dg1

Just my thoughts looking at these picture. I prefer the second picture because it is geometrically more interesting to my eye, whereas the first photo, for me, is too balanced because of the two prominent tree trunks on either side. I guess I consider it too static and those trees are so strong they are IMO taking away emphasis from the path. Something from the foreground needs to lead the eye past the two trees, but I have trouble getting past them. Diagonals tend to do so more than straight on lines, or perhaps you might work with some burning and dodging to use the light for emphasis where you want it. If the trees were the subject, the other thing to consider is that even numbers of things evenly placed lack the dynamics of odd numbers, going back to where I started above.

For Sale: A like new Ricoh GR II, 16MP APS-C sensor digital compact camera. Widely acknowledged as the ultimate street photography camera, the Ricoh GR represents over 20 years of development, going back to the still sought after GR1 film compact from 1997. It features a superb 28mm f/2.8 lens and amazing intuitive controls. Image quality exceeds any aps sensor DSLR with kit lens, and it is completely pocketable. Have it with you all the time!

 

I bought this camera brand new from BH photo in NYC about 4 months ago and it has seen little use. I am including all oem materials (manuals, software, battery, charger, cables, original box and packaging). PLUS I am including an Olympus VF1 optical brightline viewfinder, 2 extra batteries and charger, as well as a very nice case with GR logo. Please see pictures. Any questions are welcome. $550.00 USD

email: runegitane@gmail.com

 

Paypal only. Shipping within North America only.

 

<p>Lots of good suggestions. I've been messing with some bags I've got here and it looks like the Domke F5 I have works well for the 3 lens set up with hoods mounted as mentioned. I had to add the dividers from a Tamrac and it works! So I think that's what I'll use. </p>

<p>I also have the kit zoom, 14-42 f3.5-5.6 II R, and had been thinking along similar lines of using it primarily for a 14mm (like the 12mm mentioned above). But I'm really liking the set of sigmas I've got and I'm trying to keep it simple.</p>

<p> My experiences with using the DP1 and DP2, have been that ~40mm (equiv) tends to be my "go to " focal length, while the 28mm (equiv) I use only very occasionally. I've never been into to real wide angle shooting but I could probably fit the 17mm f2.8 in the side pocket for something a bit wider, and I plan to bring the little bodycap 15mm f8.0triplet lens along to convert to a pocket size snapshot camera where appropriate..both of these could probably fit and widen my options. The bodycap lens is certainly not optically stellar, but for some subjects it works quite well, and it's great for reactive grab shots. </p>

<p><br />I'm not anti-zoom, just don't have anything I really like that much and these primes give me very good IQ bang for the buck. </p>

<p>I still have a couple other m43 bodies, and if I were to use two I'd probably use either the E-Pl1 or lumix G1 I've got to mount the 60mm because they're both more comfortable with larger lenses than the little E-PL5. This is something I would consider for my leisurely personal photo walk abouts, but probably not for this trip.</p>

<p>Aside from my personal agenda here, I find all these ways of working really interesting, and looking over all your information is helping me clarify what I think will work for me. Thanks!</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses and tips. I've got in 35mm equivalent fov 38, 60, and 120mm. The 38mm is going for sure, and I know the 120mm is likely to be used least as this is primarily a visit with grandkids. So if I wanted only 2 lenses, I could get by most likely with the wide normal only, or have the 60 equiv along for a long normal lens. <br>

In the past I've been comfortable simply bringing my Sigma DP1s and DP2s compacts in a small bag, and then I have 28mm and 41mm respectively, no lens changing, and occasionally I've stuffed a Sony H20 travel zoom in there for the long stuff. It's worked and I've been very happy with the IQ from the DP cameras, but I've recently upgraded my m43rds from a G1 body to the E-PL5 and these sigma lenses to allow quicker response for photographing subjects like horses, and in this case, grandkids. So my plan has been to use these lenses and the E-PL5 body in place of the above 3 compact cameras.</p>

<p>Just trying to get a working strategy in place that will not infringe too much on spending quality time (ie not looking through camera), but still get some nice pics of kids and city.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>

I'm going on a trip to NYC and want to take 1 body, and 3 primes ( sigmas..I know..but I like 'em..) and don't want to be fumbling around. So if any of you are good at this, I want to learn!<br />I'd appreciate any suggestions you might have for working with small primes, as far as how you carry (bags, etc), change and just generally what your strategy is, if any, when you are out and about.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance,<br>

Dean G</p>

<p> Mod: Moved to appropriate forum.</p>

<p>I have recently purchased all three of the Sigma DN A lenses for my Pen E-PL5. I find it curious that the OP has such a low opinion of the 19mm and 30mm as I find them very fine lenses indeed. I really couldn't be happier with them. Apparently I haven't the budget to have been spoiled by the finest of the finest, but all three sigmas are very good IMO. Kudos to Sigma for offering these at a price point even mere mortals such as I can afford! (And barely at that.) </p>

<p> </p>

<p>>but do they display anything useful when shooting in the night enabling you to frame your image?<br>

In any light, my Lumix G1 displays 100% of the image I'm framing. Plus all information regarding settings and exposure that I'd want. I find that useful. In manual mode and dim light the EVF "gains up" allowing me to see better under dark conditions. The frame rate and resolution does drop some, but it's not a problem in my experience.<br>

My experience with DSLR viewfinders (albeit "old" ones from a few years back, ie Canon 10D, Olympus E410, Olympus E1, and Pentax *ist, Lumix L1) was that they were much less useful. They were quite dark even in good light, and fairly useless for manual focus in dim lighting. I use manual focus lenses on the G1 and find it excellent for that. <br>

I think the EVF display on the G1 is quite nice, so I'd expect the newer EVFs on the Nex cameras would be great. Many other photographers I know hate the EVF.. so it's an individual call. </p>

<p>Generally I'd take any of them if someone were giving it to me for free. I like screwing around with them, and some interesting results can be had from any camera.<br>

But if I'm paying , and thinking about image quality, I've had too many Ricohs, Canon G's, etc that look good, feel good, shoot fast.. but then I look at the files and it's the same small sensor IQ.. perhaps massaged by state of the art NR and other effects depending on the manufacturer. <br>

I was actually about to pull the trigger on the latest and greatest, the Fuji X10, such an appealing looking camera that takes you back to the days of yore. But I said the heck with it. Not going there again. I wanted a small camera, not a small sensor, so I went with the unloved (by some) Sigma DP2 and now I actually look forward to seeing the results. The Foveon is great, the lens is amazing. It's a small camera, not really a P&S. Doesn't work well that way because you have to think about what you're doing. <br>

But if someone wants to give me a Leica X1 for free, I'll take that too.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My current minimalist kit is the Sigma DP2. It's quickly becoming the only thing I'm using. Love the Foveon sensor and the 41mm f/2.8 lens is superb. Going with the simplicity of one-camera/one-lense has brought a lot of joy to my experience of the photographic process. Not a Leica, but works well for me as a kind of digital CL. I use it as a manual camera and find it very enjoyable to use this way. Just my two cents, sorry if comment is too non-Leica. As far as that goes, given quite a bit more spare change, I'd love also to be using the X1 in this way. </p>

<p>Your post is timely because I've been thinking of bringing the same topic up. It seems to me that the small sensor compacts lack mostly in the ability to create a shallow depth of field,( whereas it invariably seems to be the issue of noise and noise reduction that seems to obsess everyone). If they offered DOF control they'd seriously increase their appeal to enthusiast photographers.</p>

<p>I've been hoping one of the more adventurous manufacters (Ricoh, Fujifilm, Panasonic..) might approach this through firmware like they've done to counter lens distortion and CA. With the tiny processors getting faster and faster it seems like someone would have devised an algorithm that could simulate the DOF of different focal lengths and apertures based on the distance the camera calculates the focus point to be at. Perhaps this is hugely more complicated than the other existing firmware lens corrections. </p>

<p>I believe there are some post processing software products that claim to do this, but I haven't tried any of them. I have done some work with creating oof backgrounds in PS but my patience runs out.</p>

<p>My current solution to small cameras and DOF is to use film with an Olympus XA. Otherwise I think one of the m4/3rds like E-PL2 or lumix GF-1/2 would offer the best digital option.</p>

 

<p>I've gotten into the same thinking lately, but it's not the first time. I seem to go back and forth regarding compact film cameras vs compact digitals. No question for me that I prefer the look the little 35mm film shooters offer. On the other hand I seem to have lost the discipline and patience required to shoot film having transitioned to digital around 1999. And the cost associated certainly precludes the sort of reckless abandon and experimentation that shooting digital allows.<br>

But as I say I'm in another film cycle again, and I just discovered some sleeper cameras from the 80's. Early AF point and shoots from Ricoh, with killer lenses. I happened on one in a casual conversation with a coworker, who mentioned he thought he had a Ricoh somewhere in his garage. Turns out to be a TF-500, which is a dual lens design featuring a 35mm f/2.8 lens and a 70mm f/5.6 "tele" lens. I gave him $10.00 for it. A rather homely looking camera, it has since grown on me because the 35mm lens is quite sharp. I believe it is a 4 element design. Particularly nice however is the speed at which this thing focuses and shoots. It has a cover over the viewfinder window that slides out of the way and opens the lens cover and the camera is ready to shoot immediately. The camera is always on! No on/off switch or waiting for a motorized lens to turtle its way out. Not that it is quiet.. far from it. Definitely not a stealth camera. <br>

Since getting the TF-500, some web research then led me to a couple of other Ricohs, the FF series. I just got an FF-3af with a 5 element/5 group 35mm f/3.2 lens that is really sweet and sharp. The camera is much nicer looking than the TF-500 (which looks a little like a bumper car) and it is smaller, although not shirt pocket, but rather jacket or loose pants/ cargo pants small. Also very quick to bring into use.<br>

The rolls I've run through these two have been more than satisfactory, so I'm looking forward to receiving the FF-90. The FF-90 features a similar design as the FF-3af, but features another 35mm, 5 element/5group lens, but f/2.8 instead of f/3.2. All reports I've found have simply raved about the lens on this camera and judging from what I've gotten from the FF-3af, I don't doubt it.<br>

These cameras might be worth you looking for. They are faster to operate than the later point and shoots from the 90's like the Stylus Epic, and T4, because there is no motorized lens or little mode buttons to deal with. Just open up the lens cover and shoot. If you google these models you can find some good info. They are very inexpensive to buy, quite well built, fast and feature great lenses. The downside is the motor film advance is quite noisy and keeps them from being budget Hexar AFs.. although the IQ they are capable of might qualify. And they are not tiny cams.<br>

As for Epic and T4 type cameras, I've got a Ricoh R1e that is very slim and pocketable, the same size and shape as the GR1. It has a 4element 30mm f/3.5 lens, and an especially nice bright line viewfinder, all in a package that will easily fit in any pocket. I've been very pleased with results from this camera. And another one is the Rollei Prego 30, which also has a 30mm f/3.5 lens, but a triplet design, also very sharp. The Prego 30 is thicker than the R1, and also has a simple "realfinder" type of window, like the Stylus Epic. Not nearly as nice a viewfinder as the R1e. Both very inexpensive if you can find them. The R1e viewfinder is awesome.<br>

Hope these suggestions are useful to you. </p>

<p>If you can find a Ricoh 35R that would definitely fill the bill for a "lomo" type camera.. and also capable of some very nice results in the conventional sense. Allows scale focus, and manual exposure setting, as well as AF and AE. 3 element 30mm f/3.9 lens, and it can take filters. I had one for a while that I bought new for $25.00 from a canadian distributor. They are nice cheap 35mm cameras.<br>

Unfortunately I sold that.. but I still have a Ricoh r1e, and Rollei Prego 30, both with 30mm lens. The Ricoh is a 4 element, and the Rollei a 3 element lens. The venerable Olympus XA is another option.</p>

 

<p>I miss my Stylus Epic. Used it all the time for a few years, and then loaned it to my daughter, whereupon it got stolen from her. <br>

I learned to set exposure on that little thing by using the spot feature almost exclusively. I'd determine what I wanted exposed at about 18% gray, hopefully at the right focus distance, and then reframe and shoot. Got good results that way, and I still tend to do that with my digital point and shoots, although I can now see the effects on the histogram before shooting.<br>

I still use an XA, as well as a Ricoh R1e, or Rollei Prego 30 for AF. The latter operate very much like the Stylus Epic, and the R1e, though a cheaper version of the Ricoh R1, which itself was sort of a poor man's GR1, features a big brightline style viewfinder. The R1e is very slim and pocketable, but not quite the brilliant design of the Stylus Epic (or XA).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I saw the X-100 and immediately wanted it. Still do, but some common sense has prevailed. If I had a lot of money I'd get one just to use where appropriate, but the price is too boutique for me, maybe if it drops or on the used market in the future I'll still look for one but not now. <br>

I use a Panasonic G1 with some OM primes plus the kit 14-45 and 40-200 and for around $300 now I can add the 20mm f1.7 I've been wanting and have everything photographically the X-100 offers in a lighter package. Not as stylish, and without the cool viewfinder (but with a cool viewfinder of its own), I've found the G1 to be a really great user camera which additionally offers the ultimate in lens flexibility if you like legacy lenses. I actually had my whole kit up for sale to fund an X-100 so smitten was I, and had a buyer, but after taking a hard look at what I have and reminding me that its the pictures that count most, I woke up. <br>

Also, I'm, not sure if it's official, but the x-100 supposedly weighs over 500 grams vs the 365 of my G1. I've found light weight important to me in a compact camera on occasions I want it in a coat pocket.</p>

<p>Ricoh digital cameras such as the GX series (GX, GX8, GX100, GX200) and the GRD all offer a hyperfocal zone focus mode called "Snap" mode. This is a carry over from the GR compact 35mm film cameras and, as with that camera, offered a solution to shutter and AF lag to speed up shooting. That mode is set at 2.5meters. I don't know what the exact focus range is but with the small sensor and tiny actual focal length of the lenses I don't think it's much of an issue. I've never done a comparison but I would guess the infinity focus would be difficult to distinguish from the hyperfocal setting in most street shooting situations, at least on a small sensor compact.<br>

Just about any digital compact that offers a manual focus function can be easily set up for this, especially if the camera has a memory that can call up a zoom position and focus point. I believe the new Nikon P7000 can do this and the old Pentax 750z could also. The Sony H-20 offers zone focus selections at 1, 3, and 7 meters as well as infinity, and if the smaller of the 2 available apertures is selected your good to go. <br>

I use zone focus on my Panasonic G1 with the manual focus OM and industar lenses I have and it's hard to beat the lens barrel markings for convenience. </p>

<p>I looked at this review also and it didn't tell me much. Imaging-resource has sample test shots that you can do side by side comparisons with other cameras including resolution charts etc, and they have many cameras to select from including G11, G12. It's somewhat entertaining to compare the different models there.<br>

I've been looking at the P7000 because I'm attracted to the form factor and size. Haven't held one but it appears to be a nice camera. IQ-wise from what I saw on imaging-resource, it certainly holds its own in that class of camera. However I've been considering it as a main camera for me, and whether or not the P7000 or a G11/12 could replace my m43, a lumix G1, and the comparison photos on imaging-resource, made it clear that these cameras remain small sensor compacts, albeit really good ones. P7000s and G12 etc are not DSLR or m43rds substitutes except maybe under very limited conditions, and they're often being touted as such.<br>

OTOH, Just for the heck of it I compared files from a Sony H20, which has a 1/2.3 (or 2. 7) sensor and was surprised at how well it held up to the P7000 examples. I use an H20 as well as a Ricoh GX8 as my current compacts, and, the Sony's awkward user interface not withstanding, I could see little in the images themselves to make me want to replace that either. I think in prints it would be difficult to choose one over the other. In the example photos the P7000 did have less CA and seemed a bit cleaner, but it was hair splitting and nothing that would particularly enhance or hurt an otherwise good photo in either case. IQ has gotten quite good from these little cameras, so much so that features and operation seem to be the main differentiators, IMO. <br>

I'm still waiting to get my hands on a P7000 to see how it would feel in use, and to see more actual photographer's work done with it.</p>

 

<p>On compacts I like to have the ovf window as an alternative to the LCD. If the ovf on the P7000 is like the Canon G series, just hope that unlike the G7 which I briefly had, that the view is at least centered and corresponds somewhat with the LCD and the recorded image even if it doesn't show more than 80%. I don't expect much from these little finders but that was fairly intolerable for me. I do think OVFs are worth having on a compact and for that reason I'm still using some small cameras made before the manufacturers decided what the public didn't need.<br>

I also had a Ricoh GX200 with its EVF hot shoe mounted finder. Worked much better than the little ovf's for framing and the view is larger, but not greatly detailed. I don't know about the EVF for the LX5, but I assume they're similar cameras. I eventually sold the GX200 for a Panasonic G1 because I found putting the EVF on and off troublesome and with it on it would get caught on things. With the Lumix G1, there's not, IMO, much to complain about with the G1 finder with its extremely high resolution and very fast refresh rate (it does slow down in dim light but it hasn't been a problem for my type of photography). I realized after trying external EVF and external OVF cameras that one ends up losing the compactness they may have thought they were getting as soon as the external finder is mounted. Keeping track of the finders and taking them on and off can be fiddly and just another bother when you might rather be concentrating on your pending photo. So I decided to get the G1 with a superior (to the add-ons for the GF1 and Oly micro43 cameras) EVFwhich is an EVF from panasonic's professional video cameras. It's a great camera to work with, albeit larger than the LX5 or P7000. But in practical use those aren't really pocket cameras either. <br>

For my compact camera I use a Ricoh GX8 (older discontinued model, but an excellent little camera) which has the usual little built-in OVF and is fairly pocketable if a bit bulky. <br>

If it were me and I wanted a compact, between the LX5 with evf, and the P7000, I would go with the P7000 because the OVF is integrated and I believe one main purpose of a compact is to have as much as possible in one handy package. That's essentially the same choice I made between the Ricoh GX200 w/EVF and the GX8 with little window. Much happier with the GX8.<br>

Just some of my findings after going round and round with these choices, and just my opinion of course.</p>

<p>Sorry about the awkwardness of the subject line, I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out how to frame my question. In a photo book such as "Uncommon Places" by Stephen Shore, the book presents prints of work done with an 8X10 view camera. I'm wondering about the relationship of the incredible resolution provided by such a camera vs the resolution of the prints in the published book which are of approximately 10X8 (slightly larger). I don't know what resolution the book's prints are, but I assume there's a point where much of the LF camera resolution and detail is lost on the paper. At what print size and resolution would LF resolution be moot? Could a smaller format or certain digital camera resolution produce the same image quality as represented in the book? I don't use LF but have done some MF in the past and now just digital and I'm not sure I understand the process used in producing these art photography books. If you can figure out what I seem to be asking please inform me.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I no longer have a DSLR and I'm quite happy with the compacts I use. I do however have a panasonic G1 that fills in quite well for DSLR-like needs with it's AF 14-45mm and 40-200mm lenses. I generally use it with a little Industar 69 lens from a half frame Russian Chaika pocket film camera and a few Olympus OM prime lenses when I'm doing my own thing, which is most of the time. <br>

I mostly use my compact "kit" lately however, which is a Ricoh GX8 for wide an normal use, and also a Sony H-20 for tele and HD video. The Ricoh has a teleconverter lens that gives about 22mm with it's regular 28mm default. The GX8 is an obsolete model, but Ricoh has some very nice newer models also. I'm very pleased with the IQ I get with the GX8 because it seems to lack a certain digital look I notice from most small sensor compacts, and the Sony itself is quite amazing for a really tiny sensor camera and it's 380mm equivalent tele end is f/4.4 which is faster than most small tele zoom cameras at the long end.<br>

There's a lot to choose from in compacts these days, good luck!</p>

 

<p>I just sold my last DSLR, an Olympus E1. I loved the build, the image quality, the whole thing, but seldom used it as it's a big brick.. a fairly ergonomic brick.. but a brick nonetheless. This is ultimately what has happened with every DSLR I've owned, so I don't think I'll return to that kind of system.<br>

So I have no DSLR, but now use a Panasonic G1 for an interchangeable lens camera, and a handful of compacts, both digital and 35mm film. The G1 sort of looks like a DSLR, but is quite a different animal, much smaller and lighter, is brilliant with manual focus legacy lenses, and offers excellent electronic viewfinder options. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>A lot of film SLRs were bulky too. Exceptions were there like the Olympus OM and Pentax MZ-S (which had to be one of the most elegant and svelte auto SLRS ever made), but there's also a range of differences in DSLRs. <br>

I use a Panasonic G1 and an Oly E1 both with legacy manual focus lenses. The G1 usually with an industar- 69 28mm f/2.8 LTM lens adapted from a russian chaika half frame camera. I know the G1 isn't technically a DSLR, but within my application it works much the same and actually better for manual focus. Anyway it is considerably more comfortable and lighter than the Fed2 rangefinder I had and handles very nicely and has no more heft than my old Bessa R. Unfortunately I can't compare it to a Leica!<br>

The E1 with an OM prime, is compact overall, and the body while certainly thick, is short and well balanced. Overall lighter than many of the film SLRs. <br>

But I suppose you'd have to look to the micro 4/3rds format right now to find something akin in size to your Contax. I suggest the panasonic G1 would do it if you can adapt to an EVF instead of mirror optics.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>G7 is beautifully designed and built like a little tank, if you value that sort of thing.</p>

<p>I remember that my 10D had a relatively quiet shutter also. Don't have that anymore but still use an Olympus E1 from time to time, particularly in bad weather or dusty environments. It may be one of the quietest DSLRs ever. I gave my son my Pentax ist DS with the kit zoom, a few years ago, and he recently sent back some photos from China that look great. Prompted me to go back in my files and see some I'd taken with it. That convinced me just how susceptible to marketing I am. For what I do, prints no larger than 13X19, and nowadays more often well within letter size dimensions, or just stored on the computer, I can see no significant IQ rationale for "upgrading" to various DSLRs over the years. But of course, I'm not a pro or sports photographer etc.</p>

<p>The Ricoh's have good reputations for lenses. One of the best, if not the best, lenses on a compact that's pocketable is on the Ricoh GRD I, I believe the GRD II uses the same 28mm f/2.4 lens as the first model but I only have experience with the GRD I. There is a current GRD III that I believe has a somewhat faster lens, I think it is f/1.9 or /1.8. All these models are non-zoom fixed focal lenth lenses. I made the mistake of selling my GRDI and now when I go back over my photos taken with it, I'm continually amazed at not only the detail but overall quality of the photos. <br>

The Ricoh GX100 and GX200 are also good cameras. The new Samsung TL500 that is coming out also promises great lens performance, at least according to what I've read. It might be worth waiting to see what it can do when it becomes available.<br>

I'm continuing to use small 35mm film cameras for pocket use. I've got an Olympus XA ,Rollei Prego 30, and Ricoh R1e. I'd like to get another compact digital camera, but I've had many, and with the exception of the GRDI mentioned, I've found the image quality of the rest unremarkable. </p>

 

<p>Even though I 've swore off any pocketable small sensor digicams, I find myself tempted to once again have a pocket camera. Actually I do still have one pocketable camera, an ancient but always entertaining Fujifilm F700 that I very occasionally will use. Inevitably it disappoints compared with the Panasonic G1 I favor, and which is really no trouble to take places. But! I guess if I were to get a pocket cam, right now the one that looks like the best for the price to me, is the Fuji F70exr. Very pocketable and versatile with the lens range it has. I don't know how accessible the manual controls are, but that's probably covered on the review sites. Sample shots look pretty nice. Seems like a lot of camera for around $200.00.</p>