The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

Ricoh "40 mm" Adapter

Lili

New member
I actually have no trouble shooting with the 28mm EFL lens on my GRD.
I like wide to moderate wide angles like the 35mm on my Hexar AF.
Somehow the limitation of one-camera-one-focal length is oddly freeing.
It IS nice sometimes to have the 21mm option available and may well be the same with the 40mm.
I will stick with the GRD for now and perhaps get the 40 for those times I need that option.
I eventually will get a GRD II, but I've only had the GRD a couple of months it deserves to be used fully till then.
Ah well, now to PP the shots I have recenly done in RAW.
Learning curve is steep and time is short
;)
 
P

Player

Guest
Good points Mitch! I haven't used my GRD2 enough to have an opinion about the 28mm focal length. I took that survey and "thought" that I would prefer a 35-40mm lens, but I might discover otherwise after actually working with the camera. It's taken me awhile to figure-out the camera and to formulate a rough workflow.

One thing that I've found particularly offensive, at The Online Photographer site, is the prevailing opinion that a smaller sensor camera is not a serious tool and is just a "notepad" (to quote Mike Johnston). I was reading other opinions that mimicked Mike, and all I could think about was the amazing "serious" photography I had seen from yourself, especially, and others as well. And the whole notion of a small sensor camera as just a notepad seemed insulting. I equate the small sensor GRD to 35mm film (IQ and enlargement potential), and since when has 35mm film photography been a mere notepad? I asked Mike if he considered 35 film as a notepad format, and he never replied. The idea seems to be that compact cameras won't arrive as a serious tool until an APS-sized sensor is employed. From what I've seen, this is false, but it seems once people get an idea into their heads, similar to that survey I suppose, there's no turning back, which seems ignorant and unfortunate to me. Anyway, sorry for the digression.
 
P

Player

Guest
Lili, glad to hear your positive experiences shooting 28mm. I always avoided that focal length when I shot film, but it might turn-out to be different with the GRD. I pretty much went with the GRD2 because of the availability of the GT-1.

I know what you mean: the "learning" never ends, and yes, time is short. Good luck!
 

Lili

New member
Lili, glad to hear your positive experiences shooting 28mm. I always avoided that focal length when I shot film, but it might turn-out to be different with the GRD. I pretty much went with the GRD2 because of the availability of the GT-1.

I know what you mean: the "learning" never ends, and yes, time is short. Good luck!
Player,
I find that, esp with people shots, the wider angles force me to get in closer and interact more.
The greater intimacy makes for better shots IMHO.
Using the Hexar AF exclusively for long time really taught me that.
 

Mitchell

New member
Yesterday I told some family members that I'd taken a cue from them and brought a point and shoot (the GRD II.) They take pictures to record family stuff whereas I am an OH SO SERIOUS PHOTOGRAPHER. When I used the Leica people are impressed. The Ricoh, not so much. If we all use point and shoots, how will we tell who serious?! My gosh, we may have to start really looking at the pictures.

Be kind when you look at these. The GRD and shooting people are new to me. But, this camera is really fun.

Best,

Mitchell




View attachment 984







View attachment 985
 
P

Player

Guest
Lili, it sounds like your GRD is a great camera for you. I think it will be for me too.

I have a Minox 35 GT-E that I've always loved, and I've been looking for a digital replacement, and nothing comes as close as the GRD, that I can see, anyway. And yes, the Minox has a 35/2.8 lens, but the GRD gives you 40 all the way down to 21mm.

Appreciate your input! Thankyou.
 
P

Player

Guest
Love the pics Mitchell!

Sort of like "serious snapshots," if that's not too contradictory. ;)
 

Lili

New member
Mitchell,
Nice shots!
Player,
My first serious camera was an old Minox 35EL my dad bought me while I was in high school.
I just about wore it out before it got stolen.
I used my Ex'es OM-1 and Rolleiflex while we were married and then I eventually got a Hexar AF, which was my sole camera for years.
I adore that camera; it is the 'gold standard' by which I judge other cameras ;)
 
Last edited:
P

Player

Guest
Lili, I had a 35 ML before the GT-E. I wish I had held onto the ML, that lens was super sharp! I have tons of wear on my GT-E. The finish isn't that robust, but the camera works fine. Too bad your EL got lifted, sorry. It sounds like you got a lot of good use out of it though.

At one point I was going to buy a Hexar, but I couldn't find one, which says a lot. The Hexar is in a different league than the Minox.

The whole point, I guess, is that these small cameras fill an important role in a photographer's arsenal: they allow the photographer to #1, always have a camera with them, and #2, to get pictures they couldn't normally get with an SLR or DSLR, but forgive me for preaching to the choir. :)
 

Lili

New member
Lili and Player,

Thanks for the comments.

You may want to know there's a Excell. Cond. Hexar at Keh for $849.
Mitchekl, the $849 one is the Hexar RF, with is an AE autowind interchangeable lens Rangfinder camera.
The Hexar AF, which I have is a fixed lens (35mm/f2) autofocus/autowind camera with a very good viewfinder.
The AF was designed as a compact super high performance street shooter.
The lens/af system are incredible; it can focus in total darkness and the lens is razor sharp even wide open.
For me it is the standard which I judge any compact AF camera, film or digital.
To paraphrase and agree with Dante Stella; if I had 5 minutes to pack for a round-the world-trip and could only take one camera, the Hexar AF would be it.
Keh has two of these, the silver model without the silent mode (tho that can be added by firmware upgrade), for between $399 and $465.
Fairly typical prices.
Mine is the classic black one.
:)
 
Last edited:

Mitchell

New member
Lili,

Thanks for straightening me out. I read Dante Stella piece on the Hexar AF. Very cool.
I'd buy one if I were still shooting film.

Mitchell
 
C

Chuck A

Guest
Chuck - I've just realised through another discussion that the 28mm Ricoh FoV is radically different to the 28mm on a 35mm camera with its 3:2 ratio. IMO working with the Ricoh is much more like working with a 35mm on a rangefinder. Others who reject the Ricoh because it's "too wide" might like to look at the example shots on this post: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5368#post5368

Best
Well maybe we can impose upon Sean to test this out. The photos in the other thread showed quite a difference in FOV. Maybe someone could measure what the actual FOV is with the GRDII.

In Seans review of the GRD he takes the time to post that the FOV was very wide for him and that a purchase decision would definitely rely on whether the photographer liked that FOV. I shoot with primes mostly in the 35-75mm range on my DSLR so having a prime is not a problem. I just have to decide if the FOV is useable for me.

I have come to love the small sensor format ever since I had the Panasonic LC1 (Leica Digilux 2). It had an incredible lens that was very 3D in its rendering. It was the first small sensor camera that actual felt like and worked like a camera IMHO. It had 2 fatal flaws: No RAW buffer (long RAW write times) and jpg smoothing above ISO 100. RAW took too long and jpg was unacceptable above ISO 100. I took some great photos with that camera and found that I see very well with the small sensor. It seems to be a natural format for me. I love the DOF. Finding another small sensor camera that produced acceptable results with the features that I like in a camera has been rough. They all seem to either smooth the jpgs too much, have bad RAW write times or are missing things like dedicated buttons and a flash shoe.

I passed on the GRD because of the horrible RAW write times and 28mm wide lens. Too bad the GX100's RAW times are slow as well. But since it has acceptable jpgs it is still on the list. The GRDII seems to have the features I want and the addition of the 40mm converter may be the answer. I am patiently waiting for Seans review.

I know he received a GX100 to compare and I will be very interested in how the lenses compare for sharpness and other lens qualities. That will help in my decision to get the GX100 or the GRDII.
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Hi Chuck,

I will be testing the actual FOV of the GR2 (with and without "tele" adapter). Right now, I'm only looking at pictures on a laptop screen but the resolution of pictures made with the "40" adapter seems to be quite high. Once I'm back in my studio, I'll do side by side resolution tests with the GX-100 and G9.

As with the "21" adapter, the "40" adapter adds a considerable amount of bulk to the GR2. It clearly is no longer a pocket camera and feels a bit more like a small-scale SLR.

The RAW write times on the GX-100 are much faster than those I saw from the original GR. I haven't compared the former with the GR 2 yet.

I still feel strongly that it is important for a photographer to consider how well he or she will get on with the GR2's EFOV although the add-on lens does make that more versatile.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Last edited:

Lili

New member
My 2 cents on the EFOV of the the GRD I/II lens;
I use the CV 28mm OVF with mine, the field of view match perfectly when I use the 3:2 format on the GRD so we are getting a 28mm EFOV.
Since this format is got by merely vertically cropping the full 4:3 format of the sensor it follows that using the full sensor give one an even greater angle of view.
Again I *really* like the 28mm view point.
As regards the add-on lenses; they are great as an option, but the added bulk is not so cool.
I got the GR because of high IQ in a tiny package.
And really *hate* to compromise that form factor.
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Actually, I'm not crazy about losing that tiny camera size either.

BTW, the CV 40 finder works well with the GR2 "tele" adapter.

Cheers,

Sean
 
C

Chuck A

Guest
Hi Chuck,

I will be testing the actual FOV of the GR2 (with and without "tele" adapter). Right now, I'm only looking at pictures on a laptop screen but the resolution of pictures made with the "40" adapter seems to be quite high. Once I'm back in my studio, I'll do side by side resolution tests with the GX-100 and G9.

As with the "21" adapter, the "40" adapter adds a considerable amount of bulk to the GR2. It clearly is no longer a pocket camera and feels a bit more like a small-scale SLR.

The RAW write times on the GX-100 are much faster than those I saw from the original GR. I haven't compared the former with the GR 2 yet.

I still feel strongly that it is important for a photographer to consider how well he or she will get on with the GR2's EFOV although the add-on lens does make that more versatile.

Cheers,

Sean
Sean,

I await your review. I am trying to decide between the GX100, GRDII and possibly the G9 so I am glad that you are doing that one too. I believe that each of these cameras will produce good small sensor results so it comes down to each as a unique photographic tool. One important item is that they seem to keep the noise reduction to a minimum. They are unique in this feature. The GRDII is quite a bit more expensive when you add the 40mm converter so that is a concern as well. Is it really going to give me my moneys worth?

Handling, the viewfinder options and ease of use features are important to me. I want a simple camera that stays out of my way and lets me concentrate on photography. A computer with a lens sticking out of it is NOT a camera. When the camera is distracting to use photography is not nearly as enjoyable for me. I love your reviews because you approach the cameras from this angle.

Thanks for your replies.
 

Lili

New member
Sean,

I await your review. I am trying to decide between the GX100, GRDII and possibly the G9 so I am glad that you are doing that one too. I believe that each of these cameras will produce good small sensor results so it comes down to each as a unique photographic tool. One important item is that they seem to keep the noise reduction to a minimum. They are unique in this feature. The GRDII is quite a bit more expensive when you add the 40mm converter so that is a concern as well. Is it really going to give me my moneys worth?

Handling, the viewfinder options and ease of use features are important to me. I want a simple camera that stays out of my way and lets me concentrate on photography. A computer with a lens sticking out of it is NOT a camera. When the camera is distracting to use photography is not nearly as enjoyable for me. I love your reviews because you approach the cameras from this angle.

Thanks for your replies.
Chuck,
If I may give advice, if you really are not comfortable with a fixed focal length, then I would strongly consider the GX100.
While the GRD's are said to have more *bite* image-wise- from what I have seen the difference would not be enough to make up for the added expence and bulk of the add-on lenses.
Basically the GRD's AND the GX100 are ALL capable of very high image quality and have equally superb interfaces.
In brief, if you need a range of focal lengths the GX100 is a far more practical, portable and afforable option.
A true "Swiss Army Knife" as Ricoh calls it.
With me, coming from a Hexar AF viewpoint, the "Razor", the GRD, is perfect.
While I do have an add-on lens for those few times I *really* need a wider POV, I much prefer carrying the GRD with just the CV-28.
Tiny, light and quick.
:)
 
C

Chuck A

Guest
Chuck,
If I may give advice, if you really are not comfortable with a fixed focal length, then I would strongly consider the GX100.
While the GRD's are said to have more *bite* image-wise- from what I have seen the difference would not be enough to make up for the added expence and bulk of the add-on lenses.
Basically the GRD's AND the GX100 are ALL capable of very high image quality and have equally superb interfaces.
In brief, if you need a range of focal lengths the GX100 is a far more practical, portable and afforable option.
A true "Swiss Army Knife" as Ricoh calls it.
With me, coming from a Hexar AF viewpoint, the "Razor", the GRD, is perfect.
While I do have an add-on lens for those few times I *really* need a wider POV, I much prefer carrying the GRD with just the CV-28.
Tiny, light and quick.
:)
Thanks for the advice. It is not that I am uncomfortable with a fixed focal length. I have been a photographer for over 30 years and I use my K10D with a prime on it most of the time. Mainly a 28mm f/2.8 with a FOV of a 42mm or a 35mm with a 52mm FOV. I actually prefer to carry a single focal length. My concern is the 28mm FOV. It is not a focal length that I use everyday. Even when using a zoom that goes that wide I only find myself using the 28mm FOV in special situations. I much prefer a 35-75mm FOV for the majority of my work. The LC1 that I had went from 28-90mm and when I go back over those photos I find that I rarely used the 28mm. As you and others have stated the addition of the converter is going to add to the size and take away some of the charm of the GRDII.

Now, having said that, I am not against stretching myself and trying the larger FOV. Perhaps it can spark some creativity. The GX100 goes even wider. I just don't want to sink the extra cash into the GRDII and discover that I would have preferred the GX100. The difference in price is not trivial. Perhaps in the $350-$450 range with the converter.

I am aware of the RAW buffer difference. Is there any other great advantage to having the GRDII over the GX100?

Perhaps I will put the zoom on my K10D and set it to 28mm and keep it there for a while. That may help me to decide whether I can like that FOV.

Anyway thanks for the help. I am sure that Sean's review will help as well. I you have any other tidbits, please send them my way. I have gone through 5 or 6 small sensor cameras, each with great hopes, and all have been disappointments. And since these things don't hold their value well, it has cost be alot to try them as well.
 
Last edited:

Maggie O

Active member
There seems to be a bit of a feeding frenzy around here surrounding the Ricoh cameras and I can't help but wonder if it's obscuring some very fine alternates.

Might I suggest the Leica D-Lux 3 for those who want a zoom-lens-ed compact camera? IMO, the only things the GX-100 has over it are the hot shoe and the stepped zoom. From the photos I've seen, the D-Lux 3 is capable of producing superior images, so if you're not totally committed to using an external VF, the Leica is a better choice.

Just because Mitch couldn't get his look with ISO800 on the D-Lux 3, that's no reason to rule it out for anyone else's work.
 
Top