vic vic Posted September 2, 2007 Share #21 Â Posted September 2, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) ah ..... and isn't it enough to repeat this slogan all the time in all the cases even if it has nothing to do in that occasion :: use what ever camera u want..... it is all about artist not the camera......... ???? ya i know it ........... believe me i know it very welllll.............. the place of the artist and the place of the camera (and it has its place too)........... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 2, 2007 Posted September 2, 2007 Hi vic vic, Take a look here GX100: Excellent review by Sean Reid. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
hankg Posted September 2, 2007 Share #22 Â Posted September 2, 2007 oh hank ...... thank u for telling me that............. Â no...... dont agree ........ i think the implied statement is :: replace the film by some electronic junk cause the noise that it makes is just like thaht legendary old good tri-x ......... Â film is not only grain by the way........... but if one thinks that film grain (of fine or grainy films) can be replaced/emulated by electronic junk noisy then it is clear that the one simply has not much clue about the grain.......... im telling u.... it is all about sitting too much infornt of computer and thinking that it IS the REFERANCE Â You're welcome Vic. Yes you can replace your film with electronic junk and make images like Mitch has shown which are very good images and worth looking at. Just like you can with film. Â The reference to Tri-X was not to imply that it is the same. It's a point of reference, a figure of speech meaning the small sensor files are noisier with a different look then the M8. Sort of like 35mm to medium format. Â If a viewer finds your work compelling it's not going to be because you used film, or a Leica, it's because you had something to say. Is that a statement of the obvious? Maybe, but listening to some you would think it can't be art if it's not made with a Leica, or film or whatever. Electronic noise and crappy small sensor electronic junk camera is what it is, embrace it, work with it -it's it's own aesthetic it's not an emulation of anything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted September 2, 2007 Share #23 Â Posted September 2, 2007 Film looks like film. The GRD files look like GRD images. M8 images look like M8 images.,,,,, i differ here in that, for example....... via photoshop I can get scanned film and m8 files pretty spot on to look like GRD images........... no way can I get the GRD to dumb up.,,,,,, autochrome still can't do it in digital but I am getting there......etc,etc Prints are a different ball game but on a screen most couldn't tell what camera was used without the data,,,,, no use yapping about the famous Leica bokeh as all photographers don't see bokeh as important so that's out of the equation......too many variables for single blankets Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted September 2, 2007 Share #24  Posted September 2, 2007 ,,,,, i differ here in that, for example....... via photoshop I can get scanned film and m8 files pretty spot on to look like GRD images........... no way can I get the GRD to dumb up.,,,,,, autochrome still can't do it in digital but I am getting there......etc,etc Prints are a different ball game but on a screen most couldn't tell what camera was used without the data,,,,, no use yapping about the famous Leica bokeh as all photographers don't see bokeh as important so that's out of the equation......too many variables for single blankets  Well you have a lot to work with in the scanned film and M8 files. You can always loose information but you can't put in something that wasn't there to begin with. So if you need consistency you have to go to the lowest common denominator. You are accepting a very narrow window with small sensor if you like it great if not -not.  As to film grain and noise it's like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Each is what it is -even if I could make a simulation that could fool anyone in print it's not worth arguing about film versus digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted September 2, 2007 Share #25  Posted September 2, 2007 mitch....... the new, the old ricoh (and for that matter the leica dlux2 that i have) are really cool camera ..... simply fantatstic for what they are ..... and from time to time they even make something that looks like photograph especially when they are in the hands of people who are already photographers..... if i decide to upgrade mine, probably it would be that ricoh rather than lieca dlux3 again........ for me too ..... the fixed like focals are more to my taste and there are some basic features that should work nicely for minimalist as me.......indeed those type of cameras are funny and give some nice oprtunities to play with.......  but...... u tell me now......... how u come to the point thinking that ricoh (or any digi) files look like film ???? dont tell me what sean thinks....... i have no interest in it.......... sean made bombastic statements how m8 is compared to medium film ........ so knowing his statements and the files..... i simply have no interest to hear more........ now u tell me yourself........ when was the last time u holded film in your hand..... when was the last time u made fine silver print from it.......... ????? how so eassily without any thought sitting infront on computer monitor u talk about film ?????????????  pay attention to the words u say.......... take some responsibility about the things u say........ b/w looks like film........... what a kitsch statement.......... relax man........ Youre right, I haven't shot film, with my M6, for 13 months, since I bought my GR-D. Today, the best B&W (lab) printer in Bangkok came over and I gave him three 500ml bottle of Rodinal and some hundred rolls of refrigerrated Tri-X, HP5+ and Neopan 1600. While he was here he looked at two huge prints, one taken with the M6 (100x150cm) and the other with the GR-D (100x133cm). As a master darkroom printer he looked at them and said that the film shot had sharper grain then the digital, but he had to get within 10cm of these prints to be able to say that.  Now, of course, both prints are digital. My own feeling is that if you're going to print digitally you might as well take the picture digitally because, conveptually, it doesn't really make sense to me to photography a scene on film and then re-photograph the film, which is what you're doing by scanning. Ultimately, what I care about is how the print looks, and I have been happy with my K3 prints. I tend just to use the noise of the digital camera, as I don't have the skill or inclination to try to copy film grain the way Imants does.  —Mitch/Bangkok http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted September 2, 2007 Share #26 Â Posted September 2, 2007 Hank I never proposed an argument film vs digital or even hinted at it or even would I bother... ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, . I am happy to use noise/grain to capture an odd, thought, situation.......... I just bruise and rough up my files Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted September 2, 2007 Share #27  Posted September 2, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hank I never proposed an argument film vs digital or even hinted at it or even would I bother... ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, . I am happy to use noise/grain to capture an odd, thought, situation.......... I just bruise and rough up my files  I wasn't suggesting you were. However, some would take offense if you suggested you could get the effect of film with any digital file. And mixing film and digital and bending it to your own vision -heresy! digital sucks! or something like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted September 2, 2007 Share #28 Â Posted September 2, 2007 What about the Canon G6 as an alternative/back up to an M8? It is a pretty adequate lens, a fairly quiet sensor and has a quick RAW recycle time as it has a large buffer. 7.1Mp may be enough for a back-up camera. I was never a Canon fan until I got my last back-up (since "acquired" by my son) of the 850IS Ixus. My only real dislike on it was the somewhat heavy-handed JPEG processing. New G6's are available cheaply, now that the G7 has come out. The G7 does not have the swiveling screen and RAW facility that the G6 does, although it is 10Mp. Â Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted September 2, 2007 Share #29  Posted September 2, 2007 What about the Canon G6 as an alternative/back up to an M8? It is a pretty adequate lens, a fairly quiet sensor and has a quick RAW recycle time as it has a large buffer. 7.1Mp may be enough for a back-up camera. I was never a Canon fan until I got my last back-up (since "acquired" by my son) of the 850IS Ixus. My only real dislike on it was the somewhat heavy-handed JPEG processing. New G6's are available cheaply, now that the G7 has come out. The G7 does not have the swiveling screen and RAW facility that the G6 does, although it is 10Mp.  Wilson  How about a refurbished RD-1 it can take your M lenses or a cheap DSLR with a 50/1.4 prime would probably not cost much more then a fancy point and shoot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted September 2, 2007 Share #30 Â Posted September 2, 2007 But I didn't Hank ..............so why the goof off!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted September 2, 2007 Share #31 Â Posted September 2, 2007 But I didn't Hank ..............so why the goof off!! Â It wasn't aimed in your direction. Peace. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted September 2, 2007 Share #32 Â Posted September 2, 2007 sure reads that way.........................sleep Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 2, 2007 Share #33  Posted September 2, 2007 Having read Sean's review, I have put the GX100, which I was seriously contemplating for a back up camera, on hold. I take about 90% colour and at 200ISO and above it is just too noisy. If you convert the RAW to B&W, this may be acceptable as "grain" but to me on colour it is just plain nasty. It is why I so dislike my wife's D-Lux Mk1. The RAW write to card, although better than the GR-D is still too slow as well. I think I will wait until Sigma sort out the overheating batteries on the DP1. Wilson  Hi Wilson,  It does indeed show a lot of noise at higher ISOs, as does the GR, D-Lux 2/3, etc. If one filters the chrominance noise (only) the files look a good deal better (to my eye). But, the nature of the beast is that small sensor cameras don't provide clean files at higher ISO levels. Manufacturers claim this for some models but its all just heavy smoothing (that includes the Fuji). The 2/3 sensor cameras (like the D2) were a little better in this respect.  The DP-1 is the natural alternative to think about if it ever makes it into production. I'm eager to test one.  Cheers,  Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted September 2, 2007 Share #34 Â Posted September 2, 2007 How about a refurbished RD-1 it can take your M lenses or a cheap DSLR with a 50/1.4 prime would probably not cost much more then a fancy point and shoot. Â Hank, Â I thought about a refurb RD-1 but they are about GBP1,000+. Also I want fairly small, not just another M8. A G6/GX100/DP1 is about the top end of the size I would want, otherwise I would go for either a Sony Alpha 100, which have become so cheap they will be giving them away with a tank of petrol next week or an Oly 300/330, which can take Leica 4/3rds lenses. Â Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 2, 2007 Share #35  Posted September 2, 2007 What about the Canon G6 as an alternative/back up to an M8? It is a pretty adequate lens, a fairly quiet sensor and has a quick RAW recycle time as it has a large buffer. 7.1Mp may be enough for a back-up camera. I was never a Canon fan until I got my last back-up (since "acquired" by my son) of the 850IS Ixus. My only real dislike on it was the somewhat heavy-handed JPEG processing. New G6's are available cheaply, now that the G7 has come out. The G7 does not have the swiveling screen and RAW facility that the G6 does, although it is 10Mp.  Wilson  Wilson,  You brought us back on topic. I want to test the G9 (which will have RAW) and we'll see how Canon mixes into the fray. But the way the GX100 works with external finders is really something special and the controls design is excellent as well. I admire the originality and hope others learn from it.  Cheers,  Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 2, 2007 Share #36 Â Posted September 2, 2007 How about a refurbished RD-1 it can take your M lenses or a cheap DSLR with a 50/1.4 prime would probably not cost much more then a fancy point and shoot. Â The R-D1 is a great backup to the M8. Â Cheers, Â Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted September 2, 2007 Share #37  Posted September 2, 2007 In my mind neither the GR-D nor the GX100 should be characterized and point and shoots "for the missus": maybe I'm reading you wrong Hank, but I read you statement as similar to whart someone wrote on tis forum about the GR-D: "an okay camera for my wife bur..." Besides the sexist the sexist slur of the latter statement, and not your's, I hope, the idea that these cameras are point and shoots does not do justice to the small sensor format: these are serious, and innovtive, cameras — and a new format as seminal as the Leica III series of cameras. Indeed Ricoh has been highly innovtive: in 1996 they introduced the GR1, a GR-D-sized 35mm film camera with a superb 28mm lens folllowed by the GR21, which has the same size with a 21mm lens. These two cameras became cult classics, and sold very well in Japan, where the GR-D, with its 28mm EFOV lens and surprisingly excellent 21mm adapter lens, intended as the digital replacement for the GR film cameras. As far as I'm aware Moriyama Daido, one of Jaoan's foremost photographers, and my favourite, has used the GR1 and and GR21 almost exclusively: there is an interesting essay in his recent book, Buenos Aires, in which an Argentinian photographer who accompanied a local interpreter to meer the photographer writes how surprised be was when he met Moriyama: he had been loking foward to the "complex cameras" he thought that the famous photographer "from the land of high-tech gadgets" would have — instead Moriyma put down two cigarette-packet sized "toys" on the cafe table, the GR1 and the GR21.  Incidentally, when in Tokyo last week, I alsi bought two new Moriyama books: Danger Zone/Erotika — nothiing erotic in the Araki sense, but only, as the essay states, "striping cities bare" — and Hawai, as 400+ page bok. I htink both are very good, and a must for people interested in either Moriyama or street photography. There are so many more good photography books published in Jaoan than from anywhere else, and I wish they were more easliy available abroad. These two books can be ordered from Amazon/Japan (http://www.amazon.co.jp), on which there is a choice for English on the home page, but the shipping cost is rather expensive.  Finally, Imants, I agree what you say about being close to the subject, but nevertheless, sometimes one wants to reduce what's in the frame for which the 21 and 22mm EFOVs are just to close and the 35 and 50mm are sometimes more effective for this purpose. Here is a GR-D shot from Tsukiji in Tokyo last week:   BTW, the above pciture, while fine as a TIFF, comes out a touch too dark when converted to JPG, which hapoens often to dark shots. Is there any other way to dealing with this other than lightening the pciture before converting to JPG?  —Mitch/Bangkok Mitch Alland's slideshow on Flickr  Mitch try converting your B&W image back to srgb than try posting it up. It should hold Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted September 2, 2007 Share #38  Posted September 2, 2007 Another alternative. You can change the character of the M8 by cropping out and converting to B&W with appropriate massaging in post. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/32448-gx100-excellent-review-by-sean-reid/?do=findComment&comment=344349'>More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted September 2, 2007 Share #39  Posted September 2, 2007 Mitch try converting your B&W image back to srgb than try posting it up. It should holdThanks, Guy. I'll try that. This means that I won't convert the picture to grayscale. —MItch/Bangkok Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted September 2, 2007 Share #40 Â Posted September 2, 2007 Well you can still go to greyscale than to srgb but if your working in RGB right now for the B&W than that is the issue your still in RGB when you post so yes than you certainly need to convert to srgb for the web. Try it and repost that image, it should match your screen now on the tiff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.