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!

Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

M

Mitch Alland

Guest
Sean, Walt:

I think that these small-sensor cameras are a new format, characterized, as Sean says, by a tiny sensor, huge DOF because of the short focal length of the lenses, graininess, minuscule size of the camera (which affects handling characteristics in both "good" and "bad" ways), etc. Indeed, the differences from APS and 4/3rds sensor cameras — and from 35mm film cameras — is enormous. To me, the fact this is a new format is an exciting thought: here is a camera format that is as revolutionary as the 35mm format was when the first Leicas were introduced in the 1920s and started to be used extensively in the 1930s.

In my case, I find that this new format has loosened up my photography because of the handling characteristics of these cameras: my style, framing with the LCD rather than a viewfinder, has become more much more fluid.

If we agree that this is a new format, there is still the question as to which of the digital formats is more film-like, but here we have to be specific as to which film format we mean. My original point was that the GRD was more like the "35mm aesthetic", typified by the Leica-M and Tri-X-like films, than the M8, which is more like medium format film.

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

Walt

Guest
Any chance of seeing the results, Walt?
David-

I haven't printed anything from this job yet, and once I do, I wouldn't "publish" anything until the subject and magazine it is intended for have used the material. So, I think we're a bit off on this.

In contrast to this slightly problematic (though apparently easily solved) sitatuation resulting from the size of this camera, it is a delight to use it out in the world. I am invisible with it, much as I was with a film Leica in the days when all cameras were bigger. This is a huge advantage. I sat in a restaurant the other night and photographed everyone in sight without so much as a second glance. People dismiss it.

Walt
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
I've found the same thing to be true. If people notice the camera at all, they don't take it seriously.
 
C

chris_tribble

Guest
When is 28 not 28? Seems to be when it's a Ricoh???

Working last night with the M8 at a reading. Took one shot with a 21mm f2.8 Elmarit lens. Then took another with the GR2. 640 on the Leica (800 equivalent) and 800 on the Ricoh. Full frame + 100% crops attached.

Two things strike me.

1/ the 21 on the Leica (28 equivalent on a 1.3 crop sensor) is giving a much wider FOV than the Ricoh - any one with thoughts on this?

2/ the noise levels and colour rendition make me remember why I'm not getting rid of the Leica!

OK, I know that the Leica shot could be a tad sharper - but it was shot fully open... to give you an idea of what you CAN get I'm attaching a 100% crop from another image in the series that was taken with the 75 lux at f2.8.

Interested for any thoughts...
 
A

asabet

Guest
Hi Chris,
28mm in 3:2 aspect ratio gives a greater horizontal AOV and lesser vertical AOV than does 28mm in 4:3 aspect ratio. This is because the focal length (equivalent) corresponds to the diagonal AOV. See the examples under "Aspect Ratios" on the bottom of this page.
 
C

chris_tribble

Guest
Hi Chris,
28mm in 3:2 aspect ratio gives a greater horizontal AOV and lesser vertical AOV than does 28mm in 4:3 aspect ratio. This is because the focal length (equivalent) corresponds to the diagonal AOV. See the examples under "Aspect Ratios" on the bottom of this page.
Ahh ... This it helpful - hadn't really taken on board what the implications of 4x3 were - I think in effect it means that the Ricoh feels more like a 35mm FOV on the Leica. How interesting. Helps me understand why the images weren't feeling as extreme wide as 28 can do on the Leica - and in some senses makes the Ricoh a more usable tool for a lot of the stuff I do.

Best
 

Terry

New member
When you switch the GRD II over to 2x3, what sort of difference does that make?
Maggie it depends on how Ricoh implements it (3:2 may simply be a crop). For example, on the d-lux3 at 16:9 you are using the whole sensor and 4:3 and 3:2 are crops. This means you are limited in max height by the vertical at 16:9. So, at 4:3 the camera is no longer giving you the same width. Measured diagonally the camera is 28mm in 16:9 but over 30mm in 4:3. I contrast this with the Panny TZ3 which was designed in a really cool way. They made the sensor larger than any of the aspect ratios and at every aspect ratio you get a 28mm diagonal.

terry
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Hi Chris,

It's true that the FOV is based on the diagonal measurement but, even accounting for that, you're right that your GR2 pictures shows a narrower EFOV than the your M8 picture. If course, different 28 mm (nominal) lenses on the M8 can show different fields of view.

When the adapter gets here, I'll compare the fields of view of the GR2 and the GX100 against what I see from a Canon 5D at various focal lengths. If its true that the GR2 (and maybe also the GR) show a slighter tighter EFOV, that would be good to know.

3:2 on the GR2 crops the image vertically (top and bottom) so that it has the same width but a lesser height.

Cheers,

Sean
 
C

chris_tribble

Guest
Hi Chris,

It's true that the FOV is based on the diagonal measurement but, even accounting for that, you're right that your GR2 pictures shows a narrower EFOV than the your M8 picture. If course, different 28 mm (nominal) lenses on the M8 can show different fields of view.

When the adapter gets here, I'll compare the fields of view of the GR2 and the GX100 against what I see from a Canon 5D at various focal lengths. If its true that the GR2 (and maybe also the GR) show a slighter tighter EFOV, that would be good to know.

3:2 on the GR2 crops the image vertically (top and bottom) so that it has the same width but a lesser height.

Cheers,

Sean
Sean - this sums it up nicely. Actually from where I stand the 4x3 28mm FOV is great for a single focal length camera - it makes sense of what I was seeing with the images which never looked as "wide angle" as I'd been expecting. Good news to me.

Happy Christmas to all on the list.

Best.
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
If you get time, try the comparisons at different focus distances. That may well have an effect.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Top