Menu
What's new
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

A

arrakis10

Guest
New photos with noise reduction desactived, shoot 800iso.
I love so much that noise, its first time than numeric camera give noise like Tri-x.

Proud of our noise :)



 
D

DaveSee

New member
Sean_Reid said:
That's a really interesting thought because until they're saved, they really are images. I think of saved pictures, however, as "prints" of a kind so when I prepare pictures for an article, for example, I think of that process as a kind of "printing". But you're right that while they're in flux on the screen, they really are images.

I'll ask Thomas Knoll about this.

Cheers,

Sean
Click to expand...
Hiyas all around the globe,

As a long/old-timer with RF+VF this Ricoh kit seems interesting, but I wonder if the DNG file is 8 or 16 bits wide/deep. Seeing the GRD as a replacement for the T4/XA, and new to digital cams(with an old 2MP CoolPix 950 and 8bit RAW), I'm a data type... what's this about Ricoh's DNG not legible in certain 'puter apps? DNG is DNG, no? Oh, and I've an M8 as well...

Starting here at this forum both for the "Small Sensor" and the slightly OT bent of this thread because the discussion is good ;)

As for the Golden Mean, that is academic/learned, whether by name or instructor(in the so named "West"); and 4:3 was defined as "marine"(the predominance of horizon?) from 19C. Western painting/drawing... point is, someone you were influenced had this cartography/mapping in mind while teaching...

Lastly, here, the "picture" and "image" is distinguished between what is(the picture) and what is seen(the image). This distinction is from the perspective of the viewer, or audience... each with her/his own context while taking in the mapping/pictographic (re)presentation... and this includes the creator too.

This seems a "Klein's Bottle" wrt the Ricoh kit: is it Tri-X, or someting other?
Do I let the camera define my picture, or image? With film kit, only the lens had influence. With digital, I seek the cleanest data path... is the GRDII cleaner than that before it? Noise is a symptom of the audience's experience... sometimes wanted, most times not(so, your not listening to "your" music as you read this?).

So, is it 8 or 16 bits RAW/DNG? Nowhere reviewed(freely) to confirm this.

rgds,
Dave

PS-Mr Knoll's opinion about "image" an "picture" would be interesting too.
 
A

arrakis10

Guest
Hi,

I made a test between Ricoh GRDII and Panasonic DMC-LX2 Lumix
the lumix is a zoom camera and is cheaper than ricoh.

I took the photo in Raw 28mm, 100iso f3,5 and crop 100%

The Ricoh one is the first one...I was desapointed

 
7

7ian7

Guest
I completely missed this conversation until this morning, when I began from the end of the thread and read much of it in the opposite direction. I think my comments pertain to some area in the middle of the thread, so sorry for coming out of left field.

Anyway, my two cents on 4/3 is .... I love that kind of shape. Polaroid negative film, Pentax 67. It feels right to me. But if I'm honest with myself, I respond — historically — to the "porous" quality of 35mm more than I do to my own medium format work despite 35's reduced resolution. (Nothing is better to my eye than the Polaroid, but that was a cumbersome, iffy addiction.) The long skinny 35 frame has never really appealed to me, so I would usually crop — except in purely journalistic circumstances.

So for me the advent of better and better cameras that have a similar "chunky" shape and (thus far) porousness (noise/softness) (admittedly almost to a fault) has been a nice development.

In terms of books, I believe any time you can drill down the variables regarding your gear choices without compromising your vision or intent, those kinds of boundaries can lend one more level of continuity to a project, and in a sense, ideally help the technique disappear behind the content. I think of "The Americans" as an example.

I plan on attempting to do my next long-term project with a single camera.
 
V

veriwide

Guest
Hi everyone... kind of new here and with question to boot ! Most of what I see discussed here is with regards the image quality of the GR vis-a-vis 35mm film. Most of these comments seem to hinge on the on-screen presentation of photos. What I really would like to know is what kind of paper prints you are getting out of these files. For me, the measure of just how good these small sensor cameras really are is in the hard photo. Are they as satisfying, as for instance, a 35mm film negative scanned and printed?

I still own a Konica/Minolta Dimage A2 in addition to the used GR I just picked up. I also have a Ricoh GR1 and many negs from my days with a Leica M4 with mostly a 21mm Super Angulon. I also still use a Brooks Veriwide 100 6x10cm medium format, which I will not get into for now. The prints that I have managed to get so far from the GR and for that matter the A2 do not compare to the prints I achieve from the film cameras. I know that they are different and perhaps I should not expect them to be the same. But why is it that the digital prints rarely satisfy in the same way? If only it were possible, I would love to see some of your work in the flesh !

So, my question is this : How many of you make real prints - in B/W I might add - from your digital files, and how do you find that they compare to film based prints ?

Bernard

PS: BTW, I should say that as I have only had the GR for 2 weeks. I have not done that much work with it I may yet find that it does satisfy :thumbup:
 
Last edited:
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Over this past year, in particular, water has been a constant in many of my pictures: people on beaches, swimmers diving off cliffs, firemen playing a kind of water polo with water hoses - thousands of pictures from often shooting 5-6 hours straight per day.

So, without even realizing the continuation, I took the GR2 with me a few days ago to photograph during a snowstorm. I like glass too. The snow melting on the windows of my car, and the fogging, created a kind of surface that I wanted to combine with what I was seeing outside those windows. I wanted the two to fuse together, to make forms together.

And here's the thing about this format...in order to fuse those two things together, I needed enormous depth of field. The droplets still needed to be droplets and the mother and child (second picture) needed to look like human figures. So, the GR2 at F/5.6. These cameras can allow us a kind of picture making that simply didn't exist (in photography) prior to their invention. Their invention allows visual inventions.

There's nothing "better" about this format but its really not all that much like 35 mm film and it has very interesting possibilities.

Cheers,

Sean
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Hi Mitchell, Maggie and Mitch,

Thank you. They won't be everyone's cup of tea but they're interesting to me right now.

Mitch,

Which ISO? 100...why do you ask?

Cheers,

Sean
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Mitch Alland said:
Sean:

I asked because I like the look better than what I've been getting at ISO100, but it's hard to tell as your posted JPGs are quite small. But maybe the look is better at lower contrast than in my pictures.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
Click to expand...
Hi Mitch,

They look like that large too - and in print. It might be partly the contrast but also the water itself (as snow, as fog, etc.) acts on the surface in a different, but somewhat related, way to the way grain acts on it. In fact, I almost wrote in the first post, "Here's your grain, Mitch, but it fell from the sky."

Best,

Sean
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
There you go...<G> I particularly like what those droplets do when they're seen against the shadowy parts of the picture. Here we get water in every imaginable form.

This is a wonderful little camera.

Cheers,

Sean
 
C

Caer

Guest
Coincidentally, I took some similar (in-car) shots last night:

That's a JPEG straight from the camera, with nothing done to it. I'm going to experiment with this, just see what the camera can do by itself for colour at night.
 
M

Martin S

New member
Sean_Reid said:
This is the new GR II thread. Welcome all who are interested. Some of the initial posts here are migrating from a thread on another board so things may seem out of order at first but that should sort itself out once we get past the original posts that are being impo

Hi Sean

I have the GX100 and noted some blockiness in fine detail (waves in San Francisco Bay). Is this just a manifestation of the small sensor, or did I push the USM too much?? Took some great shots in the fort at the base of the Golden Gate bridge. Even the flash did fine in some dark interior shots.

Interested now in the GRD II. Do u think that it complements the GX100, or is too similar for considering a purchase??

Enjoyed ur Pentax K10D review.

Martin
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top