Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?message=29335773&changemo...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
f/2.0 lens on compact digital cam impossible? Maybe for Ricoh.: Ricoh Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
So, a few weeks ago I recall a discussion regarding faster lenses (<f/2.4) on compact digital cameras.
I then wrote about how beautiful it would be to have an f/2.0 lens on a Ricoh GR-D to which several well educated individuals replied how hard (impossible) it would be to make a Ricoh GR-D sized camera with faster than f/2.4 lens.
"You can't have a faster lens unless you give up its compact size..."
Well, maybe for Ricoh it's impossible, but not for Leica, apparently.
Image control: Zoom out | Zoom 100% | Zoom in | Expand / Contract | New window
|
|
I still haven't given up on Ricoh actually.
If they can't make a firmware fix to provide a workaround to their abysmally slow AF since they got rid of their external phase detector, and if the Leica D-Lux 4 is faster when it comes to full-press lag (bread and butter of street photography), then I'll be looking at the D-Lux.
As it is, the Leica doesn't look like it could be faster in manual operation.
--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogenetic/
|
|
Quote: :
> Well, maybe for Ricoh it's impossible, but not for Leica, apparently.
Technically speaking it is more Panasonic who did it and Leica only rebranded the LX3, put a red dot on it, removed the usefull handgrip and charge 300$ more.
The Leica version is a rip-off if you ask me but the Panasonic LX3 is apart from the GX200 and GRD I the most interesting compact at the moment.
>
Ricoh has officially lost their appeal for me, at least.
All they
> needed to do was make a camera with the sensor of the GRD-2 but keep
>
Everything else intact from the GRD-1.
So simple it must've been
>
Difficult to imagine for Ricoh management.
I feel exactly like you but haven't given up on Ricoh, the GX200 surpasses the GRD II in most aspects (aside from size and lens quality) so I have high hopes Ricoh will come up with something very interesting for the GRD III.
I have written a lot on my blog about this and did comparisons but also sent emails to Ricoh and will speak to them at Photokina.
For the time being I just bought a 2nd GRD I to have in case something happens to my old one.
It's not just the AF or rear wheel that's missing but the look and feel of the images.
Other than you however I would wish for a camera with the GRD II internals and externals but GRD I sensor and phase detection AF.
At the moment I almost gave up using my GRD II although using snap focus works very well and eliminates the focus lag, the DOF preview is also great so it's easy to focus with this.
My main issue is with the image quality, horrible JPGs, screen freeze when using AF in natural light and the high ISO noise (which is miles better on the GRD I even in JPGs).
Here are my wishes and thoughts on the GRD III: http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/...
...gr-evolution-wishlist-thoughts.html
--
http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cristiansorega
|
|
Folks, a 1/2 stop faster lens (the difference between 2.4 and 2.0) is not going to make a dramatic difference to your ability to capture your child's birthday cake extinguishing ceremony.
What *will* make a dramatic difference is selecting the right tool in the first place.
When Stanley Kubrick's cinematographer on Barry Lyndon wanted to film candle-lit scenes within dark castles using only available light, he did not just hope for the best with an f/2.0 lens - he sought out the fastest lens possible and sourced a weird 50mm f/0.7 lens made for NASA.
So, if you're praying that an f/2.0 lens will somehow surpass the laws of physics and give you the perfect candle-blow, then you're just plain dreaming of (dark) castles in the sky.
Get real: dust off your old SLR (or buy one), and mount a genuinely *fast* lens onto it (no, you don't need Kubrick's crazy lens: f/1.4 is fine!).
F/2.0 might be fast for a compact, but it's by no means a blindingly fast lens.
Just a reality-check, that's all.
|
|
Kai Quote: :
>
Get real: dust
>
Off your old SLR (or buy one), and mount a genuinely *fast* lens onto
>
It (no, you don't need Kubrick's crazy lens: f/1.4 is fine!).
F/2.0
> might be fast for a compact, but it's by no means a blindingly fast
>
Lens.
Buying a dSLR kind of defeats the purpose of having a compact camera in the first place.
My shiny new dSLR with a f1.4 lens would end up gathering dust at home most of the time and won't get any pictures.
While a f2.0 lens is not that much faster than a f2.4 lens, it can help in some situations and with compact cameras where you want to keep as low and ISO as possible it can make a difference between ISO 400 or 800.
Now a f1.4 lens on a compact would be much better than the same on a dSLR since it gives you a bigger DOF.
Also the main issue here was with the focus speed and not just the faster lens.
Yes, a dSLR is again faster but still too big, bulky and loud.
--
http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cristiansorega
|
|
Quote: :
>
>
Buying a dSLR kind of defeats the purpose of having a compact camera
>
In the first place.
My shiny new dSLR with a f1.4 lens would end up
>
Gathering dust at home most of the time and won't get any pictures.
Mine E400 + OM f1.4 collecting dust since I seriously started with Ricoh cameras ;) I like the OM f1.4 performance and mainly the special look of photos from this lens.
But I prefer to carry small noisy GRDII in my pocket instead of bag with DSLR.
And what's important, people react completely different if you point at them with DSLR and with small compact camera.
As for bright LX3 lens, Panasonic did a great job on LX3.
But from what I saw, the LX3 lens is prone to relative high amount of chromatic aberration.
It's visible on many samples and even at higher apertures.
I'm sure, Ricoh could easily allow f2.0 both on GRD and GX system.
But at what cost?
I agree that it would be nice to have even faster lens in both cameras.
But I personally prefer the actual conservative lens design, with very low amount of image distortion and chromatic aberration.
--
Ricoh GR/GRD/GX100 Forum
http://www.ricohforum.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7597032@N05/
http://www.pbase.com/odklizec/grdgrd2
|
|
It's kind of a shame that people didn't stop to think about these issues before rushing head-long into the [compact] digital era.
With our eager wallets, we collectively helped to kill off an industry that actually *did* provide for high-quality fast compact cameras (with shallow DOF to boot!!), and now we're all left marveling at every tiny mediocre improvement in new compact digital cameras, which still leaves them light years behind what we had.
In the meantime, there are fewer & fewer good film labs around, and those that remain are quite expensive (at least here where I am).
Like I said, "right tool for the job", and in my opinion, modern digital compact digitals remain mediocre tools at best, no matter how fancy-pants the latest offerings from Panasonic/Leica, Ricoh, Canon, etc., are.
|
|
Kai Quote: :
>
We collectively helped to kill off an industry
>
That actually *did* provide for high-quality fast compact cameras
>
(with shallow DOF to boot!!),
Which industry was this?
--
http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cristiansorega
|
|
Talking about the quality compact film-camera "industry" (OK, "niche").
We had terrific compacts from Contax, Leica, Nikon, even Yashica with excellent, speedy lenses...
None of them produced any longer.
Instead, we have digital compacts (some of them even very well-built) that don't come close to filling the shoes of their film predecessors.
I just laugh when I see people wetting their pants over, for example a Ricoh GR-D, or Sigma DP-1 when as you well know, we had high-quality cameras producing significantly better results in the same form-factor just over a decade ago.
Nonetheless, modern forums are filled with despair about noise, pixel densities, buffers (or lack thereof), lack of shallow DOF, etc.
The camera companies are thankful that people have short memories, I guess.
Quote: :
>
>
Kai Quote: :
>
> we collectively helped to kill off an industry
>
> that actually *did* provide for high-quality fast compact cameras
>
> (with shallow DOF to boot!!),
>
>
Which industry was this?
>
>
--
> http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/
>
Http://www.flickr.com/photos/cristiansorega
>
|
|
So having the same bottom-line full press AF speed as their original model is too much too ask for?
I suppose to capture my father's birthday I need to seek NASA equipment?
By the way, celebrating my Father's birthday early because he will be receiving chemotherapy for lung cancer on his birthday is not the same as a "child's birthday".
--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogenetic/
|
|
Kai Quote: :
>
Talking about the quality compact film-camera "industry" (OK,
>
"niche"). We had terrific compacts from Contax, Leica, Nikon, even
>
Yashica with excellent, speedy lenses...
None of them produced any
>
Longer.
I would not be interested in any film compact or film camera for that matter, They are just not practical enough, mostly bigger if they have fast lenses and film is too expensive.
BUt yes, if a company would bring out a digital version of some I would be interested.
>
Instead, we have digital compacts (some of them even very
>
Well-built) that don't come close to filling the shoes of their film
>
Predecessors. I just laugh when I see people wetting their pants
>
Over, for example a Ricoh GR-D, or Sigma DP-1 when as you well know,
>
We had high-quality cameras producing significantly better results in
>
The same form-factor just over a decade ago.
Again, none of these cameras was digital so a whole different matter.
The GRDs and DP1 are as good as it gets these days and unless you like lugging around a bulky dSLR (not an option for some, including me) you either make do with them and try to get the best out or you go back to shooting film (again not really an option).
I for one would not enjoy photography as much if it weren't for digital and there is nothing wrong with a GRD or DP1 in terms of IQ and the pictures you get out, film cameras are not better.
--
http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cristiansorega
|
|
Great comments.
I'm the type of person who does not buy a new camera every year or even every other year.
I still use a Nikon D100 and waited 6 years before I finally saw something worth upgrading for in the D700 and D300.
The GR D II was the first exception.
I upgraded because I started to get the bottom-right corner blur in every photo and I wanted better RAW performance.
The GR D II meets my needs in those areas but then gives up AF speed and the zippy response of the rear wheel dial.
I'm disappointed that the GR D II is obseleted by its predecessor in terms of overall response (I am pleased with IQ esp.
High ISO response, however).
I've actually gone retro and am using an Olympus XA2 with some Fuji Neopan 800 loaded into it.
Instant shutter release with its brilliant feather touch magnetic release!
That's the type of feel Ricoh should build towards.
If you could bring a camera like an XA or Epic Stylus with you at Photokina to show Ricoh what kind of bottom-line full-press speed we're looking for, maybe they'll get it.
Or, just bring any of the Sony W ssries cameras such as the original W1 which, guess what, has an external hybrid AF sensor and beats my GR D II to the punch in all but the brightest of lighting.
--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogenetic/
|
|
I deliberately changed my line to a "child's birthday" so as not to single out your specific, sensitive situation [but wanted to stick to the dark room + birthday candle theme].
I apologize for the confusion - all I managed to do was make it worse.
I wish your father a very speedy recovery!
Quote: :
>
So having the same bottom-line full press AF speed as their original
>
Model is too much too ask for?
I suppose to capture my father's
>
Birthday I need to seek NASA equipment?
>
>
By the way, celebrating my Father's birthday early because he will be
>
Receiving chemotherapy for lung cancer on his birthday is not the
>
Same as a "child's birthday".
>
>
--
> http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
>
Http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogenetic/
|
|
No worries. Regarding your point, it's true that 2.0 vs.
2.4 is not that big of a difference and would not solve the real problem with the GRD II.
However, it is not something that I would dismiss if it were available.
The real issue that bothers me is that Ricoh in fact did have a camera that could've captured the perfect birthday candle blow out with the Ricoh GRD but then lost that capability when they created the GRD II which relies solely on painfully slow CCD contrast detection since they ditched the external AF sensor.
I've got tons of action photos where I was able to capture action with a full-press of the shutter release button when I didn't have time to switch to "snap" mode with the GRD but not many with the GRD II because it will not release the shutter instantly at the full press.
But I think the original intent of this post was to highlight that what people were saying is impossible is not.
In fact, things are only impossible or seem impossible with current technology, but as new ideas arise, things get less and less impossible.
--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogenetic/
|
|
Kai Quote: :
>
It's kind of a shame that people didn't stop to think about these
>
Issues before rushing head-long into the [compact] digital era.
With
> our eager wallets, we collectively helped to kill off an industry
>
That actually *did* provide for high-quality fast compact cameras
>
(with shallow DOF to boot!!), and now we're all left marveling at
>
Every tiny mediocre improvement in new compact digital cameras, which
>
Still leaves them light years behind what we had.
I'm with you 100% on this.
I've got an Olympus Epic Stylus which autofocuses faster than any digital camera I've every owned except for my D-SLR.
I've got an Olympus XA2 that releases the shutter instantly with the lightest touch.
It's intoxicating to use these cameras even without the instant feedback of digital.
>
In the meantime,
>
There are fewer & fewer good film labs around, and those that remain
>
Are quite expensive (at least here where I am).
Like I said, "right
>
Tool for the job", and in my opinion, modern digital compact digitals
>
Remain mediocre tools at best, no matter how fancy-pants the latest
>
Offerings from Panasonic/Leica, Ricoh, Canon, etc., are.
The tools are in fact mediocre, but the medium (digital) has a lot of advantages.
Why did the bodies have to change for the medium?
There's a great book called "The Trouble with Computers" that describes this exact phenomenon on a larger scale.
--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogenetic/
|
|
The "Panasonic LX3
....
The best digital compact camera they have ever tested in their September 20th issue...where a full test of the LX3 appears.
.
Quote: :
>
So, a few weeks ago I recall a discussion regarding faster lenses
>
(<f/2.4) on compact digital cameras.
I then wrote about how
>
Beautiful it would be to have an f/2.0 lens on a Ricoh GR-D to which
>
Several well educated individuals replied how hard (impossible) it
>
Would be to make a Ricoh GR-D sized camera with faster than f/2.4
>
Lens. "You can't have a faster lens unless you give up its compact
>
Size..."
This is the Leica rebranded version of the almost identical Panasonic LX3.
It lacks the 'handgrip' of the Panasonic.
Different cosmetics.
|
|
|
Http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=29350470
|
|
I've seen the bunny test previously, and at ISO 1600, I feel my GRD II image quality, even in JPG, is better with more natural noise reduction in highlights.
Perhaps the LX3 has less chromatic noise.
But the noise reduction is too heavy handed.
Panasonic's approach looks to me like softer detail with an overlay of sharpened jpg artifacts.
Really, IMHO Ricoh did a fine job with IQ on the GRD II, contrary to what some are saying, although I think we all agree we want even less of a processed look at low ISO's and the processed look for us purists makes JPGs unusable.
But at higher ISO's, which I operate in for most of my street photography, it is not as much an issue.
The way I see the GRD II, you get the grain of the GRD I but at twice the ISO, i.e., I get the grain of GRD I's ISO 200 at ISO 400 on the GRD II.
The thing that is incredible with the LX3 is that the lens appears surprisingly sharp even at f/2 with only slight softening in the corners.
I don't worry about chromatic abberation since its an easy fix in Lightroom these days.
Not quite as sharp as my GRD II, but at f/2.0 it is impressive.
The real question is how does it handle compared to the GRD I?
Can you zip through aperture and shutter settings with the flick of a finger?
Can you mash the AF button and get the shutter to release in less than .3 sec?
Can you switch WB, ISO, image quality, metering mode, AF mode, etc, with the press of a single button (rear wheel dial) and the flick of your index finger (front wheel dial)?
With the GRD II, unfortunately, you can't because the rocker switch forces you to push the switch for every shutter speed setting or to hold it down and slowly wait for the desired setting to come with no ability to speed it up.
Does the LX3 have any ergonomic controls which allows the photographer to become one with the camera that matches the GRD I?
--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogenetic/
|
|
I wish that Kodak, or any other maker of sensors could come up with something like that "Silicon film" that was around some years ago.
Which can be used in film cameras.
It shouldnt be impossible, micro-lenses may be needed though.
But I believe that none of the sensor-makers wan't to do that, though it probably would sell well unless the sensors are way to noisy or DR is bad.
|
|
You bring up a good point.
Unfortunately for us, the fast compact bodies that the camera companies already developed with film have made way for clumsier bodies with the only advantage of digital capture.
Why can't we just use the digital medium in place of where the film medium would be?
I think one of the difficulties they ran into was that you would lose the instant feedback of the LCD display unless you designed a rear door for every model you wanted to make the device compatible with.
The other difficulty would be how to couple the opening of the shutter with the
ctivation of the CCD.
But these are difficulties, not impossibilities.
Making a rear door for every model would solve both of those difficulties.
Or, you could forego the instant feedback, but retain the benefit of not needing to develop the film.
But then, most people might not be attracted to the item.
I know I would still buy it though IF the image quality was excellent (deciding factor).
If we went for a rear door approach, the cameras I'd want this feature with would be the serious compacts such as a Ricoh GR1, Olympus Epic Stylus and XA, Nikon 28/35T, Leica CL series, Contax T series, etc.
Oh, and the Fuji Natura!
Quote: :
>
I wish that Kodak, or any other maker of sensors could come up with
>
Something like that "Silicon film" that was around some years ago.
>
Which can be used in film cameras.
It shouldnt be impossible,
>
Micro-lenses may be needed though.
>
>
But I believe that none of the sensor-makers wan't to do that, though
>
It probably would sell well unless the sensors are way to noisy or DR
>
Is bad.
--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogenetic/
|
|
|
|