Ricoh GR II

[Sean_Reid]

Eager to order one of these for myself, I think this might be the 'digital Canonet' no one else will produce.

I've never owned a really-small sensor camera before - curious where I should expect diffraction to come into play with images?

It depends on the specific lens but it usually starts to be noticeable at F/5.0 or a bit wider. I have specific tests of this in my GX-100 review.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Sean_Reid]

Walt:
I then saw a survey of master paintings from museums that showed that something like 90% were painted in a format that averaged very close to 4:3.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

Hi Mitch,

I'm not sure who did that study, or from what paintings, but paintings have always been made in a variety of formats. I strongly feel that there is no such thing as a "best" aspect ratio and I don't think the history of art supports that strange 90% claim either.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Sean_Reid]

Okay i know go read Guy. Busy logging you folks in:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

Yes, definitely do go read that "On Small Sensor Cameras" article. It's important to understanding what all of this is about.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Mitch Alland]

...I'm not sure who did that study, or from what paintings, but paintings have always been made in a variety of formats. I strongly feel that there is no such thing as a "best" aspect ratio and I don't think the history of art supports that strange 90% claim either...

Sean:

I agree that there is no "best" format, but if you look at something like Gombrich's "Story of Art" or go to the Metroplolitain Museum, you'll see that the vast majority of paintings are close to the 4:3 aspect ratio, which does bear some thought. Look at Cezanne, for example — and he wasn't using precut canvases or stretchers.

BTW, I've uploaded the GX100/GRD2 comparison DNG files: please see the "GX100 vs GRD2: comparison picture" thread.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[Caer]

Hello all, just popping in to say hi, having got here from the Ricoh forum on DPR.

Only got my GRD2 a couple of days ago, and the weather's been awful lately so I've not had a chance to give it a good workout. On top of that, I'm just not comfortable with the 28mm lens yet, having been using the equivalent of 43mm on my Pentax *ist DS for street shooting. It's going to be an interesting and challenging experience getting used to the wider view, and I look forward to it.

So yeah, here's a few pictures I took in the past couple of days:

1/40, f/2.4, ISO 800. Larger version here.

1/100, f/2.4, ISO 100. Larger version here.

1/80, f/2.4, ISO 100. Larger version here

1/160, f/5, ISO 80. Larger version here. This one was lit with an off-camera flash triggered by one of those cheap Gadget Infinity radio triggers. Usually I do this sort of thing with my Pentax K10D so it'll be interesting to compare that with the GRD2. Also, since the GRD's got an electronic shutter, the it ought to be able to sync at some nice fast speeds, which should be handy if/when I do some outdoor skateboarding/bmx shoots.

All these photos were processed in Raw Therapee, a freeware raw developer. The B&W is courtesy of the JFI B&W Film profiles (the Tri-X one, specifically) that Sean seems to like quite a bit

✄----------
Andy Farrell, http://www.flickr.com/caerphoto

 

[Walt]

i think you have to make sure that you have the Info Disp turned ON in the Set Up Menu. then, press the Display button until you have a black screen. when you're ready to compose, use the Adj. button and the information only will display on the screen.

i hope i explained that properly. it's easier to show than to tell.

Yes, that was it. But you have to flick the adjust button right or left and then the display stays on for a few seconds. This is very useful to check settings. It also comes up if you adjust any other settings (focus, perture, etc.). Many thanks

Walt

 

[Sean_Reid]

Sean:

I agree that there is no "best" format, but if you look at something like Gombrich's "Story of Art" or go to the Metroplolitain Museum, you'll see that the vast majority of paintings are close to the 4:3 aspect ratio, which does bear some thought. Look at Cezanne, for example — and he wasn't using precut canvases or stretchers.

BTW, I've uploaded the GX100/GRD2 comparison DNG files: please see the "GX100 vs GRD2: comparison picture" thread.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

Hi Mitch,

You know I love that Gombrich book and have been recommending it on various threads for years. But it is Gombrich's selection. I used to almost haunt the Met when I lived in NYC and the dominant aspect ratios of the art there varies, especially across time and continents. There are a lot of European paintings made in the aspect ratio you like but Asian art, for example, tends to favor a longer and thinner frame. There also have always been conventions that are just conventions. I really don't think that any one aspect ratio has any kind of inherent advantage in art.

As always, I love the fact that you're far more interested in pictures than in equipment per se.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Mitch Alland]

Sean:

Good point about the aspect rations in Chinese and Japanese painting. So, do you think I should shoot in 4:3 or 3:2 format? (Joke.)

It seems to me that if one is aiming for a book it might be better to shoot with just one aspect ratio. Moriyama Daido's latest books have been sized and laid out so that "portrait-aspect" pictures fit on one page with a half-inch gutter and "landscape-aspect" pictures are full-bleed on double-page spreads, which allows an attractive layout for for 35mm full-frame shots. I'm not sure what would be an attractive solution if one had a mixture of 4:3 and 3:2 format, as in my Bangkok series.

—Mitch/Huahin
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[Sean_Reid]

I think a person should photograph with whatever aspect ratio seems to work for him or her. A book, if one is made, should accommodate itself to the pictures, rather than vice-versa. Otherwise, the tail wags the dog. For books with mixed aspect ratio pictures, take a look at some of Walker Evans' work.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Lili]

In regards to OVF usage with the GRD I/II when first I started using my GRD, I used it a alot with my CV-28mm finder and 3:2 ratio.
As I started becoming more comfortable with using the LCD I started using 4:3 a lot more.
Despite the 3:2 framelines in the CV finder I really have no difficulty now that I am used to it and the 4:3 format composing using the CV OVF.
As in this shot;

This being said I find the OVF of greatest value in very bright light with the source behind me, and in some very low light situations, using the Synchro-Monitor mode.

 

[Will]

The clasic ratio that will have influenced the proportions of a lot of canvases in museums is the golden section, golden rectangle, or devine proportion. 1 by 1.618 which comes out at 1.8541 by 3

 

[Sean_Reid]

The clasic ratio that will have influenced the proportions of a lot of canvases in museums is the golden section, golden rectangle, or devine proportion. 1 by 1.618 which comes out at 1.8541 by 3

Count me as highly agnostic about any of those three.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I think a person should photograph with whatever aspect ratio seems to work for him or her. A book, if one is made, should accommodate itself to the pictures, rather than vice-versa. Otherwise, the tail wags the dog. For books with mixed aspect ratio pictures, take a look at some of Walker Evans' work.

Cheers,

Sean

Interesting I have gone through so many format changes that i really just adapted to them pretty easily. I think the key is all of that is learning to adjust your compositions within the frame set you are using at the time.

 

[Sean_Reid]

Interesting I have gone through so many format changes that i really just adapted to them pretty easily. I think the key is all of that is learning to adjust your compositions within the frame set you are using at the time.

That's certainly true and I try to do that too. But I think that many photographers find that they naturally tend to be seeing things in certain aspect ratios (its just how their visual attention runs) and so finding the right kind of aspect ratio can make one's compositions stronger. The edges of the frame tend to fall in natural ways for some people.

I worked with large format cameras for a very long time (you probably did to) but I think that now, like Walt, I tend to see in a 3:2 ratio. People forget about this aspect of 4/3rds cameras very often, they not only give a different sensor size (thus different DOF, different drawing, etc.) but also a different aspect ratio that works very well for some photographers.

I often see photographs where "the picture", the section of the frame that seems intentional and visually active, does not necessarily match the proportions of the frame. And if that happens again and again to a given photographer, it may mean he or she should rethink the aspect ratio he or she works in.

I find the square to be the toughest because it has that very powerful natural center. The only photographers I can think of who made really strong work (IMO) with the square are Diane Arbus and, for some work, Walker Evans. I think a lot of people try it but find it hard to tame.

Golden this and golden that I find to be as academic and useless as nonsense like the "rule" of thirds. Form is far more complicated a thing than what little formulas can express.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Will]

That's certainly true and I try to do that too. But I think that many photographers find that they naturally tend to be seeing things in certain aspect ratios (its just how their visual attention runs) and so finding the right kind of aspect ratio can make one's compositions stronger. The edges of the frame tend to fall in natural ways for some people.

I worked with large format cameras for a very long time (you probably did to) but I think that now, like Walt, I tend to see in a 3:2 ratio. People forget about this aspect of 4/3rds cameras very often, they not only give a different sensor size (thus different DOF, different drawing, etc.) but also a different aspect ratio that works very well for some photographers.

I often see photographs where "the picture", the section of the frame that seems intentional and visually active, does not necessarily match the proportions of the frame. And if that happens again and again to a given photographer, it may mean he or she should rethink the aspect ratio he or she works in.

I find the square to be the toughest because it has that very powerful natural center. The only photographers I can think of who made really strong work (IMO) with the square are Diane Arbus and, for some work, Walker Evans. I think a lot of people try it but find it hard to tame.

Golden this and golden that I find to be as academic and useless as nonsense like the "rule" of thirds. Form is far more complicated a thing than what little formulas can express.

Cheers,

Sean

My point was not that the golden section has any merit, but that it influenced a high proportion of artists who then used it for the proportions of their work. That would then give a false bias if you look at art gallery hangings as the basis for what people find pleasing. They used those proportions because they were taught that it was the best. Doesn't mean that is was the best, just that they were conditioned to beleive it was.

 

[Sean_Reid]

Hi Will,

That's interesting. Which artists, for example, do you think were working according to that "golden section" rule? I'm very interested in art generally and am always curious to talk with anyone who knows paintings well.

We know that the association with DaVinci is strongly debated, are you thinking about Dali?

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Sean_Reid]

Hi Again Will,

Wikipedia is hardly authoritative but the following was interesting:

"Interestingly, a statistical study on 565 works of art of different great painters, performed in 1999, found that these artists had not used the golden ratio in the size of their canvases. The study concluded that the average ratio of the two sides of the paintings studied is 1.34, with averages for individual artists ranging from 1.04 (Goya) to 1.46 (Bellini).[22]"

Source: Golden Section and the Art of Painting
Authors: Agata Olariu (National Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest Magurele, Romania)
(Submitted on 18 Aug 1999)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

Also this PDF is interesting:
http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~markov/GoldenRatio.pdf

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Hank Graber]

That's certainly true and I try to do that too. But I think that many photographers find that they naturally tend to be seeing things in certain aspect ratios (its just how their visual attention runs) and so finding the right kind of aspect ratio can make one's compositions stronger. The edges of the frame tend to fall in natural ways for some people.

When I shot film my aspect ratio depended on field of view. My wide was an Alpa w/ 55mm and a 6x9 back (2:3), normal a Plaubel 670/80mm (6:7) and for head and shoulder portraits a 150/2.8 on a Hassy 6x6 (square).

I find the 2x3 format more dynamic. Unlike panoramic formats 2x3 still looks like a 'normal' rectangle but is more cinematic and less static then the shorter rectangles like 6x7. It remains my preferred format.

What works best for you may have a lot to do with subject matter and field of view preferences.

 

[johnastovall]

Just what frame lines does the Ricoh viewer have in it. I'm confused after catching up in this thread.

As for aspect ratio, I create the photograph, not the camera, which is why a always used a adjustable print easel in my darkroom days and love the crop tool today. I take the camera's aspect ration as just a suggestion and starting point.

 

[PeterA]

The Golden Mean works brilliantly in Western Architecture and Furniture design. I agree that it has less (if any) relevance to photography.

You will find that the great proportions of Victorian period buildings for example are unashamedly meticulously devoted to the subtle application of the Golden Mean as the key proportionate reference. Anyone interested should visit the Acropolis and take a few minutes to feel the unsurpassed beauty of the Parthenon - as a high school student it was the sheer beauty and 'gravitas' of this monument that got me interested in applied mathematics and art.

This same ratio finds itself repeated throughout the natural world as well - Fibonacci did a lot of work in this area. In the US you will find that the best period furniture was meticulously built around this ratio - most obviously seen in the proportions of standing cabinets and chests of drawers.