Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I think it's a very welcome development. It has long been apparent that "fixed lens" doesn't necessarily mean the body is adequately sealed. There are too many reports of sensor dust on fixed lens cameras, including Ricoh GR models. A simple task of sensor cleaning on an interchangeable-lens camera becomes an expensive and disruptive service call when the lens cannot easily be removed.Odd that a fixed lens compact would have a dust reduction system!
I think it's a very welcome development. It has long been apparent that "fixed lens" doesn't necessarily mean the body is adequately sealed. There are too many reports of sensor dust on fixed lens cameras, including Ricoh GR models. A simple task of sensor cleaning on an interchangeable-lens camera becomes an expensive and disruptive service call when the lens cannot easily be removed.
I'm happy to see that Ricoh has chosen to pay attention to this. It could well make the difference in my deciding to buy one.
The same question applies to interchangeable lens cameras. The systems are plainly effective, to varying degrees. One way or another, the particles end up in some place where most or all of them don't immediately hop back on to the sensor surface.Since it still is sealed, where would the dust go after the shaker does it bit?
Not quite. With an open mount it is possible drive the particulates away.The same question applies to interchangeable lens cameras.
From the press release:Honestly, the specs are not that impressive starting with a dated sensor.
a newly designed lens, a new image sensor, and a new imaging engine.
Looks like a nice upgrade to the GR line. Add the wide lens converter and you have a quite handy little camera with a nice bit of wide-end versatility.
How does it differ from the Leica Q? It's much smaller and it's APS-C vs FF format. It's also about $1000 vs $4000. Controls are pretty obviously different too. How well it images in comparison is a matter of opinion. It's not a competitor to the Leica CL for obvious reason of the non-interchangeable lens...
I'd slide my 28mm optical finder on it and have a good time.
G
The CL is rapidly eclipsing my M-D262 as the camera I grab when I'm going out for a photography session, and serves pretty well for the casual "carry everywhere" role as well. On it I tend to use slightly longer focal lengths (narrower FoV) most of the time too; usual a 28mm (eqFOV 42mm) or 43mm (eqFOV 65mm). The small size of the GR makes it a little less comfortable to work with when you need to be using it for a longer period of time, I guess.In my opinion, the GR is a mighty different beast than the Q. You hit on some of the major differences. For me, I would use the cameras very differently—with the GR being a carry-everywhere camera while the Q is more of a camera I’d take along when I knew I was heading out for photography. I had the Q (twice, oddly) and used it more on par with an M.
I preordered the new GR, having liked the GRD IV and GR I. I will carry it everywhere and, like you said, snap on an external finder at times. But I will still have an M in hand when I make intentional trips out for photography. It turns out I’m fine with a 28mm lens for a carry-everywhere, but prefer a 50mm for other photography.
The CL is rapidly eclipsing my M-D262 as the camera I grab when I'm going out for a photography session, and serves pretty well for the casual "carry everywhere" role as well. On it I tend to use slightly longer focal lengths (narrower FoV) most of the time too; usual a 28mm (eqFOV 42mm) or 43mm (eqFOV 65mm). The small size of the GR makes it a little less comfortable to work with when you need to be using it for a longer period of time, I guess.
Regardless, the GR looks like a really nice camera and worth having. I'm just not sure that it's worth my money to acquire one given the excessive amount of camera gear I already still have.
G
The X 113 was a particular favorite of mine; I bonded with it instantly. Excellent controls, "the right" size, super lens, great image quality. I only stopped using it when I got the M-D typ 262, because that was only a fraction larger and gave more versatility - let me use 50 and 75mm FoVs - as well. The CL fitted with either small M-mount 28 or 43 mm lenses nets back what I loved about the X in terms of weight and size, but then I can fit my R-mount lenses as well for more studied work, better close focusing and more lens options.Thanks for the input on the CL, Godfrey. Actually, yesterday, I cancelled my preorder of the GR III--not because I don't think it'll be a solid camera, but because I'd prefer to wait until mid to late summer if I'm going to pull the trigger on a new camera purchase. Anyway, your mention of your "carry everywhere" approach is an interesting one. It sort of gets at the importance of size--both as a pro and a con. I haven't shot with the CL, but have enjoyed my prior experiences with one other small Leica camera (i.e., X Typ 113).
I definitely ended up liking the X113 more than I thought I would, including the aspects that you mention. Your comment about iPhones is on point for me, too. I'm still using an iPhone 5s (pretty much for an occasional call or text and GPS) and have been wondering if an upgrade to a XR (or whatever) would help fill the gap for when I'd want to use a GRIII.The X 113 was a particular favorite of mine; I bonded with it instantly. Excellent controls, "the right" size, super lens, great image quality. I only stopped using it when I got the M-D typ 262, because that was only a fraction larger and gave more versatility - let me use 50 and 75mm FoVs - as well. The CL fitted with either small M-mount 28 or 43 mm lenses nets back what I loved about the X in terms of weight and size, but then I can fit my R-mount lenses as well for more studied work, better close focusing and more lens options.
None of these are pocket sized like a GR, but I've found that for what I'd use a GR for, the iPhone 8 Plus (which is always in my pocket anyway) does a more than acceptable job. Which is why I hesitate to get a jones on for buying a GR3...
G
The iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X generation cameras are simply amazing for the wee little things they are, Moment makes some outstanding cases and lens attachments that expand their versatility nicely, and the RAW Power app opens up the image processing capabilities of Photos in amazing ways. The Manual Camera app allows you more explicit control of the camera while making exposures, including output of DNG raw files.I definitely ended up liking the X113 more than I thought I would, including the aspects that you mention. Your comment about iPhones is on point for me, too. I'm still using an iPhone 5s (pretty much for an occasional call or text and GPS) and have been wondering if an upgrade to a XR (or whatever) would help fill the gap for when I'd want to use a GRIII.
Godfrey: Thank you for your helpful input here, which has me thinking more about the current iPhone options. Alas, if we're pushing the limits of this thread, it was certainly my doing. Pardon that, all!The iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X generation cameras are simply amazing for the wee little things they are, Moment makes some outstanding cases and lens attachments that expand their versatility nicely, and the RAW Power app opens up the image processing capabilities of Photos in amazing ways. The Manual Camera app allows you more explicit control of the camera while making exposures, including output of DNG raw files.
Not to lead this thread too far off topic, but I am constantly astonished by what the iPhone cameras can do if you put some effort into learning them. Biggest problem, for me, is that a smart phone is really not a very ergonomic camera device ... the GR3 is a far more ergonomic camera in use.
G