GAS: Please Share your Latest Desires Big and Small

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Location
Virginia
Real Name
Steve

gordo

Top Veteran
Location
Arizona
Real Name
Gordon
Review of GFX 50s ii

It appears it’s Achilles heel may be the AF.

Depends on what you want to use the camera for - CDAF is fine for many subjects. Personally, I'm not going to look at DMF for action/ birding/ sports as I feel there are better options available.

IMHO and YMMV

edit - just noticed you mentioned street a couple of posts earlier - there is at least one person I saw posting on a fuji forum using a 50R as his walk-around camera and I think a number of his shots would be considered street.

edit 2 - also have seen BIF images done with 50R and 50S, with caveat of heavy crop.
 
Last edited:
Location
S. Oregon Coast
Real Name
Andrew L
This probably goes without saying, but the freshly announced Ricoh GRIIIx with new 40mm-equiv f2.8 lens is mighty appealing to me. 40mm is my favorite focal length. It remains to be seen how good the lens is, as the GRIII lens is a big part of what makes the camera so good. I'm really hoping the new 26.1mm lens has similar sharpness, along with a bit more DoF control (though not much, except at close focus).

The bigger question is, could I live with just the 40mm lens, or would I need to have both the 28mm and 40mm GR cameras? 28mm is special in its own way, it is one of my favorites, just not as easy to use. Most of my film lenses are in the 35-40mm range, I could see shifting to wide angle for film instead of digital. Or get the Panny 14mm for the EM5ii.
 
Location
S. Oregon Coast
Real Name
Andrew L
They are certainly different focal lengths, and demand a different frame of mind when shooting. The 28mm gets lots and lots of context, though it also has the capability of singling out your main subject if you get close enough, changing the size relationship between your subject (close elements) and setting (background). In that way, it's a storyteller's lens, and requires a holistic treatment of the scene.

But that's hard, sometimes. I have said before, I get into periods where the 28mm just seems like an unintelligible foreign tongue to me. The 40mm, by contrast, is more here-and-now, more like "look at this," more of an editorial, snipped away part of reality. It's easier to arrange what you want to be in the frame because the edges of the frame are much more workable and compliant. You can fire off a shot more quickly and still come away with what you want.

At their best, storytelling shots with a 28mm wow me - see Garry Winogrand's work. But I consistently come away with better shots, at least better street shots, with 40mm.
 
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Matt
They are certainly different focal lengths, and demand a different frame of mind when shooting. The 28mm gets lots and lots of context, though it also has the capability of singling out your main subject if you get close enough, changing the size relationship between your subject (close elements) and setting (background). In that way, it's a storyteller's lens, and requires a holistic treatment of the scene.

But that's hard, sometimes. I have said before, I get into periods where the 28mm just seems like an unintelligible foreign tongue to me. The 40mm, by contrast, is more here-and-now, more like "look at this," more of an editorial, snipped away part of reality. It's easier to arrange what you want to be in the frame because the edges of the frame are much more workable and compliant. You can fire off a shot more quickly and still come away with what you want.

At their best, storytelling shots with a 28mm wow me - see Garry Winogrand's work. But I consistently come away with better shots, at least better street shots, with 40mm.
Don't get me wrong - I'm really into *looking* at shots from 28mm lenses; some of us (you among them, Andrew) really know how to make this lens/FoV sing - and even I have had some good results, not least because of the superb GR III and its great lens. But I struggle, personally. I don't with 40mm (32mm to 45mm, really - which is peculiar, but there you go). My moderate wide is 35mm - that's how I "see". Longer's fine, usually. And strangely, 20mm/21mm is, too. Go figure ...

Somehow, I think the fantastic work others do with 28mm may play a part in explaining my personal unease ...

M.
 

John King

Regular
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
Oh, gosh ... This'll be hard to resist if the lens is good enough. That said, since acquiring the Nikon Z 28mm f/2.8 SE, I have this base covered - and then some.

However, for me, it might be worth switching from the GR III to the GR IIIx ... I'm way(!) more comfortable shooting 40mm-e than 28mm-e.

M.
I'm the exact opposite, Matt.

I had a lovely 40mm lens for years, and almost never used it. Used my OM 28mm all the time, and 24-28mm (EFL) all the time. This is where high quality zooms are so good. You can just slip that 31mm or 68mm on for that rare shot.

Ever since decent zooms became available, I use primes only very rarely.

The new 8-25mm is calling me by name ... ;) .
 

rayvonn

Hall of Famer
Location
London
Having a small GR unit, placing the viewfinder on top, attaching a larger extension lens, seeing a 50mm/70mm view….interesting and certainly different that’s for sure.
 

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Location
Virginia
Real Name
Steve
I’ve already sold the Nikon Coolpix A and Fuji X70. For that matter, the Fuji X100V is gone as well. But I like normal lenses and 40 is close enough, especially in a truly pocketable body.
 
Location
S. Oregon Coast
Real Name
Andrew L
I’ve already sold the Nikon Coolpix A and Fuji X70. For that matter, the Fuji X100V is gone as well. But I like normal lenses and 40 is close enough, especially in a truly pocketable body.
Since no one has said it yet... a 40mm GR with its snap focus is awfully close to a modern take on a Rollei 35 (or Petri Color 35). Just, with 90s industrial style instead of beautiful late 60s style.
 
Location
S. Oregon Coast
Real Name
Andrew L
I've been really really happy with the GRIII sensor and the way the files handle. It may not quite be a foveon sensor at their best, but my understanding was that in challenging lighting you seldom get ideal results from the foveons. The GRIII captures subtlety of color and tone in all kinds of conditions. I'm especially happy with how it handles shadows. Add in a little bit of shallow DoF (whatever the 26.1mm lens can produce) and I think it'll really shine for artistic and atmospheric photos.
 
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Matt
The more I look into this, the more I think that while I would probably love the FoV, also, my gripes with the GR III (mainly my issues with framing - the annoyingly reflecting screen that will not take a protective cover with any kind of reliability, the extreme breathing of the lens; but also the fact that I had a huge chunk of "something" either on the sensor or within the lens that ruined images - after three months of moderate use) will be replicated exactly. So, my initial GAS surge is already waning ... Two years ago, I'd have pre-ordered without a second thought. Now, I'm not even sure that I'll follow the GR IIIx's upcoming coverage ...

The GR III is a fantastic imaging machine that's stuck in a body that, in spite of all its merits, has severe deficiencies to my eyes - and the new camera doesn't address those in any way.

I'll hang back, that's for sure.

M.
 
Last edited:

mike3996

Hall of Famer
Location
Finland
I'd have real problems choosing between the focal lengths. :D

28 and 40 are unfortunately so close to each other I don't know if I'd feel smart owning both. 40 is nice but obviously it's not as snap-focusable as the 28.

Have to let it be for the time being.


PS. Wonder how the wide angle adapter (GW21 was it called?) would work on the GR3x.
 
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Matt
Here we go again ...


Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes ...

Sorry.

M.
 
Top