Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 52

Thread: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

  1. #1
    chris_tribble
    Guest

    Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Some good news and some (sort of) bad. Picked up a GRD2 yesterday from the nice people at RG Lewis + the 21-28 finder (for a ridiculously cheap £40 - go and get one while they're still in stock!).

    THE CAMERA
    In my hands the GR is TINY - makes it difficult to feel confident holding it + the wrist strap's on the wrong side for me, so not particularly useful... Second, it was easy to set up and is proving to be easy to use (the focus light being within periferal vision when you're using the finder is very helpful).

    IMAGES

    NOISE
    I was working at 400 and 800 and have no problems with noise given the sensor size. Compared with the M8 or the 5D or 1D2 which I normally work with, it's noisy, but it's not aesthetically problematic, and the images are more than useable. I have no experience with the GRD1 so can't join in the discussion about better / worse, but from someone whose last small sensor camera was an Ixus vintage 2004, this is a completely different ball game.

    DOF
    I attach a couple which are beginning to give me an idea of what I'll be able to do with the tool. First, the restaurant shot brings home forcibly the limitation (or some would say strength) of small sensor cameras. The lens was fully open, but the DOF is so great that things on the other side of the room are still highly (and for me) distractingly visible. F2.4 on any of the Leica lenses would be giving OOF 5 or 10 cms on either side of the in-focus and a much better image (from my point of view). Clearly this is something to get used to!

    DR
    I was aware that the dynamic range of the small sensor would be restricted, but was a bit surprised by the effect of bright light within the frame... rather than giving a stepless gradation from blown to not blown, there's a strange concentric ring effect that's very digital ... Again, something to get used to and to learn to overcome by spot metering and working more carefully.

    OVERALL
    The good news is that the GRD2 is going to be fun to learn how to use, is incredibly portable, and with the finder, feels spontaneous and easy to use... Lots of things to play with, but the basic sense of it being a photographic tool that's going to usefully complement my other systems.

    Thanks to all on the list who introduced me to the GRD2.

    Best

    Chris

  2. #2
    chris_tribble
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    And a second thought - I've just realised that the GRD2 could also provide me with an incredibly useful spotmeter to go alongside the M8!! I've been lamenting getting rid of my Minolta Spotmeter - especially in artificially lit performance spaces, but I reckon that by putting the GRD2 into A mode, and selecting an aperture and ISO that matches that which I'm using on the M, I'll be able to evaluate spots on the scene that I'm photographing and reduce blown highlights... I can even use EV compensation to accommodate the extra stops that I have on the M lenses...

    Anyone with experience of this?

    Best

  3. #3
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,098
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    The GRD is tiny compared to an M8, but huge compared to a Minox sub-min - which has a film size about twice that of the GRD - though you can't really enlarge Minox pix much beyond postcard size.

    The wrist strap can be attached to either side of the GRD - what's the problem?

    Bertie

  4. #4
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Quote Originally Posted by chris_tribble View Post
    ...DOF
    I attach a couple which are beginning to give me an idea of what I'll be able to do with the tool. First, the restaurant shot brings home forcibly the limitation (or some would say strength) of small sensor cameras. The lens was fully open, but the DOF is so great that things on the other side of the room are still highly (and for me) distractingly visible. F2.4 on any of the Leica lenses would be giving OOF 5 or 10 cms on either side of the in-focus and a much better image (from my point of view). Clearly this is something to get used to!
    Chris:

    Yes, when framing you gave to look all the way into the frame because so much is in focus.

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

  5. #5
    chris_tribble
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Campbell View Post
    The GRD is tiny compared to an M8, but huge compared to a Minox sub-min - which has a film size about twice that of the GRD - though you can't really enlarge Minox pix much beyond postcard size.

    The wrist strap can be attached to either side of the GRD - what's the problem?

    Bertie
    Woops - Bertie - I'd missed that! Problem solved...
    Thanks

  6. #6
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Quote Originally Posted by chris_tribble View Post
    First, the restaurant shot brings home forcibly the limitation (or some would say strength) of small sensor cameras. The lens was fully open, but the DOF is so great that things on the other side of the room are still highly (and for me) distractingly visible. F2.4 on any of the Leica lenses would be giving OOF 5 or 10 cms on either side of the in-focus and a much better image (from my point of view). Clearly this is something to get used to!
    Hi Chris,

    I've been thinking about this part of your post this morning, on and off, while I've been photographing. You've just stumbled onto a very interesting opportunity. I know you read the site so, if you're so inclined, read that article called "On Small Sensor Cameras". The timing is right I think.

    Back in 2004, when I was reviewing the Digilux 2 for LuLa, I started to realize that these cameras had, however accidentally, created a new format. I came up with the name "small sensor camera" to try to get people thinking about the nature of these cameras rather than seeing them in the ways that have been created by marketing (with artifical categories like consumer, prosumer, point n' shoot and all that other nonsense which has nothing to do with pictures).

    One of the central aspects of this photographic format is its very deep DOF. For all of the time that you have been using rangefinder cameras, you've been seeing your subject through this very generous, democratic, viewfinder. That is to say you've had framelines in a bright window in which everything is seen clearly. What the small sensor camera does, in part, is to complete the promise made by the window viewfinder. And the best work that I've seen done with these cameras embraces that DOF and makes excellent use of it.

    Photographers are often fed a lot of bull so that various magazines and books can be sold to them, etc. Very often, ideas that are either over-simplified or just plain wrong get peddled as "tips". One of the most hackneyed of these ideas is that short DOF = creativity. In fact, though, its often just a crutch and many of the pictures I see made with shallow DOF seem more derivative than creative. And the sources of their derivations are themselves, often, to my eyes at least, not all that interesting.

    One of the myths I talked about in the "Correct Exposure and Other Myths" article is the one that tells us short DOF will "remove confusing elements" etc. That's nonsense. In focus or out, every element in the frame is subject and all of it must be resolved. The elements not at the point of peak focus are nontheless going to become visual forms in the pictures, be their edges hard or soft. They obviously don't disappear.

    So...I think you have a great chance to see what you can do with this format. It will mean visually organizing your pictures from side to side and from front to back; everything will need attention. But then, it always does. These cameras force a kind of rigorousness that I think can really be useful to any photographer's growth.

    Strong work can be made using deep or shallow DOF but since your new camera naturally wants to draw with the former, why not go with it and see where it takes you?

    Best,

    Sean
    Last edited by Sean_Reid; 14th December 2007 at 08:17.

  7. #7
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Sean:

    What you say about the formulaic use of short DOF is very true, as in portraits, for example. If you look at most of Cartier-Bresson's portraits, or those by Arnold Newman, you see that very few of them use heavily blurred out backgrounds.

    —Mitch/Bangkok
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
    Last edited by Mitch Alland; 14th December 2007 at 08:56.

  8. #8
    Caer
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Campbell View Post
    The wrist strap can be attached to either side of the GRD - what's the problem?
    Top or bottom, too. That's one of the first things I noticed about the GRD2; I love attention to detail like that

  9. #9
    Senior Member 4season's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Colorado USA
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    I've been carrying around a pair of polar opposites lately: The M8 with a Noctilux and it's razor-thin DOF, and the Ricoh GX100 with almost infinite DOF.

    The two cameras really let me play around with the viewer's sense of scale: With the Noctilux, I can sometimes make full-sized objects look like tiny ones shot on a macro level!

    Meanwhile, the Ricoh lets me move in very close to very small objects, yet I still get a lot of DOF, and among other things, that lets me turn small stalks of grass into tree trunks.



    When it first arrived a few weeks ago, I was ready to flip my 30% discounted Nocti on eBay in order to pay for a new 28mm Elmarit because the Nocti is heavy, doesn't focus too close, and I thought I'd get bored of the blurred backgrounds. But it became a lot more interesting to me as both a "negative space" lens and a means to play with that sense of scale.

  10. #10
    veriwide
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Speaking of DOF, when I owned a M4 with a 21mm S.A. lens that was the one thing I really wanted from it... DOF.. I tried to always shoot at f8 or less just to keep everything in focus... same with my Brooks Veriwide.. so, I guess the GR 21mm combo is made for me then !!

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Interesting thread for me. I jumped from only small sensor cameras to the M8. DOF is probably why I love playing around with the TZ3 as you can get a shallow DOF when you need/want it by using the long end of the zoom and shooting in macro mode. Then at 28mm (a little wider in 16:9) you've got everything in focus. If Panny merged the controls /RAW of the LX2 with the TZ3, it could be a really cool camera.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    211
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    For me, its easiest to make pictures with a longer lens, something like 100mm. Not only small dof, but also selecting a small part of the field.

    The GRD II I've ordered is going to be a challenge, and I hope foster the kind of growth Sean mentions. I wanted the big dof for certain subjects, but its going to be interesting to try to compose some sort of order on all these infocus wide angle parts!

    Best,

    Mitchell

  13. #13
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitchell View Post
    I wanted the big dof for certain subjects, but its going to be interesting to try to compose some sort of order on all these infocus wide angle parts!

    Best,

    Mitchell
    Hi Mitchell (is this Mitchell of Maine?),

    One of the things that you may find is that, as you learn how to build pictures where nearly everything is sharp, this process can focus your attention even better on the parts of the frame that will be blurred (when you use a camera/lens with short DOF). I've talked about this before but its interesting to consider one difference between an SLR and a camera with a window finder. The former normally shows the subject using a very shallow depth of field (because of the max aperture of the lens, say a 50/1.8). So if we shoot wide open with an SLR what we see on the ground glass correlates somewhat to what the camera will record. But if we're working at F/8 with an SLR, we have to imagine, as being in focus, those parts of the frame that are shown to us out of focus. (True, we can preview the DOF but it makes the finder dark and can be awkward when one is working quickly).

    An optical finder on the GR2 shows us the subject entirely in focus at all distances. And that is often close to what the lens will record. So, there are also some natural correlations between small sensor DOF and optical window finders.

    One difference you may find is that you become increasingly aware of space with the picture frame and that you build the pictures only across a depth that you can visually resolve. Its an interesting and potentially powerful process to practice this (see that discussion of Breughel in the "Street Photography" essay).

    I don't know if you have any interest in Winogrand but, like Breughel, he really knew how to build his picture clearly from front to back.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  14. #14
    chris_tribble
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Sean, Mitch, others, thanks for the thoughtful comments. There's a double lesson here for me... First, the more you use a tool, the more you get get from it... Stupidly obvious, but still true. Another day with the GR2 and I'm seeing more how to use it (I'm shooting lower, not using the optical finder for the moment, and thinking about the whole frame rather than the area I want to fix...).

    The first picture (a friend met in the street on the way back from her gallery) begins to give me a sense of what the GR2 is going to give me for one aspect of my work (portraiture). DOF down to the end of the road, but the subject held with a generous frame that lets me bring so much in to the story. The second picture is with the M8 + 75 Lux at f2. It's doing a different job and it was essential for the picture I'd made in my head before I touched the shutter that the book shelf behind and the clothing in the subject were pushed as for OOF as possible.

    So now I've got a new tool that I can carry all the time and that I'm going to have to learn. I find I prefer its rendering in B&W, especially at 400 and higher, I'm sure that it won't replace other tools that I have to hand, but I'm beginning to appreciate what it has to to offer.

    (and BTW - did anyone have thoughts on using the GR2 as a spot meter for use with other cameras? I'm going to play with this and see what it gives - interested to know if anyone's tried it...)

    Best

    Chris
    Last edited by chris_tribble; 15th December 2007 at 06:41.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    211
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Hi Sean,

    Thanks for your response. Yes it's Mitchell form Maine, a beautiful 9 degrees with 6 inches of snow, and a big storm coming tomorrow. I'm guessing colder and more snow in Vermont, one of my favorite states.

    My GRD II arrived yesterday in time for the weekend. The box felt amazing light. Inside was the case, and finder, no camera. What a tease!!!!
    Pop Flash was great about it, and are sending the camera as fast as they can, but in the sticks here that means Monday.

    I've done mostly landscapes where most of the time everything is in focus (but some of the most interesting with narrow focus.) So the GRD II for mostly people will be a big learning experience all the way around. I've read your ideas before on the differences in range finder and SLR viewing, and find myself advantages to both. (I'm a little amazed that I don't use the dof preview more often on an SLR, but I think it's because it gets too dark.)

    I am in the process of reading your helpful articles on shooting.

    Best,

    Mitchell

  16. #16
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Hi Mitchell,

    You wrote:

    "Thanks for your response. Yes it's Mitchell form Maine, a beautiful 9 degrees with 6 inches of snow, and a big storm coming tomorrow. I'm guessing colder and more snow in Vermont, one of my favorite states."

    I'm told that same storm is going to drop as much as 15" here.

    "My GRD II arrived yesterday in time for the weekend. The box felt amazing light. Inside was the case, and finder, no camera. What a tease!!!!
    Pop Flash was great about it, and are sending the camera as fast as they can, but in the sticks here that means Monday."

    Wow, the GX100 I sent them was stolen enroute. UPS did cover the insured amount. Wierd....was that sent by Fedex?

    "I've done mostly landscapes where most of the time everything is in focus (but some of the most interesting with narrow focus.) So the GRD II for mostly people will be a big learning experience all the way around. I've read your ideas before on the differences in range finder and SLR viewing, and find myself advantages to both."

    Me too.

    "(I'm a little amazed that I don't use the dof preview more often on an SLR, but I think it's because it gets too dark.)"

    I think its rare that anyone uses it. Some cameras don't even have it.

    "I am in the process of reading your helpful articles on shooting."

    Cool, which ones?

    Cheers,

    Sean

  17. #17
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Quote Originally Posted by chris_tribble View Post
    ...I find I prefer its rendering in B&W, especially at 400 and higher...
    Chris:

    Yes, I also like the B&W from the GRD2 at ISO400 and 800; and I'm still struggling with how to use ISO200, or whether to use my old GRD for that rather than selling it because I like that speed on the latter camera more than on the GRD.

    I like both your portraits. Of course one shoots portraits differently with a 28mm lens. Here is a picture that I've posted before — it's on the my early GRD photos, shot in JPG before I knew what RAW was. The highlights in the back are completely blown because, as you can see from the watch, it was noon on a fay that was extremely bright even for Bangkok:




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

  18. #18
    chris_tribble
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Mitch - interesting to see that you'd chosen square format for this - it makes a good image. Something I might consider more with the GR2...

    Still working out where I go with the colour side of things - I process in Lightroom and am finding the low ISO colour from the GR2 pleasing (see below). This is St Pancras station just across the road from home - early evening light - and remarkably true. Shot at 100 iso. It's beginning to feel that there'll be space for it as a highly portabale low iso colour tool + as a distinctive B&W tool with the higher iso's.

    Best

    Chris

  19. #19
    LFPhoto
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Thanks for your interesting posts Chris. The extreme DOF takes some getting used to and is a limitation of the camera if you like to use subject isolation in your photographic style. Although no one has mentioned it above, it's because the focal length of the lens is only 5.9mm. Plug that figure into a DOF calculator and you will see how quickly the DOF increases with focal distance even at f2.4. With regard to your comment of using the GRD as a spotmeter, that is exactly what I do when shotting with my hassy 553 or digiflex. I match up the ISO, aperture (or shutter speed), and WB and use spot meter mode, and it is fairly accurate. However I would first test the GRD2 against the other camera (or film stock) at comparable ISOs to correlate the exposure levels. I have a GRD and not the II, and my mf digital back has only one ISO of 100, so it works well. Brian

  20. #20
    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: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Chris, that's a lovely photo! The colors are fabbo!

    Here's one of my M8 Paris shots, as an echo, such as it is:


  21. #21
    chris_tribble
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Quote Originally Posted by LFPhoto View Post
    With regard to your comment of using the GRD as a spotmeter, that is exactly what I do when shotting with my hassy 553 or digiflex. I match up the ISO, aperture (or shutter speed), and WB and use spot meter mode, and it is fairly accurate. However I would first test the GRD2 against the other camera (or film stock) at comparable ISOs to correlate the exposure levels. I have a GRD and not the II, and my mf digital back has only one ISO of 100, so it works well. Brian
    Brian - thanks for this. I'm thinking of seeing what happens with the Leica when I'm working with stage lighting. With Canon DSLRs I tend to use centre-weighted or spot + exposure lock and am able to avoid blown highlights. I find it much harder to do this with the M8 - especially with lenses longer than 50mm (had a nightmare a couple of weeks ago at the Wigmore Hall with strong overhead lighting + two bald performers + a woman and man with fine heads of hair!)

    The examples below give an idea of what can be done with the GR2 as a spotmeter! The shots below are taken with an M8 + 75 lux. Assuming that your aim is to NOT blow the highlights on the clock, the GR2 is the perfect tool to help you out. Working with the M8 at iso 640 (this = 800 on the GR2) the metering was giving me 1/180th @ f2.8 (see the third image with the blown highlights). Using the GR2 and spotting on the clock I got 1/750th! The histogram on the shot at 1/180 is still good (I try to push the histogram to the right wherever I can) - it covers the full range (given that the image is clearly low key). I could never have got that exposure information with the Leica's metering.

    Looks like another reason for keeping a GR2 in the bag!!

    Best

    Chris

  22. #22
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Quote Originally Posted by LFPhoto View Post
    The extreme DOF takes some getting used to and is a limitation of the camera if you like to use subject isolation in your photographic style.
    Its just the nature of the format and I don't see it as a limitation, per se, any more than is the very shallow depth of field of an 8" x 10" camera. Its just a matter of the photographer matching the format to what he or she wants to make.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  23. #23
    chris_tribble
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    CORRECTION - I said:
    Quote Originally Posted by chris_tribble View Post
    The histogram on the shot at 1/180 is still good (I try to push the histogram to the right wherever I can) - it covers the full range (given that the image is clearly low key).
    Chris
    This should have read: "The histogram on the shot at 1/750th". Sorry for any confusion.

  24. #24
    chris_tribble
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean_Reid View Post

    One difference you may find is that you become increasingly aware of space with the picture frame and that you build the pictures only across a depth that you can visually resolve.

    Sean
    Sean - reflecting on this during a walk this morning. It's not just the way you visualise the image before capture, it's also being willing to post process (and it was ever thus!). A fairly humdrum image straight out of the can, can become more worthwhile with some "darkroom" investment. As an example, consider the original image as it comes out in RAW, then given a very high contrast treatment in Lightroom ... The great thing about the GR2 is that it gives us the digital capital to be able to do non-destructive processing that brings out the potential of the captured image. Sure we make the image in the camera at the point of capture, but we still make the photograph in the physical or virtual darkroom...

    Best

    Chris

  25. #25
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Quote Originally Posted by chris_tribble View Post
    Sean - reflecting on this during a walk this morning. It's not just the way you visualise the image before capture, it's also being willing to post process (and it was ever thus!). A fairly humdrum image straight out of the can, can become more worthwhile with some "darkroom" investment. As an example, consider the original image as it comes out in RAW, then given a very high contrast treatment in Lightroom ... The great thing about the GR2 is that it gives us the digital capital to be able to do non-destructive processing that brings out the potential of the captured image. Sure we make the image in the camera at the point of capture, but we still make the photograph in the physical or virtual darkroom...

    Best

    Chris
    Hi Chris,

    True and, also, that was a black and white picture, at heart I think, from the start.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  26. #26
    chris_tribble
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean_Reid View Post
    Hi Chris,

    True and, also, that was a black and white picture, at heart I think, from the start.

    Cheers,

    Sean
    --- conceptualised as such from the start... just wanted to demonstrate how the post processing is the thing that makes the picture... I'm with Michael Reichmann on this one - I don't see any point in "baking" the image in-camera when there are so many resources out there to help you realise your vision...

    Best

  27. #27
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Quote Originally Posted by chris_tribble View Post
    --- conceptualised as such from the start... just wanted to demonstrate how the post processing is the thing that makes the picture... I'm with Michael Reichmann on this one - I don't see any point in "baking" the image in-camera when there are so many resources out there to help you realise your vision...

    Best
    I think sometimes its important and sometimes the picture looks right almost straight from the camera (albeit, in my case, usually with a direct conversion to BW). I think things can go either way.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  28. #28
    chris_tribble
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Sean - following on from the earlier discussion, and linking this to post process, the High Contrast black and white pre-set in Lightroom is proving to be very persuasive with GR2 images. 1 example at 100 ISO and the other at 1600. The GR2 is beginning to feel like my walkabout B&W companion, with the M8 coming out when I know I'm going to be covering a specific task set.

    Interesting... and all for less than the price of the cheapest Leica lens!

    Best

    C:

  29. #29
    Walt
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Quote Originally Posted by chris_tribble View Post
    Sean - following on from the earlier discussion, and linking this to post process, the High Contrast black and white pre-set in Lightroom is proving to be very persuasive with GR2 images. 1 example at 100 ISO and the other at 1600. The GR2 is beginning to feel like my walkabout B&W companion, with the M8 coming out when I know I'm going to be covering a specific task set.

    Interesting... and all for less than the price of the cheapest Leica lens!

    Best

    C:
    Chris-

    Coming from 40 years with film Leicas (using mostly Tri-X) and almost a year with two M8’s, I am finding the II a good substitute for, and in some ways an improvement over both types of cameras for the kind of BW work I do. (I don’t shoot color and have no idea if my experience is applicable to that. I think the small sensor introduces problems for color that I do not experience.) People dismiss comparison of the Ricoh to conventional cameras and talk of the small sensor camera as a “new format.” I find this idea unconvincing. I am shooting with the Ricoh in almost exactly the way I have with Leicas and getting results that are substantially indistinguishable and certainly excellent in 11 x 14 and 16 x 20 printing. I have an idea that the new-format idea is partly an effort to legitimize small, small-sensor cameras against the dismissal of those who think they are not "serious" cameras because of their technical specifications, physical size or low cost. I don't care what people think (or feel) about them or how they are classified, I like the photography I can do with the Ricoh. (I should add that the GRD-II is the first small camera I can unqualifedly say that about.) For me it is as good a tool as a film Leica with Tri-X in it and a better tool than the M8. I have exposed about 1,500 frames with two IIs over the past few weeks and made about 40 workprints, including several 16 x 20’s. I am surprised and impressed--actually delighted--by the capability of this camera.

    For image “quality”--I am talking here of the way the term is widely used to mean detailed, sharp, low-noise images—the Ricoh is probably somewhat better and certainly more consistent than 35mm Tri-X. While it does not have the dynamic range or very fine tonal gradation of the M8 (which I almost always shoot at ISO 640), I am rarely finding this objectionable with the Ricoh in practice. The “noise performance” of the Ricoh (ISO 800) is much better than 35mm Tri-X (ISO 400) at comparable enlargement and about a stop behind the M8. The Ricoh ISO 800 images require careful processing, but so do the M8 ISO 1600 images. I actually find the Ricoh at 800 less fussy than the M8 at 1600 in terms of underexposure, shadow noise and banding, which can be erratic and problematic with the M8. I have not worked much with the Ricoh at 1600, but at first glance it looks problematic to me. Ditto for the M8 at 3200.

    On the DOF issue that you mentioned earlier, I have pretty much always used Leicas at F11 for hyperfocal shooting unless I didn’t have enough light. The Ricoh simply allows this at larger apertures, which I consider an advantage rather than a limitation. I have recently been using the M8 mostly with a 21mm (28 FOV like the Ricoh) because this allows much use without having to switch the eye from the external finder to the rangefinder. (I am using external finders on the M8 for all focal lengths because of the very inaccurate internal framelines; and longer lenses, even a 28, require too much focusing.) The 21 on the M8 at F8 or F11 has about the same depth of field (and FOV) as the Ricoh. So, in both cameras I am usually “zone” focusing and using the same external Voigtlander finders. When manual focusing is required I’d prefer the M8 if I didn’t have to use external finders, but since I do, the two cameras about pan out. Even wide open, the Ricoh focusing is much less critical and requires much less frequent adjustment. On the film Leicas, one needed a 21mm FOV to approach this DOF, something I never used.

    On other aspects of shooting, like metering, there are small differences between the M8 and Ricoh. I use both mostly in aperture priority. Because the Ricoh (matrix) metering is much more consistent, I find it easier to use. When I do want to lock exposure, this is much easier on the Ricoh with the Fn switch set for this purpose. Likewise the exposure compensation on the Ricoh “zoom” switch is much easier and faster than the Leica. Aperture changes are about comparable using the Ricoh “up down” dial. I wouldn’t want to use full manual exposure much with the Ricoh, but I don’t much like it on the M8 either, though it is a better system than the Ricoh. I would like to see Ricoh turn the exposure lock into an EV lock (perhaps choosable in the menu) so that, once locked, one could change the aperture for a matched change in shutter speed. I don’t mention the film Leicas here because I never used them with a meter. All said, I like working with the Ricoh physically and find it more facile and faster than the M8.

    I am very grateful for this new camera. I would think that anyone not looking for medium format image character should look at it. Its’ downside is the very high ISO peformance, but I never had that with film anyway, and it's within a stop of the M8.

    I’ve attached an ISO 200 and an ISO 800 image, in that order. (Unfortunately there's no space between them and I don't know how to correct that.)

    Walt
    www.waltodets.com/photo

  30. #30
    chris_tribble
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Walt - many thanks for your illuminating comments. I agree, though it's interesting to see how two photographers have such different practices... While I can see the arguments for "everything in focus and a much DOF as possible please" I also know that long lenses on the M8 and other cameras give me the opportunity to make completely different kinds of image and I wouldn't want to lose that...

    I was also interested how I felt much happier with many of the lovely portraits on your site which look as if they were made with medium format and narrower FOV than 28 (what were you using?) than some of the more recent, where everything in focus (e.g. Nile http://www.waltodets.com/photo/Recent/RE_13/re_13.html) is for me less satisfactory... I know this may be more a reflection of a difference in choice between your way of picture making and mine, but it feels that it might also be to do with where the strengths of the Ricoh can become a limitation.

    This said, images like the one taken last night while walking back from the theatre do underscore for me some of the very powerful resources that the GR2 offers. I've not printed this yet, but I feel confident it will go to A3+ with no problem.

    Thanks again..

    Chris

  31. #31
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Chris-

    People dismiss comparison of the Ricoh to conventional cameras and talk of the small sensor camera as a “new format.” I find this idea unconvincing. I am shooting with the Ricoh in almost exactly the way I have with Leicas and getting results that are substantially indistinguishable and certainly excellent in 11 x 14 and 16 x 20 printing. I have an idea that the new-format idea is partly an effort to legitimize small, small-sensor cameras against the dismissal of those who think they are not "serious" cameras because of their technical specifications, physical size or low cost.
    It certainly is not an effort to legitimize anything. By your logic, a medium format camera used at F/32 is really the same as a 35 mm camera. But it is not. And a 4 x 5 camera used at F/64 is not the same as medium format, etc. The size of the capture medium (film or digital) has very concrete effects on how the camera draws the picture. It was always thus and still is.

    Small sensor cameras do indeed form a very distinct format.
    Last edited by Sean_Reid; 19th December 2007 at 01:09.

  32. #32
    Walt
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Quote Originally Posted by chris_tribble View Post
    Walt - many thanks for your illuminating comments. I agree, though it's interesting to see how two photographers have such different practices... While I can see the arguments for "everything in focus and a much DOF as possible please" I also know that long lenses on the M8 and other cameras give me the opportunity to make completely different kinds of image and I wouldn't want to lose that...

    I was also interested how I felt much happier with many of the lovely portraits on your site which look as if they were made with medium format and narrower FOV than 28 (what were you using?) than some of the more recent, where everything in focus (e.g. Nile http://www.waltodets.com/photo/Recent/RE_13/re_13.html) is for me less satisfactory... I know this may be more a reflection of a difference in choice between your way of picture making and mine, but it feels that it might also be to do with where the strengths of the Ricoh can become a limitation.

    This said, images like the one taken last night while walking back from the theatre do underscore for me some of the very powerful resources that the GR2 offers. I've not printed this yet, but I feel confident it will go to A3+ with no problem.

    Thanks again..

    Chris
    Chris-

    Yes, of course people have different objectives in a photograph. The square format protraits you are citing are either a twin Rollei or Hasselblad, both with 80mm lenses, so "normal" focal length. Occassionally I used a 50 on the Hasselblad. I think of these portraits as the more conventional part of my work but I also like them because of the human and emotional content. To me, they are just a formally less interesting area of my work. The emotional content is important and interesting, but it's not necessarily interesting photography. By coincidence, the Niles image you refer to is from the M8 with a 35mm lens, so also normal FOV (about 47mm) on a 1.33-crop camera. The very point of this image is the density, overlay and confusion of things in space, something we normally "clean up" conceptually when looking at the world. Using limited DOF here would clean it up in the image and that would be an entirely different photograph and a less interesting one to me. So this is not at all "a landscape." I certainly think there is a place for limited DOF, but it is not an approach I have relied on for a long time. Early on I did occassionally use a 90mm on the Leica to good effect, as here: http://www.waltodets.com/photo/Other..._10/oi_10.html This is not the kind of image I would probably pursue these days, but I don't think I would throw it out either.

    Walt
    Last edited by Walt; 19th December 2007 at 08:59.

  33. #33
    Walt
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Sean-

    I wasn't voicing "logic" here, but an observation and one that did not even mention medium or large format images in the comparison. I compared the Ricoh images to 35mm Tri-X and the M8 at ISO 800. On Sunday, going through a stack of a few hundred 11 x 14 work prints, about 40 of which are from the new Ricoh, two very experienced, perceptive photographers had no idea which of the three "formats" they were looking at and didn't care. They were looking at the photography and experienced it as a coherent body of work. Does the Ricoh stuff look different from a Hasselblad, a Linhof or an M8 at ISO 200? Obviously yes. I just don't make theories out of that. The theory of the small sensor camera as a new format doesn't clarify or illuminate anything for me. The images just look like what they look like.

    Walt
    Last edited by Walt; 19th December 2007 at 09:20.

  34. #34
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    It may not clarify anything for you personally but it can be very useful for other people to understand that difference in how these cameras draw. First and foremost, the depth of field exceeds what most see from many lenses on 35 mm cameras even at F/11. So, while you personally have worked with deep DOF for a long time, many have not and so working with a camera that tends to see everything in focus is indeed a change.

    The difference in these formats is, in part, the reason why you once wondered why it seemed the lenses on your M8 couldn't seem to match the lens on your GR. As I said at the time, that extreme depth of field is, in large part, responsible for that difference you posted about on the Leica forum.

    Prints from various cameras can often seem similar, depending on how each was made. But the nature of the ways these different cameras draw do indeed make a difference for many photographers. So while you may dismiss that difference, attribute it to "legitimization", etc., your experience may not be general to all photographers.

  35. #35
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Sean-

    I wasn't voicing "logic" here, but an observation and one that did not even mention medium or large format images in the comparison. I compared the Ricoh images to 35mm Tri-X and the M8 at ISO 800. On Sunday, going through a stack of a few hundred 11 x 14 work prints, about 40 of which are from the new Ricoh, two very experienced, perceptive photographers had no idea which of the three "formats" they were looking at and didn't care. They were looking at the photography and experienced it as a coherent body of work. Does the Ricoh stuff look different from a Hasselblad, a Linhof or an M8 at ISO 200? Obviously yes. I just don't make theories out of that. The theory of the small sensor camera as a new format doesn't clarify or illuminate anything for me. The images just look like what they look like.

    Walt
    Hi Walt,

    Thanks for the earlier and more lengthy "pensee" on working with the Ricoh.

    While certainly able to speak/write for himself, Sean's use of Small Sensor Cameras(SSC) is not all that different than your use of Tri-X and "the M8": it's a way to distinguish the sources of images and consideration for what one might do to yield, as you put it "images just look like what they look like"(and) "experienced... as a coherent body of work". Aluminum, Stainless Steel and Cast Iron all make good pans, each with their own way with heat and how one cooks with them... but the food needn't taste like the cookware

    I've been tweaking my code to process Ricoh DNG files and find them much less plastic(in substance, not image presentation) and not as rich as those from the M8. The Ricoh files are larger in size(bytes), yet the DR is significantly smaller... which is most evident processing color pictures from the image data. Interesting EXIF data includes "ColorSpace" and "WhiteLevel", where the Ricoh codes "sRGB" and "4092", respectively. The M8 has no "ColorSpace" assignment, and a 16383 "WhiteLevel"... these reflect(!) the camera's DSP programming and capacity.

    ...and you thought SSC didn't "illuminate anything" <g>...

    With this perspective, and getting back to "images just so", I find that getting the images from the Ricoh to "just so", I soup them in a smaller color space(eg. AdobeRGB or DCam2) because the data is not there in a wider/larger space(ProPhoto, DCam4). This is from a color perspective... B&W is "in testing(the kitchen, on the stove)".

    Why a distinction of SSC v. Tri-X v. M8 is inteteresting to me, both useful and evident, is the same hand I find between bristle and sable brushes, 4B and HB pencils... it's about "images just so" and what gets you there.

    I really like the Ricoh and its highly optimized system. Yet it's hand/haptics and DNG data are unique enough to represent a kind of tool, but not the one I'd always favor for best picture "flavor"... and what's this ND filter(digital) implemented with apertures 7.1 and smaller... interesting!

    rgds,
    Dave

  36. #36
    chris_tribble
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Walt / Sean / Dave - many thanks for this interesting discussion.

    Walt:
    Early on I did occasionally use a 90mm on the Leica to good effect, as here: http://www.waltodets.com/photo/Other..._10/oi_10.html This is not the kind of image I would probably pursue these days, but I don't think I would throw it out either.
    It's so interesting to see how a photographer's sensibility, technique, tools and judgment are all engaged in the process of making the image. As I come to terms with the GR2 I am also learning about the limits / strengths of my own capacity and the limits / strengths of which ever tool I find myself working with. I know that within my own practice, I find myself preferring images like 90mm one you quote - and also accept the validity of what you were doing with the Nile image. The great thing here is that we can develop our own identities as photographers and learn from one another through this kind of exchange. Thanks!

    Dave:
    Why a distinction of SSC v. Tri-X v. M8 is interesting to me, both useful and evident, is the same hand I find between bristle and sable brushes, 4B and HB pencils... it's about "images just so" and what gets you there.
    I find myself agreeing with you here. Enjoying the GR2, enjoying the spontaneity of having something so small to work with, but finding that there are aspects of the way the limits of the sensor limit what the camera can offer. I don't have your technical knowledge so haven't been able to express it as clearly as you. However, my experience of working with GR2 images in a ProPhoto colour space in LR compared with working with M8, 5D or 1D2 images in the same environment leaves me feeling that they lack something, that they are constrained in some areas where the larger sensor images offer me greater expressive range.

    Thanks for the insight.

    Sean:
    The difference in these formats is, in part, the reason why you once wondered why it seemed the lenses on your M8 couldn't seem to match the lens on your GR. As I said at the time, that extreme depth of field is, in large part, responsible for that difference you posted about on the Leica forum.
    Agree!

    Thanks again all for a really illuminating discussion.

    Best

  37. #37
    Walt
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Chris, Sean and Dave-

    I think some of this discussion about formats is semantic and if people want to call the Ricoh a member of the new SSC format, that seems fine to me. I would define a “format” as something that can produce a different kind of work, not something that requires different technique to get to the same kind of work. As Dave points out (and he is talking largely about color, which complicates these issues immensely and which I ignore except to the extent that it influences the BW conversion), different cameras require different processing. But I process the different lenses on the M8 differently, certainly in terms of the tonal curve and the M8 at ISO 800 differently from ISO 1600. And I am processing the Ricoh differently from the M8 and have a whole group of ACR settings for the Ricoh, including the JPEG sandwich, which I am still sometimes finding very useful with the Ricoh, and which is never part of the M8 workflow.

    For me, these differences, including the DOF issue, don’t add up to a "new format." The differences between these two cameras (or three if I include the M-Tri-X camera) are nothing like the differences between them and 6 x 6. With a Rollei or Hasselblad, I am not only working very differently because of the physical handling of the camera, I am doing a different kind of photography. Chris identified this difference easily in looking at images on my website. In contrast, in the group of recent photographs that includes the “Niles” image that Chris commented on (http://www.waltodets.com/photo/Recent/recent.html) most are from the M8, but there are a few from a cheap pocket Sony using the camera’s BW JEPGS. I don’t think one could pick them out, even in large prints, so this doesn’t qualify, to me, as a different format. I would also say that the difference between the M8 and Sony in terms of the kind of work they produce--not how I got there behind the scenes--are much less significant than the difference between the M8 at ISO 200 with a 75mm lens and the M8 at ISO 800 with a 21 or 28mm lens. Those are two different kinds of photography. I have no more considered using the M8 at ISO 200 with a long lens than I have thought about using a Speed Graphic with M-sync flash bulbs. As a matter of fact I would never use the M8 at ISO 200, because I don’t at all like the look or find it appropriate to my work--it is an entirely different kind of image. Call it a different format if you will. Some would say that it adds the asset of vesatility to the M8, but its not a capability I’d buy a Leica for.

    On the issue of defending or legitimizing small sensor cameras, it is obvious that they are widely denigrated for “serious photography.” The M8 forum is rife with the idea that “better cameras” make “better photographs” and that a new lens or two is going to open up whole new vistas of creative expression. It’s good business for companies like Leica that people believe this but it’s nonsense and the Internet is brimming with posted images that make the case. It’s a plague. There is so much talk of equipment in these equipment forums that it is easy to forget that the equipment is 5% of the story if the subject is ultimately photographs. To pick up Dave’s comparison to pencils, I’m sure Matisse had a favorite pencil, but it hasn’t much to do with why his drawing is interesting.

    On Saturday I did a rare formal job, a portrait of a writer who is photographed a lot and very conversant with the media world. I arrived at his hotel room just wearing a coat and he asked where my equipment was. I pulled the GRD-II out of my right coat pocket and he said, “You’re going to photograph me with a little camera like that?” So I pulled my other II out of my left pocket. For some reason that seemed to satisfy him. He said, “I guess things are just getting smaller and smaller.” I didn’t tell him that I’d brought along the second camera just in case the first one futzed out, and he didn’t seem to notice that I never used it during out three-hour visit.

    Walt

  38. #38
    David Paul Carr
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Any chance of seeing the results, Walt?

  39. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    102
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    On Saturday I did a rare formal job, a portrait of a writer who is photographed a lot and very conversant with the media world. I arrived at his hotel room just wearing a coat and he asked where my equipment was. I pulled the GRD-II out of my right coat pocket and he said, “You’re going to photograph me with a little camera like that?” So I pulled my other II out of my left pocket. For some reason that seemed to satisfy him. He said, “I guess things are just getting smaller and smaller.” I didn’t tell him that I’d brought along the second camera just in case the first one futzed out, and he didn’t seem to notice that I never used it during out three-hour visit.

    Walt
    Good one.

    A portrait session I had using the GRD went smoother once the hood assemblage was attached and the 'mirror flap' sound swiched on.
    If for nothing else, I'll hang on to the old manual slr just for sound and show when needed, never loaded.

    Thomas

  40. #40
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    I find it strange that there is such contention over a definition (of photographic format) that has existed for over a century.

    Photographic formats, traditionally, are defined by the size of the camera's negative. With those different negative sizes come some differences in the way the lens/camera draws. In film, some format examples are 8" x 10", 5" x 7", 4" x 5", medium format (60 mm x various) and small format (24 x 36 mm).

    The primary reasons that pictures made from small format negatives often look different from those made from medium format negative are:

    1) 35 mm negatives are smaller and thus must do more with less.
    2) 35 mm cameras are paired with shorter focal length lenses for any given field of view

    The area of a 35 mm film negative is just about 20% of the area of a (medium format) 6 x 7 (cm) negative. Most photographers have long understood that this means the two cameras are of different formats and will tend to draw somewhat differently.

    The CCD area of a typical small sensor camera (which measures about 7.2 x 5.35 mm) is about 4.5% of the area of the sensor in a Canon 5D (or, of the area of a 35 mm film negative).

    When one is working with a camera that uses a capture area that is 4.5% of the size of a 35 mm film negative, he or she is working with a camera of a different format. That size difference, by definition, is what separates one photographic format from another.

    Clarity of language and semantics are two very different things.

    One may indeed be able to mix a set of prints made with different cameras of different formats and find that people cannot tell which camera made which. But that doesn't mean that differences in formats, and among cameras and lenses, do not exist.

    Small sensor cameras, as a format, are marked by a few general tendencies:

    1. For a given field of view and a given aperture, they show dramatically more depth of field, than cameras with larger sensors, because they use shorter focal length lenses.

    2. Their dynamic range, overall, tends to be narrower than that of cameras with larger sensors. One must be willing, under some conditions, to allow the highlights to blow out and/or the shadows to go to black.

    3. Their tonal gradiations, while often beautiful, tend to be somewhat more abrupt than those of cameras with larger sensors. At any given ISO, their drawings tend to be somewhat coarser than those of cameras with larger sensors.

    4. Their noise levels, at a given ISO, tend to be somewhat higher than those found in cameras with larger sensors. (Just as 35 mm negatives tend to show more grain than medium format negatives.)

    Its no coincidence that Chris' opening post talked about three differences between his M8 and his GR2: depth of field, noise and DR.

    Just as one can sometimes make a medium format film camera draw like a small format film camera, so too can a camera with a, roughly, APS-H size sensor (for example) sometimes be made to draw like a small sensor camera. With a plastic medium like photography, there are certainly a lot of ways that pictures from any camera can look. But, I would continue to urge photographers working with small sensor cameras to get to know the nature of this format, of its strengths and weaknesses, and make good use of them.

    As I've written for the past two years, I think that photographers who want to use this camera format seriously may want to begin by considering what its nature is. These cameras are part of a very young format that, if used well, can lead to very interesting work.

    How important is format to one's work? Stephen Shore very intentionally uses an 8 x 10 camera rather than a 4 x 5. The differences between the two are not trivial to him. Evans changed formats according to the kind of pictures he was making. Strand stayed with large format for most of his career. Larry Fink moved to MF rangefinder cameras because of the specific look their negatives create. The examples could go on for pages and pages. There is no one best format but one's choice of format can indeed be important to one's work.

    Aspect ratio, of course, is a whole other kettle of fish.

    Cheers,

    Sean

    P.S. Van Gogh had specific tastes in paper, paint and brushes. His letters to his brother Theo make this very clear.
    Last edited by Sean_Reid; 20th December 2007 at 20:23.

  41. #41
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    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/[email protected]/
    Last edited by Mitch Alland; 20th December 2007 at 20:50.

  42. #42
    Walt
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Quote Originally Posted by David Paul Carr View Post
    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

  43. #43
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

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

  44. #44
    chris_tribble
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    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...

  45. #45
    asabet
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    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.

  46. #46
    chris_tribble
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Quote Originally Posted by asabet View Post
    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

  47. #47
    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: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    When you switch the GRD II over to 2x3, what sort of difference does that make?

  48. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    belgïe
    Posts
    1,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Maggie -- if it helps you get any sense at all, i shoot almost entirely in 3:2.

  49. #49
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie O View Post
    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

  50. #50
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Making the transition - a Leica M8 user meets the GRD2

    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

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
  •