dg1

IMHO, the obsession with this crap has reached the point of mass neurosis.

 

To all of us trapped in this pixel-peeping karmic cycle (including myself) I say, get a life and go out and take some damn pictures.

There's more out there than Canon and Nikon. You might also want to consider the Pentax or Konica Minolta cameras. I've got an *ist DS, and it's a great little DSLR. Feels a bit sturdier to me than the 350D and the kit lens is nicer than that offered by Canon.

Fuji F10 also has no optical viewfinder, so there again you must hold it out away from you. But a higher ISO and faster shutter will reduce motion blur which the IS system cannot. I think that would be the main advantage of the F10.

 

Personally I think the concern with low noise is a little overdone. My compact is a Ricoh Caplio GX and it goes from ISO64 to (a very noisy) ISO1600. But the noise at 400 and 800 is very easy for a good noise reduction program like NeatImage or Noiseware to deal with. And the ISO 1600 is nice to have occasionally, especially if the image is converted to B&W.

Get a Konica-Minolta A2 digital. You can choose from a couple shutter sounds, one of which is a recording of the Minolta CLE shutter. It can be used at 2 different volume levels too. At the lower volume it reminds me of the delicate shutter of a TLR. Better yet it can be turned off entirely, making the A2 much quieter than any Leica.

Congratulations. IMO, you made a good choice. I think the 8meg 2/3rds sensor prosumers have been underrated. I bought into the "DSLR is the only way to go for great image quality" business myself until I got the KM-A2. It was an eye opener to have so much potential in an all-in-one lightweight camera. There's some limitations for sure, but also some huge advantages compared to DSLRs. I guess it's a matter of tradeoffs.

No argument that a digicam's degree of OOF is limited compared to a 35mm or DSLR. Nevertheless, a 2/3rds sized sensor does allow for some pleasant OOF backgrounds.<div></div>

Ricoh has said nothing public that I'm aware of and it's pretty clear from what they have said about a year ago that they consider the Caplio GX (and now the 8meg GX8) their digital equiv to a GR1:

 

 

"To fully appreciate the significance of the Caplio GX launch, one must look to the year 1998 when Ricoh took the world by storm with the unveiling of the Ricoh GR1, ...

 

"The Caplio GX combines the traditional craftsmanship expertise of the GR series with further enhanced high-performance technology found in the Caplio RX digital camera that was just released in March 2004.

 

"The 28mm-85mm wide-angle (35mm film camera equivalent format) delivers a fantastic 75-degree angle of view.

 

"Keeping to the professional-minded spirit of the GR series, the Caplio GX features ...

 

"...its sleek, first-class compact design is only 29mm thick and carries the trademark rubber handgrip that beautifully contours the right side of its lightweight 205-gram aluminum die-cast body.

 

"The Caplio GX is quite simply the finest digital camera our (Ricoh) organization has ever produced

 

And so on.

"All this talk of the human visual field is bunkum since the human eye views a very tight, probably circular, image, and is continually refocusing and selecting something else to build up an overall concept of what is in front of them. "

 

I'm no scientist (and I've seen no evidence that anyone else here is either), but while I think the latter part of the above statement is rather astute (concerning selecting and conceptualizing what we "see"), my eyes including lids etc, are generally horizontally framed, and as I look out, without trying straining to make it otherwise, my field of view is horizontally oblong, if not exactly rectangular and the rectangle fits my view much closer than the circle. My peripheral vision is much greater to the sides, I assume because of my eyebrows and cheekbones obstructing the vertical view. If I'm using my eye(s) as a framing device it's much closer to a rectangle. This is different than the eyes as sensors for the mind that selects and constructs an internal interpretation of what's around it. Two different things, which is why photos tend to be surprising when compared to what we think we saw. It might be that the development of a photographic eye involves the ability do dissociate our vision from the selective and interpretive function of the brain. I think the idea that our vision is circular is just such a conceptual idea..because we know it should be. Perhaps maybe if we pop our eyeballs out of their sockets.

 

In framing I agree one size does not fit all. I've often thought I like the 4:3 because it is closer to square which I like from TLR and SX-70 days. Still, I usually end up choosing 3:2 if I have a choice like when using the KM-A2. It offers 4:3 or 3:2 and I like the look more with 3:2 most of the time.

Fine art is the opposite of course art.

Your post sounds like you want a somewhat pocketable camera and it seems everyone here agrees shallow DOF is not a job for a small digital camera.

 

But if you can tolerate something larger, a camera like the Leica D2 that David suggested would indeed be more capable of shallow(er) DOF than the smaller digicams because of the larger 2/3rd sensor. But as pointed out, it is spendy.

 

I'd consider the 8meg "prosumers" on the other hand, that can also provide a 2/3rds sensor with the added benefit of 8meg resolution vs the 5meg of the Digilux. And at a considerably lower cost, about a third the price. I've got a KM-A2, and with it's 28mm-200mm (35 equiv) f/2.8-f/3.5 I can get some very nice OOF backgrounds using the longer end of the zoom (200mm f/3.5). And I assume the Sony, Canon, and Olympus 8meggers will do similar.. but none of these, or the Leica D2 or Canon Gx cameras are smaller than the M6 anyway.

 

If you're upsizing, you might as well get something like the Pentax *ist DS with a 50mm f/1.4, that'd do it.

"Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II 16.7MP Digital SLR Camera" for $1500.00 sounds much too good to be true. Somebody is pulling somebody's leg.

If you can find a Ricoh Caplio GX, it is a 5Meg compact with very fast full-press response, .12secs with AF. And it's fairly instantaneous when prefocussed. And you can go full manual with exposure and fixed focus if you need it even faster, which in my experience is unlikely.

 

If you're in the US, the Ricohs are only sold gray market however.

If you're in the UK, you may want to look into the Ricoh GX , 5.13megs, or the Ricoh GX8, 8megs. Quite reasonably priced and very capable.

I wouldn't worry about shallow DOF with a really compact digicam, just use the PS techniques or plug-ins to create shallow DOF blur. Sure, you could get a Oly Stylus Epic for a pocketable camera that might do this (I say might because you have to predict the aperture it might select, more than actually control it). But then there's the scanning hassle, and processing to consider and the rest of the film routine, so it's not like the PS action used to create shallow DOF with the compact digicams is more work, it's not. And you can get it the way you want it. Otherwise the larger the sensor the more apt you'll be to get some background blur if you use the tele end of the lens. I think the largest sensor for real compacts is the 1/1.8. Digicams with 2/3" sensors would be better still but I don't think there's any true compacts with those.

Manel- the oly 7070 photo you linked is very nice, and I can see what you mean. Very sharp, great contrast etc. There's no question in my mind the 7070 is a fine camera and you seem fairly settled on that choice, from what I've read so far. As for the question of whether it can produce professional pictures, or rather high quality art photos, obviously it can. It seems to be a lot of camera for the price and it's good to see that highly capable digital cameras are becoming more affordable.

If you want to shoot RAW with a digicam, and still have decent response I'd recommend the Konica Minolta A2. The buffer on these is large enough to allow 3 successive RAW shots..I know not impressive by DSLR standards, but this makes it (and probably the A200, I don't know) the only prosumer I'm aware of that is practical for RAW shooting. Also the in camera settings for jpegs are quite varied and allow for some fine levels of adjustment. The A2s are still around as factory refurbs (that's what I've got and it's been perfect), and it has some very nice features that were dropped from the A200, most notably the best EVF made so far, and one that tilts up at that. There's no end to the flexibility of the A2, IMO. Here's a photo I did at ISO 400 with in-camera B&W settings. (the A2 stores 5 complete custom configurations too).<div></div>

Well I think Friedlander and Eggleston got it right and are still getting it right and maybe it's time to move on. Use whatever camera you like, or better yet, get one you don't like so you stop playing with it, and just take some pictures.

Ricoh Caplio GX with Dw-4 wa converter will give you 22mm

There's some excellent shots among those. I particularly like number 12, the color shot of the swimmer.

I know you're asking about the Canon or Nikon, but IMO, you might do well to consider the Pentax *ist Ds. The camera is a great value with or without the kit lens. And the kit lens really rather good and seems of better quality than the Canon 18mm-55. The DS's 1.5 "crop factor" provides a 27mm equiv view, somewhat wider than the Canon's 29mm (28.8) also. Ergonomically I find the DS much better than the 10D I used for 2 years. Just a $.02 thought.

Wiggy, that's OK, I'm just adding my viewpoint, I don't expect anyone to change theirs. And I'm not disputing that there are limitations. You're point about the advertised backwards compatibility is well taken. In my case I guess that's moot because all I use and intend to use in the foreseeable future is the SMC F 50mm f/1.4 and SMC F 28 f/2.8 both AF lenses that I manual focus on occasion. I realize this is different than having and being somewhat dedicated to manual lenses. Good luck to you guys.

I have no trouble focussing the *ist DS matte screen manually. Much nicer than my 10D in that respect (and most others). No sense comparing it to a film SLR, or for than matter comparing a film SLR viewfinder to a great RF finder like on a Leica or the Bessa Rs. Why buy something and then expect it to be something else? Perhaps the *ist DS was not the right choice for your application.

Hi, I emailed you the ordering contact at Rollei USA. I had to write to them directly to get the info. You are correct, their website is useless.

The movie mode is useless if you don't use it, but having just discovered what a good movie mode my KM-A2 has, I intend to use the A2 movie mode for anything I would have used my camcorder for in the past. One of the appeals of digicams vs DSLRs is this kind of flexibility. My Ricoh GX has an audio record mode that I've used many times to record live music. The Canon S2 may be even better for that. It's great. Many digicams are like electronic swiss army knives this way. I don't understand how having these features is a problem. If you want better lens, larger more sensitive sensors, buy a DSLR, that's why they're offered, but in being pure still photography cameras DSLRs ignore much of the potential of digital, so the tradeoffs work both ways.

Best is a little tough these days, but one "best kept secret", IMO, is the Rollei dr5100 (same as Ricoh Caplio GX) that can be bought directly from Rollei USA for $329.00.

 

It is an extremely well thought out camera from a ergonomic and useability standpoint, with a nice and sharp 28-85mm (equiv) lens f/2.5-4.3. 5megs and has manual controls that are actually useable, as well as a hot shoe for external flash. All in a pocketable digicam. And it also features possibly the shortest shutter lag, including AF, that is available in this class of camera.