I have seen it once in my shots. It was a bracket, the 0 and -1 are fine, the -2 shows some faint ring artifact. I haven't seen it in other bracket shots though so I don't think underexposure necessarily trigger it. The dynamic range of the sensor is so good that the -1 and -2 shots are for precaution only.
fotographiq wrote:
Regarding the Ricoh GR: Is anyone running into the circular ring artifacts issue seen here:
Emacs wrote:
You should put it in the head, before all other reasons you wrote. Because DOF scale is made to avoid excessive adjusting: f8, distance 2.5-3m (it's instant action thanks to snapfocus) and everything is sharp enough. I do the same with my NEX-5n and Leica Super Elmar 18. With RX100 or RX1 you can't do this quickly and thus both these cameras aren't much more usable than a smartphone.
The quoted portion you copied was in regards to how I set up my studio lights, in reference to how I don't use my flash meter even though I have one, and all was alluding to how its nice to have tools that give us information, but in reality they typically don't prove all that useful.
As I said, between camera DoF scales, all the apps on my iPhone etc, I've got tons of tools to tell me what the DoF is at a given aperture and subject distance, yet, you don't see me looking up a reference for each shot, I just can more or less know from experience what I need after doing it for so many years.
Would have to disagree with you regarding the RX1 being no more usable than a smartphone though, unless you have one heck of a nice smartphone that is!
With the RX1, you set it to manual focus, and you have both a distance scale that appears. Turn the focus ring and you can see if your focused at 1 meter, 3 meters etc.
Its every bit as quick and simple to set as the GR is. Only difference of course is you don't have the snap focus as a preset, so you can't go from AF to a preset MF distance.
You simply have to manually focus to the distance you want before shooting, basically like nearly every other camera on the market.
So again, either you've got one heck of a smartphone, or basically every camera on the market also isn't any more usable than a smartphone ??
RX1 is no smartphone for sure. But I wonder how owners of GR and RX100 get used to the larger form factor?
Well, I guess it's still significantly smaller than a DSLR like D600 with a 35mm Zeiss or Sigma lens? So it has its unique selling point?
My EP5 with 17mm lens feels very big already compared to the GR and RX100 by the way, plus its IQ is not very desirable, lots of CA plus ISO over 1600 is really "ugly" which won't be a problem with RX1!
GR is smaller and pocketable, has no VF, has a lens a stop slower, is wider at 28 vs 35mm equiv, is a bit slower to AF, has the handy snap focus modes, doesn't have a pano mode (fuji's isn't the best though as far as that goes)
All and all pretty different camera's with one being a larger, retro styled 35mm with a cool hybrid VF, the other being a 28mm equiv pocketable typical Ricoh styled/featured camera.
You can shoot a lot of the same type of stuff with them, but its a rather different experience wearing a RF style body around your neck and shooting with the VF vs pulling a super customizable p&S style camera from your pocket.
In the end comes down to if your willing to walk around with a camera hanging off your neck or in a shoulder bag, Or, if you want something you can stick into your pocket and not really even know your carrying it around.
X100 draws some attention with its retro looks and you can't really hide it, short of in a winter coat pocket.
GR no one gives a second thought to. looks like a dated P&S and its quite concealable.
looks like a dated P&S and its quite concealable Is the look of old P&S cameras now becoming fashionable in the modern camera world.
I do like the apparent size of the GR however I have never held one before. I have to travel to a larger city to find a camera store that carries Ricoh and even Sony cameras.
I don't know if Ricoh has ever really worried about making fashionable cameras. They simply have always made black, utilitarian designs and never seemed to have worried about making it look vintage, or offering bodies in different color choices etc.
Its not that a X100 stops traffic or anything, but I would get some people asking about it, asking "is that a Leica" etc. Not every person who sees it, but enough.
Camera like the GR is just boxy and block, basically like any older P&S design , sort of like a Sigma Merrill, so it just doesn't really grab anyone's attention
I've had the RX100 for a while, and now have the Ricoh GR. Guys, there is no comparison when you look at the entire scope of what you have in your hands. Sure, maybe there are IQ similarities here and there. But the overall package, joy of shooting, control, handling, overall IQ, build, "feel", and fun of the Ricoh GR far surpasses the RX100.
To each his own of course, but I don't think it could be said the one is the no questions asked better camera, as I for one returned my GR yesterday.
It was a nice camera and had its strong points, as well as some weaker points, and lots of points inbetween that could go either way depending on what a given users needs are, but in the end, just didn't really feel I was getting $800 value out of it. Of course for another person it could easily be worth $800.
I just didn't find it to be all that fun for my way of shooting given the issues I had with the AF, just kind of lessened my enjoyment not knowing if my results were going to be sharp. Same problem I had with my original Fuji X100 really.
Both great camera's, tons that I did really love about them, but after a few outings and getting back and reviewing images and seeing shots I missed, it made me start to feel I couldn't count on them.
When you've got that question of "did I get the shot or not" in your head, takes some fun away for me, even when I know its not that important of shot.
Certainly are work arounds such as snap/mf that can even prove to be an ideal way of shooting for some, but I just didn't really take to it.
Snap focus is very well implemented on the GR, as the best MF on the market as far as mirrorless goes in fact, but just found that I for one didn't enjoy using the camera in that manner, and what it really comes down to is if a camera fits your style, or if your willing to change your style to suit the strong points of the camera.
I do see a lot of posted GR images that look out of focus. Some might be that way on purpose I don't know. I have the OMD and am kind of addicted to its super accurate auto focus. I will be in a larger city next month and will see if I can not track down photoshop that has both the RX-100 and the GR.
sflxn wrote:
I think it depends on your perspective. If you're looking for a general purpose camera, you'll compare the two from that perspective. If you're looking for a street camera, you'll compare the two from a street shooter's perspective. It's not to say that the RX100 cannot be used for street shooting or the GR cannot be used for general purpose shooting. Any camera can be used for either purposes. However, each camera is design with a purpose in mind that may favor one style of shooting over others. In much the same vein, Leica RF can be used for general purpose shooting and even macro, but most Leica shooters are probably using it for street shooting.
When I was debating on the GR, I first looked at the Coolpix A. The Coolpix A definitely makes better looking color photos and had the Nikon menus I was accustomed to. There were long threads on dpreview when the GR was first released discussing the GR's muted colors and a lot of analysis as to why the Coolpix was producing much, much better color images. I tried both. What made me decide to buy the GR over the Coolpix A were the BW, snap focus feature, configurable buttons, and comfortable grip. It just feels right in my hand. The ability to snap with hyperfocal distance and control everything with one hand made this camera a joy. Initially, I thought I would prefer the Nikon two hand approach to configuring the camera, but after using the GR, I changed my mind. I already have my NEX and Nikon DSLR for general purpose shooting. The GR became my go with me everywhere camera that I can whip out to take fast shots. I wouldn't want to convince everyone that the GR is perfect for them. For what I was looking for at the time, it was the most perfect camera I could find.
I think both cameras are pretty great. I am pretty shocked by the narrow DOF that the RX100 can produce. I would just hesitate trying to compare both cameras for every style of shooting. I know most internet forums like to compare certain aspects of IQ and characteristics of lenses over aspects of handling. For me, handling is as important as IQ and lens. Almost any modern camera will take great images. The question is how does it feel when you use it. Does it make you happy when using it and can you get good results with it?...Show more →
Interesting - I have to choose betw. the Coolpix A and this also and I am also VERY familiar with Nikon, so it is interesting to read, but what about the sometimes problematic AF we can read about here = What is your experience ?
@millsart - thanks for all of your thoughts on the GR vs the RX100. I just sold my RX100 - enjoyed the AF and image quality, but never got used to the handling. I owned a GR II for a few years, and loved it -- so I think a GR (V) is in my future.
Mr Joe wrote:
@millsart - thanks for all of your thoughts on the GR vs the RX100. I just sold my RX100 - enjoyed the AF and image quality, but never got used to the handling. I owned a GR II for a few years, and loved it -- so I think a GR (V) is in my future.
That looks like firmware vignetting correction. I see the same thing on pushed Sony RX1 exposures. On the RX1 it goes away if you turn off the correction feature.
Mr Joe wrote:
Some people think it's actually a lens issue. I read the threads linked above and didn't find a definitive answer.
It might be. Can you ask them to turn off the vignetting correct if it's supported/on. Here's what it looks like on the RX1. First image is with camera vignetting correction off, second with it on - both shot raw and pushed 6EV in LR4.
I don't know whether I am late to the party and it might have been posted elsewhere/before.
Some people have had out of focus shots with the GR in good light, apparently you need to disable "full press snap" in the menu to avoid this and make sure it is not on. It is unfortunate that such a small thing can ruin the experience with the GR. It is a user error but I also think that it is one of those things that should be more clear in the menu.
Edit: Millsart: this would also possibly explain your hit and miss with the GR. For me I have hardly had a shot out of focus with the GR.
Link to discussion with "out of focus problems with the GR - fixed!"
kosmoskatten wrote:
I don't know whether I am late to the party and it might have been posted elsewhere/before.
Some people have had out of focus shots with the GR in good light, apparently you need to disable "full press snap" in the menu to avoid this and make sure it is not on. It is unfortunate that such a small thing can ruin the experience with the GR. It is a user error but I also think that it is one of those things that should be more clear in the menu.
Edit: Millsart: this would also possibly explain your hit and miss with the GR. For me I have hardly had a shot out of focus with the GR.
Link to discussion with "out of focus problems with the GR - fixed!"
I have just read Reid reviews about this camera, because I wanted it vs. Coolpix A, but he wrote, that there could be AF-problems in low light - the camera "thought" there were focus, but there were not.
In good light the AF was 100 %, he wrote.
I asume mr. Reid does know what he is doing and that he did not make the mistanke you write here, but of course I can not know for sure, and sorry, I can not link to it, because you have to pay to read him and he has also done it that way, that you can even not copy from his writings
(But here is his "normal" link, but as mentioned you have to pay to read):
