Well, for a camera buff such as yourself, I’m a little surprised you failed to notice that the review you lnked to was for the silver model, which of course is far less cool. Duh!
Last I checked, it was in your budget range (probably a lot cheaper now)… yeah it’s a bit pricey but a sweet 'lil P&S…
Ricoh GR Digital (dpreview)
Ricoh GR Digital (LetsGoDigital Review)
A few sample shots (dpreview):
28 mm equiv, ISO 100, 1 sec, F2.4, +0.7 EV
28 mm equiv, ISO 154, 1/6 sec, F2.4, +0.0 EV
21 mm equiv, ISO 64, 1/320 sec, F5.0, +0.0 EV
28 mm equiv, ISO 64, 1/320 sec, F4.5, +0.0 EV
28 mm equiv, ISO 64, 1/500 sec, F5.6, +0.0 EV
Oh yeah. If the cam you’re looking at has a fixed lense remember to check the minimum focusing distance. Test the macro feature and see just how close you can get.
5cm for the Leica, according to specs and providing I understand them correctly (which is by no means likely). Is that good or bad?
http://www.therealtaiwan.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2775
http://www.therealtaiwan.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2769
Did that work? Anyway… I was about 1cm. I just took it now.
1 cm? So that would mean 5cm is crap then, no? But I don’t understand – my friend showed me macros she’d made with her Leica that were so close that a single flower stamen took up the whole screen and even the tiny hairs on it were in sharp focus. That must be way closer than your, er, “money shot.”
What an arcane and mystifying subject.
Hahaha… I knew you were going to jump on me because it looks like I’m proud of my crap image there. I don’t think that it looks good either. I think I’ve been finding it useful because I don’t have to be steady when I’m that close. I remember crystal macro shots like the one you’re talking about needing a very steady and a zoomed lense.
I think I’m just using this little camera for different reasons than what you guys are after. All I’m saying is that it’s a handy thing to have around and I find the closer the better in one case maybe.
I think my little Canon is 3cm, and it’s not bad for closeup shots.
The kit lens that it comes with is actually not too bad. When it was first released, everyone assumed that it’d be crap, but real world testing seems to say that it’s quite a good little lens.
Take a read of this. http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/18-55.html. The review was written when the lens first came out, which was at the same time as the 300D, so camera models mentioned in the review are different to what’s available now, but the lens is mostly the same. Canon did change the focusing motor, but the optics are the same.
Unless you’re shooting for National Geographic or something, the lens should do you fine.
Sigma lenses are not really any different than Canon lenses - there’s very good, very expensive ones, fairly good, mid-priced ones and not quite as good, cheap ones. Sigma (and Tamron, Tokina) are usually a little cheaper than Canon, but unless you’re talking professional quality lenses, the price difference isn’t much.
I wasn’t jumping on you – you know I can’t let an opportunity to make a smartarse comment pass by though.
[quote=“cfimages”]
Unless you’re shooting for National Geographic or something, the lens should do you fine.[/quote]
People get too worked up over equipment. “Bigger [i]must[/i] better.” 
Alex Majoli (Magnum Photos) who won both the U.S. National Press Photographers Association’s Best of Photojournalism Magazine Photographer of the Year Award and the U.S. Overseas Press Club’s Feature Photography Award, uses Olympus point and shoot cameras. He also shoots for National Geographic.
robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_ … -6468-7844
olympusamerica.com/e1/gal_amajoli.asp
magnumphotos.com/
Well the Leica is now in my sweaty paws and unlike the main criticism, I’m finding the manual very easy to understand. Trouble is, it only tells you HOW it operates, not WHY. Need to do some outside reading, I guess.
One thing I really don’t understand – why does it have an image stabilizer? And in two stages, too. I mean, surely there isn’t ever a time when you actually SEEK camera shake?
So what happens when you use this and when, if ever, should you NOT use it?
I’ve owned the Leica D-Lux 3 for about 4 months now. Basically it does everything that my D70 does except for the fact it is in a smaller package. If the asa is low, it takes pictures that easily equal or best the Nikon. However, once the light conditions get poor, you’ve got to spend a lot of time fiddling to get it to take a decent exposure. I still haven’t figured how to get the flash exposure right yet.
As for image stabilzation - there is some shit you just don’t need.
If the camera is on a rock-solid mount or if the shutter speed is fast enough, you should ideally turn off the image stabilization because, in trying to stabilize an already stable camera, there’s the off chance that it might actually introduce movement that wasn’t originally there. That’s what I hear, anyway.
Sandman… keep the IS off if you are on a tripod (I guess thats what Poagao pretty much just said). You might however find the I.S. handy in low light situations hand held and / or while using no flash in low light… especially if you are trying to shoot at the lowest iso possible.
[quote=“Doctor Evil”][quote=“cfimages”]
Unless you’re shooting for National Geographic or something, the lens should do you fine.[/quote]
People get too worked up over equipment. “Bigger [i]must[/i] better.”
Alex Majoli (Magnum Photos) who won both the U.S. National Press Photographers Association’s Best of Photojournalism Magazine Photographer of the Year Award and the U.S. Overseas Press Club’s Feature Photography Award, uses Olympus point and shoot cameras. He also shoots for National Geographic.
robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_ … -6468-7844
olympusamerica.com/e1/gal_amajoli.asp
magnumphotos.com/[/quote]
I shot around a bit with Dangermouse a while back and from what I recall, I think he was using one of these P&S cams. He’s definitely gotten some excellent shots out of that cam no doubt.
I recently acquired a Canon 400D & it’s absolutely fabulous in every way,& even though the standard lens that is provided with the kit-form camera isn’t ideal,it’s a pretty good little lens.I’ve taken some really nice pics with it.Anyone know what other kinds of lenses would be recommended?Anyone have any lenses for sale?PM me. 
I recently acquired a Canon 400D & it’s absolutely fabulous in every way,& even though the standard lens that is provided with the kit-form camera isn’t ideal,it’s a pretty good little lens.I’ve taken some really nice pics with it.Anyone know what other kinds of lenses would be recommended?Anyone have any lenses for sale?PM me. [/quote]
Must have lens - EF 50mm f1.8. About NT$3000. It’s equivalent to 80mm in 35mm terms, tack sharp. A great little portrait and low light lens. If you want to spend a bit more, look at the 50mm f1.4 - but it’s about 3 times the price.
What are you most interested in shooting? Wide angle, telephoto, or everything? If wide, look at the Tokina 12-24mm. I’ve heard good things about that lens. If tele, one of Canon’s 70-200 L lenses would be good, but pricey. There are 4 different models, the cheapest of which is about NT$25000. I think the 3rd party lens makers are a lot cheaper for this range, but I’ve no experience with them.
FWIW, I use the afore-mentioned 50mm f1.8, an EF 17-40mm f4L (most used lens for me), an EF 70-200 f4L and a 100mm f2.8 macro. Total cost for all those lenses is around NT$60K. I didn’t buy them all at once though.
Cool,Cfimages!Seems like you are as clued-up on these things as I’m clueless about them.Thanks for the advice! :bravo: