Photon-hunter
New member
I am afraid my badass years are over now...
I know, I know, I am a sad old fool...
E.
I know, I know, I am a sad old fool...
E.
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 certainly would recommend that.p.s. quick question... would you recommend saving the money on the evf and putting it towards the optical viewfinder(s) instead?
Kind Regards
Brian
The only real question keeping me from buying the GRDII straight away is that it is(for me) a 28mm camera only...Getting into a small/pocketeable camera and then converting it into something else by adding a bulky adapter /converter is not in my roadbook...I think the biggest question one might ask when deciding between these two cameras is: Do I want to work primarily with a 28 mm EFOV (plus 21 and 40 with accessory lenses that add a lot of the bulk)? The field of view question aside, I prefer the GR II. But field of view is a very important aspect to consider.
Cheers,
Sean
Funny, I always thought of the lens as non extending (like you from all the brochure and preproduction pictures) until I just saw pictures of it extended on a website. For a prime lens it extends way further than I thought it would.Hmmm. only the badass factor I think.
Mind you, I think that the DP1 has a fairly poor badass quotient (it's the way the lens comes out so far! Note that in that nice brochure there isn't a single shot of the camera with the lens extended).
Thanks Sean, I've read some more of your (extensive!) review of the GX100 and I really like the way you suggested having alternative OVF's to shoot with the GX100 as a pseudo-prime lens camera.I certainly would recommend that.
------------------------------
The other noticeable difference between the two is that the GRD II has a better signal to noise ratio than the GX-100 and so its files are cleaner. It's also faster in RAW. I'd have to look again at my own review to be sure but I believe the difference is about a stop.
I think the biggest question one might ask when deciding between these two cameras is: Do I want to work primarily with a 28 mm EFOV (plus 21 and 40 with accessory lenses that add a lot of the bulk)? The field of view question aside, I prefer the GR II. But field of view is a very important aspect to consider.
Cheers,
Sean
It was certainly the last question I asked myself. the accessory lenses are a complete nono - If it won't go in a pocket I'd much MUCH rather have an M8 with me (or an E410 come to that).I think the biggest question one might ask when deciding between these two cameras is: Do I want to work primarily with a 28 mm EFOV (plus 21 and 40 with accessory lenses that add a lot of the bulk)? The field of view question aside, I prefer the GR II. But field of view is a very important aspect to consider.
Cheers,
Sean
Hi BrianFinally, does anyone have a recommended source of voigtlander finders here in the UK? or would I have to import them?
No Worries, it's a perpetually interesting subject - it's the really nice thing about this place, subjects drift, but it always seems to remain interesting, knowledgeable and friendly.OOPS!! Jono, I seem to have turned your "rediscovering the GX100" thread into a "reconsidering the GX100" one..
Sorry..
E.
I was actually having a similar discussion yesterday with someone about the DP1. Even if it can go in my pocket, at just a 28mm prime I would rather just take the M8 and single lens with me. If I thought the 21 Elmarit or 28 cron were too big, the CV21 and CV28 are TEENY.It was certainly the last question I asked myself. the accessory lenses are a complete nono - If it won't go in a pocket I'd much MUCH rather have an M8 with me (or an E410 come to that).
Mitch, I forgot to post - this is an absolutely superb shot. I love it! And also a perfect example that fantastic photography has little to do with sensor performance You couldn't have done better with a D3 imho.Zambia [gotta have at least one high-contrast picture]
—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
Get a used GR1, as I did, with the GH-1, GW-1 and GV-1 all for only $450.00 CAD, and you will never look back! Shoot in jpeg and RAW if you need and have the time... and who needs Barrel Distortion ? This combo has become my ersatz M4/21 SA and I love it totally... even more so because of the low cost. Oh, I almost forgot, it also came with a 2 GiG card and 4 batteries ! Bought off of Flickr.AHHRGG! I am most surely purchasing next week and still haven´t been able of making my mind..will it be the GX100 or GRDII??. One day I am sure it will be the one and the next....and then you people have to bring this thread up!!!
This is a severe case of "paralisys by analisys"..PLEASE, somebody make this decision for me..
E.
That's not how I see it. I wear the GRD2 in its case on my belt and carry the conversion barrel and the 21 and 40mm conversion lenses in my trouser pocket, which is very convenient....the accessory lenses are a complete nono - If it won't go in a pocket I'd much MUCH rather have an M8 with me (or an E410 come to that)...
Ian, I'll give the other side of the argument, of which you are well aware. A few years ago, friend shot the same scene with a Mamiya 7 medium-format camera and a Leica M6, a 35mm camera. The medium format shot had "great image qaulity" but we both liked the 35mm shots better because they had more "bite", which rendered the water in the river photographed in these test shots in a more interesting way....I'm in the midst of yet another crisis-of-confidence in these little sensors:
Within this category, the GX100 has held its cred, even post GRD2. But a D300 with a Voightlander "pancake" lens is really small, and .... better. M8: WAY BETTER!!! Right now, my mindset is, Why would any one of us ever use a Ricoh if there's a better or great camera with the character of truly legendary glass available to make the same shot?!?! The "drawing" argument isn't holding up for me, personally. More res can be degraded, but not visa versa. The new Nikons are as clean at 6400 as the Ricohs at 200, so even depth-of-field is ... at least up for discussion. So what's left is the process, the mindset, or the convenience — the pocketability —and right now I'm doubting that's a good enough reason to forgive all the other trade-offs. ...
Yes, but the girl who uses it is a badass herself. :toocool: :ROTFL:does all this badassery with Ricoh and Sigma mean the Leica is a girly-cam?
I took these two using the D-Lux 3 when I had that and the E400 with me. In the beach shot, the light was so low I needed the IS capability and was happy to eschew any extra sharpness the E400 might give me, and in the second, the wide format was something I wanted ...Here's my take on the choice at hand:
Within this category, the GX100 has held its cred, even post GRD2. But a D300 with a Voightlander "pancake" lens is really small, and .... better. M8: WAY BETTER!!! Right now, my mindset is, Why would any one of us ever use a Ricoh if there's a better or great camera with the character of truly legendary glass available to make the same shot?!?! .
YEAH MAGGIE !!Yes, but the girl who uses it is a badass herself. :toocool: :ROTFL: