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 GR II

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
From just casual observations it will never replace my M8 but I see this as a completely different tool to play around with especcially in B+W because it seems to have a nice grungy look to it . I know you guy's are making images to look like this also but just from casual viewing I am liking the look of the files . i know the DR is low on it and that makes it interesting. I know I need to read more about this and really figure this out and you can ignore me until I learn more of it but i am interested to see how this all comes about . Okay i know go read Guy. Busy logging you folks in:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:
 

Hank Graber

New member
One more point on small sensors. Digital may not be so different from film. In digital luminance noise is much more benign then chrominance noise (or whatever the correct term is). So small sensor camera's that can be very effective in B+W don't quite make the cut in color.

Similar to film, in digital luminance noise can be quite attractive in both color and B+W images, color noise not so much.
 
W

Walt

Guest
Walt:

To me the big difference between how people react to my M6 and my GRD is mainly because I bring the M6 up to my eye to look through the viewfinder while I just hold the GRD away from my face to frame with the LCD; the size of the cameras does matter in that the GRD is so small that it makes me look like a tourist. I cannot believe that people will react differently to an M8 vs an M4 because the M8 is only a few millimeters thicker, and perhaps a millimeter of so taller, so to a bystander there is no difference. Now, for the photographer, the few millimeter difference is another matter: wen I picked up the M8 in my hands I was, indeed, surprised that it felt klunkier because of these few millimeters; but I'm sure that after a few days shooting I would get used to it and wouldn't think about it again.

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

The difference in people's reactions is not because the M8 is different from the M4 but because the culture has changed. When I used an M4, all cameras were that size or larger. Now the "standard" camera is a pocket camera and the M4 and M8 look large and serious. So it is a perception of the size and seriousness of the camera. Incidentally, I use a finder on the GRD, so it is not just about holding the camera off from the face. Sitting in a restaurant with the GRD lying on the table yesterday, a man next to me asked about it and said he was looking for a camera, that he thought it was time time to "get into digital" and how did I like it. No one, except a photographer who knew what it was, would ask that about a Leica.

Walt
 
W

Walt

Guest
I agree that aspect ratio is very important. I also feel that there is no such thing as a, general, "better" or "worse" aspect ratio but there certainly are aspect ratios that can be better or worse for a given photographer. I think that finding one's natural format and one's natural aspect ratio can be important.

Cheers,

Sean
I agree with this, but also with David in having such a strong association between 3:2 and a certain kind of image. I had a magazine editor recently cut a sliver off the bottom of one of my photographs (a sort of 3:1.98) and I saw it immediately--it was the first thing I saw and it was not because content was missing in this sliver, but because it just changed the entire balance of the thing. So 3:2 is definitely my format and I don't think I could learn another and the GRD does fine in 3:2 if people want to use it. When I first saw Mitch's work I was discomforted by this kind of photograph in 4:3 because I expect a different image character in this shape, larger format. But now I've gotten use to it in Mitch's work and don't notice that about it. I should say that I associate 4:3 with television sets, which might be good if that's what you were doing. Otherwise it is, for me, something to overcome.

Walt
 
W

Walt

Guest
For me it all depends on whether you are shooting color or B+W. I could see why some would stick with film in B+W and if I was shooting B+W exclusively I could see dumping my M8 and using a GRD for the sorts of photography the M was originaly designed for. But I do mostly color and when I went to color I switched to MF rangefinders because the mushy grain of color dyes was nothing like the sharp silver grain of B+W. I suppose the M8 maybe more Mamiya 7 then M4 which if you shoot color is not a bad thing but if you want a digital M4 TriX and Rodinal replacement maybe not so much.

The other thing the M8 gives you in B+W if you are shooting events for pay is more leeway in the image. If you need to crop or salvage an image out of poor lighting the M8 image files are your friend. A small sensor camera could be very unforgiving in those circumstances.

I think eventually we will get the best of both worlds for color or B+W as the GRD develops or maybe from a camera like the Sigma DP1 - maybe even Leica will bring out a small M or M like camera. I'd like to be able to have color masters that I could use if I wanted color and I think the small sensor cameras are not nearly as effective as they are for B+W when the end product is color.

So given all that, there really is not an alternative for me to the M8. I'm with Sean that it is the best handling digital yet but to put that in perspective that's not a very high bar to clear if your preference is manual focusing rangefinders.
Hank,

As usual, I couldn't have said it as sensibly. You have precisely described my experience with these cameras. Incidentally, I have never cropped an image, not out of principal, but because it has never actually worked for me. For me, the GRD is much closer to being the heir to the M4/Tri-X than the M8 is. Thanks. It was also Sean's turning me on to the chrominance noise issue that has made this GRD so usable to me. Without that noise reduction, I couldn't use this camera at 800. With the NR, it is emminently usable. Incidentally, I tried the Chroma NR in both ACR and, after conversion, in Neat Image and it seems six of one, etc. So I'm just doing it in RAW conversin.

Walt
 
Last edited:

Maggie O

Active member
Now, for the photographer, the few millimeter difference is another matter: wen I picked up the M8 in my hands I was, indeed, surprised that it felt klunkier because of these few millimeters; but I'm sure that after a few days shooting I would get used to it and wouldn't think about it again.
Coming from a D-Lux 3, the M8 felt HUGE. But, after running a roll of film through a Konica T3, the M8 feels tiny.
 

Marc Wilson

New member
Out of interest have any of you guys used the this GRDII with the gv-2 viewfinder (the one for the 28mm lens)?
I have never got used to (or particularly liked) framimg a scene from a distance when using smaller cameras and so so still prefer to use a traditional viewfinder.

Marc
 
W

Walt

Guest
Marc-

Yes, I've used this as well as the Voigtlander 28. The former is excellent and very compact and light, but it does not quite have the relief for eyeglasses that the Voigtlander has. I wear sunglasses outdoors, so I'm mostly using the Voigtlander. The view is excellent in both, and very accurate and the Ricoh has tick marks for the 1:1 if that's meaningful for you. I also can't compose on a screen.

Walt
 

Will

New member
Out of interest have any of you guys used the this GRDII with the gv-2 viewfinder (the one for the 28mm lens)?
I have never got used to (or particularly liked) framimg a scene from a distance when using smaller cameras and so so still prefer to use a traditional viewfinder.

Marc
Yes, I use it, and have the screen off but with a 3 second preview. That way I can be reviewing the image while it's writing the RAW file.
 

Marc Wilson

New member
I've never really been much of a compact camera user shooting always in colour with either large or medium format film on tripod or f.f. dslr for work and stock but have been waiting for a compact pocketable camera with raw high image quality...but its my sister's wedding next weekend, and whilst I am not shooting it officially, it may be great fun to shoot lots of great unobtrusive, reportage style black and white 4:3 images for her with a lovely grainy filmic look...and this little camera may just be the one to do that.

Marc
 
P

patd

Guest
Hello all, and thanks for the forum. I have been lurking in the Ricoh dpreview forum for a while and followed this thread over. It's been very helpful.

I am a reluctant convert to digital after years of shooting slides, and have been looking for a small-format digital camera with manual controls for a while. The GRD 2 seems to fit the bill nicely, though my dream is for a digital replacement for my beloved Contax G2 rangefinder. (Alas, that's a vain dream.)

Here's my question: Much of the work posted/linked to from here is B&W, and often post-processed to achieve a desired result. (Darned nice results, I should add.) I shoot almost exclusively color (not an aesthetic judgement -- I just don't "see" in B&W the way some do), and would prefer not to spend much time doing post-processing. That's partially a function of limited time -- I have nine-month old twins, and just finding the time to shoot is tough -- and partially a function of not being at all familiar with all of the various bits of processing software out there.

So, I would love to hear people's experiences shooting color with the GRD/GRD2, and what kind of RAW results you're getting with caveman-level processing, because I am definitely a caveman when it comes to digital imaging. I've seen some great stuff on flickr, but additional opinions are welcome.

Here's a link to a pretty bare-bones website with some of my stuff: http://www.patdorseyphoto.com/galleries/cities/cities.html

Thanks, Pat
 
W

Walt

Guest
Has anyone figured out how to have the image off, but the settings data on the screen. This is billed as a feature of the II when using a finder, but I have not been able to figure out how to do it. I am using the finder.

Thanks,
Walt
 
M

mlpowell

Guest
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?
 

cam

Active member
Has anyone figured out how to have the image off, but the settings data on the screen. This is billed as a feature of the II when using a finder, but I have not been able to figure out how to do it. I am using the finder.
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.
 

cam

Active member
Out of interest have any of you guys used the this GRDII with the gv-2 viewfinder (the one for the 28mm lens)?
I have never got used to (or particularly liked) framimg a scene from a distance when using smaller cameras and so so still prefer to use a traditional viewfinder.
the GV-2 is great. tiny but bright and fits beautifully in the Ricoh leather case. (the GV-2 is so small, compared to the original 28/21, that you barely notice it.) it also has the 1:1 notches as Walt stated. however, it is for the 4:3 ratio. the Voightlander, i believe, is 3:2 (which i shoot but i couldn't get my hands on one). that may be the biggest factor when choosing.

i have a VF attached all the time and love the choice on how i frame. they produce very different pictures, at least for me. if you have the time, it's great to try both. the new LCD is pretty gorgeous.
 
M

Mitch Alland

Guest
I agree with this, but also with David in having such a strong association between 3:2 and a certain kind of image. I had a magazine editor recently cut a sliver off the bottom of one of my photographs (a sort of 3:1.98) and I saw it immediately--it was the first thing I saw and it was not because content was missing in this sliver, but because it just changed the entire balance of the thing. So 3:2 is definitely my format and I don't think I could learn another and the GRD does fine in 3:2 if people want to use it. When I first saw Mitch's work I was discomforted by this kind of photograph in 4:3 because I expect a different image character in this shape, larger format. But now I've gotten use to it in Mitch's work and don't notice that about it. I should say that I associate 4:3 with television sets, which might be good if that's what you were doing. Otherwise it is, for me, something to overcome....
Walt:

When I first got the GRD I started shooting in 3:2 format because it was my first digital camera and I, instinctively, didn't want my pictures to lok different from 35mm film shots. Then, as I saw that this was indeed a "real camera", I felt that I should try to face it on its own, in its native format of 4:3 and noticed that often I found composition very effective in this format. 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. Now, I find that I can shoot in either 3:2 or 4:3 formats,but that, usually, pictures in "portrait" orientation seem more natural in 4:3 than 3:2. I also have the feeling of why not shoot in the sensor native mode to get the most pixels into the file...

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

Sean_Reid

Guest
Mitch--

The difference in people's reactions is not because the M8 is different from the M4 but because the culture has changed. When I used an M4, all cameras were that size or larger. Now the "standard" camera is a pocket camera and the M4 and M8 look large and serious. So it is a perception of the size and seriousness of the camera.

Walt
I think that is absolutely true.

Cheers,

Sean
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Out of interest have any of you guys used the this GRDII with the gv-2 viewfinder (the one for the 28mm lens)?
I have never got used to (or particularly liked) framimg a scene from a distance when using smaller cameras and so so still prefer to use a traditional viewfinder.

Marc
Yes, I'm testing the camera with that finder right now. It works well if one wants a 4:3 ratio, although, like most rangefinder camera frame lines, it is not completely accurate (even allowing for parallax). I'm used to that and so I frame so that the edges of my pictures will fall just outside the frame lines. I suspect this finder is a variation on the CV 28/35 finder and is made for Ricoh by CV.

For 3:2, I used the CV 28 finder which is more accurate than some camera frame lines but still not exact, of course.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Last edited:
Top