M
Mitch Alland
Guest
When Ricoh announced the 40mm converter I thought that it would have been better for for them to make three separate GRD2 cameras: a 21mm camera, a 28 mm camera and a 40mm camera, the same way that they produced their small film GRs, the GR1 (28mm) and the GR21.
Now I'm not so sure. The advantage of three separate cameras is that each one of them would be smaller than a camera with the converter and adapter (the cylinder), and each would be pocketable. But, then, I wouldn't put three of these cameras in my pockets, at least not in the tropics where one doesn't wear a jacket. I'd end up carrying them in my Domke Reporter's Satchel. This is what I did with my GRD, GRD2 and GX100 when i went to the beach this weekend, and that's why it occurred to me that the converter route may be preferable after all: while the GRD cameras are bulkier with a converter lens they are still very light; and it's a much cheaper solution because the converters are not expensive. It is also cheaper in the longer run if the converters continue to be usable on future GRD version, the way they are on the GRD and GRD2. What do you think?
On the other hand, if separate cameras for different focal lengths could have higher quality lenses than possible with converters, that would be another thing. BTW, I wonder whether a 40mm f/2.4 lens wouldn't be a lot bulkier than the 28mm lens with the 40mm converter?
—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
Now I'm not so sure. The advantage of three separate cameras is that each one of them would be smaller than a camera with the converter and adapter (the cylinder), and each would be pocketable. But, then, I wouldn't put three of these cameras in my pockets, at least not in the tropics where one doesn't wear a jacket. I'd end up carrying them in my Domke Reporter's Satchel. This is what I did with my GRD, GRD2 and GX100 when i went to the beach this weekend, and that's why it occurred to me that the converter route may be preferable after all: while the GRD cameras are bulkier with a converter lens they are still very light; and it's a much cheaper solution because the converters are not expensive. It is also cheaper in the longer run if the converters continue to be usable on future GRD version, the way they are on the GRD and GRD2. What do you think?
On the other hand, if separate cameras for different focal lengths could have higher quality lenses than possible with converters, that would be another thing. BTW, I wonder whether a 40mm f/2.4 lens wouldn't be a lot bulkier than the 28mm lens with the 40mm converter?
—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/