News new GR?

Whatever Ricoh produce as the next generation GR I'l buy. Period.

If you are serious about photography you need a Ricoh GR, imho.

LouisB

Do you mean to imply that anyone who doesn't need a Ricoh GR isn't 'serious about photography'? No offense meant, Louis, but what about those gazillons of shooters who prefer other models or brands and schlep them around all day ?
 
Knowing Louis, I'm certain that isn't what he meant. But he makes a good point, as do you, albeit perhaps inadvertently. I (re-)came to Ricoh with the GXR, then the GRDlll. Today I have a GR (and a bagful of Fuji X). I was a 25-year Leica user, M, R and LTM. The Ricoh GR is an intoxicating mixture of quality, handling, convenience and diminutive size in a single, tremendous package. Part of the huge attraction for me is that although I carry it almost daily, I never, ever see it as a chore. You don't "schlep" a GR, it fits into your life.
 
I'm pretty serious about photography and not only don't have a GR, I actually had one for a month and actually rejected it - HORRORS! - in favor of what I saw (and still see) as a better alternative for me. I have two cameras small enough to carry all the time but I don't carry either all the time because that's not how I shoot. I'm out shooting or I'm not - I don't want to always have a camera with me because that means I'm always on the lookout for photographic opportunities and that's not the way my brain and photography work best together.

Being primarily a Nikon DSLR shooter now, I hang out on a couple of Nikon DSLR specific forums and people are always making statements like that over there too, even to the point of saying it about one one particular Nikon DSLR over another! Which is obviously BS of the highest order, but no more than it is when used here about the GR.

If Ricoh comes out with a new GR and improves a couple of features to make it more to my liking, I'll take a good look at it and consider buying it - but I sure won't make any absolute statements about any camera that doesn't exist yet...

I'm sure Louis meant no offense and was just being enthusiastic about his camera, but I agree with Nic that ultimately statements like that are just pure brand loyalty and insulting to those with other preferences even if not remotely intended that way.

Oh, and by the way, REAL photographers use an OVF - who wants to see the world through a little TV set! :D (and no, of course I don't believe this - just another of this type of statement I run into all the time)

-Ray
 
I'm out shooting or I'm not - I don't want to always have a camera with me because that means I'm always on the lookout for photographic opportunities and that's not the way my brain and photography work best together.-Ray

Isn't this the truth? I like to have a camera with me a lot of the time, but not all of the time. In fact, there are many occasions when one might think that I would naturally want to take photographs, but I intentionally leave the camera at home. That's because having a camera with me often compromises my ability to live in the moment. All of a sudden I'm not within the occasion but outside, observing and analyzing it. At least that's how my mind works.
 
"Real" photographers . . .

Actually, real photographers use large format... :p

I simply say this to make the point that not everything should be taken literally, ok?

Bill,

This reminds me of a wonderful story I read decades ago in Editor and Publisher, the trade magazine of the newspaper industry here in the colonies.

The piece in question told of a workshop held for photographers. They showed up with Anvil cases filled with Nikons, Leicas, and even Hasselblads. Whereupon the organizer handed out Instamatics and told the participants to go shoot with those. not surprisingly, some came back with some really striking images.

IMHO, the "real" photographer lives in the eye and in the heart, not in the equipment.

Cheers, Jock
 
Isn't this the truth? I like to have a camera with me a lot of the time, but not all of the time. In fact, there are many occasions when one might think that I would naturally want to take photographs, but I intentionally leave the camera at home. That's because having a camera with me often compromises my ability to live in the moment. All of a sudden I'm not within the occasion but outside, observing and analyzing it. At least that's how my mind works.

That's the way it works for me too - actually caused me to give up photography beyond the snapshot level for a looooooong time (about 25 years) because I was becoming uncomfortable with the observer perspective. Now I'm at a point where I can find a nice balance between the two, but I can't always have a camera at the ready - it changes how I perceive and react to the world.

That said, my only point is that there is no one way of going about any of it, hence no "mandatory" cameras, not even the ones I like best! :cool:

-Ray
 
Apologies if my enthusiasm ran away with me. - I did not mean to imply a criticism of anyone who did not share my delight or interest in the Ricoh GR and any future development of the camera.

Let me modify my advocacy by saying if you haven't checked out the Ricoh GR then I can attest to the fact that it consistently turns in results which belies its size and often embarrasses the output of larger, more expensive equipment that I own.

LouisB
 
Apologies if my enthusiasm ran away with me. - I did not mean to imply a criticism of anyone who did not share my delight or interest in the Ricoh GR and any future development of the camera.

Let me modify my advocacy by saying if you haven't checked out the Ricoh GR then I can attest to the fact that it consistently turns in results which belies its size and often embarrasses the output of larger, more expensive equipment that I own.

LouisB

I agree - it's at least worth a look from almost anyone who doesn't just endemically dislike small cameras or fixed lens cameras... A damn fine camera, but one of many these days.

-Ray
 
Back
Top