Have you ore-ordered your GR killer yet, /p/?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark III Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4636 Image Height 3091 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:01:12 14:37:22 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 3200 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 70.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 633 Image Height 422 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
No, it looks trash.
>>2764341
>caring what a camera looks like
Oh boy
>>2764363
I was talking about specs faggot. It's trash. Oh and now that you bring it up, it looks like trash too.
>Crops the image to simulate different focal lengths
Would rather use a normal camera instead of Meme Killer 4000
>>2764336
Also you can't kill something that's already dead with something that's dead on arrival. This is why i'm getting the Sony A6300.
>>2764363
I think he meant by the camera's specs.
To be honest ricoh fan girls are impossible.
>>2764365
Why is it trash?
>>2764371
Just look at it.
>>2764373
I did
Can you provide any specifics whatsoever?
>>2764375
It's not the specific camera he wants with the specific specs that he values, therefore, it shouldn't exist.
I'm not buying one, because I don't wide angle, and it's still not small enough for me to forget in my pocket, but I see that it's neat.
>>2764376
The ergonomics look awful compared to the GR.
>>2764377
As a fuji user, I disagree. Looks great to me. Why do you feel that way?
>tiny little dial next to the flash for M mode that's hard to get to.
>Flush buttons on the back that are hard to feel for.
>Tiny body that's hard to grasp with absolutely no grip.
>Tilt screen that would be hard to use with the thumb grip being so close and so small.
>a function button on the left side thats hard poised in a place that's hard to get at. No camera manufacturer would ever think of putting it there.
>dials and shutter button so close together and place so awkwardly it wouldn't be practical.
I love fuji but this camera is a downright disaster in terms of ergonomics. It's true that a camera can have good specs but it ultimately comes down to how enjoyable/practical it is to pick up and go out and shoot.
>>2764380
>That fuji bias.
>>2764386
>>tiny little dial next to the flash for M mode that's hard to get to.
What are you talking about? The MCS dial on the front? Why would it be hard to get to? Have you never used a fuji?
>>Flush buttons on the back that are hard to feel for.
Why are they hard to feel for...? Also, there's no viewfinder, so you don't have the camera to your eyes.
>>Tiny body that's hard to grasp with absolutely no grip.
That's the entire point of the camera. How could it be a micro compact camera with a grip on it?
>>Tilt screen that would be hard to use with the thumb grip being so close and so small.
If the screen is tilted out, you can put your thumb anywhere you want behind it.
>>a function button on the left side thats hard poised in a place that's hard to get at. No camera manufacturer would ever think of putting it there.
Hard to get at? You don't have to walk down the hall to find it. It's right there. And it's a Fn button. You can set it to whatever you want, or set it to nothing if you don't like it. Nobody's making you use it.
>>dials and shutter button so close together and place so awkwardly it wouldn't be practical.
Have you held the camera? It's very easy to use. It's not really made for manual use, but if you want it, it's not difficult at all.
>>2764389
Good points. You've proven that you know what you are talking about, and are certainly worth listening to.
>>2764397
SHILLING.
good god fuji shills are so annoying.
>>2764400
gr fags pls leave
>>2764400
People who attack things as being shit simply becuase they personally want something completely different are so annoying. Do you claim that pickup trucks are fucking shit because they aren't compact family cars?
Your goals are not everyone's goals. People asked Fuji for pretty much this exact camera.
Also:
>No dust pump
>>2764408
>gear fags
>gear fag thread
You brought this on yourself.
>>2764414
gr fags. Like the Ricoh GR. The camera that this is competing with.
>>2764421
I'm a A6000 owner, which BTFO these two "compact" cameras. Stay in the past with your 'retro' looks. No one needs you.
>>2764425
the a6000 is not competition for these cameras. It's larger, has a grip, a viewfinder, interchangeable lenses, etc. Why are you bragging that your camera made for a completely different task is an improvement to you? If my goal was to have a super small camera to fit in my pocket, then your camera is clearly worse in every way. It also costs a great deal more.
>>2764373
Jesus how ignorant can one human be
>>2764425
Yes the Sony A6000, like other Sony camera's, excels at its main purpose: posting on Chinese imageboards about buying/owning a Sony A6000.
The aforementioned cameras are used, generally, for taking photographs.
MFW there are already 3 other GR threads on /p/
i own one, but christ this is getting a tad rediculous
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Photographer Trevor Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 275 Image Height 368 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Image Created 2016:02:09 10:14:35 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 275 Image Height 908
>>2764336
>GR killer
>not as compact
>shitty ergonomics
>plasticy body
>no snap mode
>needs huge lens cap
>old 1st gen X-trans sensor
>not a GR
>muh classic chrome
>muh acros
try harder.
>>2764386
I have no trouble using the manual controls on the X100T, and see no reason why this camera would be any different.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Width 2048 Image Height 1365
Do fujifags ever get tired of justifying their purchases?
>>2764464
Do sony fags ever get tired of being wrong when they attack other camera systems using nothing but their stats sheets and test charts?
Also, the camera doesn't even drop for another week, so literally nobody in this thread owns one. A few of us MAY have touched it at a demo (I have, it feels nice I guess, but compact cameras aren't my thing.)
This is all theoretical and "in my mind I know X" shit that I guess is how most Sony users live their lives.
>>2764470
>op says: Have you ore-ordered your GR killer yet, /p/?
>calls sony fags out on the same behavior not noticing the hypocrisy.
Never knew fujifags stooped so low.
>>2764462
More or less the exact same size, without worry about the dust pump.
Great ergonomics
capable AF system means no need for a snap mode, but you can also pre-focus
Doesn't need a huge lens cap
Second generation XTrans sensor (Same as the X-T1)
Not a GR (Hooray!)
etc.
No AA filter
1/32000 electronic shutter
higher resolution screen than GR
better battery life
Seems like a pretty decent competitor.
>>2764462
>not as compact
The GRII is .2" wider than the X70, they are the same height, and the X70 is .3" thicker. I'd call that a wash.
>shitty ergonomics
Explain. Pic related, I guess if you like cycling through menus instead of manual dials you might have a problem with the x70's ergonomics.
>plasticy body
Kek, pic once again related
>no snap mode
I'll take a manual focus ring over that meme feature any day.
>needs huge lens cap
Define "huge," besides I can snap on a $5 uv filter and be done with it
>old x-trans sensor
Your CMOS is just as old
>not a GR
Im glad for that
>muh classic chrome
Most people like that
Is this really all GRfags have? Enjoy your obsolete meme camera, fuji just stomped on it.
>>2764476
>ITT Fags bite the bait
>>2764476
OP here, I haven't responded to any Sonyfags. Got anything else?
Are you guys all manlets who can't carry REAL gear?
>>2764483
Yeah everyone wants to be like you when they go out
>>2764483
I use my 5Dmk3 and L glass for photo shoots and paid jobs. Why do I need it for wandering around town with my friends, or on a pub crawl, or sitting in my glove box?
>>2764483
Oh, so you're one of those people who compensate for a small penis with a huge lens, am I right?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2008:04:22 21:11:12 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 394 Image Height 525
>>2764336
>Fuji vs Ricoh thread
>Sony fags jump in and get worked up
>People more or less copying and pasting the specs sheet from the x70 are dismissed as shills
Hahaha this is going to bump limit I have a feeling.
>>2764479
>not as compact
>The GRII is .2" wider than the X70, they are the same height, and the X70 is .3" thicker. I'd call that a wash.
The X70 weighs 100 grams more than the GR, though. What a fat pig.
>shitty ergonomics
>Explain. Pic related, I guess if you like cycling through menus instead of manual dials you might have a problem with the x70's ergonomics.
Another anon pointed it out already; the buttons of the X70 are too close to each orher, theres a customizable button placed in a ridiculous part of the camera and so on.
>plasticy body
>Kek, pic once again related
yeah wow, painted plastic. The GR offers a full magnesium alloy body.
>no snap mode
>I'll take a manual focus ring over that meme feature any day.
>meme feature
You obviously have never used a GR before.
>needs huge lens cap
>Define "huge," besides I can snap on a $5 uv filter and be done with it
Have fun degrading your image quality by putting a $5 (!) UV filter in front of your excellent glass, kek.
>old x-trans sensor
>Your CMOS is just as old
Fujicucks paying shitloads of bucks for an outdated sensor inside a new camera.
The GR was the first one to sport a CMOS, the GRDs had CCDs.
>not a GR
>Im glad for that
Yes, because there can only be one GR.
>muh classic chrome
>Most people like that
Yes, the amateurs who shoot in JPEG only and leave their dial in Auto all the time.
>Is this really all GRfags have? Enjoy your obsolete meme camera, fuji just stomped on it.
Silly anon. You cucked yourself. You'll realize it soon enough.
>>2764496
Deflection: the post
>>2764488
I've never really understood this particular flavor of this kind of argument.
I get the people who swear up and down by compactness via mirrorless systems and whatnot (I don't particularly care about marginal size gains though, which they are for me because of the lenses I use)...
but people like you truly puzzle me.
Compacts don't really offer any advantages over higher tier cellphone cameras. So why argue that you don't want the inconvenience of a larger body when you're already forcing yourself to carry another gadget for marginal gains over something you already carry? Now if these were blowing cell phone cameras out of the water, sure, there'd be a reason, but they're simply not.
>>2764497
I'd say more "pure opinion based on some pictures of the body seen online" than deflection. Fuji ergonomics are great, and the button placement looks just fine to me. Without the button on the left, there's be no button there. Why not have a button, if you can? *shrug* Never seen someone complain about having too many options before.
>>2764498
I'm not a smart man but have been interested in getting a GR because from what I can see the pictures are much higher quality than you get on a cell phone.
Hopefully this isn't just taking the b8 and someone can reassure me it's worthwhile to have something inconspicuous if I'm out at the bar, gallery, show, etc etc.
>>2764498
>Compacts don't really offer any advantages over higher tier cellphone cameras.
manual controls alone do it for me. And you can say what you want about high end cell phones, but an XTrans aps-c sensor with no aa filter is going to handle color and light better than any cell phone camera you can buy right now. There are also times when my phone is dead, or when I need a little more operating speed, etc. Doing everything by touch screen is much less pleasant to me than having an aperture, shutter speed ,and EV comp dial.
It's not much hassle to toss this in the front pouch of my bag. I have the money to spend, and I see the use for it, so I'll get it.
>>2764498
>an APS-C processor isnt noticeably better than a phone
Kek, keep your phone you fucking pleb
>>2764498
>X70/GR don't really offer any advantages over higher tier cellphone cameras
>>2764504
>implying that in web display conditions and semidecent light it is noticeable
>>2764507
>Implying that it isn't.
I'm guessing you've never tried to process a photo from a cell phone? The dynamic range alone is enough to make you laugh.
>>2764507
>implying you will always have decent light
>implying there is no color difference regardless
>implying "web display conditions" are the ideal comparison standard
If youre only using instagram and looking at photos on your phone, keep using your phone camera. Don't let me stop you.
>>2764508
>processing snapshits
Ok guy
>>2764516
>Taking snapshits
Why?
>>2764517
Because you make great art on a barcrawl?
>>2764515
>>implying "web display conditions" are the ideal comparison standard
Considering the likelihood of any of these pictures being displayed in any other format, it is. Dude already said he used a 5DmIII for his paid work.
>color difference
That's both personal taste and varies across different manufacturers. Fuji colors aren't Nikon colors aren't Canon colors.
>always have decent
Nope, but you'll likely always have decent enough/and you have a flash on your camera. That GR, even with it's APS-C sensor isn't a worldbeater in low light performance either. If low light is that important to you, you'll be shooting one of the smaller full frame options.
>>2764521
It's so he can remember which women rejected him before he black out.
>>2764521
>Because you make great art on a barcrawl?
Are you implying there are never any interesting stories that happen around people when they gather and have fun? There have been tons of great photos that happen without planning.
>>2764525
Like that time you Chad took the girl you were crushing on, home? Yeah, that's what cucks think art is.
>>2764521
Dude, we get it, it's not for you. That's fine. But arguing with the values and priorities of others is retarded. There are lots of ways to be right, and lots of different ways to take photos and enjoy yourself.
I'm 5Dmk3 guy. I have an HTC phone with a shit level camera, and I don't want an apple phone. I would rather keep the phone I have and enjoy, and get a camera for taking photos when I'm out and about. I don't want to bring my 5D and L zooms on vacation with me, or to the beach. I don't want to bring it out to dinner with a group of my friends. I don't want to lug it with me every day on my walk through the city. Why does that bother you so much? Are you so incapable of stepping out of your own mindset that you can't accept that someone may make decisions differently than you?
>>2764527
What? Is that really where this conversation has devolved to?
What is it that you actually like about photography? I will never understand why /p/ rails so hard against even the concept of taking a photo.
>>2764533
If you like the camera, buy it. No need for others to affirm/compliment your tastes. This is a gearfag thread, did you really thing this would lead to a civil conversation on art photography? Now fuck off.
>>2764535
I didn't expect it to turn into "you like a small camera, so you take terrible photos"
I'm not asking for affirmation. I didn't make the thread. I'm merely pointing out an ignorant post when I see one.
>>2764529
Fuck off guy. Tell that to the ones who jumped on me after I said my piece. I was satisfied with your response and was happy to walk away at that point.
>>2764539
>Because you make great art on a barcrawl?
Doesn't sound like you were satisfied. Sounds like you're a cock who assumes everyone around him is shit because their tastes are different than his.
Many of the most iconic photos in history are unplanned.
Here it is, laid out plain and simple - whether I take good photos or not, I want to take photos while I'm out and about, and I want to be able to process them. I don't want to use my phone, and I don't want to carry a 5Dmk3. This camera is marketed towards me, and I will buy it.
That's why it exists. You can claim that I'm some sort of asshole because I'm not 100% you, but you're being a fucking cock about it for some strange reason. Why would it matter to you if I want to get a small compact camera to the point where you'd insult me over it?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1247 Image Height 1272 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2012:05:08 11:41:30 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 991 Image Height 1011
Can we all agree that when the desicive moment comes, the Fuji just doesn't cut it? Might as well have a A6000 with a good ol panny on it for ultra portability. Good features in a good form factor is the mirrorless ethos, not garbage features in a tiny unusable package. Heck even the K3 is portable.
>>2764541
>Can we all agree that when the desicive moment comes, the Fuji just doesn't cut it?
Why would we agree on that? Does it have a 12 second shutter lag that I'm unaware of?
>>2764541
>Can we all agree that
/v/ is that way.
>>2764542
Oh I must have forgot that Fuji was making great progress with their AF system. Silly me, focus must be top tier on this low end Fuji model compared to their higher end models. I feel bad for A6000 users as their silly 179 AF points are clearly lagging behind Fuji's class leading AF.
>>2764527
Back to /r9k/ kiddo. Whe it might surprise you, there are people who spend time out in the world taking pictures of things they like and events they takr part in as part of a hobby called photography, and having a small, usable camera is attractive to these people.
We know, your DSLR is the superior choice for people who need utmost quality when doing lens tests on your cat in the basement. For everyone else, a universe of cameras exists to fulfill all sorts of needs in photography.
For the cell phone fags, I just bought a phone which is top ranked on Dxo mobile and guess what, at 100% my eight year old LX3 looks better. Turns out glass matters!
wow I've been on /p/ for a few months now and these Fuji/GR threads are becoming similar to the "trannies are chicks" arguments from /b/
lol fuck this place, internet generation can't handle the anonymity
>28mm
Meh
e
h
You need to be really skilled to make this focal length work.
Someone should make a 50mm compact.
>>2764544
All autofocus is too slow. Put it in manual, f/8, and never miss a shot again.
But those AF points do look great on that spec sheet, which after all is why Sony users buy their cameras.
>>2764550
This is why all Fuji/gr photos look garbage as their users don't have the skill to make these focal lengths work.
>>2764544
? It's the same AF system that's in the the X-T1, with a small light wide angle lens... it will not be anywhere near slow or disappointing to focus.
It's really easy to pick out people who have no idea what they're talking about, and who have never used the cameras they're talking about dude. There are even videos out there you can use to educate yourself.
Also! Why are you talking about Sony still? How can you compare an x70 to an a6000? You can't fit an a6000 in your pocket.
>>2764550
But if this is APS-C then wouldn't 28 really be 42 equivalent or thereabouts?
>>2764553
the x100 series is 35mm equivalent, homie.
>>2764540
>derpa derp
>imma quote something well into the shitflinging and entirely ignore anything that was said prior.
Like I said, fuck off. I didn't understand that line of reasoning. I commented about how I didn't understand that line of reasoning. You answered. Other people shitposted. You defend shitposters.
>>2764556
It's 28mm after the conversion.
>>2764552
>using such a long focal length with such a shit sensor. Slow shutter speeds, high ISO noise, and blur everywhere. Is this why GR users only post grainy dark blurry images?
Muh gritty '''''aesthetics''''
>>2764558
What are you talking about? You personally attacked my statement in a bitchy passive aggressive way. Are you off your meds again?
>>2764555
No wonder, this camera is geared towards pretentious hipsters in skinny jeans. Even the vintage aesthetics are there.
>>2764563
>long focal length
What are you talking about?
>>2764568
super low quality bait.
>>2764565
The fuck I did. I said I didn't understand that line of reasoning. I then preceded to fucking give reasons why I didn't understand that line of reasoning.
Any "attacks" at that point where just in your head. It's also kinda fucking strange to call someone directly stating something "passive aggressive and bitchy".
>>2764569
I meant aperture.
>>2764572
What does that have to do with anything? Are you seriously suggesting its impossible to shoot f/8 at low ISO? You do know people did this for decades before before digital right? Have you taken a picture in sunlight before or is your photography limited to lens tests and cat pics in your mommies basement?
>>2764571
>>Because you make great art on a barcrawl?
>>2764582
People shot on 35mm back then, aps-c is small and specially terrible on Fuji's in low light. Can your manlet hands hold a shot steady enough for an exposure? How about at dusk?
>>2764586
And? You don't want shit flung, don't fling it yourself.
Why is it that Fuji owners never post their photos? It's always canon and Nikon or other manufacturers. The few times I've seen an anon post a picture taken with a Fuji it was some bland shot of trees.
>>2764594
There are a fuckton of fuji photos posted on this board, retard.
>>2764595
Are any of them good?
>>2764594
I saw a Fuji shot not even a minute ago here.
It'd be cool if fgts.jp offered EXIF stats for cameras and such.
>>2764596
Sure, some of them are good, some are bad. Same goes for any brand.
>>2764336
Jesus you fujifags are the worst. Keep this shitposting in the gear thread. Worse than sonyshills.
>>2764600
I doubt OP is actually a fujifag. More than likely, he's just a lazy, successful troll.
>>2764603
Then why are there so many toxic Fuji posters in this thread?
>>2764604
>96 posts
>21 posters
You're posting in a shitty troll thread. That's why.
>>2764553
I'd gladly appreciate/support a 50mm GR
>>2764336
Average Fuji user.
>>2764588
ISO 100 is ISO 100, doesn't matter if its ff or crop.
>>2764588
>aps-c is small and specially terrible on Fuji's in low light
Fuji is among the best low light performance of any crop sensor, theres not much up for debate there.
>>2764588
35mm film is sub-m43 tier at high isos though
I already have an X100, so why would I want to downgrade?
>>2764594
I have personally posted over a thousand photos taken on Fuji cameras in the past year and a half. I just strip my data out because I don't see any point in posting it.
>>2764588
>People shot on 35mm back then
You do know that the light sensitivity of 35mm film was surpassed by smaller digital sensors a decade ago right?
>>2764605
So one Sony Fag antagonizing a bunch of people excited about a new camera?
>>2764637
And they're all shit I bet.
>>2764593
Wait, so were the attacks in my head? Over the attacks warranted because of shit being flung? It's tough to keep up with his goal post because they keep flying by so fast. Also, your original post said that you accepted and work content with my original comment about wanting a smaller camera. So was it something you accepted? Or was it Me slinging shit? I don't understand.
>>2764642
But Fuji users are the problem.
Hell, there's a sony fag in this very thread talking about how multiple people are attacking him. Sounds like there's same fagging, yeah, but it doesn't seem like it's people who are buying or using Fuji cameras...
>>2764463
Woah, I didn't realize how much smaller it was than the X100. That makes be a bit more interested.
I'm currently torn between a new "advanced P&S", a new M4/3 body, or getting a Lumix CM1 and having a decent camera with me 24/7.
>>2764462
Not really
>Way more expensive
>same dime-a-dozen 28mm f/2.8 equivalent lens instead of a 16mm f/1.9 to justify higher price
>Not a digital Natura
>inb4 people whine that a fast lens would make it the size of a 5d rather than say an LX100 or an RX1 because fuck physics, extrapolation, and math
>>2764609
>yfw a less wide GR becomes a reality
>yfw lens is a 30mm f/1.4(45mm equiv)
>it's like a smaller digital version of the Yashica Lynx
>>2764377
>"the fuji sucks"
"why?"
>"because it is"
"but why does it suck?"
>"ummmmm ergonomics?"
jesus christ, i doubt youve ever won an argument
>>2764386
im sure the tilt screen on the gr is better
>>2764938
He thinks he has, and that's what counts.
>>2764588
...not sure if retarded.
>>2764496
>comparing chink plastic and superior nipponese steel folded 1000 times.
>>2764496
> X70 weighs 100 grams or some shit
Is everyone on this board a fucking pussy or something?
>>2764938
and the specs are too. just the perfect cross of shit ergonomics and poor optical fidelity.
>>2765259
Lmao
Name a camera this size, in thie price range, with better ergonomics and specs. I'll wait.
>>2765309
A6000, except it's better.
>>2765311
>shittier iso
>shittier shutter speed
>shittier screen
>shittier flash range
>no shutter mode switch
>no touchscreen focus
>typical sony menus
>typical sony quality
>still an f2.8
"""""""no""""""""
GR sucks dicks with the whole dust thing, but otherwise it's a nice fixed lens for the price.
They should really make it interchangeable if just for the ability to let the user remove dust from the sensor.
>>2765311
It is already disqualified for the size. It would be disqualified again for the menu system and the AA filter.
>>2764498
Yeah...no.
>>2765721
actually, GR ii has no dust problems, they sealed it better
>>2765807
Incorrect.
>>2765812
nope
>>2765813
I know of only one person who had a GRII. After less than a month, he sent it back to Ricoh to get the dust removed from it.
>>2765814
he was probably sold a GR
>>2765815
Or more likely, you're wrong. I'll mail you $10 USD in an envelope right now if you can post a time stamped photo of you holding one.
>>2765818
sending money in the mail isn't very secure anon, you should be more conscientious about how you fulfill online bets.
>>2765821
No, I didn't think so.
>>2765822
erm that guy wasnt me, you want me to send you a picture of me holding a GR II. What do you intend to achieve by me doing this?
>>2764479
but the fuji also needs a lens cap, and for pocketability, width is much more of a killer than length.
do you even pythagorean theorem bro?
>>2765838
some hint that you may know what you're talking about, rather than just spouting what you saw in a review one time.
>>2765840
>l-l-l-lens cap
This is all the Ricohfags have left. LMAO
>>2765876
>whip out camera
>turn on
>snap pic
vs
>whip out camera
>fiddle with lens cap
>put lens cap somewhere safe
>turn on
>focus
>snap pic
don't own or want the GR, but I'll sure as hell buy it before I ever consider the Fuji.
>>2765880
>what is a uv filter in place of a lens cap
Also, if youve ever handled the x series lens cap, you'd know it simply pulls off with literally zero need for fiddling whatsoever. But if you literally cannot deal with a LENS CAP stick to your Ricoh you fucking neanderthal.
>>2765880
>Using lens caps
>>2765845
surely a review would be more trust worthy that a random 4chan user, who doesn't have a profession in reviewing camera products?
>>2766048
Not him, but I do find it funny that Ricohfags are crying "muh ergonomics" about a Fuji camera they have never held in their hands and have no intention of holding in their lives.
>>2766057
I'm not a GR fag, I never said I owned a GR and I never said I liked the GR, did I?
Clearly the real faggots are the butthurt cynics such as your self, who despise and group anyone who even mentions a GR in the same category.
From my perspective, it appears to be jealousy. Are you annoyed that a group of people share the same preference, or is that you bought a shit tier camera and are trying to justify your decision?
>>2766048
>reviewing as a profession
This is the same as trusting that asshat who kept screaming about Oxyclean.
>>2766104
Clearly the guys that review cameras, on photography websites, are photographers. Use your fucking brain?
>>2766110
>>2766048
>protip: any time you ever say "clearly", you're fucking wrong as hell about it being clear.
Seriously, it doesn't lend anything to your point and makes you sound like an idiot.
Anyway, you're too dumb to argue the point of how reviewers are useful.
Over a period of time, any given reviewer will reveal how they think. You'll be able to fairly well calibrate your opinions with what they will say (e.g. I disagree with literally everything this guy says, I like this guy's thoughts about ergonomics and I've found the same things, but he's an idiot when it comes to lenses, etc.). This predictability and calibration lets you kinda know how you would feel about something. It's not a matter of believing what they say, it's a matter of believing that they will have a fairly consistent point of view over time to which you can can compare your opinions.
With anons, you have no such opportunity for calibration. One reply could be an earnest attempt by a working professional to give good feedback, and the next could be some Australian high schooler who gets hard at the idea of using the word "shill".
>>2766110
And a lot of those guys aren't particularly good photographers. Use your fucking eyes?
>>2766114
IMHO, you're better off using verified (and unpaid) reviews like on Amazon, and just looking at photos taken with the gear you're curious about.
>>2766117
This
Show me one good photo Ken Rockwell has ever taken. I like reading his reviews but I always have to pause because his photos are atrocious.
>>2766123
I tend to not use reviews for objective things like lens performance and the like. As you said, you can pull up images yourself and look for yourself/pull up spec sheets all day long. I'm more interested in getting an idea about the harder to quantify factors like useability, ergonomics, and the like. For that, you have to have a baseline of how someone thinks and what kinds of things they value.
>>2766048
I readily trust "I have this camera and it has dust in it" over "Ricoh sent me this camera and I used it for three days in my testing room and it doesn't seem to have dust in it"
>>2766114
>/p/ gear fagging over gear fags.
No gear reviewer has time to spend on one camera to tell how it's going to behave and wear over repeated regular use. They use a camera a little bit, for a shoot or two, over a week, write their review, send their test unit back, and move on. If a GR collects dust in the body after two months of being used every day, there's no professional full time reviewer on the internet that's going to know it.
>>2766161
And someone with even the smallest modicum of sense knows that you can't expect a reviewer to give a good long-term assessment of any product that they don't own and use on a long-term basis.
I don't get what your point is. Have common sense? Use a little critical thinking skills?
Reviewers are a group of data points in the research process.
>>2764336
Yeah I pre ordered the Sony A6300.
>>2766131
>I need to know how the 5Dmk3 works
>Better move in with Ken Rockwell for a month to see what kind of guy he is before listening to what he has to say about it!
You can't go wrong with a camera today. Look at the specs and features, assess it against your known needs, look at a couple of customer reviews, and then buy it. Some guy who talks about cameras for a living saying "this little door is a little fiddley" is useless, and judging your purchases on stuff like that is retarded. If some guy says "The AF is pretty good!" That doesn't give you any information. Only using the camera the way you use it, in the light you use it in, is going to tell you whether it's good enough for you. People used to rave about the AF system on the 7D. For my usage, it sucked. People rave about the a6000. I picked it up and, in my hand, it feels terrible.
A write up from a constant use customer six months after buying it might assure you about build quality, but other than that, it's really all down to how you personally use it.
This shouldn't stress anyone out. For 99.76% of photography, you could be handed any camera available on the market today, and take the exact same photo. If you're shooting the stuff in that last .24% range, you know exactly what you need, and you aren't looking at reviewers on YouTube.
>>2766180
The A6000 is good though, you must have unergonomic hands.
>>2766192
On paper it's good. In usage, the menu sucks dicks, the grip makes it a lot bigger than it is, it's like trying to take photos with a calculator.
I had it for about two weeks.
I prefer my X-E2 that I got when I returned it.
The a6k is a horrible and shitty camera.
If you want sony, go their a7 line. Their lower line is purely for those that can't afford the former.
They're cheap, nasty compromises.
If apsc go any other brand.
If sony, go only FF sony.
>>2765807
>GR ii has no dust problems, they sealed it better
>Looking for compact 2 months ago
>buy the GR II
>2 weeks after carrying in my right pocket
> D U S T
Returned that shit straight away. It still has the same problems that the last GR did.
>>2764336
because I don't need to buy a new camera every year. my gr is still going strong
>>2766677
I think the reason for the dust is less to do with the sealing and more to do with the actual lens mechanism, it collapses and extends, that sucks in air like a zoom lens does, of course you're going to get dust, the lens sucks in air any time it's collapsing
>>2766350
crop sensor cameras are always a compromise; any reasons for buying a crop sensor camera in 2015 is just cognitive dissonance, with very few exceptions.
>>2766704
>buying a crop sensor camera in 2015
It's 2016 dipshit, but we already knew you were a dumb fuck before getting to that part of your post.
>>2766704
Full frame is more of a compromise to me. Larger kit, more expense, with no benefits to me whatsoever.
>>2765840
Dude, I literally never use lens caps on any camera. UV filter all the way.
>>2766725
>>2766757
it's almost like cameras are 3 dimensionsional objects
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer Sean Image-Specific Properties:
>>2766704
I'm an FF (and MF) shooter, but in a way, I think there's no real reason NOT to shoot crop these days. The sensors are fucking great, there's tons of crop lenses out, and most new buyers don't already have a bunch of FF glass that they want to use.
FF is absolutely the way to go for long-time photogs with vintage or pro glass, for pros who need the low-light performance, or for bokeh whores, but otherwise crop is pretty much fine these days, especially in a mirrorless system.
>>2766800
This.
I'm on FF right now (Sony), but that's because I had a pretty decent lens collection already. If I was starting from scratch, I'd 100% be mirrorless crop (Fuji).
>>2766805
Why Fuji?
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0104677645/fujifilm-x70-shooting-experience-taking-it-to-the-streets
>In both the studio and the real world, we found the lens on our particular X70 to be noticeably less sharp than that on the GR II
topkek fujicucks
>>2766805
yeah the sony lens selection is tops.
>>2767074
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>2767074
That's a shame. I feel like it's a similar story on the X100(s/t) as well though, isn't it? It's a neat camera with nice usablility, but the lens leaves a bit to be desired? I wonder why Fuji seems to have trouble with their small fixed lenses.
>>2767074
It's a completely mundane, f/2.8 lens, get your shit together Fuji
>>2767074
>The sensor inside the X70 is quite literally nothing new. Though this 16.3MP X-Trans sensor is getting a little long in the tooth
>The lens on the X70 though is an all-new design, but in both the studio and the real world, we found the lens on our particular X70 to be noticeably less sharp than that on the GR II
>Time to be brutally honest. The spec sheet on the Fujifilm X70 isn't all that exciting. We've seen the sensor, processor and autofocus system before. The lens, a new design, only opens to F2.8. It's appreciably smaller than an X100T, but is more 'coat pocket' than 'jeans pocket.'
I'm crying. HOLY KEK. Inb4 fujishills say the shooting experience is what matters. This is not the GR killer you were waiting on. It's not to late to cancel pre orders.
>>2767094
IIRC X100's lens was fine at infinity, but got worse as you focused closer - and focusing close is how people tend to test lenses.
>>2767101
I'm a self labeled fuji fanboy, but I'm not really sure what Fuji is doing with this one. Maybe enough people were clamoring for a GR substitute that they decided to sweep some extra parts off the shelf and stick them together in there? Other than the lack of the dust issue, and for the Fuji jpegs, I'm not really sure why anyone would get this little guy. Especially since the GR feels smaller, and also has a great jpeg engine. I don't know that anyone who gets it will really REGRET it, since it won't be a bad camera at all, but for the price, you'd expect SOMETHING special and exciting on it.
>>2767103
Well, also, with wide lenses like a 28 or 35, you tend to focus fairly close (Less than 5 meters probably) in most cases anyways, no? Other than for sunsets and architecture.
>>2767105
It's not bad, just not a GR killer.
>>2766779
poor comparison, for a 35mm f/2 equivalent, you should compare the rx1 with the x100t
>>2767101
>it's not a new design
Nobody said it was, and nobody with a brain cares
>doesnt fit in your jeans pocket
Unless you wear jncos or dadjeans, the GR doesnt either
This guy loved his x70. Maybe wait until more people have used it instead of taking one review as the end all.
http://jonasraskphotography.com/2016/01/15/the-fujifilm-x70-review/
>>2767213
>over half his photos are b/w
sounds like the fuji demographic. they're almost as bad as Apple fans.
>>2767233
Or sony fans.
>>2767233
Thats your only criticism? Sounds like that review was pretty bulletproof.
>>2767244
>Thinking a Fuji-sponsored photographer that got a review sample weeks before anyone else can be impartial
Next thing you're gonna quote Jason Lanier's Sony reviews as fact.
shit i pre ordered a x70. I've never owned any kind of DSLR or proper mirrorless yet. I'm stoked.
>>2764336
So what's special about it?
As far as I can work out it's just a Coolpix A with better AF, a delicate screen and weighs a couple of ounces more... And costs more than twice as much as I paid for mine.
No info about dynamic range / shadow detail either... Good luck with that one.
>>2767753
The sensor inside is well documented. it's a great sensor.
It's just a little Fuji. That's about it. People who want a little camera but didn't like the GR can consider it.
>>2767403
I'm sure you'll be happy with it, most of the people bitching on here are really just splitting hairs as far as the average joe is concerned.
>muh snap mode
fucking meme photographers
street photography is the biggest cancer on this board
>turns out ricoh is japanese too
is every fuckign camera on earth made in japan
>>2768325
No, and the GR is made in China you dumb faggot.
A camera being made in Japan is generally considered to be a good thing.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2768689
designed = made
>>2768966
Kek
Made in Japan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iih0CP1H_Cw
>>2765259
if the fuji has bad specs then the gr has horrible specs
>>2769531
This is why i buy sony.
>>2769534
Every Sonyfag is a specsfag, you didnt have to say anything.
>>2769534
Which Sony camera is competing against these? Maybe the RX100mk3? I guess? But it's got a smaller sensor, and a zoom lens (though some people may view that as a bonus I suppose)
>>2769592
Sony A6000 you manlet.
>>2769611
The a6000:
Has a veiwfinder
Won't fit in your pocket
Has interchangeable lenses
It is in no way competition for these cameras. If you're throwing out those parameters, then the D500 wins handily over your shitty outdated piece of crap.
>>2769766
just get the 20mm pancake.
>>2764613
holy fuck saved that webm
>>2769788
I have a 20mm pancake. It won't fit in your pocket, unless you wear cargo shorts like a fucking mongoloid.
>>2769910
I bet you can't fit that X70 in your pockets either. It's not tiny by any means, it's bigger than your average phablet, has a lens that protrudes as well.
>>2770019
The A6300 fixes all those """"problems""""
>>2770021
>buy this bigger, $1150 camera
>it's a """"""""competitor""""""""
>still an f3.5
LMAO
X70 on the left, GRii on the right, both at 3200ISO
>all that noise along the bottle border in the GR image
Ricohfags BTFO
Another one, this time at 6400 iso. X70 on the left, GRii on the right.
>the red and pink fabrics
>the wine bottle top
My sides are gone
Where were you when Ricoh was kill?
>>2771320
>I googled "issues with Fuji high ISO" and saw this phrase a few times from back in 2013. I'll say it and maybe people will think I know what I'm talking about. Plus, if I get questioned about it, I can always reply with "If you can't see the shitty watercolor smearing, then I can't help you you should just kill yourself". Foolproof.
The only places to knock the Fuji are size, and lens sharpness. Neither really matters to people taking photos, but on paper, they're the target. Hope it helps.
>>2771316
I just ran this comparison with the Sony a6000 and it looked even worse. Too lazy to cut/paste/upload but if youre bored, check it out.
>>2771316
>Where were you when Ricoh was kill?
I'm not sure, but I know where I was when shooting at 6400ISO on a wide angle prime with a built in flash was for fucking retards.
>everywhere all the time
>>2771398
>i-i dont need it so it doesnt matter
Go on imaging resource and find whatever comparison you personally think is "relevant" and be sure to post it here.
>>2771317
You people are the fucking worst. Do you honestly think that amount noise would take away from a good photo?
>>2771474
Replace the word "noise" with any other spec, and apply it to the whole thread. Size, sharpness, control variation, etc.
>>2771474
Potentially. You certainly have less leeway with exposure and shutter speed.
>>2764552
I do low light photography with a lot of movement, so AF is actually pretty important to me. But that's obviously an edge case.
More on topic, I like both this and the GR in theory, but when it comes down to it I always hate using the LCD to compose shots. And yeah you can get the viewfinder attachment, but I'd rather just do an X100 at that point. Personally, I like small cameras so I can take a walk without my phone and maybe get some cool pictures on the way. It's very relaxing, but screens kind of impede on the experience a bit. EVF notwithstanding, those don't really register as a screen for me.
Even for my paid work I keep the LCD rotated closed, and only review it during halftime/intermission. Not as a Luddite thing in either case. More about keeping my focus on what I'm doing, rather than menus, indicators, and the general big, lit up screen at night or indoors. Which would be a huge bummer to have to stare at during a quiet night stroll.
>>2771478
>What kind of faggot uses ISO 3200/6400 anyway?
Anyone who's shooting at night? I'm sure this possibility didn't occur to you since you only shoot your cat and the backs of chairs
>>2764552
>All autofocus is too slow.
Clearly you've never used a pro body with a first party supertele on it.
>>2764588
you clearly don't understand what he's saying lol
