Ray Sachs
Legend
- Location
- Not too far from Philly
- Name
- you should be able to figure it out...
In anticipation of the Ricoh GR and the comparisons already well underway with the Nikon Coolpix A, I thought I'd compare and contrast the two interfaces, which may be the biggest practical difference between the two cameras. Although I obviously haven't held a GR yet, I'm very familiar with the Ricoh UI from having owned a GRD3 and currently owning a GXR-28 and having read about everything there is to read on the coming GR. And I'm quite familiar with the Nikon Coolpix A, having shot with one pretty intensively for a month. For those considering both, it appears that there will be minimal differences in IQ, with potential differences in corner sharpness wide open and raw performance at high ISO being mostly of concern to fairly intensive pixel peepers rather than the general population. Then again, one might presume that the portion of the population considering these two cameras might have a fair amount in common with the pixel peeping portion of the population! But it seems likely that the primary differences between these two cameras will come down to feel, interface, and usefulness in the field. So, with that comparison in mind, here's my take. And as usual, my take revolves around a combination of street shooting and more general scenic and architectural and abstract shooting, pursuits that both of these cameras are well suited to...
Ricoh has a well deserved reputation for having among the most customizable interfaces ever. Ricoh's long and somewhat convoluted menus are rivaled only by those used by Olympus, and some people hate both, but in both cases, the intent is to offer such a high level of customization that once you've spent some time in the menus setting UP the camera, you should rarely ever have to visit them again. Relatively steep learning curve for someone new to the system, but once customized, among the quickest and most intuitive interfaces available. The Nikon OTOH, uses a more traditional interface where the most common 4-5 functions can be made very easily available, but secondary controls require some degree of menu diving, or at least "I" button diving...
The primary things I like to adjust quickly when I'm shooting are aperture (and shutter speed while shooting manual), exposure comp (which I use a LOT street shooting as I move in and out of the sun and shade and am suddenly faced with odd lighting situations), and ISO. On the Nikon, the aperture and shutter speed are controlled with the two dials (thumb dial and around the 4-way). ISO, as with more and more modern cameras, is not an issue because the auto ISO design is so good. You can shoot in aperture priority and designate both the min and max ISO and a minimum shutter speed that can range from one second to 1/1000, or you can shoot in the equivalent of Ricoh/Pentax's TaV mode, set the aperture and shutter yourself, let ISO float, and adjust exposure comp to taste.
The Nikon has a dedicated exposure comp button on the left side of the back, but I also designated the fn button on the front of the camera for exposure comp, which has two advantages. First, that button is easily reachable at all times with your right pinky or ring finger, so holding that down and turning the thumb dial is an instant one handed operation. Also, although undocumented, you HAVE to put it there did you want a TaV mode because in manual mode, the normally designated exposure comp button (which does require the left hand) is essentially a toggle that causes the thumb dial to control aperture rather than shutter speed, leaving you without the ability to adjust exposure comp. With the fn button on the front designated for exposure comp, you've given yourself a very good and undocumented TaV mode that's operable with one hand. The other fn button doubles as the ISO button and is on the left side and I'd designate that for something I use but not as often like bracketing or WB or something. The auto ISO function on the Nikon is not as easily reached as it should be, not being available on the regular ISO menu (or from the ISO button). One has to enter the menu to adjust the maximum ISO and minimum shutter speed (the minimum ISO, as with the X100, is based on the manually set ISO, which can be done from the ISO button/menu). This approach made me somewhat crazy on the X100 (although that was worse because you had to got to TWO different menus to get to these functions), but it doesn't bother me on the Nikon because the auto-ISO is so thoroughly configurable and because it works in manual mode with the exposure compensation still operable. With this implementation of auto-ISO, I basically never switched out of it, so not having an easy way to switch between manual and auto ISO doesn't bother me as on other cameras in the past. I'd basically leave the ISO set to auto with a minimum of 100, maximum of 6400, and minimum shutter speed of 1/250 (it can be set as high as 1/1000). Those settings govern in aperture priority mode - when I want more specific control over the shutter speed I just switch to manual mode and control the shutter speed directly.
The Ricoh allows for customization to the point that ISO can be constantly available by just flicking the ADJ lever to the left or right (no button pushing to "arm" it is required) and I'm quite sure that auto-ISO is available directly from that menu of choices, as on previous Ricohs. This approach has been an enormous advantage on previous Ricohs where one often needed to adjust ISO on the fly, particularly with the small sensor GRD models (not so much on the GXR, where auto-ISO was a pretty good option). On the new model with its best yet Ricoh sensor, I suspect this adjustment will be a lot less necessary because the auto-ISO and TaV options should make auto-ISO the natural choice the vast majority of the time, as with the Nikon. Ricoh also has exposure compensation directly armed at all times on the "zoom" rocker switch, so no button pushing is required for that either, whereas on the Nikon, one must push a button and turn the dial simultaneously. Both are instant one handed operations, but the Ricoh is a bit less complex. Both of them are basically instant adjustments though. One other advantage of the Ricoh here, although I'd actually see it as more of a DISadvantage of the Nikon, is that the Ricoh always shows the current exposure comp setting on the rear screen. The Nikon, oddly, does not - you have to push the exposure comp button not only to adjust the setting, but to even SEE the setting. Nikon should fix this in firmware ponto!
But, overall, for these basic controls over aperture, shutter speed, exposure compensation, and ISO, the cameras are pretty closely matched once you've used each and are in the field. I slightly prefer the Ricoh approach, but in use, I never had any problem with the Nikon - it never slowed me down or made me think too hard about what I was trying to do. After a short period of acclimation, both cameras "flow" in use and are wonderful shooters.
Which brings us to the question of manual focus, which many will use either of these cameras with for zone focussing on the street. Ricoh has its very well known and brand-specific "snap focus" method of setting the manual focus distance for zone focus. This is fairly quick and easy (although the GRD4 and now GR make it a bit less convenient than it was on the GRD3 and GXR, requiring two pushes of the ADJ button and a dial turn, rather than just holding down one button while turning the dial). By designating one of the fn buttons to toggle between snap focus and AF, the camera can instantly switch between the two modes, with the manual (or "snap") focus distance always recalled when you switch back to that mode. The Nikon has nothing like snap focus, instead using a focus ring on the lens and a pretty good distance scale on the screen (though no DOF scale, which I actually prefer due to the conservatism of most electronic DOF scales). If you use the "press through snap" feature a lot on the Ricoh, there's no substitute on the Nikon - nothing like it. I never use that feature though - I never could get a feel for it and I'd lose too many shots for either not pressing hard enough and just refocusing the AF or pressing too hard and jerking the camera. The Nikon is a little slower to switch between auto and manual focus because you have to reset the focus ring each time you switch - it doesn't have a "sticky" memory for the last manual focus distance used. I thought this would be a real hassle, but in use I found it was a very quick process that became second nature within an hour or so of getting used to the camera. The focus mode switch on the side is a very quick switch between the manual and auto focus mode, and I found it almost instantaneous to switch to manual focus and turn the focus ring a fraction of a turn to move from infinity down to the 4-6 foot range I tend to use for zone focus. People who really love snap focus might find the Nikon inconvenient - I find snap focus to be one pretty effective way to implement zone focussing, but actually prefer a lens ring focus control all other things being equal (I actually love the GXR, which has both a focus ring AND snap focus). This is a matter of personal preference - somehow a rotary control that's directly linked to a focus scale just seems quicker and more intuitive to me than having to push a button and turn a dial to switch between discrete manual focus distances and then push the button again to accept the new distance. So I find the Nikon very quick and intuitive and the focus ring can easily be fine tuned just using the right hand. Old time Ricoh fans will no doubt prefer the GR here, but I actually prefer the Nikon with its lens ring to snap focus. If you switch back and forth between auto and manual focus a LOT, the Ricoh is more convenient with its manual focus memory and the ability to instantly toggle between the two modes. I find that I tend to do batches of manual focus shooting interspersed with batches of AF shooting so I'm not constantly switching and I found the Nikon more than quick and easy enough to switch on the fly when I did.
For second level functions that one may switch from time to time but not constantly (things like WB, bracketing, AF area, metering mode, etc), the Ricoh can be customized to put these functions within easier reach than the Nikon, and for some that will be a major advantage. On the Nikon, they're most quickly accessed using the "I" button, which brings up a whole grid of such functions on the rear screen to move between and adjust. This button is basically the same thing as the "Q" button found on the Fuji cameras or the "super control panel" found on Olympus cameras. I personally find more it more than fast enough for changing these types of secondary controls, but if there are a few of these controls that you use as often as things like aperture and exposure compensation adjustments, the Ricoh can put them about a half-step closer (either on an fn button or as one of several scrollable options under the ADJ toggle). On the Nikon, I found myself using the rear control screen menu so rarely I'd forget it was there and had to remind myself that it was a convenient way to get to some occasionally used items.
On balance, I personally prefer the Ricoh interface (except for lack of focus ring, where I prefer the Nikon), but its a very slight preference. The Nikon was basically as quick and intuitive once I'd spent a little time with it. A lot of Ricoh lovers seem find the Ricoh interface to be the holy grail of all camera interfaces and find it vastly superior to any other. On other forums, many have been trashing the Nikon for its "menu driven" interface. And I actually like the Ricoh UI as much as anyone, but not to the exclusion of other interfaces that I find equally good, if different. I find the difference between the Ricoh and Nikon interfaces pretty minimal when actually using them in the field. A slight advantage to the Ricoh for me, but two small firmware fixes (make the MF distance sticky when you power the camera off and on and always display the exposure comp setting on the rear screen) and I'd like the Nikon interface every bit as much, if not more, for how I shoot. Both are great cameras but different in operation and one should understand the operational differences before choosing one.
-Ray
Ricoh has a well deserved reputation for having among the most customizable interfaces ever. Ricoh's long and somewhat convoluted menus are rivaled only by those used by Olympus, and some people hate both, but in both cases, the intent is to offer such a high level of customization that once you've spent some time in the menus setting UP the camera, you should rarely ever have to visit them again. Relatively steep learning curve for someone new to the system, but once customized, among the quickest and most intuitive interfaces available. The Nikon OTOH, uses a more traditional interface where the most common 4-5 functions can be made very easily available, but secondary controls require some degree of menu diving, or at least "I" button diving...
The primary things I like to adjust quickly when I'm shooting are aperture (and shutter speed while shooting manual), exposure comp (which I use a LOT street shooting as I move in and out of the sun and shade and am suddenly faced with odd lighting situations), and ISO. On the Nikon, the aperture and shutter speed are controlled with the two dials (thumb dial and around the 4-way). ISO, as with more and more modern cameras, is not an issue because the auto ISO design is so good. You can shoot in aperture priority and designate both the min and max ISO and a minimum shutter speed that can range from one second to 1/1000, or you can shoot in the equivalent of Ricoh/Pentax's TaV mode, set the aperture and shutter yourself, let ISO float, and adjust exposure comp to taste.
The Nikon has a dedicated exposure comp button on the left side of the back, but I also designated the fn button on the front of the camera for exposure comp, which has two advantages. First, that button is easily reachable at all times with your right pinky or ring finger, so holding that down and turning the thumb dial is an instant one handed operation. Also, although undocumented, you HAVE to put it there did you want a TaV mode because in manual mode, the normally designated exposure comp button (which does require the left hand) is essentially a toggle that causes the thumb dial to control aperture rather than shutter speed, leaving you without the ability to adjust exposure comp. With the fn button on the front designated for exposure comp, you've given yourself a very good and undocumented TaV mode that's operable with one hand. The other fn button doubles as the ISO button and is on the left side and I'd designate that for something I use but not as often like bracketing or WB or something. The auto ISO function on the Nikon is not as easily reached as it should be, not being available on the regular ISO menu (or from the ISO button). One has to enter the menu to adjust the maximum ISO and minimum shutter speed (the minimum ISO, as with the X100, is based on the manually set ISO, which can be done from the ISO button/menu). This approach made me somewhat crazy on the X100 (although that was worse because you had to got to TWO different menus to get to these functions), but it doesn't bother me on the Nikon because the auto-ISO is so thoroughly configurable and because it works in manual mode with the exposure compensation still operable. With this implementation of auto-ISO, I basically never switched out of it, so not having an easy way to switch between manual and auto ISO doesn't bother me as on other cameras in the past. I'd basically leave the ISO set to auto with a minimum of 100, maximum of 6400, and minimum shutter speed of 1/250 (it can be set as high as 1/1000). Those settings govern in aperture priority mode - when I want more specific control over the shutter speed I just switch to manual mode and control the shutter speed directly.
The Ricoh allows for customization to the point that ISO can be constantly available by just flicking the ADJ lever to the left or right (no button pushing to "arm" it is required) and I'm quite sure that auto-ISO is available directly from that menu of choices, as on previous Ricohs. This approach has been an enormous advantage on previous Ricohs where one often needed to adjust ISO on the fly, particularly with the small sensor GRD models (not so much on the GXR, where auto-ISO was a pretty good option). On the new model with its best yet Ricoh sensor, I suspect this adjustment will be a lot less necessary because the auto-ISO and TaV options should make auto-ISO the natural choice the vast majority of the time, as with the Nikon. Ricoh also has exposure compensation directly armed at all times on the "zoom" rocker switch, so no button pushing is required for that either, whereas on the Nikon, one must push a button and turn the dial simultaneously. Both are instant one handed operations, but the Ricoh is a bit less complex. Both of them are basically instant adjustments though. One other advantage of the Ricoh here, although I'd actually see it as more of a DISadvantage of the Nikon, is that the Ricoh always shows the current exposure comp setting on the rear screen. The Nikon, oddly, does not - you have to push the exposure comp button not only to adjust the setting, but to even SEE the setting. Nikon should fix this in firmware ponto!
But, overall, for these basic controls over aperture, shutter speed, exposure compensation, and ISO, the cameras are pretty closely matched once you've used each and are in the field. I slightly prefer the Ricoh approach, but in use, I never had any problem with the Nikon - it never slowed me down or made me think too hard about what I was trying to do. After a short period of acclimation, both cameras "flow" in use and are wonderful shooters.
Which brings us to the question of manual focus, which many will use either of these cameras with for zone focussing on the street. Ricoh has its very well known and brand-specific "snap focus" method of setting the manual focus distance for zone focus. This is fairly quick and easy (although the GRD4 and now GR make it a bit less convenient than it was on the GRD3 and GXR, requiring two pushes of the ADJ button and a dial turn, rather than just holding down one button while turning the dial). By designating one of the fn buttons to toggle between snap focus and AF, the camera can instantly switch between the two modes, with the manual (or "snap") focus distance always recalled when you switch back to that mode. The Nikon has nothing like snap focus, instead using a focus ring on the lens and a pretty good distance scale on the screen (though no DOF scale, which I actually prefer due to the conservatism of most electronic DOF scales). If you use the "press through snap" feature a lot on the Ricoh, there's no substitute on the Nikon - nothing like it. I never use that feature though - I never could get a feel for it and I'd lose too many shots for either not pressing hard enough and just refocusing the AF or pressing too hard and jerking the camera. The Nikon is a little slower to switch between auto and manual focus because you have to reset the focus ring each time you switch - it doesn't have a "sticky" memory for the last manual focus distance used. I thought this would be a real hassle, but in use I found it was a very quick process that became second nature within an hour or so of getting used to the camera. The focus mode switch on the side is a very quick switch between the manual and auto focus mode, and I found it almost instantaneous to switch to manual focus and turn the focus ring a fraction of a turn to move from infinity down to the 4-6 foot range I tend to use for zone focus. People who really love snap focus might find the Nikon inconvenient - I find snap focus to be one pretty effective way to implement zone focussing, but actually prefer a lens ring focus control all other things being equal (I actually love the GXR, which has both a focus ring AND snap focus). This is a matter of personal preference - somehow a rotary control that's directly linked to a focus scale just seems quicker and more intuitive to me than having to push a button and turn a dial to switch between discrete manual focus distances and then push the button again to accept the new distance. So I find the Nikon very quick and intuitive and the focus ring can easily be fine tuned just using the right hand. Old time Ricoh fans will no doubt prefer the GR here, but I actually prefer the Nikon with its lens ring to snap focus. If you switch back and forth between auto and manual focus a LOT, the Ricoh is more convenient with its manual focus memory and the ability to instantly toggle between the two modes. I find that I tend to do batches of manual focus shooting interspersed with batches of AF shooting so I'm not constantly switching and I found the Nikon more than quick and easy enough to switch on the fly when I did.
For second level functions that one may switch from time to time but not constantly (things like WB, bracketing, AF area, metering mode, etc), the Ricoh can be customized to put these functions within easier reach than the Nikon, and for some that will be a major advantage. On the Nikon, they're most quickly accessed using the "I" button, which brings up a whole grid of such functions on the rear screen to move between and adjust. This button is basically the same thing as the "Q" button found on the Fuji cameras or the "super control panel" found on Olympus cameras. I personally find more it more than fast enough for changing these types of secondary controls, but if there are a few of these controls that you use as often as things like aperture and exposure compensation adjustments, the Ricoh can put them about a half-step closer (either on an fn button or as one of several scrollable options under the ADJ toggle). On the Nikon, I found myself using the rear control screen menu so rarely I'd forget it was there and had to remind myself that it was a convenient way to get to some occasionally used items.
On balance, I personally prefer the Ricoh interface (except for lack of focus ring, where I prefer the Nikon), but its a very slight preference. The Nikon was basically as quick and intuitive once I'd spent a little time with it. A lot of Ricoh lovers seem find the Ricoh interface to be the holy grail of all camera interfaces and find it vastly superior to any other. On other forums, many have been trashing the Nikon for its "menu driven" interface. And I actually like the Ricoh UI as much as anyone, but not to the exclusion of other interfaces that I find equally good, if different. I find the difference between the Ricoh and Nikon interfaces pretty minimal when actually using them in the field. A slight advantage to the Ricoh for me, but two small firmware fixes (make the MF distance sticky when you power the camera off and on and always display the exposure comp setting on the rear screen) and I'd like the Nikon interface every bit as much, if not more, for how I shoot. Both are great cameras but different in operation and one should understand the operational differences before choosing one.
-Ray