Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

  1. #1
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

    GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    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/[email protected]/

  2. #2
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    I'm interested in seeing them produce versions of the GR with 28, 35, and 50 mm lenses. Second best would be to make a 40 mm version in addition to the 28. Some of us wouldn't necessarily carry multiple bodies but I myself would prefer to carry a 40 than a 28. For me, its a better focal length. The adapter is useful but the pocket-ability of the camera does get lost. And, in colder climates, some of us do indeed have multiple pockets.

    * Of course, these are all EFOV numbers we're talking about.

    I'm now in fairly regular contact with Ricoh Japan and this is one of the things I'd like to discuss with them.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  3. #3
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    On the 28mm EFOV, when I first bought my GRD in July 2006 as my first digital camera I was ambivalent about the 28mm focal length, having, over the years, used it for only a few shots with my M6. But I knew that one of my favourite photographers, Moriyama Daido, used the Ricoh GR1 and GR21 film cameras almost exclusively, which have a 28mm and 21mm lens, respectively. This made me relatively open-minded about the 28mm focal length. And it does take some time to learn shooting with it.

    Then, when I bought the GX100 at the end of August I thought that I would mainly use the stepped zoom at 50mm EFOV, which had been my favourite focal length when using the M6. What I've found, however, is that with the GX100 my most used focal length was still 28mm, followed by 24mm and 35mm; and, surprisingly, I've shot relatively little at 50mm.

    —Mitch/Bangkok
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

  4. #4
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    The Japanese public apparently are keen on supplementary lenses - I've no idea why, and presumably Ricoh is responding to this with their convertors. If Ricoh wants to keep their customers happy, I suspect that they won't want to introduce models with differing fixed focal lengths. Personally, I'd like one around 35 - 40 mm equivalent - I find the challenge of 28mm a bit difficult.

    Bertie

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,527
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    While I *really* like the 28mm as things stand however I would rather like the separate models you suggest.
    Carrying and fitting add-on parts is very fiddly.
    One with a 40-50mm EFL running f2 would simply rock even if it were less pocketable.
    And as pointed out, there is precedent with the GR1/GR21.
    Just in imho

  6. #6
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    That's a good idea Lili. F/2 should be possible with a 40.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  7. #7
    Senior Member 4season's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Colorado USA
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    I think the GRD + auxiliary lenses is something I'd really have to use for awhile before passing judgement, but my gut feeling is that it adds unwanted bulk and complexity to something that I want for it's compactness and uncluttered nature. Besides, my camera bag also contains a Leica M8, and while it's no Ricoh, I like it

    Jeff S

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    I wouldn't mind a 50 mm lens or a 38 mm on a GRD camera either. However, I can see the extending lens barrel being a problem over time, with dust getting to the sensor and not being able to clean the sensor yourself means at least a few weeks without a camera. I would give up the slimmer design, for small fast interchangeable primes, that you could take off to clean the sensor, as well as being able to put a filter on the front and do away with the lens cap. Plus, not having to wait for the lens to extend and being able to keep the camera turned on in sleep mode, ready at a moments notice really appeals to me. Of coarse I'm just dreaming, but I guess I've been doing that for a few years now.

  9. #9
    asabet
    Guest

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean_Reid View Post
    Some of us wouldn't necessarily carry multiple bodies but I myself would prefer to carry a 40 than a 28. For me, its a better focal length.
    Same here. 35mm or 40mm would be best for me.

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    How much bigger does the adapter make the GRD?

  11. #11
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    It's lens is fully extended with another 2cm added for the converter lens, so that the camera is no longer pocketable. But it adds little weight.

    —Mitch/Bangkok
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

  12. #12
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie O View Post
    How much bigger does the adapter make the GRD?
    I should have a test example of the adapter within a week or so. Ricoh is sending it from Japan as soon as its available at their facility.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  13. #13
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by clay stewart View Post
    I wouldn't mind a 50 mm lens or a 38 mm on a GRD camera either. However, I can see the extending lens barrel being a problem over time, with dust getting to the sensor and not being able to clean the sensor yourself means at least a few weeks without a camera. I would give up the slimmer design, for small fast interchangeable primes, that you could take off to clean the sensor, as well as being able to put a filter on the front and do away with the lens cap. Plus, not having to wait for the lens to extend and being able to keep the camera turned on in sleep mode, ready at a moments notice really appeals to me. Of coarse I'm just dreaming, but I guess I've been doing that for a few years now.
    I've never seen sensor dust become a problem with small sensor cameras. I'm sure its theoretically possible but it doesn't seem to be common.

    Cheers,

  14. #14
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean_Reid View Post
    I've never seen sensor dust become a problem with small sensor cameras. I'm sure its theoretically possible but it doesn't seem to be common.

    Cheers,
    These were taken with an Ixus 400; there is a mark at upper right. Once it appeared, it stayed on all subsequent pix, and in the same position:




    Is this dust?

    Bertie

  15. #15
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,527
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Dust is one reason a a fixed lens barrel ala' the Hexar AF would be very nice. A fixed lens barrel with a UV filter and voila' far less chance for dust entry as well fewer moving parts and so less chance of failure.
    Dust is one reason that my GRD lives in a little lowepro bag when not in use.
    Of course this would compromise the svelte form factor Ricoh has so admirably maintained just as would interchangeable lenses.
    Still, if anyone can 'do' an EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) camera well I bet it could be Ricoh!

  16. #16
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    To me, that negates the concept of the GRD, which goes back to that of the film GR1 camera. And the idea of putting a UV filter on as well is a non-starter for me, but, then, I don't want to get into any religious controversies,

    —Mitch/Bangkok
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

  17. #17
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,527
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch Alland View Post
    To me, that negates the concept of the GRD, which goes back to that of the film GR1 camera. And the idea of putting a UV filter on as well is a non-starter for me, but, then, I don't want to get into any religious controversies,

    —Mitch/Bangkok
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
    Mitch,
    As I said in my earlier post, such would compromise the svelt form factor Ricoh have so admirably maintained!
    I was speaking from the context of dust protection.
    If it were much bigger I would be less inclined to carry my GRD and more likely to carry my K100D.
    And that would defeat the whole purpose.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    When I look at the GX100, with the lens extended to 50, 35, or 28 mm, it seems to me that if it was an interchangeable or fixed prime of similar size, it would still easily fit in a shirt pocket and still be much smaller than an M8, XT/XTI, D40, E410, K100, etc. and a prime. It seems like the two most seen complaints are the lens freezing up- extending or retracting- and dust on the sensor. The only remedy I can see for this is interchangeable primes, or a sealed lens that doesn't extend. Don't get me wrong, I like both my Ricohs, just pointing out things that seem like they might be improvements. As far as the GR1 goes, it didn't have the sensor dust to contend with, so the only thing to go wrong with that, for the most part, was the lens barrel jamming.

  19. #19
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,527
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by clay stewart View Post
    When I look at the GX100, with the lens extended to 50, 35, or 28 mm, it seems to me that if it was an interchangeable or fixed prime of similar size, it would still easily fit in a shirt pocket and still be much smaller than an M8, XT/XTI, D40, E410, K100, etc. and a prime. It seems like the two most seen complaints are the lens freezing up- extending or retracting- and dust on the sensor. The only remedy I can see for this is interchangeable primes, or a sealed lens that doesn't extend. Don't get me wrong, I like both my Ricohs, just pointing out things that seem like they might be improvements. As far as the GR1 goes, it didn't have the sensor dust to contend with, so the only thing to go wrong with that, for the most part, was the lens barrel jamming.
    Good points Clay.
    Without getting into the 'religous' aspect of UV filters or no ( ), a fixed lens barrel can be a lot more sturdy and far better sealed vesus a retracting one.
    Oh, for a digital Hexar AF!!!
    But I do see where Mitch is coming from though.
    I take my GRD everywhere simply because it is so very good in such a small package.
    Minimalism at its best!

  20. #20
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Campbell View Post
    These were taken with an Ixus 400; there is a mark at upper right. Once it appeared, it stayed on all subsequent pix, and in the same position:

    Is this dust?

    Bertie
    It sure looks like dust. I myself have never seen it in files from small sensor cameras but I guess its possible. Was it there from the start?

    Cheers,

    Sean

  21. #21
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean_Reid View Post
    It sure looks like dust. I myself have never seen it in files from small sensor cameras but I guess its possible. Was it there from the start?

    Cheers,

    Sean
    Sean,

    It's my wife's camera, and the pix were originally sent [in 2005] by email to me; and the camera and the computer with the originals are both in Switzerland, and I'm in Ireland at present, so I can't check. But as far as I recall, the spot wasn't there at the start, but once it came it just stayed. It annoyed me so much that I asked the local camera shop about cleaning - not economically worthwhile, so I had to get her another. If I remember, I'll check this out next week when I am in Switzerland.

    Regards

    Bertie

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean_Reid View Post
    It sure looks like dust. I myself have never seen it in files from small sensor cameras but I guess its possible. Was it there from the start?

    Cheers,

    Sean
    Sean, I've seen quite a few complaints on the web, over the past year or so. A quick Google search brought up these.http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/r
    eadflat.asp?forum=1013&message=25889606&changemode =1

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...8&changemode=1

    http://www.lightstalkers.org/the-new...rd-ii-arrived-

  23. #23
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Its news to me. So are many people seeing dust on the sensors of their fixed lens digital cameras? I wonder how common it is.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Who makes a fixed lens- non-protruding prime lens- digital camera? I can't think of any off hand other than an old Kodak easy share 3mp from a few years back.

  25. #25
    chris_tribble
    Guest

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Campbell View Post
    Sean,

    It's my wife's camera, and the pix were originally sent [in 2005] by email to me; and the camera and the computer with the originals are both in Switzerland, and I'm in Ireland at present, so I can't check. But as far as I recall, the spot wasn't there at the start, but once it came it just stayed. It annoyed me so much that I asked the local camera shop about cleaning - not economically worthwhile, so I had to get her another. If I remember, I'll check this out next week when I am in Switzerland.

    Regards

    Bertie
    If you do have systematically patterned dust on a sensor it's worth considering betting Lightroom - the dust fixing tool and its capacity to sync across unlimited files might be the answer....

  26. #26
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by chris_tribble View Post
    If you do have systematically patterned dust on a sensor it's worth considering betting Lightroom - the dust fixing tool and its capacity to sync across unlimited files might be the answer....
    What a good idea - it hadn't occurred to me! I checked with my wife tonight, and we think that the camera was OK for one to two years before this spot appeared -- it doesn't seem to annoy her, but it really upsets me. And this camera remains her favourite - I can forsee an expensive sensor clean looming

    Bertie

  27. #27
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Dust on small sensors?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Campbell View Post
    Sean,

    If I remember, I'll check this out next week when I am in Switzerland.

    Regards

    Bertie
    The dust problem - if that it what it is - remains; two pix from today, at the zoom extremes. I don't think that it is possible to keep a constant aperture on this camera.
    f=7.1, 1/501, @7.4mm

    f=13, 1/159, @ 22.2mm


    The variable size of this spot makes batch retouching difficult.

    Regards, Bertie

  28. #28
    7ian7
    Guest

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Back to focal lengths, I'm enjoying the wide capabilities
    of the GX100, but I always come back to portraits of faces
    and torsos, for which the 72mm (or greater) is still the
    most flattering. The sharpness varies wildly across the
    aperture range of the 72mm on the GX100, but it is still best
    for these kind of shots. Sean have you published test results
    about the sharpest aperture for the fully extended GX100 lens?

    Anyway, for me a 50mm f2 fixed GRD, with a 90mm "portrait"
    conversion lens would be the ideal. And while we're at it, if the
    math would permit, what about a "tilt" 90, that would enable
    "artificial" control of the depth-of-field for softer backgrounds?

    Cheers,
    Ian

  29. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    211
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    I'd love a 50 mm version. Judging from other cameras, I wouldn't think the lens would have to be much bigger than the 28 version if it were the same speed.

    I'm liking the 28 mm which is a challenge for me. It makes interesting shots. But, I'd use 50 a lot more.

    I'd much rather have a 50 and 28, than any two combination with one a being a 35.

    I like the idea of a bullet proof, dust free fixed lens, but love the slim form of the retractable lens. Hard to choose. It would depend on how big the fixed lens was.

    I have the 40 mm conversion lens. It's not a solution I'm crazy about. I can see it for camping where weight is a big factor. But, if I'm going to be changing lenses and using a non-pocketable camera, I'm better off with my M8.

    The big exception is when I want the big DOF. So shooting people on the street or with friends, the 40 mm may be pretty cool.

    Best,

    Mitchell

  30. #30
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitchell View Post
    I'd love a 50 mm version. Judging from other cameras, I wouldn't think the lens would have to be much bigger than the 28 version if it were the same speed...
    I can't see how you draw this conclusion: look at how large the diameter of the 40m tele-converter is — a camera wuth a 50mm EFOV lens, it would seem to me, would have to have a still larger diameter, which would make for a larger camera that would no longer fit the GR concept.

    —Mitch/Bangkok
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

  31. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    211
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Mitch,

    I think a prime lens would be a lot smaller than a conversion lens. Stacking one lens on another is bound to be bulkier. A Leica M 50 is roughly the same size as a M 28 of the same aperture speed.

    A prime GRD will, I'm guessing, be smaller than the zoom on the GX 100, which, I'm guessing is a lot smaller than the the GRD with the 40 mm conversion lens.

    Best,

    Mitchell

  32. #32
    7ian7
    Guest

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Frustrating to even imagine, as the likelihood of Ricoh
    producing this animal seems ... unlikely.

  33. #33
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by 7ian7 View Post
    Back to focal lengths, I'm enjoying the wide capabilities
    of the GX100, but I always come back to portraits of faces
    and torsos, for which the 72mm (or greater) is still the
    most flattering. The sharpness varies wildly across the
    aperture range of the 72mm on the GX100, but it is still best
    for these kind of shots. Sean have you published test results
    about the sharpest aperture for the fully extended GX100 lens?

    Anyway, for me a 50mm f2 fixed GRD, with a 90mm "portrait"
    conversion lens would be the ideal. And while we're at it, if the
    math would permit, what about a "tilt" 90, that would enable
    "artificial" control of the depth-of-field for softer backgrounds?

    Cheers,
    Ian
    I've published resolution results for the GX-100 lens at various apertures at the step-zoom focal lengths.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  34. #34
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch Alland View Post
    I can't see how you draw this conclusion: look at how large the diameter of the 40m tele-converter is — a camera wuth a 50mm EFOV lens, it would seem to me, would have to have a still larger diameter, which would make for a larger camera that would no longer fit the GR concept.

    —Mitch/Bangkok
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
    Some of the older Olympus small sensor cameras had retractable zoom lenses that went to F/1.8 wide open. I think it should be possible and it makes a lot of sense for a SSC to have a fast lens.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  35. #35
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by 7ian7 View Post
    Frustrating to even imagine, as the likelihood of Ricoh
    producing this animal seems ... unlikely.
    Not necessarily...

    Cheers,

    Sean

  36. #36
    7ian7
    Guest

    Re: GRDx: separate cameras or converter lenses?

    Cool.

    I'm open to keeping the dream alive.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •