AntoninaWinegar
Rookie
- Location
- New York
- Name
- AntoninaWinegar
i wish to rent those, but i am still unaware with the charges that i have to pay for renting services? what could be the amount for it exactly?, a help would be appreciated a lot
i wish to rent those, but i am still unaware with the charges that i have to pay for renting services? what could be the amount for it exactly?, a help would be appreciated a lot
Anyone shot both this and the Coolpix A?
.. It's more the user interface that sets them apart. The Nikon being simpler but less customizable.
-Thomas
I've now received the Coolpix A and will still have the Ricoh GR for some days - let me know if there are some specific comparisons you are interested in.
They are both extremely capable cameras and I can't say that the quality of the images is the defining factor. They both provide sharp and detailed images and seem to have similar capabilities when it comes to higher ISO. It's more the user interface that sets them apart. The Nikon being simpler but less customizable.
-Thomas
You will not be disappointed Bob! Be keen to hear your impressionsI have not thought about buying anything for awhile, but decided today to order a GR and try it out as my new all the time briefcase road camera, replacing my X10 in the bag, the size, feel and chip size look appealing, let you know what I think when it arrives on Friday. Was tempted to get an X20 but don't see it being that different, from the X10, just needed something small, with a slightly wide lens with a big chip.
Fully agree. The one difference in IQ that might matter to some is the out of the box colors. Neither is "better" but they're different and anyone might prefer one to the other. Some are probable adept enough at color processing to get either to look exactly how they'd like, but some of us aren't and they do have notably different starting points, even with raw files.I've now received the Coolpix A and will still have the Ricoh GR for some days - let me know if there are some specific comparisons you are interested in.
They are both extremely capable cameras and I can't say that the quality of the images is the defining factor. They both provide sharp and detailed images and seem to have similar capabilities when it comes to higher ISO. It's more the user interface that sets them apart. The Nikon being simpler but less customizable.
-Thomas
... And the Ricoh's snap focus might be a bigger deal for street than auto-ISO for many, so it's really about knowing how you like to shoot and which suits you better. The one thing I'd say pretty close to unequivocally is the Ricoh felt better in the hand. The Nikon feels fine and its not a downside, but the the Ricoh is just soooo nice in that regard - I'll never forget the first time I picked up a GRD3 - the GR is every bit as nice.
-Ray
Agreed on manual focus, although the way I use manual focus on either of these two is almost always zone focus, so I have to rate the Ricoh the winner in that regard, but the Nikon is so quick and easy that I don't rate it much of a "loss", just not quite as good.Yes, snap focus is great on the Ricoh. On the other hand, manual focus is a disaster. The focusing aids are just a pain to use and don't seem to make it easier even when you finally figure out how to activate them. The Nikon's focus ring plus the ability to easily enlarge a portion of the screen is so much easier.
My biggest gripe with the Nikon is the lack of a way to turn the display off when using the OVF. Another issue is that the assignment for the Fn1/Fn2 buttons are not part of the User Settings. So if I set Fn1 to do AF-On then I'm stuck with that in every single mode setting, even the green auto. Would be nice to be able to store that as part of U1 or U2.
The Nikon OVF is very nice though. A bit better than the GV-2 for the Ricoh. Has better magnification and also slightly better framing accuracy. It's a bit bigger and it is pricey. Luckily Adorama is running a promotion giving $200 off on the camera and finder combo.
I got the original Sigma DP-1 years ago, but that fell out of use due to the sluggish operations. Very happy to see two capable pocketable cameras introduced into that same space now.
-Thomas
When I look at the pictures I took during the couple of weeks I owned the GR I really wish I'd kept it but like Isoterica, I just couldn't see the screen without my reading glasses and I've never liked little OVf's perched on the top of a camera. That lens has such a pretty way of capturing the light. I'm deliberating over yet another X100 or the X100s as my "compact".
When I look at the pictures I took during the couple of weeks I owned the GR I really wish I'd kept it but like Isoterica, I just couldn't see the screen without my reading glasses and I've never liked little OVf's perched on the top of a camera. That lens has such a pretty way of capturing the light. I'm deliberating over yet another X100 or the X100s as my "compact".
The GR's LCD is actually better than the X's. The GR has a 3 inch screen with a 1,230,000 dot resolution whereas the X100S has a 2.8 inch screen and 460,000 dot resolution.
With the GR resolution being as good as it is (the GRD is 920k dots IIRC) you shouldn't need a viewfinder, the GRx screens have been excellent even at midday. The X100 (can't speak about the S) is OK except in the middle of a bright sunny day... but thats why we have the VF, and even though though the EVF isnt crash hot, its better than nothing... I prefer the OVF, even with parallax issues, myself
[edit] my savings are getting me closer to landing a GR... yay! Probably another month. Perhaps I should order now