect that as the camera becomes available, those who would be attracted to a GR Digital that was really a digital GR will line up to not buy this camera - and thus will not have much to say about it. Just an opinion, though.

Wiggy

10:40 pm - Wednesday, October 5, 2005

#39 GARY POGODA

I liked one of your analogies, the one about Ford Mustangs.

We have now discussed a multitude of likes, dislikes, and wishes for
the GR Digital, which I have attempted to summarize below. Please
feel free to modify these to your own satisfaction.

Likes:
1. ultra-compact size
2. 28mm fixed focal length lens
3. 8.1 megapixel resolution CCD
4. seven-blade aperture
5. neutral density filter
6. superb lens properties (*)
7. pop-up flash
8. full manual capabilities
9. looks like a film GR

Dislikes:
1. small 1/1.8" CCD
2. no ISO 3200
3. no internal optical viewfinder
4. limited selective focus capability (**)
5. slow 1.7 seconds shot-to-shot continuous shooting (***)

Wishes:
1. larger image sensor, possibly CMOS
2. faster lens
3. internal optical viewfinder, combined with smaller LCD
4. faster continuous shooting
5. 3x optical zoom (****)

(*).....Ricoh's claimed lens properties not yet proven.

(**)....Ricoh claims good background blur with ND filter allowing use
of larger apertures.

(***)...The 1.7 seconds may be a typo. 1.7 fps would be more likely.

(****)..Gotcha

8:11 am - Thursday, October 6, 2005

#40 Wigwam Jones

"Likes:
1. ultra-compact size
2. 28mm fixed focal length lens
3. 8.1 megapixel resolution CCD
4. seven-blade aperture
5. neutral density filter
6. superb lens properties (*)
7. pop-up flash
8. full manual capabilities
9. looks like a film GR "

I would not put most of these under 'likes' but rather under 'don't care one way or the other'. About the only thing I'd put in the 'like' category would be 28mm fixed lens and full manual capabilities. The rest are not especially important to me except that it does need to be small enough to be carried in a shirt pocket and withdrawn without snagging on anything. Without the optical viewfinder being internal, even that is negated.

"Dislikes:
1. small 1/1.8” CCD
2. no ISO 3200
3. no internal optical viewfinder
4. limited selective focus capability (**)
5. slow 1.7 seconds shot-to-shot continuous shooting (***)"

Yes, I agree. In fact, it is this list that makes the camera NOT a digital version of the classic GR.

"(*).....Ricoh’s claimed lens properties not yet proven."

Frankly, an ultra-sharp lens is icing on a cake. Nice to have - lovely in fact - but of less importance for a street camera. The lens need only be competant. Other factors weigh more heavily on a camera of this sort.

"(**)....Ricoh claims good background blur with ND filter allowing use of larger apertures."

Ricoh can claim what they like - but it is absolutely untrue. The internal filter does not affect DOF - it merely slows down the film, so to speak, requiring use of a more open aperture to maintain equivalent exposure. By forcing the lens to be used a stop or two wider, they hope to overcome some of the disadvantages of a very small sensor size.

But let's look at the math - it is not very hard. The lens is 5.9mm. 28mm in 35mm equivalent terms. But it has the characteristics of a 5.9mm lens, not a 28mm lens - otherwise we could shoot medium format and the DOF would change as we cropped down to 35mm. It doesn't because DOF is locked to the lens' actual focal length, not the 'equivalent' value quoted by Ricoh.

A common street portrait distance is 4 feet. Using a LMF of 4.75 (5.9mm to 28mm) and an aperture of 2.4 (wide open on the Ricoh GR Digital), a focus distance of 4 feet(48 inches) would yield a DOF of 31 inches to 101 inches - 70.4 inches of DOF. WOW! Nearly everything in an urban setting would be in focus, maybe some tall buildings out in the far background would be blurred.

Now, let's take the Ricoh GR with 28mm lens and f2.8 (GR1-V, specs from Ricoh's website). Shooting again wide-open with a focus distance of 4 feet (48 inches), the DOF would be 42 to 55 inches, for a rough DOF of about 12 inches or 1 foot.

A bit of a difference, don't you think?

Using an APS/C sensor, with a multiplier of only 1.5 (versus 4.75 in the Ricoh GR Digital), the DOF would be 19.3 inches. That would assume an 18.67mm lens (28mm equiv) and an f2.8 wide-open aperture setting.

With an APS/C, one would give up about 6 inches in DOF to achieve the same effects. Using the 1/8 sensor, one loses all capability to create a non-macro photograph with selective-focus characteristics.

Now tell me again how Ricoh claims good background blur, due to their fancy neutral-density filter.

Wiggy

1:50 pm - Thursday, October 6, 2005

#41 GARY POGODA

Not very encouraging. The HD filter gets you closer to the camera's
minimum DOF, but as your calculations clearly show, that is still not
very useful.

APS-C sensors are just now starting to appear in non-dSLR cameras,
but I do not expect to see them in ultra-compacts anytime in the near
future. Then again, I never expected to see an ultra-compact with 7x
optical zoom, so who knows?

8:01 pm - Thursday, October 6, 2005

#42 GARY POGODA

The 'H" and 'N' keys are very closely spaced.

8:07 pm - Thursday, October 6, 2005

#43 Steve George

I won't be buying one of these. No optical viewfinder (when are the teenage geeks who design most things these days going to realise that when you're getting to a respectable age you can't see an LCD screen without putting a pair of reading glasses on?). No easily accessible wheel to alter aperture (back to the LCD screen...) or exposure compensation. Built in strobe? What the hell for? So it's no descendant of the original GR1 or its relatives. Go back to the drawing board Ricoh. Produce a camera that has an optical viewfinder (possibly ONLY an optical viewfinder) that has the same controls on top as the original GR1, and that has this lens and chip (and since it has the same dimensions as the GR1 you should be able to do that) and I might buy one.

4:06 pm - Saturday, October 8, 2005

#44 GARY POGODA

I can sympathize with your desire for an optical viewfinder, but if your
eyesight is bad, I would think the high quality, attachable viewfinder of
the GR Digital would be perfect for you.

As for eliminating the LCD entirely, I do not think you would want to do
that. Even the film GRs had LCDs, and digital offers the advantage of
being able to immediately review your pictures while out in the field.

Granted, manual controls are easier to operate than their menu driven
equivalents, but I would think with the larger, brighter, higher resolution
LCDs now available, the menu and setting information would be easier
to see than with the previous generation LCDs. Have you actually tried
a 2.5", 200K+ pixel, high brightness, anti-reflective LCD?

I did not understand the point you were making about the lens and chip
in your last sentence. Could you please elaborate?

5:23 pm - Saturday, October 8, 2005

#45 Steve George

OK, Gary, an LCD screen is useful for getting rid of crappy images you've managed to get into your camera. But for nothing else. Not as a primary viewfinder, nor as the place to site the controls of the camera. I would guess, Gary, that you're not yet of an age to have experienced presbyopia. This is an inevitable condition of ageing which means that everything closer than about three feet is blurry. As the lens in your eye gets older it becomes less flexible, so while your distant vision is unchanged, close-ups require the use of accessory viewfinders (otherwise known as reading glasses). You don't have to be that old either: in my case it started when I was about 40. Shooting with a camera like this, then, requires getting a pair of reading glasses out of your pocket, putting them on, pressing the fiddly little buttons to adjust the aperture, exposure compensation or flash, and then holding the camera away from your body to frame whatever it is you’re trying to shoot. Recycle time of 1.7 seconds? More like 1.7 minutes! The original GR1 has LCDs, sure, but not LCD menus that need to be used for everything. They cover focusing mode (which hardly ever needs to be changed) and self timer (which only gets used to take the family group picture at Christmas). You don’t have to look at the aperture wheel on the original GR1, because you can tell from the number of click-stops where you are. The flash control (on, off or auto) is again set with a switch, and gives you everything you need. Let’s turn to accessory viewfinders again. Up the page you called the GR “a high quality pocket camera”. Well the accessory viewfinder stops it being that. It sticks out too far, and will get in the way. It will not be possible to put this camera into a belt pouch with it attached. And your point about “have I tried a 2.5” LCD screen?”. Well, Gary, going back to presbyopia, it’s the distance from the screen that’s the important point, not whether it’s 2” or 2.5”. From three feet away it’d have to be about 14” to be readable, and that’s no pocket camera! My point about the lens and chip is that they could have been fitted into an original GR type case, with optical viewfinder and manual controls, as the overall dimensions are the same. There would have to be a smaller LCD screen, obviously, but if it’s only use for reviewing pictures already taken that’s fine. So, Gary, I won’t be buying one. Neither, I would guess, will other presbyopians (makes it sound like a religion!). And teenage geeks won’t have enough money to buy one, although they’ll love crowding round it at Dixon’s pressing all the little buttons to see what they do. Accept the fact that this is in no way, shape or form the successor to the GR1. It’s the works of a Caplio stuffed into a GR type case.

1:47 pm - Sunday, October 9, 2005

#46 GARY POGODA

Very sorry to hear about your visual affliction. While I am sure there
are many others out there in the same boat, I doubt that it is enough
for Ricoh to seriously consider producing a camera sans LCD.

A 14" LCD is definitely out of the question, but how about this? Just
like on a computer screen where you can adjust the pixel resolution
to increase the type size, a similar option could easily be provided on
the camera for enlarging the menu type size on the LCD. It may not
be a 14" LCD, but the type size could be adjusted (nearly) equivalent.

One thing about the external viewfinder, you always have the option
of removing it when the camera is stowed. It may not provide all the
convenience of an internal viewfinder, but would certainly provide for
better coverage.

I agree that this version of the GR Digital has its shortcomings due to
compromises that were made. Maybe future versions will amend the
situation. However, I think we are not giving credit where credit is due,
namely, to Ricoh for being able to match the original GR's lens quality
in the GR Digital, which in and of itself, was quite an engineering feat.

7:22 pm - Sunday, October 9, 2005

#47 Steve George

Hardly an affliction Gary. It's the normal state for many non-teenages. You agree that this camera "has its shortcomings due to
compromises that were made". You suggest that "[pixel resolution] could easily be provided on the camera for enlarging the menu type size on the LCD", but can it be? I think not at the moment. i guess I would have the option of removing the external viewfinder when not in use. I also have the option of using a different camera. As for "giving credit where credit is due match[ing] the original GR’s lens quality
in the GR Digital" I guess that's true. Shame they cocked up the rest.

9:17 pm - Sunday, October 9, 2005

#48 GARY POGODA

Just out of curiosity, what other digital cameras are you considering
to fulfill this niche?

9:39 pm - Sunday, October 9, 2005

#49 Steve George

Sadly there are no non-SLR digitals that have manual controls with the exception of the Panasonic/Leica Digilux 2. And that doesn't have an optical finder! I'll be honest and say that I'll stick with film until "digital" grows up.

7:26 am - Monday, October 10, 2005

#50 GARY POGODA

I thought that might be the case. So would it be fair to say that with
a few more manual controls to replace their menu equivalents, and
a slightly smaller LCD to make room for a quality optical viewfinder,
you might be tempted to purchase a GR Digital, even though it still
would have certain deficiencies compared to film, which could only
be overcome by further advances in the state of digital technology?

8:58 am - Monday, October 10, 2005

#51 Steve George

Yes. Given those developments I would buy one.

11:46 am - Monday, October 10, 2005

#52 Peter van Veen

Thnaks all for the very interesting opinions. I am also a little confused by the GR-D. I have a GR-1 and have found it very useful for moutaineering, skiing and other outdoor activities that preclude me from dragging SLR kit around with me. I have found the GR-1 to stand up to quite a few knocks and not to let in persperation or a bit of rain.

Alas the GR-D may not be a useful replacement as:
a) the 2.5" lcd back won't withstand much of a knock - not sure what the point is of a magnesium body when most of the back is fragile LCD (should have had a solution such as the Epson r-d1 - a fold away lcd)
b) the pointless microphone and speaker will most likely let in moisture/ allow it to collect there..

Pity - hopefully the first real product reviews will confirm/ deny some of these hunches

Peter

3:35 pm - Monday, October 10, 2005

#53 GARY POGODA

Good point about an Epson R-D1 style LCD. Of course, some might
point out that the R-D1 is a $3000 dSLR. Still, there are examples of
this style LCD in compact point-and-shoot cameras, for example, the
Canon Powershot A95 and G6, although none in an ultra-compact of
which I am aware.

As for weatherproofing, a microphone and speaker don't necessarily
negate this feature. Case in point, the Olympus Mju Digital 800, and
even the waterproof Pentax Optio WP. As for the GR Digital, there is
no mention of this feature, so I doubt it exists.

I wholeheartedly agree that we are in need of some in-depth reviews,
especially to test the GR Digital's main claim to fame, namely, its lens.
If the lens does not meet Ricoh's claims of "corner-to-corner" imaging
clarity, then all bets are off.

5:57 pm - Monday, October 10, 2005

#54 Big Si

Well, it shouldn't be long before we can start to settle some of the moot points in this discussion

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7552531865

That's a handsome price though

10:21 am - Tuesday, October 11, 2005

#55 GARY POGODA

That may have been bogus since it now shows "Invalid Item". BTW,
what was the price?

7:50 pm - Tuesday, October 11, 2005

#56 Peter van Veen

the address is still valid - just doesn't link properly (copy and paste) price is US $798.00 (Approximately £456.29)

Which is about £60 more than RRP in the UK + postage + VAT - doesn't sound like a very good deal to me!

10:17 am - Wednesday, October 12, 2005

#57 GARY POGODA

The high price must be because this is the "SLR" model according to
the Item Specifics.

6:09 pm - Wednesday, October 12, 2005

#58 Sxilderik

Long urls (post #28) are plaguing these forums...

My wrist hurts, I give up.

:(

4:18 pm - Friday, October 21, 2005

#59 GARY POGODA

Suggestion, Copy and Paste the entire thread into a word processor
or other resizable window. The lines will then wrap nicely according
to the window size.

OR, since my posts are self-wrapping, you can just read those, and
skip all the others.

5:21 pm - Friday, October 21, 2005

#60 jungular

I am a photographer who has never used the Ricoh GR film camera. (My main tool is the Contax G2). My digital cameras: Nikon D70 is what I had been using as my everyday-take-around camera (I am a woman, so my 'pocket camera' can be bigger, as I just literally toss it in my purse and lug it everywhere.) When I can't take a bag along, I pack a Canon S70 PnS into my pocket (good for snaps at night, in bars, at concerts, 'sketch' photos, etc.) I am very happy with my Canon S70 as a pocket camera, mainly because it has the most 'manual' features available in a compact digital PnS (though it's quite bulky for a pocket digital PnS.) My reasons for getting the Ricoh GR digital: to replace the Canon S70, as it is smaller, quicker, with higher quality images. I don't intend to use this to replace my Contax film camera; I view it as a pocket digital PnS that many professionals would be happy to have as their pocket PnS because it performs pretty damn well for a camera its size. Because I view it as a pocket camera, I am impressed by the quality of its output. Because it has no built-in viewfinder, it has a nice-sized LCD screen. You really don't need a viewfinder if you are using this as a PnS. If you do, then I can tell you the external viewfinder is beautiful, crisp and clear. I just don't use it that much.

About it being a stealth camera, I can argue that any digital PnS camera that you shoot with by using the LCD screen is going to be more stealth than actually holding the camera up to your face. (No matter how small or large a camera is, people are more aware of someone with a camera up to their eye than to someone looking down at an LCD screen.) Besides, what pro would need to shoot stealth? If a pro is a pro, they wouldn't care so much about being stealth and would just shoot what they want. On that same note, most pros would prefer fixed length lenses. They make better quality images, period. If you need to zoom in, zoom in with your feet.

Someone else mentioned that there is no 'first layer' access to changing aperture, etc. There is, if you leave it on manual...the shutter speed is controlled by the dial on the back, and the fStop is controlled by the dial on the front. The EV is essentially the light meter on the display. It's simple, basic, stripped of all those other bells and whistles, because I only use Aperture Priority or Manual Mode, anyway.

The only cons I have so far about this camera is that it's a little noisy when you power it on and off. I do think the menu is a bit of a pain; I wish there was 1 layer removed in order to change the ISO setting. Shooting in RAW: I don't think the continuous shooting mode works in RAW. Anyone know about this? (I don't have an English language manual yet, so I'm just trying to learn it by using it.) Writing RAW images takes like...5 seconds about. One feature I have grown to love in more fully-featured digital cameras is the ability to power up or down the flash. I don't think the Ricoh GR Digital has this feature.

If you have any other questions about this, feel free to ask. Overall, it's the best pocket-sized digital PnS I've seen, a digital camera that will really appeal to serious photographers.

7:41 pm - Sunday, December 11, 2005

#61 Prognathous

jungular, there are links to the GR-D manual in the following thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1001&message=15931517

BTW, 5 seconds per RAW file is the quickest time reported to date (with the GR-D). Most people report 9 to 16 seconds. What memory card are you using?

Prog.

Prog.

8:21 pm - Sunday, December 11, 2005

#62 GARY POGODA

Truly glad to hear that you are having favorable experiences with your
GR Digital. I had a feeling the attachable viewfinder was a good idea,
i.e., high quality and only there on the rare occasion you would need it.

What is your shot-to-shot continuous shooting? Is it the 1.7 seconds
like the spec sheet says, or was that a typo and it is really 1.7 frames
per second (fps)?

What do you think of the image sensor noise? I would have guessed
it would be quite high by ISO 200, and totally unusable above, based
on Mark's review of the GX8, which uses the same sensor.

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_ricoh_caplio_gx8_6.php

10:15 pm - Sunday, December 11, 2005

#63 Chris Heath

Have recently come across this web site and it's hilarious exchanges - especially from 'Wiggy' who seems to get very emotive at the drop of a hat if anyone disagrees with him - insults, personal abuse - it's great to read that someone can get so excited about something as trivial as a digital camera - sod the Tsunami, AIDS, cancer, African poverty and famine, the Pakistan earthquake, child abuse, homelessness etc - lets get uptight about a pocket camera - doh!!

I just thought I'd remind everyone (as an experienced photographer of 30 years including much pro' work) I've found a camera that will cope with any ASA speed you care to dream up and with no noise at all below 1600. It has a perfect, 100% optical viewfinder with fool-proof focussing, has a prime lens that outperforms EVERY digital camera up to and including the very top Nikon and Canon offerings. It has a full 35mm sensor so there is none of this '35mm lens eqiuvalent' rubbish - a 50mm lens equates to 50mm. There is a vast array of fast, top-drawer prime lenses available for it at virtually 'give away' prices. The results can be enlarged to A2 with no problems whatsoever - you name a digital camera and this one will outperform it in every department. It is quiet, discreet, beautifully engineered with a sold metal body, can rattle off 30 shots in about five seconds and costs less than a bottom of the range Canon p'n's. It does not plummet in value nor does it require a huge inventory of computer hardware and software in need or constant upgrading to view the results. It doesn't even need batteries. If I wreck it or lose it, I just go and buy another one for tuppence. And I don't need to make copies of all the photographs I take in case my hard disk dies.

This wonder machine is called a second hand Olympus OM-1. There are numerous similar cameras around such as the Nikon FM and Canon F1, lying untouched and gathering dust while their owners now struggle with noise, colour fringing, depth of field that goes on forever, crap zoom lenses, no viewfinders (who dreamed that one up? - 'I've got a great idea, lets not have a viewfinder' - what about a car with no wheels too?), layers, curves, unsharp masks, screen and printer calibration and God only knows what else. Someone obviously thinks that being a good photographer is far too easy so let's make it difficult to get a result out of the camera - let's invent digital!

I have tried the 'digital experience' - it's no wonder my local dealer (a supplier primarily to the pro' market) has remarked that a lot of his customers are returning, disillusioned, to film.

Digital photography would appear to me to be a solution looking for a problem.

Chris Heath

12:16 pm - Monday, December 19, 2005

#64 GARY POGODA

Chris, there are laws against inciting a riot. Fortunately, they do not
apply here.

It's the never-ending debate. Both sides have good and bad points,
The same applies to vinyl albums vs. CDs, 2" wide analog recording
tape vs. digital, the old Ma Bell rotary dial telephones, cars with 455
cubic inch V8s, full-flow shower heads, 5 gallon toilet tanks, tin soda
cans, glass soda bottles, tube amplifiers, silver coins, real telephone
operators, natural child birth, real breasts ... but then I digress.

5:51 pm - Monday, December 19, 2005

#65 Bryan

hello,

would any owner of the GR Digital tell me what is the camera's burst rate? for both jpeg(fine) and RAW.

many thanks,
Bryan

London
20:37
2Jan2006

8:30 pm - Monday, January 2, 2006

#66 Peter

Hello,

RICOH GR review, samples and firmware:

http://tinyurl.com/abpl4

6:47 pm - Saturday, February 4, 2006

#67 nick in japan

Chris, in '87 I found a black OM-1 (not the 'n) new, in a small camera shop, I was elated to say the least! I had just started collecting and that camera is still one of my special treasures! It will never see a roll of film, I operate the shutter every year to ensure the lubrication doesnt harden up. A wonderful camera, especially the bright viewfinder, I'd compare it to my Panasonic LX-1 in the ""WOW" catagory, even if ads for LX-1 won't involve trips to Mt. Everest!

11:17 pm - Saturday, February 4, 2006

#68 adam ombudsman

What an interesting discussion. Film vs Digital...! I tried the GR Digital today and thought it was a good little camera..generally pretty competant. Felt nice in the hand, seemed a very sharp lens. Yes there are points that could be improved upon, but hey its not a GR1, in the same way that a GR1 is not a digital camera. Different tool..take your pick, quit whinging... maybe go out and take some pictures on either camera..! Just a thought.

I too find the amount of personal abuse and carping on this thread quite astounding. It beggars belief what has made Wigwam so angry about everything.

I use extreme III sandisk cards on my 5d, any idea on read write times on equivalent SDs with the GRD?

All the best folks... whichever camera you use enjoy.

Cheers

Ombudsman

9:31 pm - Tuesday, March 21, 2006

#69 GARY POGODA

Adam, where were you when all this heated discussion was going on?
We could have used an Ombudsman.

I gather you are seriously considering the purchase of the GR Digital?
Have you checked into its image noise?

2:02 pm - Wednesday, March 22, 2006

#70 Pierre

Hi,
I love the Ricoh GR digital. It's a fantastic little camera !!!!

Photos on:

http://ricoh-grd.blogspot.com/

4:46 pm - Saturday, April 8, 2006

#71 nick in japan

Awesome images Pierre! Proof that this camera's great lens, the LPM are astronomical! As I looked at your images, I got the feeling I was looking at Medium Format work!! Thank you for posting this site!

11:28 pm - Saturday, April 8, 2006

#72 Wigwam Jones

"It beggars belief what has made Wigwam so angry about everything."

I'm not angry about everything. I'm angry about Ricoh proclaiming this to be the 'digital' GR when it so clearly is not. And it especially annoys me because I did in fact want a digital version of a GR.

"Awesome images Pierre! Proof that this camera's great lens, the LPM are astronomical!"

Oh, puhleeze. How exactly did you measure LPM in those reduced-size JPG files?

Yes, they are very nice. Proof indeed that the photographer is quite capable, and that the digital GR is a capable digital camera. I never said it wasn't. I said it was not a digital version of the great GR series film cameras, and it is not.

Smooches,

Wiggy

11:43 pm - Saturday, April 8, 2006

#73 nick in japan

Read the specs for LPM, the images reflect those high numbers! Better open the flap on that wigwam and let some of the smoke out!

11:52 pm - Saturday, April 8, 2006

#74 Wigwam Jones

"Read the specs for LPM, the images reflect those high numbers! Better open the flap on that wigwam and let some of the smoke out!"

Ah, you can *see* the LPM, can you? In a thumbnail-sized JPG of the original photo.

Oh, wait, you read the sales blurbs and went gonzo. Ooh, those are some high numbers! Well I for one must rush right out and buy several. Or not.

Yeah, ok, Nick. I usually stay around and argue, but you're not worth my time...sigh.

Smooches,

Wiggy

1:55 am - Sunday, April 9, 2006

#75 mukamo

Good day everybody. Been reading this very interesteing thread and found quite a lot of info about the GR. If one will ignore the bashing and personal attacks - this thread is really worth the read. So far the picture links are awesome, one can really tell by the pics that the outcome depends on the photographer. And I think that sold the GR for me, it can be a piece of crap on the hands of those who do not know it, and it can be a really gem to those who can tame it.

Mr. Wiggy, do you have any recommendation that would fit the "worthy compact street shooter" title with the existing digital cameras out there today?

3:32 am - Monday, April 17, 2006

#76 Wigwam Jones

"So far the picture links are awesome, one can really tell by the pics that the outcome depends on the photographer. And I think that sold the GR for me, it can be a piece of crap on the hands of those who do not know it, and it can be a really gem to those who can tame it."

First - I never said that the photos this camera can or does produce are no good. I have no knowledge of that, since I do not have one. And to be quite honest - neither do you, or anyone who does not own or has used one of these - or has access to the original RAW or full-scale JPG images. A reduced-size web photo means NOTHING. Any basically-competent digicam should be able to produce images that look fine on a webpage. If you're buying on that basis, you're buying quality you imagine, not quality you can see.

Second - any camera works better if a person knows how to use it. That still does not suit it for what it is not. A 4x5 field camera is a lovely bit of kit, but it is not a pocket camera - and all 'ability to use it' won't make it one. Fair enough?

"Mr. Wiggy, do you have any recommendation that would fit the "worthy compact street shooter" title with the existing digital cameras out there today?"

Sadly, no. The two cameras that come closest are this one and the Fuji Finepix F10, F11, and now F30. They are all worthy in one sense - higher ISO than typical for a small pocket sized digicam. That's a good thing.

However, the ultra-tiny sensor still means no DOF effects - not even with the tiny internal 'neutral density filter' built into the GR digital. Oh yes, in macro mode, but what digicam can't do that? I mean in normal portrait mode.

No optical viewfinder is a dead show-stopper for me. I don't want an LCD. No use for one. About the only purpose it could serve for me is as a histogram to check exposure - that's a neat trick. But it is misleading as to focus - how often have I thought my shot was in focus based on the LCD, and then found out later it wasn't. I blame both my tired old eyes and the tiny LCDs. I want an optical viewfinder. I'll live without a rangefinder patch (The Epson RD-1, but that's hardly a pocket cam), but I insist on an internal optical viewfinder. A stick-on afterthought just makes me angry - especially as they charge extra for it!

To make me happy, what I want is simple.

1) Bigger sensor. Say Olympus 4/3 size.
2) ISO 3200 is nice, 1600 is ok - RAW.
3) Optical viewfinder.
4) Prime lens, no zoom.
5) Low lag-time on shutter release.
6) Manual override on everything.

Nice to have, but not vital:

1) Fast shot-to-shot recovery.
2) Fast startup time from power-off.

How hard is that? I guess if people think I'm rabid with anger - it is because I wanted so much for this camera to be what Ricoh claimed it was - and the fact that Ricoh keeps claiming it is the digital GR when it is so obviously nothing of the sort - an ugly bastard child of Ricoh engineering and marketing - this is what you get when the beancounters get a say. You can see where the engineers tried to make it great - and the idiot marketing team got in the middle like the chumps they are.

Smooches,

Wiggy

3:56 am - Monday, April 17, 2006

#77 adam ombudsman

Hi Gary & All,

Regarding your question about the GRD's noise. After a month of deliberation I ended up getting one after missing 2 GRD's on ebay recently. I got one for £366 @ Jessops. Not bad I thought.

Got it home to do some further tests. Here's my conclusions.

1. Battery not charged when I got home and decided to use 2x AAA to take the camera out with me that evening to try the thing out. With high power AAA this camera will only last for about 5 mins before the power shuts down. I was able to only take about 5 pictures before the thing gave up... This is simply inexcuseable! Ricoh please take note that this is a pointless feature on your camera. To give customers the indication that you are offering flexibility on your camera on power supplies. I would rather you did away with this as AAA just do not last long enough.

2. The start up time is average. Neither good or bad compared to the competition. What is substandard is the time taken for the camera to lock focus on its subject. With either the Multi AF or Spot AF I found if I had the camera ready and primed to take a picture I would have missed that golden moment. Ricoh... please make your camera focus faster..If casio with their Exilim range can do this (and they make calculators) then you surely must be able to.

3. The lens and focussing system is noisy and whirrs excessively. Not a major issue but on an RRP of £400 for a camera this is a bit stingey. Could do better here Ricoh.

4. Build quality is superb...! Well done. I like the dual control wheels. reminds me of my Canon 5d.

5. It takes an eternity to write RAW.... Ultra II's about 10 sec +. I will point out here that comparisions with an SLR as seen in the thread above are rather pointless... Mainly because the GRD is not an SLR..!! Thing is though at £400 this camera is not that far away in price to a Canon 350d with standard lens. If it was not for the fact that I need a good compact to support my 5d I know where I would be going.

6. The screen brightness does not cut thru well in daylight meaning that it is difficult to assess shots that have been taken. The surface of the screen is rather shiney adding to the problem.

7. Poorly designed battery compartment door. Sprung loading surely would not have cost that much to add in on a camera being pitched at the higher level of the market.

8. There is no indication as to which way round the batter should go in the compartment. ???

9. The rubber door that reveals the usb port did not fir closed properly on the model I have bought. Again a cheap part that should have had more thought applied to it.

10. If you don't need to take pictures in hurry and are happy to wait a while the lens on this camera is undoubtedly very good.

11. Noise is an issue above 400 iso (in the limited tests that I have done with it so far). Initial reactions are that they could do better here.

12. I do like the GR engines method of making shots look filmic in origin. Compression artifacts and the shape of the noise are more pleasing than on some cameras I have seen. Trouble is I am somewhat spoiled by having a 5D which is good up to 1600 .... Yes I know the 5D is an SLR.

13. Why are the useful accessories for this already expensive camera rather expensive.. You are not helping yourself here Ricoh.

14. The online reviews for this camera appear to be paid for by Ricoh. They are utterly favourable to the camera. Misleading I think. Make your own minds up me thinks by trying one out yourself.

Summary...

There are lot of things I like about this camera, but the trouble is I like the idea of this camera more than when I try to take actually use it and take pictures with it. It has a good lens, good manual controls, well built...but suffers from some badly (in my opinion) detracting points.

This is why after having this camera for under a week, I am taking it bcak and getting a refund. Its simply not a good enough camera for £400. I could spend half the price and get a Casio EX-Z600 and have a perfectly decent pocket camera.. (I know its not a GR..!) ...I will keep an interest in this thread and I truly hope that the tecnicians, programmers, and designers at Ricoh are taking note of some of the more intelligently placed comments on sites like these.

If Ricoh fixed some of the features that I have found very trying, then I would certainly consider getting a Ricoh GR Digital (phase II). Please address these problems Ricoh as you surely (and have already proven so far) your ability to make an outstanding compact camera.

In the meantime I am going to spend half the money and get something that I'll be happy with....and yes I will miss the potential of that 28mm GR lens. There are however other companies making 28mm digi compacts now though.

Enjoy snapping away everyone.

Cheers

Ombudsman

P.S. I do not like my writing to be automatically underlined with advertising links whenever I put the word Camera or Ricoh down... this is a forum!

4:30 pm - Tuesday, May 2, 2006

#78 GARY POGODA

Ombudsman, interesting evaluation. I think you summed it up perfectly
when you said, "I like the idea of this camera ..."

BTW, what type of AAA batteries did you try (Alkaline, NiMH, Lithium)?

Regarding your P.S., I do not understand what you mean. I do not see
any underlining in your comment.

5:47 pm - Tuesday, May 2, 2006

#79 adam ombudsman

Hi Gary,

The Batteries were brand new high power philips Alkaline. Got maximum of 5 / 6 shots....!

The underlining I realised afterwards did not go on my final post. Words were highlighted as I typed in ??? These had weblinks on them I noticed... Did not know what this was about. Please ignore..!

Got a Casio EX-Z600 today 179 pounds with free casio case haggled in. Its a 6 meg camera. Under half the price of the GR and takes a pretty image in my opinion. For what its worth, I could not be without a compact pocket digi any longer so plumped for this. I will have a look at the phase II GRD when it eventually comes out and fingers crossed the issues will be ironed out... which will make it a superb pro orientated camera.

By the way... the VGA vid mode on the Z600 is great and for mac users its a godsend as you don't have to transcode the files which normally has to happen on a lot of cams these days as they write MPEG4 which are specific for PC's. Sorry to digress into video for a bit there... that was something I thought was kinda stingy with the GRD too.... low res vid... when casio can do it at higher res for half the price.

Enjoy snapping away folks... For those who get on well with the GRD and own one already thats great, each to their own. To finalize about the GRD, guess it was not the camera I had hoped for (and spent out for.. not an inconsiderable amount either..!) or expected.

Bring on the GRD II soon please... you may have a taker here.


Cheers

Adam

11:48 pm - Thursday, May 4, 2006

#80 Lainey

I think the Ricoh falls short with its small sensor, no zoom, noise in higher ISO ratings, and its claim to be the GR film replacement. They should have waited to release this product when all the kinks were worked out. I got very excited when I heard about this camera. Now I am just disappointed. It's a lot of money for a camera that won't zoom.

12:21 am - Thursday, May 18, 2006

#81 nick in japan

Actually, a GR-21 Digital would be a more attractive choice for me, I kinda preferred the GR-21, now that lens correction in Photoshop works so good, it makes the 21mm an awesome prime, for those scenics that go on, and on, forever. Stiching software cries out for an ultra wide sharp lens too!
We arn't gonna get bigger sensors in cameras this size, maybe a CMOS/Mos sensor someday, from the awesome prints I've seen from the GRD, a GR21D is attractive to me!

2:52 am - Thursday, May 18, 2006

#82 Dracool

I just ordered the camera online 3 hours ago. I was in love with the camera ever since a friend of mine who bought one showed it to me. I particularily loved the aperture and exposure manual wheels, and the realtime preview you get of them on the LCD. They're a huge advantage.

But having read some of the comments on this page, I'm having second thoughts now. he he .

12:00 am - Friday, June 9, 2006

#83 GARY POGODA

Take what is said here with a grain of salt. If you based your camera
purchases solely on the thread comments for this website, you would
be cameraless.

1:09 am - Friday, June 9, 2006

#84 nick in japan

From the images I have seen from this camera, I am sure you will never regret getting it. If I was rich, I'd have one, for sure. You have the ideal lens for great scenics, I dont think there is a sharper lens available! Congratulations!

3:25 am - Friday, June 9, 2006

#85 Peter Bendheim

What a fantastic carry everywhere camera this is! It's the pocket camera that Leica wishes they could have made; but getting into bed with Panasonic was probably not such a great idea in hindsight.
Intelligent design, great image quality, as manual as you want it to be; a real enthusiasts camera.
I just don't understand how people who don't own this camera can be so vocal in criticism; they must have boring lives indeed.
I'm sure it's not for everyone but after going through many PS cameras (20-30 I've tried. I guess) in the same time that I've owned 3 DSLR's, I've finally found a real keeper.

10:41 pm - Monday, June 12, 2006

#86 nick in japan

Peter, I'm convinced it's PMS, irrational conclusions!
I too wonder why Leica made their first Panasonic copy, the LX-1 has some breakthrough stuff, but not enough to risk discredit of their company with an obvious rebadged copy!
Please tell us more about your impressions of the images from your new GR Digital!!

2:26 am - Tuesday, June 13, 2006

#87 benny jackal

Having heard from a fellow-pro about the GR Digital I was keen to get my hands on one and try it out, but thought I'd have a quick look at some online reviews first.... which led me here. And thank goodness it did!

What a thread!!! Pure entertainment, and with some geniunely useful feedback about the camera too.

Thank you Wiggy for your hilarious outbursts - were you really that upset about a camera (that you don't even own)!? Classic.

Loved Obudsman's summary of the GRD above, thanks. I think actually testing a GRD personally (with his summary at hand) will be the best way to really evaluate this camera.

Thanks again, and if I end up buying a GRD I'll let you know how it goes.....

Ben

11:24 am - Thursday, July 6, 2006

#88 Mark Goldstein

Welcome to the site Benny.

You'll find that we do our best to entertain!

11:29 am - Thursday, July 6, 2006

#89 Jim

Well!
I’ve never Blogged, before, and wonder what that actually means…? Anyway, I have just come across this whole session and find it quite revealing in a number of ways!
I am looking for a camera to replace a Canon G2 (which did just about fit in a modest pocket…) and thought it would be quite easy to find something newer, now that things have moved on a few years, to replace what it did for me. I hoped for a few more pixels, that it would be a bit smaller and… actually; that’s about it!
But; the current compacts on offer appear to be all the same, with fairly closely matched spec.’s, finish, build, size etc. – you name it; they’re all much more alike than they are different. Many of the Canons, Panasonic/Leicas, Sonys et al are clearly capable of good results, but these companies have all been so busy copying each other that, for want of a better phrase, “serious photographers” or serious photography I should say, are/is being ignored. I find the same with many areas of consumerism, trying to buy anything slightly out of the ordinary leads to much frustration. I’m guessing that many of us who have opinions about this in this forum (too grand a word? but why not?) would agree with me on this. Neither do any of the cameras I have seen fill me with much confidence that they’ll still be whirring their lenses in and out in 2 years' time, let alone 15.
So; what to do? Has anyone been in touch with any of the manufacturers to see what they say? Ricoh would be a good place to start given that they make the claims they do about the heritage of the GR. The GR Digital has sold fairly well so they might be interested in genuinely taking matters forward? Naive, of course, but we all seem to be quite clear about what we want, and many of us would happily pay what it costs to have the digital compact that we want; this is, in fact, the Ricoh pitch.
I couldn’t agree more about the failings of the GR Digital, (no viewfinder, a smaller screen would be fine, and I wish the screen could be flipped back and hidden so it simply couldn't light up when you didn't want it to (and, incidentally, be protected whilst put away), fuller asa potential, larger CCD though no more pixels required, faster write-times etc. etc. (please forgive my non-techno speak)) but have, with Ricoh, at least some hope that, having, perhaps, almost inadvertently found that the original GR filled a niche, they might realise that a similar niche is there for them if they chose to make the digital GR camera we would all buy.
As for my own personal quest – I don’t know; there’s nothing that answers. I wanted it to be the GR Digital, but how can it be when it isn't really doing the whole job? Do I just give up on the whole compact thing and get an SLR. How many of us are there out here who, like me, want to buy something that is the digital equivalent of the original GR? It wouldn't have to be Ricoh who built it, but they would be the obvious people to do it. Shall I copy this to Ricoh and see what they say? Yes; I’ll try that, and, whilst I’m at it I’ll point them at this sequence of correspondence!

6:49 pm - Monday, July 10, 2006

#90 GARY POGODA

Good luck, Jim. Make sure you have plenty of aspirin. They will come
in handy after banging your head against the wall.

BTW, I just replaced a Canon G3 with a Canon SD700. So far so good.

P.S. Blog is short for web log.

12:48 am - Tuesday, July 11, 2006

#91 nick in japan

Jim, the quality of the Ricoh lens may be the best available, all they need is a CMOS type sensor and the niche is filled!
Don't waste your time complaining, they all have an ear-full, if they read all these threads!
I think it's all planned,in reguards to compacts, the word being "Conspiracy"

2:15 am - Tuesday, July 11, 2006

#92 Jim

Thanks all. It's nice to know there's some life out there which operates on the same wavelength.
I've heard back from Ricoh - nothing to report... As you all knew.
So; moving on, has anyone tried a Fuji which seems to make some point about ISO 3200? Is it the F30? Still no viewfinder, of course, and too much metal nipping in and out for my liking. And not a 28mm equivalent... And.....

I looked at what's called the Ixus stuff - and whilst it appears well made compared to many, it's still a derivative of all the other stuff that's available.
What's happened is that our G6 got lost/stolen and the insurance company, to their credit have identified that there isn't anything quite like it available (imagine having to explain all that) and they've offered me/us a Canon 350 SLR. Now, that would do me for quality, but it it would have to be a mighty big pocket for it to be taekn out all the time, which is the point of a compact obviously. So; do I take the 350 and then find myself paying out for a compact that doesn't really do what we all want, and be paying out when I was insured!
A quandy - on the face of it quite a nice quandy, but I know I'm going to end up with an SLR that doesn't go out much and/or a compact that doesn't do what I want of it and that dies in 2 years.
Incidentally I looked at a Panasonic FX01 (which does 28mm equivalent) and it was a bit wobbly on build. The Ixus stuff is much more solid.

4:06 pm - Tuesday, July 11, 2006

#93 GARY POGODA

How about the 28-100 mm Canon PowerShot S70 with RAW, or newer
S80 without RAW, or if you can use your G2 a little longer, the soon to
be released (but you didn't hear it here ) S90?

5:00 pm - Tuesday, July 11, 2006

#94 David de Fez

Hi,
Just sold my gr1 and got a gr digital.
Does anybody know if it's correct that the digital one doesn't have intelligent flash like the gr1. This was a quality that was absolutely brilliant. Also I can not find the ND-filter people are talking about.
Thanks
David, Holland

8:48 pm - Thursday, August 31, 2006