Canon G9, Ricoh GRD II or Leica film options?

[barry_passaris]

I am seeking an unobtrusive camera for B+W street photos which can shoot in

RAW. Obviously, I am seeking as best optical quality as I can get. I don't mind

fixed focal length and (though I dread it) I can control dof in CS3 to blur the

background.

 

How does the Canon and Ricoh compare?

 

How large could I print with both?

 

Ideally I would love a Leica M8 but not in my price range. However, as an

alternative, I was considering a Leica M7. How would the Canon or Ricoh compare

to a film camera like the M7? Yes I realise the price difference is enormous

but I know for instance, prints from the M7 are (just) possible at 11x14,

depending on the image. Could I expect at least similar quality prints at 8x10?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Nowhereman]

<i>...but I know for instance, prints from the M7 are (just) possible at 11x14...</i>

<p>

In the light of the above statement I find the question of how large you could print in B&W

to be problematic because the perceptions on how large you can print vary so much.

Some people say, like you do, that with 35mm film you can only print up to 11x14 inches,

but a couple of years ago I saw an exhibition at the Sydney Biennale of sixty 100x150cm

(40x60 inch) prints from 35mm ISO 400 and higher negatives by the great Japanese

photographer Moriyama Daido. I have printed at this size both from M6 negatives and

from the Ricoh GRD, and am starting to do so now from the GR-DII, which is "finer

grained" than the GRD.

<p>

My view is that you can print as large from the GR-DII as you can from 35mm film. You

can see shots taken with the Ricoh GRD, the Rioch GX100, the Leica D-Lux 3, the Leica

V-Lux 1 and the Leica M6

 

<a

href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/sets/72157594271568487/show/"

><u>by clicking here </u></u></a></a>

 

among the 150 shots of my Bangkok Series, of which 48 were shot with the M6. I have no

experience with the G9.

<p>

Here is a GRDII picture at ISO 400 taken in Paris that I have printed at 24X32 inches

(61x81 cm):

<p>

<center><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2046/2086883073_1fc3743a5c_o.jpg"

width=862 height=647></center>

<p>

It seems to be that you should first decide whether you want to shoot film or digital, for

there are very different issues involved, and only then select a camera.

<p>

--Mitch/Bangkok

[barry_passaris]

..thanks for your comments Mitch.

 

It is not really an issue of whether I wish to shoot film or digital. I was considering film only from the viewpoint that Leica glass would produce better quality images optically...and as I cannot afford the M8 but may be able to find a cheap(er) M7, it could be a consideration for me.

 

...but my preference is definitely digital...and the price difference even between an M7 and the Ricoh is huge!

 

I am veering towards the Ricoh rather than the Canon based on shots I have seen to date albeit only online.

 

Anybody else care to comment or who has used both the G9 and the GRD II?

 

Thanks.

[lwg]

My preference would be for the Leica. I would just work in the darkroom. I am not impressed with the flow of the point and shoot digital cameras.

 

If you prefer digital then you can scan film. Or maybe look at one of the smallest DSLRs with a small prime lens. I think the focus on these is far superior to the G9 (I haven't used the G9, but I imagine it is similar to the older G series). Plus with the larger sensor/film you will be able to have full control over the background, assuming fast lenses.

 

With good lenses and 35mm film excellent results are possible at 11x14. Plus, in my opinion, street photos look best with a bit of grain or grit to them. Another good reason to shoot film in this case.

[summitar]

Is an M7 that much cheaper than an M8?

 

I have found that pixels to print size to be grossly under estimated. I have made 12 by 18 prints ($2.99 at Costco) from fuji's (3 megs extrapolated to 6 megs) Canon A95 (5 megs) and Nikon D70 (6 megs) that were were perfectly satisfactory to me.

[godfrey]

<center>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/large/53b.jpg"><br>

Waiting - This Cafe Life 2007<br>

<i>©2007 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br>

Panasonic DMC-L1 + Vario-Elmarit-D 14-50/2.8-3.5 ASPH OIS<br>

ISO 800 @ f/2.8 @ 1/10 sec, P, fl=14mm <br></i>

</center><br>

I gave up on compact digicams. Not enough sensitivity, poor responsiveness, poor write

times. Of the cameras you've listed, I'd probably go for the Ricoh GRD II, however. I like it

more than the Canon. And as much as I loved my Leica Ms, I don't have time to shoot,

process and scan film anymore. An M8 would be wonderful but $6-8K is simply well above

my pay grade at present.

<br><br>

My street shooter is a Panasonic L1 (aka Leica Digilux 3). The standard Leica Vario-

Elmarit-D 14-50mm lens is great and has image stabilization to lend even more range to

its capabilities, but this lens is quite bulky. My better option for street shooting is to use a

Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AI lens on a mount adapter. With that lens fitted, it feels in my hands

and to my eye as if I had a slightly thick Leica M camera fitted with a 35mm lens. I do

most of my street shooting focused by scale at f/5.6-f/8, which nets excellent

responsiveness and lots of DoF. The controls are traditional Leica M style, and even though

it's a DSLR the mirror racket is soft and quiet, doesn't get in the way.

<br><br>

I've ordered a Leica Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH now for when I really want to delve

into the darkness. Not a small lens, but full function on the 4/3 mount and very nice

quality.

<br><br>

Godfrey

<br>

[harvey_edelstein1]

Barry a cheaper Leica M7. That would be a Zeiss Ikon rangefinder film camera new about $1200. It has the same basic features of M7, AE metering , a very good rangefinder but a higher flash sync. It has the same Leica M mount so you can use Zeiss zm, Voigtlander, Leica and Konica Hexar lenses to name a few.

 

I use the Voigtlander 21mm, Zeiss 25mm, Leica 35mm , Konica Hexar 50mm and Leica 90mm and they will all fit on the Zeiss Ikon. Of course you will need external VF for 21mm and 25mm but not for 28mm and up since there are frames brought up for each focal length.

[jtk]

Consider Canon SD870. I may make that leap shortly. I like the IS, and ESPECIALLY the 28mm (!) that reportedly features fairly sharp corners (unusual in the few 28mm digicams).

 

If it's not perfect it'll have to do until Sigma's APS digi becomes a proven reality (2020?).

 

I like 870's ISO 400-800, quick operation, accurate focus etc. Canon IXUS build and quality control beats just about everybody, including M8 ($5000 camera that goes back to Germany with remarkable frequency according to posts on Leica Forum).

 

I'll miss a viewfinder, but for my purposes the huge viewing screen and touristy lack of pretenses (Leica) is more important because I want frequently to show on-screen images to subjects and don't want to seem "professional."

[harvey_edelstein1]

A lot of these small sensor digi cameras have been tested by www.dpreview.com and they don't perform as well as the APC sensor dslr at anything 400 and above. I like the rangefinder Leicas, Zeiss Ikon and newer Bessa Voigtlanders. Of them all the Zeiss Ikon is the best combo of features, build and price. If you use asa 400 and 800 film it will give you better results than a small sensor digi camera.

 

Of course you can get a Nikon d40 dslr which is really compact and will give you better hight iso resolution with acceptable noise. You can get some nice Nikon lenses that can work with this camera.

[barry_passaris]

Thanks to everybody for your comments.

 

Harvey, I hadn't considered the Nikon D40 or D80 models. I don't know anything about them so I'll have to do some reading...but if I can produce at least 11x14 prints and there is a decent lens in the 24-28mm range as well as a 50mm, then this might be the option for me.

 

I have decided against the film option and having seen more images from the Canon G9 and the Ricoh, I'm not too impressed with the lack of detail in the images and some seriously blown highlights in many images...though I have only seen images online. My only previous digital camera has been the original Canon 1ds so I am used to FF sensor quality.

 

So looks as though the camera size will end up larger and more obtrusive than I had anticipated...

 

Thanks again...I will continue my search...

[dg1]

Barry, it seems on one hand that you are hinting at a very compact camera ie GRDII or G9, but on the other you are talking M8 which is by no stretch of the imagination that compact. If you are willing to go with a camera the size of an M8 this adds a lot of options and you'd do well to check out the Olympus E-410, or even the E-510, as either of these dslrs equipped with something like an OM prime are as small as, or smaller than an M8.

 

Also, the panasonic L1 that Godfrey uses and mentions above would give you much of the feel of using an M8 and the body is within mm of the same size and based on a little play time with a friend's M8, the L1 really doesn't fall too short of an M8 in terms of robust build and handling. The Leica zoom that comes with it is excellent, and though a large lens it handles well on the L1 body and I find I'm using it almost all the time vs my OM primes. Better yet you can get a new L1 with the Leica zoom for less than the cost of a GRDII.

 

Either of these cameras, the E-410 at 10.3 mp, or the L1 at 7.5 mp, will easily produce 11X14 prints and beyond. I've done 12X16 and 13X19 inkjet prints from my old 5mp Ricoh GX that have made it into a couple juried shows. I've found scanning film to be quite a bit trickier to deal with for larger print sizes, I don't see that you'd need to go there if you prefer digital.

[wgpinc]

Barry, Nobody is going to be able to answer these questions for but yourself; where you are photographically, how you see. Every camera has it's own set of compromises. I use several cameras out on the street at different times depending on the weather, whim or just plain who knows. Lot of P&S (Canon G6) pictures in my Photo.net portfolios. Some with Leica M6, some with 20D, some with other. I will tell you that if you use a good P&S digital on the street for a while it will improve your technique and may make you a better photographer. Another option barely mentioned here is something small like a Canon XT1/400D with either a 28 1.8 or a 35 2.0 fixed lens or the small, inexpensive and spectacular new 18-55mm IS lens. I've been looking at the G9 myself thinking of trading up from the G6 which is a little thicker and more brick like, plus the G9 has IS. My never humble suggestion is to get yourself a G9 and a CV RF camera with a couple of relatively inexpensive CV lenses 35mm 2.5, 50mm 1.5 and try them both to see what works for you. Or get the little XTi. A relatively inexpensive way to shoot film and digital at the same time is to shoot maybe 400 ISO print film and get it developed with a high res CD. The camera is just the tool that you use to express your vision with. Best regards!

[harvey_edelstein1]

We did mention the Nikon D40 whis is really small. The Olympus cameras you mentioned in the option of Dpreview are over noise processed and don't perform much better than a G9/ Grd at high iso. Look at the D40 it reminds me of slrs from the 80's and while it has some lens limitations regarding old lenses the DX lenses will work fine and Nikon has a lot of good DX lenses.

[StuartMoxham]

I have been looking at the olympus E410 seems to do quite well at higher ISOs also. Seems like a nice small dslr with resonable performance too.

[lkv]

Barry, this is a difficult question and I think you should try all three cameras.<br>

I have the M8 as well as older film rangefinders and the GRD II I got very recently. I also

used various Canons and owned one at a point in time.<br>

The M7/M8 is clearly not as compact, nothing you can do there. It is great, but not as

compact. Scanning is also VERY time consuming... or expensive. I have now abandoned

shooting film only for that reason.<br>

The Canon G7 is very similar to the G9. I have used it and it is very good in terms of image

quality. But to slow to use for me and the zoom does not start very wide.<br>

The Ricoh GRD is great. I love it and carry it all the time with me. The quality is

extraordinary and it is very easy and quick to use. But, it is a wide angle and you have to

be sure you like that.<br>

Overall, your three choices will give you ample quality for the prints you want. So you have

to try to know if you want the weight of the Leica, the versatility of the Canon or the wide

angle of the Ricoh !<br>

Good luck and good photos :-)<br>

<br>