gromitspapa
New member
That is such a cool shot! You should print it and give it to her.
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I've been using the GR-D with the original GV-1 finder for quite a while now. It fits in most but not all of my shirt pockets with the finder attached, and it is a really bright finder, easier to use with glasses than either the mini or the GV-2. Working without having to fumble around to uncase the finder and slip it into its slot (saving the plastic filler tab, of course) is great, and you can do it with either one.i second Sean's opinion on this. the original one is too big and bulky for that, but the new mini-finder is glorious!
Oh!Sean, Scott, MaggieOh Contraire....<G>
Take a look at the GR2 with the GV2 finder - its still very pocket sized and I carry that combination in my pocket all the time. The finder stays on the camera and both fit into a wonderful little leather pocket case that Ricoh makes for this exact purpose.
Take a look at my GR2 review again. I still love the M8 too but it isn't a pocket camera.
Cheers,
Sean
Scott,I've been using the GR-D with the original GV-1 finder for quite a while now. It fits in most but not all of my shirt pockets with the finder attached, and it is a really bright finder, easier to use with glasses than either the mini or the GV-2. Working without having to fumble around to uncase the finder and slip it into its slot (saving the plastic filler tab, of course) is great, and you can do it with either one.
scott
Like Jono, I'm happy to wait back in the line a bit on this one. The specs for the Casio super HDTV consumer cam are pretty impressive. The TBD lines suggest that it hasn't quite happened yet. Does anyone know when they claim it will be available? I wouldn't touch it until I have my home network and my 2TB mirrored backup storage working. That thing could blow out my laptop in a few minutes of shooting. But Sean, think what this could offer for your wedding standard shots -- bouquet tossing, first dance, little faces smeared with cake -- I know that's not what you promise, but don't they insist on it anyway?
scott
I agree completely.It's why I'll never be very happy with SLRs - the viewing DOF is too shallow for what I need to see. I'd rather learn the edges with an RF camera than look through an SLR lens at F/2.0.
Again, this is me. I'm not trying to suggest universals.
Cheers,
Sean
.... I don't really like "wedding photography" per se. But if one approaches the subject purely as a subject (without preconceived ideas about what the pictures should look like), it can be quite rich.[\QUOTE]
I feel that way about family events, of which we seem to have quite a few.
Also, between Melissa and I, we often have 2000 + frames from a day's shoot. Editing those is already a huge task. Having multiple exposures for each intended picture would be a nightmare.
[\QUOTE]
Certainly. I think of the Casio in a different way. It makes short slow-motion movies, allowing you to explore movement and gesture. Exploring the frames to find the best one seems like optimizing the wrong thing to me. However, the Casio offers a capability which in a technical camera can cost $100K to $1M down to what will probably be under $1K, and that is an event which will certainly have some consequences.
I try to work that way, but fail often. Sometimes the failures are also interesting, so I keep trying even when things aren't quite what I thought would happen.In another thread, you asked me how many exposures it took me to get a certain picture you were discussing. And I told you one, but it had to be the right one. Given your questions, I suspect we may approach photographing quite a bit differently. With a couple of commercial exceptions, I only press the shutter when I believe that the visual elements of the picture are coming together in a way that I like.
regards,
scott
Hi ScottCertainly. I think of the Casio in a different way. It makes short slow-motion movies, allowing you to explore movement and gesture. Exploring the frames to find the best one seems like optimizing the wrong thing to me. However, the Casio offers a capability which in a technical camera can cost $100K to $1M down to what will probably be under $1K, and that is an event which will certainly have some consequences.
I bought a GL-2 and a smaller fist-sized video camera for my lab a few years back. Shot and edited a lot that year (using Adobe Premiere, as this was before Final Cut had taken off), and enjoyed it, but I haven't wanted to return to that workload. It seems my students are much better at this than I am. And my children both are excited by the moments they capture in short videos. They hardly edit beyond what they can review immediately on the LCD of a little handheld.Hi Scott
I agree - an important event with consequences; it's been coming for some time, and I think it's a really important step. It rather frightens me - it indicates a different way of working which sounds time consuming and which negates what small skills I have in catching 'the decisive moment'.
... with respect to the GRDII - do you feel it gives you better results than the D-lux2?
I doubt that new way of recording pictures will make for fewer failed pictures. Rather, the failed pictures will have many similar variations. <G>Hi Scott
I agree - an important event with consequences; it's been coming for some time, and I think it's a really important step. It rather frightens me - it indicates a different way of working which sounds time consuming and which negates what small skills I have in catching 'the decisive moment'.
I suspect that my suspicions and antagonisms are very much like many photographers apprehension towards digital (that has never worried me).
Most of my pictures fail as well, but I'm not sure that I want a new device which will allow success, but does it a completely different way.
incidentally, apologies for the rather silly post with respect to the GRDII - do you feel it gives you better results than the D-lux2?
Sturgeon's Law continues to apply.I doubt that new way of recording pictures will make for fewer failed pictures. Rather, the failed pictures will have many similar variations. <G>
Cheers,
Sean
Of course they aren't irrelevant - you've certainly clarified my concern though, in that it means that photography is reduced from 'catching the moment' to a process of 'selection' from all possible moments. Reducing the act from 'intention' to 'selection'. I am, however, suspicious of my misgivings!When you look at what video vs still photography contributes to day to day news, such as coverage of the US presidential primaries, I think the selected still frames are actually more distorted in their emphasis than the "sound bites." E.g. the "Hillary looks exhausted and OLD" image that was widely discussed and ended up helping her get some sympathy vote in the New Hampshire primary. Perhaps paparazzi images and sound bites are so far from the perceptions we want to capture and share that they both should be irrelevant. But they are not; they strongly influence the self-image that the millions of camera purchasers carry around with them. And thus also the cameras that are available.
scott
Oh -- I haven't tried the D-Lux 2.