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

No, all three versions of the G1X (one) have an APS-C sensor. Here are the specs for the 3rd version (which I still have).

Specifications & Features - Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III - Canon UK

 

 

The G3X, G5X, G7X and G9X all have 1” sensors

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 Canon G1X series have APS-C sized sensors

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

The Canon G1X series have APS-C sized sensors

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

I should point out that I am going to sell the Canon. Not because it is a bad camera but because I don’t really need another camera beside my GR3 and recently acquired iphone 13 Pro. I don’t need the extra reach on the Canon given the iphone has a 77mm (equiv) lens.

 

(This is not a sales pitch, btw).

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

I, too, use the GR3 as my main camera and felt that another camera with a longer (zoom) lens would complement the Ricoh.

 

So I bought a Canon Powershot G5X Mk 2 which has a 24-120 stabilised lens, a 1” sensor, good economics (for me) and is quite compact (although slightly bigger than the GR3). It’s a decent camera if you’re OK with the 1” sensor (I am).

 

The Sony RX100 Mk 7 is probably a better camera but I preferred the Canon for a few reasons(money, ergonomics and previous Powershot experience)

 

Another option is the GR3x which can be “cropped” to about 70mm that you could pair with your 28mm GR3

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

The OP was interested in cameras the size of his Ricoh GR that has a zoom lens. I don't see any inquiries relating to substituting a compact camera and expecting results or performance similar to an ILC. Equating the performance of an ancient Lumix DMC TZ5 (I think), with its CCD sensor of about 28 sq mm to the latest Sony 1" Stacked BSI-CMOs sensor about 5x the size is not applicable. I don't believe you would find a Sony RX100 or Lumix LX10 to be slow or its shutter not responsive. The latest Sony models have PDAF focusing pixels and purportedly excellent subject tracking performance. The Panasonic cameras use their DFD AF tech for moving subjects so YMMV with its performance.

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 get most of my photo gear in pre-loved condition so I don't generally find myself in your situation. I suggest you examine the camera under a strong light for scratches, scuffs etc indicative of use, then take Dieter's suggestion to check the actuations. If it looks like new and has less than 10 actuations, then treat it as new and enjoy it. If it turns out otherwise, then you have an issue with Amazon.

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.

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?

" 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>