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!

Re-discovering the GX-100

S

Sean_Reid

Guest
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
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
 

Photon-hunter

New member
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
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...

E.
 

Photon-hunter

New member
OOPS!! Jono, I seem to have turned your "rediscovering the GX100" thread into a "reconsidering the GX100" one..:cool:

Sorry..:(

E.
 

Terry

New member
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).
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.
 

Brian Mosley

New member
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
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.

Another key advantage of the GX100 for me is the wider maximum FOV - 24mm / 19mm (with adapter) is very attractive to me... how does the adapter effect image quality with the GX100?

Finally, does anyone have a recommended source of voigtlander finders here in the UK? or would I have to import them?

Thanks for all the help, I didn't expect to be going this direction - but the DP1, on reflection is too little too late for my purposes. I'll be going with the Olympus E-420 as soon as it's released for my large sensor needs.

Kind Regards

Brian
 

jonoslack

Active member
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).

As far as RAW write times - I sold the GRD because it was impossible, whereas with the GX100 I've hardly noticed it (let's face it, it's not a sports camera!). I don't mind the slight wait after taking the shot, as long as the camera takes the shot when you press the button (which it does).

For me a sacrifice in terms of IQ (small I think) , distortion and the lack of badass cred is well worth the advantages of the zoom, IS (which I find works well) and the splendid macro facility.
 

jonoslack

Active member
OOPS!! Jono, I seem to have turned your "rediscovering the GX100" thread into a "reconsidering the GX100" one..:cool:

Sorry..:(

E.
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.
I hope it's proving useful for you.
:)
 

Terry

New member
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 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.
 
Last edited:
M

Mitch Alland

Guest
Thanks, Brian. I went for the extremely high contrast because I wanted the echo of the zebra's stripes to come out in the light and dark areas of the grass. I also wanted the photograph to express the brightness of the light, which makes the shadows very dark.

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

veriwide

Guest
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..:cry::cry::cry:
E.
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.

Bernard
 
M

Mitch Alland

Guest
...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)...
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.

It's true that the camera is more bulky when one of the converters is attached, but when I'm in a shooting mode I like to have the camera in my hand, not in the pocket; and once on of the converters is mounted it's a trivial operation to change focal length by unscrewing one to screw on the other or to shoot at 28mm. I feel this is a very practical and inexpensive solution.

—Mitch/Bangkok
 
7

7ian7

Guest
Re: Re-discovering GX-100 / Crisis of confidence

Here's my take on the choice at hand:

Many great shooters — here and among our heroes — think in wide terms; 28 is their thing. But an expensive non-interchangeable lens camera is a risky way to experiment with how you feel about a wide, fixed field of view, if you don't already have a good sense about your comfort zone in that regard.

The GR2 is badass. No doubt. At one point I was lusting for one; its size and feel and sort of hip drilled-down-variables aesthetic. Sean's analysis and review and samples confirmed its strengths. But for me, a fixed 28 isn't really ideal, however much I'd like it to be.

Conversely, I've found that, despite the perceived degraded sharpness at certain apertures at the long end of the GX-100 zoom, I still use that end of the lens more than most of the time. Yes, the 24 is cool and I've made some interiors and other things where it was great to have it. Wouter makes those remarkable landscapes. The macro is unbelievable. But for shooting head & shoulders portraits, or closer — which I tend to do a lot of the time — the 50 and 72 steps on the GX-100 are more flattering, look more like how we perceive our subjects' features. Yes, there are plenty of examples of great portraits that sort of disprove this generalization, but if we're honest, long is better for closer portraits. That's my number one reason to lean toward the GX100.

But here's the kicker, and I'm repeating myself from other threads:

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.

This is just me. Today. For now. (After eight months of almost exclusive use of the GX-100, even on a few assignments.)

I guess to be continued .....

Ok, sorry ... I promise no long posts for a while.
 
M

Mitch Alland

Guest
Re: Re-discovering GX-100 / Crisis of confidence

...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. ...
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.

In my case, I like the "35mm aesthetic", in which the photographed is drawn in a sketchier way and the gradations are rendered more roughly than by medium format film or high-end digital. That is the reason that I shoot with small sensor cameras rather than a camera like the Leica M8, whose look is more like scanned medium format film rather than 35mm film. Yes, it is possible to insert grain and degrade the image quality, but I prefer not to have to do this to get the look I want — and that is what I get with small sensor cameras.

And the size of these cameras, which means that I can have them with me anytime I go out, is compelling. I didn't do that with my M6 and wouldn't do it with an M8.

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

rich s

New member
Re: Re-discovering GX-100 / Crisis of confidence

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?!?! .
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 ...

As it turned out, I was glad I did use the small sensor cam as it give the look I was after.
(by the way - nice forum, this!)



 
Top