On 11/9/2016 9:40 PM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
I am not denying the need for different lenses etc. And when I travel or drive, I have a bag
with my Fuji X or Leica M outfit with a range of lenses. But I thought the discussion here
was about small, compact cameras that one can always carry, even in situations where carrying
a “proper” camera is not practical. It is in this context that I prefer my
Ricoh GR to anything else I have tried for that purpose
As I just said in a reply to Chris, it's all a matter of what compromises one is willing to make. If I carried a fixed
FL, ~43 mm eq. camera, I would be endlessly dissatisfied. You aren't, and more power to you. Also, I don't cycle.
(including the Panasonic LX 100 which, while it has a good zoom range, just
does not have the same image quality as the Ricoh).
No, it doesn't. It isn't up to their µ4/3 camera sensors. And in fact, the GR II seems to have a very slight edge on the
GM5 at lower ISOs, pixel peeping @ 100%. I doubt any difference would ever be visible in practical display, and anyway,
the above still applies. A GR II sitting at the bottom of a lake or ravine, flung there by a frustrated photographer,
has no IQ.
So, my ". . . compact camera that one can always carry, even in situations where carrying a “proper” camera is not
practical . . ." is different and slightly larger than yours. Same height and width, but the separate lens makes it deeper.
Lost Images Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|