Now that's an interesting option! The closest camera to that which I ever worked with was my Graphlex which, while it folded up, certainly wasn't pocket sized.I've posted about my Voigtlander Perkeo II in a similar thread over here--
There is none, of course, but my personal ISO standard is the inside breast pocket of a jacket. Obviously some cameras are more pocketable than others.Is this 'Pocket' as in the original Sony Walkman, where the inventor had a jacket made with a bigger pocket than normal? What is the iso standard pocket ;-) ?
Hi Scott,I think "pocket" cameras should fit into shirt pockets, and even this isn't definitive. The GR-D with its optical viewfinder attached fits into the pocket of most any flannel or canvas shirt, and the looser of my business-style cotton shirts, but can't quite squeeze into all of them, especially if a few pens got there first.
Putting a camera in a coat or jacket side pocket usually means putting the camera first into a protective case. Taking the GR-D as an example, it must first removed from its case, then the viewfinder (also in its case) is installed, and finally the camera is in hand, ready to use. The GR-D2 has a nicer case and smaller optical finder, solving half of the problem, but in its case it needs a coat pocket, not a shirt pocket. When summer comes, I guess I'll have to find out how the belt loop on the case works.
David,My Perkeo II usually lives in a jacket pocket or the pocket of my briefcase with no additional case required.
Hi Philip,Me, l'm still stuck trying to work out which one to buy, despite reading all of Sean's reviews - will it be the Ricoh ( can't even sort out which one of three to buy ) or the Sigma ? Oh dear, the pressing problems of life.
Do we really want to go there so early in this sites life ! I've never been a Canon man ( although the daughter thinks l'm mad ), always sticking to Nikons when it came to SLRs and DSLRs. I just prefer the feel of a Nikon to a Canon, and this tends to filter down to all things camera wise. There's no real logic to it, just me
I have to admit that l've never been one to limit myself to one focal length, so l therefore have leanings towards the GX100. However, and here l maybe wrong and no doubt will be corrected, l don't think the GX100 has the option to shoot in a square format, which l like from my MF days. I also tend to shoot exclusively in RAW these days.
I suppose that at the end of the day on balance of likes and dislikes the GX100 just about gets it.
That, I think, is a conclusion several photographers have come to. With the GX100, one can pop on a 35 finder and have a 35, pop on a 50 and have a 50, etc. Photographers who love a 28, though, are often very happy with the (albeit more expensive) GR2. The speed difference between the GR and GR2 is a dramatic.Thanks for the clarification, Sean. That really helps me to get clear what I'm deciding between.
I suppose that if I'm using this camera for sketchbook/diary type work, and my 5D for the more demanding work, then the better flexibility and speed of the GX100 may be more useful than the slightly better lens of the GRD.
Inching closer to making a decision, thanks to your help everyone!
I hit the right button this time, there's hope for me.Hi Philip,
What is your preferred focal length? Is it 28mm, then both Ricoh GRDI/II and the Sigma will do an excellent job. If you are interested in for instance 35mm too, then the GX100 is an outstanding versatile camera.
The Ricoh GRI is slow with RAW write times (12 sec), but seem to have better jpeg's (less noise reduction). The GRDII is much faster as a RAW camera, but applies more noise reduction to the jpeg's. All the Ricoh cameras have some of the best ergonomics. They handle great, and seem to be designed by photographers with photography in mind.
The Sigma of course has the superior image quality and a good lens, but has less ergonomics.