V
VladimirV
Guest
It also works with the DB-60 battery and uses the same charger so not a big problem. The DB-65 even fits in the GRD I and II, as far as I can tell it has a higher capacity than the DB-60.
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!
johnastovall
Deceased, but remembered fondly here...
Popflash expects them to arrive late August and are starting a notification list.
Lili
New member
Interesting, both the bit about a higher capacity battery working in the GRD and the new model itself......
pollobarca
New member
Will that flash work for the GX100 too? Hope so!
Tim
Active member
John, do you think you'll be buying one?
V
VladimirV
Guest
I see no reason why it shouldn't but the GX cameras don't have the TTL connection in the hotshoe.
O
Oxide Blu
Guest
I am trying to get hands on one now but I am also keeping in the back of my mind that Ricoh is all but bankrupt at this point. Their future is darker than bleak. This may be a camera with little if any future support; or it may be a division of Ricoh that gets bought out; or it may be that Ricoh secures some kind of financing and business continues as usual.
Ricoh's sales are off by something like 94%. Ricoh's digital camera division is down 14%, starting the new fiscal year (April 1st) with an operating profit of only €2.4-million. Is that even enough to launch a new camera? Everyone I know that does compact camera photography in Japan mentions this. They are not optimistic about Ricoh's future. Ricoh is a multi-$billion corp -- maybe too big to fail?
pollobarca
New member
I'm more worried , at this time, about my possibilty to earn any money to buy a camera...
For sure Ricoh or the trade name purchaser , will be around.
For sure Ricoh or the trade name purchaser , will be around.
pollobarca
New member
Well that means I keep on using my Oly FL40 flash in manual.
But surely they could run a cable into the usb port and with some firmware make a TTL flash? Maybe it would cost more to develop than sales would justify. After all a flash on the gx100 wouldnt get much use.Its not that sort of camera. But a dedicated flash like the Fl40 with my c5050z can be really handy at times. At the company Xmas party over 400 photos taken and the fl40 was going great (one battery change), camera ,c5050,got a bit hot too (one battery change). I wouldnt like to try that with the little GX100 internal flash, mainly because of the batteries. But the camera also gets hot and the internal flash too.
They are small pieces of gear compared to the Oly flash and camera.
In fact the oly flash ,with my Gx100 , I connect up with a cable and bracket.
Its too big to put directly on the hot shoe safely.
johnastovall
Deceased, but remembered fondly here...
woodyspedden
New member
It also has a 960,000 dot LCD!
Woody
Woody
johnastovall
Deceased, but remembered fondly here...
I wonder if they have dumped the piggy backed JPEG with the DNR and just delivery the DNR only.
I think it looks great.
There is a video on that excellent spanish site quesabesde.com .
http://www.quesabesde.com/camaras-digitales/camaras/ricoh-gr-digital-iii-videos,4383.html
One thing I noticed is the lens protrudes a little bit more than on the old GRDs. Shouldn't really make a difference though.
There is a video on that excellent spanish site quesabesde.com .
http://www.quesabesde.com/camaras-digitales/camaras/ricoh-gr-digital-iii-videos,4383.html
One thing I noticed is the lens protrudes a little bit more than on the old GRDs. Shouldn't really make a difference though.
Very silent I'd say - it's made on purpose to look inconspicuous (you can even switch off the light on the ON button). AF and turning on the camera makes some noise (more in GRDI), but you can shoot snap, or MF - and the GRDIII solution with AF + 3 distances seems like a great idea.
V
VladimirV
Guest
No, this is still there but I don't quite understand the cals for RAW only, I would not want it and don't see the point in throwing away the JPG data. If nothing else I wat to see how the image looks in b&w or with a certain white balance or other adjustments I make. RAW is nice for backup and for developing if quality is necessary but otherwise the JPGs should be used (and should be good enough to be used) in my opinion.
RAW only makes one too sloppy and means you don't need to care about exposure, white balance or even composition because all can be fixed in RAW. A good JPG is not far behind a RAW file in my opinion but a RAW file can be easier salvaged if one is sloppy (as I am when using the GRD II with the useless JPGs).
While I agree with the first two sentences, I think the rest of what you say depends very much on what you want to do. E.g. recently I'm finding it pleasing to re-map the grey levels of the standard raw conversion - taking 60% grey to 40% grey (rougly), and so on. I'm finding a non-linear interpretation more pleasing. Doing this with jpeg would degrade the quality a lot more than with raw.
Regardless, in my personal opinion getting acquainted with raw conversion is a good thing, because you can get a feeling as to the information that the camera ACTUALLY records (or as close as possible to that).
>>RAW only makes one too sloppy and means you don't need to care about >>exposure, white balance or even composition because all can be fixed in >>RAW
I've found going back to medium format film a very rewarding exercise, and here you make a good case for doing this.
johnastovall
Deceased, but remembered fondly here...
Raw let's me control the image not some in camera algorhytm. Shooting JPEG's is like have film processed at the drugstore.
I want the image to look like what my vision of it is not an in camera shooting style.
I want the image to look like what my vision of it is not an in camera shooting style.
nostatic
New member
That is probably preferable to having drugs processed at the film store though.
O
Oxide Blu
Guest
It is infinitely more difficult and would require a crap load of user input and choices to display a RAW file on the camera's playback LCD, hence the creation a JPEG, be it as an embedded thumb nail or as an associated file with the flexibility of additional uses, like printing directly from the camera to a printer without a computer between them.