jon_kobeck1

So, I went with the GR IIIx I will report back. I had the 3 and loved it but didn't like the wide lens. Perhaps the 40mm will be better

The G1X from 2013 is small with a fixed zoom and has a 1.5 inch sensor but it's from 2013! The new version G1XIII is much larger.

I am interested in a P&S with a fixed zoom. The ones above are larger cameras. I need something that fits in the pocket like this one. Which is a 1 inch sensor

The Lumix LX10 seems to have the largest sensor in a point and shoot zoom that I can find. If I was going with a pime p&s it would be the Ricoh

I just looked at it. The specs say 1" stacked sensor.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems the largest sensor to be found in a P&S zoom would be a 1 inch sensor.

Yea me too! Phone is too big and heavy. Impossible to use single handed. But good images

I have a Samsung s22 Ultra. That also has a great camera. But I rarely use it.

Thanks. I will check out the Canon. I was thinking the Leica glass on the Lumix would be nice though.

Well said

My favorite camera is the Ricoh GR III. It does it all for my work, and I have had full frame cameras in the past.. Now if it only had a zoom. So I was looking at the Lumix line, some of the cameras in the same form factor and weight. Maybe an LX10? I know the sensor doesn't compare. What about the Lumix LX 100 II? Still not the same sensor as the Ricoh but decent specs. But it looks a little bulky compared to the Ricoh. I sold my magical Fuji X100s because I felt it was too clunky for me. The Ricoh really spoiled me as it fir in my shirt pocket. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

I finally figured out to to check for shutter actuations. It has 8, including the few that I shot off last night to test (probably 8) I thought the rear screen has some smudges on it but not really sure. Those screens seem to always have shadows at certain angles. Someone mentioned the open box. Like I said, it cane in the box, Im just not sure if it is supposed to have a sealed plastic wrap over the box.

Can that be set back to 0?

I ordred a new Ricoh GR II new from Amazon Prime and just received. this was sold and shipped from Amazon. Im suspicious it may be used, or a returned item. Are there any ways to tell? The box wasn't sealed, but I'm not sure if they come sealed in plastic wrap from the factory. There were a few air bubbles behind the screen protector, as if it may have been removed and latter replaced. Perhaps Im just being a little OCD

I want something as small as a P&S for street work. I was going to order the Coolpix S7000 but read a review about slow AF. Anyone know if this is true? Any of the other Coolpix pocket cameras a better choice?

So Im confused. I see there is a GR IV and GR III ? I thought the GR II is the latest model. Which is the newest model?

I wonder if Daido Moriyama is still using one.

I was thinking about getting a Ricoh GR digital. I had one a few years ago and loved it, especially the fact that its pocketable. My Fuji X100 is great, but it doesn't get much use because its a pain to carry sometimes. Looking at Amazon I see the GR II is only $550 and the older GR is almost $1000 Why is the older model selling for more? Am I missing something?

David I probably need to use a better lab, since those papers aren't offered t the labs I have been using

Les, prob second guessing to a degree. I always think " how would this look wet printed on fiber paper"

" I think by 20-30 years we will have some revolutionary new sensor technology that will blow everything we know today out of the water"<P> Its funny how gear heads tend to think plastic digital cameras with "new and improved sensors" every six months will make better and better pictures. The truth is, there is much much more to a good photograph then image quality, sharpness, noise, color saturation. If we were to follow that logic, then every image made from the 1920s to the 1990s would be garbage. <P> Here is an image by Duane Michals. Just about every major museum in the country has his work in their collection. He generally printed 35mm film no larger then 5X7. This must be garbage too<P> <I>Moderator note: Image deleted. According to Photo.net Terms of Use do not post images that you have not taken yourself. You may post a link to an image if you want.</I>

I have been shooting 35mm B&W film, Tri-X for years. For the last 10+ years I have had all my prints done digitally (hi res scans then digital prints made from the tiff files). I generally print small, 8X10 and 5X7, occasionally a little bigger. I've been using NorthCoast mostly. I've been scanning negs for so long I forgot what a real silver halide print looks like. Are the differences major, as far as B&W prints go, between scanned negs / digital prints V Silver Halide prints? Some say there is no difference anymore due to the high quality inkjet printing and matching papers that are available today. I would love to hear some opinions about this. Since I no longer have access to a darkroom, I would need to pay to have silver prints made. There are a few well known labs here in NYC that will do it. I must admit, I do miss working off a contact sheet. Thanks!

I have both lenses. The 28 seems much sharper, more contrasty and just produces better images. I'm surprised. The 35 costs much more. Is the 28 just a better lens, or perhaps my 35 is a bad copy?

I'm not are if its even a chip, or just the coating that torn off. Its an odd looking mark. Who knows maybe it can be cleaned off? I'm afraid to rub to hard on it. Perhaps I should just ask for a discount and keep it as some have said. With the exception that mark the lens looks new, as ts only 3 years old and sells for $539 new today at B&H. The seller responded to me and was surprised he didn't see the mark. But as I said, looking straight through its not visible, only looking at it from the side on an angle can it be seen

Here are some photos, the mark is not visible straight through, only on an angle. And straight through that part of the glass seems to be blacked out by the front element.<div></div>