More widescreen is exactly it. Of course, just based on pics and vids, tbf
No way I would buy this camera. Even if I could afford it I’m missing the IBIS.
This said I would want a 44x44 mm sensor instead of the 44x33 one. Then I could make landscape and portrait format photos without the need to tilt the camera. The cost of the larger sensor with it’s unused corners would probably still fit in the 5 grand.
DSLR camera and lens sizes were held back by the need to project a fairly collimated image out of the rear lens element, to make it through the big chonking mirror box. Mirrorless of course doesn’t need that any more, but it still has the shutter assembly between the lens and the sensor. Fixed-lens cameras typically get even closer, with a focal plane shutter.
So I’m hoping that before too long, electronic-shutter-only cameras will become the norm, and with them, lenses of fixed-lens-equivalent sizes. Although this will likely require some mount modifications or sternly worded labelling to prevent damaging physical shutters. (Perhaps the lens could electronically tell the body to NOT EVER engage a physical shutter with this lens?).
This would essentially allow any ILC to become as small as an X100 or RX1. A dream come true!
Another complication could be microlenses, which apparently need to be offset slightly for very close rear lens elements, or risk vignetting. On the other hand, this seems to be less of an issue with modern BSI sensors, where the microlenses are closer to the photosites, and therefore aren’t as prone to vignetting for non-collimated light.
If this sounds like I know things, I don’t. It’s just rumours I’ve heard that sound plausible enough and seem to agree with what I know about digital camera tech. Still, I’m optimistic that electronic-shutter-only cameras will allow a significant size reduction in lenses, if it can somehow be handled by the mount.
4 Likes
Aren’t there negative side effect of placing glass near a digital sensor? Particularly for wide angle lenses?
Zeiss for instance continues to use retrofocus designs for milcs even when they in theory don’t need it? I thought it was because the sensor can’t cope with the ray angles the way film can.
I’ve not thought about this much but milcs seem much more prone to sensor flare? That spotty looking flare that is quite common these days
My understanding is that the advantages aren’t as straight cut as much online discussion suggests?
1 Like
I’ve read somewhere that BSI sensors are less affected by that. The theory is that the stack of photosite, electronics, and microlens is fairly tall, and thus blocks oblique rays. The BSI stack is less tall, and works better. I’ve also read that the RX1 uses an offset microlens array that compensates for the effect.
As far as I know, the spotty flare is caused by the autofocus pixels, which have half the pixel blocked by a slightly reflective surface. In certain lighting situations, this can lead to colored dot-grid flare.
Anecdotally, I have seen this type of flare in my old camera, but haven’t yet seen it in my newer ones. So perhaps this was solved somehow?
Sounds like this doesn’t mean there will be native GF leaf shutter lenses any time soon:
Leaf shutter in a mirrorless would mean all new lenses, no? So this isn’t that surprising.
I still sort of want one tho. Perhaps I can rent one when they’re generally available.
2 Likes
Yes indeed. And the other thing to ensure that the dream is a happy one is for them to stop removing the EVF/OVF from compact bodies! I would consider an X-M5, S9, GRIII, ZV or any number of other compact bodies if they had a viewfinder!
1 Like
Apparently they considered it on this camera, but it added too much to the size.
I used to think that I need an xVF, but I learned composing with eyes, and just exposing with the camera (a final check that stuff is more-or-less in place, which you can do with the LCD even in bright sun).
I am now fine with LCDs on the back, even aged or inferior ones. With that in mind, I was even considering the initially maligned Panasonic S9, but found that it has become popular so used prices are almost near the new price on MPB.
I wish that more people would impulse-buy stuff that I like, get bored with it, and dump it on the used market for peanuts.
1 Like
I suppose you could stick on an analog window finder onto the hot shoe (I’ve tried this with my Ricoh GR, didn’t like it). More importantly, they could have allowed the Sigma BF to use a hotshoe electronic viewfinder. But didn’t.
I sort of want to get used to just using an LCD as it would open up more camera body possibilities for me, but it’s not just the practical side of composing/shooting, it’s the immersion. I just really enjoy the immersion of putting my eye to a viewfinder and composing my shot. I feel like LCD shooting is much more of a spray-and-pray approach. I suppose it doesn’t have to be but there seems less thought put into it.
I’ve been increasingly tempted by an X-Pro for this very reason. I want a more traditional viewfinder experience as well as the option to switch to a more modern EVF experience. One of my gripes about EVFs on modern mirrorless cameras is that you need to switch the camera on to use the viewfinder. I miss just putting my DSLR up to my eyes to just check out a composition.
Yes! As mentioned above, I’m looking at older cameras like the X-Pro, but there aren’t many around and even old ones like the X-Pro 1 are still really expensive.
1 Like
What didn’t you like about it? I suppose one of the big benefits of the Ricoh is its compact size and adding an accessory on the hot shoe suddenly makes it less pocketable. But I like the idea of having it as an option on bodies that exclude an xVF.
1 Like
Imho the GR is different because of its one hand operation and the 28mm equiv fov. For that camera a viewfinder is limiting. I mostly shoot blind with it.
Saying that I do have a hotshoe viewfinder for it which I like when I carry the GR on a string/strap. I do this mostly when it’s hot and even the GR is annoying to pocket. I like that viewfinder because it makes the camera even “dumber”. Just look though a block of glass and press the shutter. Focus confirmation is visible as the green led is in the outer field of view .
3 Likes
This is the main reason why I don’t have an external view finder for my GR.
I’ve found that even when I can’t see the LCD screen that well, like when the sun is hitting it, that it doesn’t matter that much since as long as I can make out something on the LCD then my composition is OK. I am continually surprised by this, since I am usually Mr. Tripod.
2 Likes
Probably mostly that I bought an incredibly crappy, tiny $15 finder. And that I’ve shot the GR for many years, and habitually shoot it blind.
But also that the body is awkwardly small and unergonomic to hold in front of my face. It’s too small to hold with two hands, there’s no good place for the left hand to go. And there’s so little room on top of the camera, that the viewfinder either needs to be weirdly big, or it’s smushed strangely close to the body.
Either way, I could probably get used to it, with a better viewfinder. But my crappy one showed me that I don’t need or want that. It’s not how I want to use a GR. But that’s on me, and not necessarily a fault of the camera.
2 Likes
You both have confirmed that you shoot the Ricoh GR in a way similar to what I called the “spray and pray” in an earlier comment. That sounds way harsher than it’s meant to because of course you are still envisaging a composition and knowing what will probably make a nice image. But the shooting style seems based on the fact that you can’t always see the composition clearly and you know that the lens field of view will capture what you want.
It’s a specific style of shooting that I haven’t really tried, and maybe that’s the key to these types of cameras. Do you find you need to crop a fair amount in post? Do you have another larger camera that you use differently, e.g. viewfinder, tripod, more “serious” than snapshots?
Spray and pray usually refers to shooting in continuous mode. The way I use the GR does result in more complete fails than my viewfinder camera but the keeper rate is probably higher. Don’t know how that works.
1 Like
Maybe “click and hope” would be more accurate, but I have seen YouTubers shoot like this with rapid shots taken at different angles of a subject they like, with the hope that one will be decent.
I think not having a viewfinder is an advantage of the GR in that it encourages use at different heights and angles rather than just at eye level, which is in some ways the most predictable and unadventurous way to shoot. Not that it’s impossible to shoot like the GR on a standard camera or vice versa but it does encourage invention, I think. Also, spray and pray might get a bad name, but it’s the photojournalist’s standard MO, at least since digital. I’ve got some nice shots from shooting blind with a regular mirrorless camera with viewfinder because I’ve been able to get an unusual angle
2 Likes
I guess if I would have to use a camera with no view finder it would probably be “shoot and forget” for every single photo.
It’s different when I use the phone, though. Probably screen size is the reason?