GR User Forum
The spot for all Ricoh GR camera users
Register for free, meet other Ricoh GR users, share your images, help others, have fun!
Tell your friends about us!A few P10 macros from today...
- Thread starter waloszek
- Start date
Detail Man
New Member
Nice work, Gerd! ... 
The Depth of Field looks good - and a testament to the DoF achievable with cameras employing small image-sensors ... as while using zoom magnification will increase the resolution (in pixels represented per unit distance from the image-sensor) at the far-field of the focus-width, it also dramatically reduces the focus-width itself (by the square of the zoom magnification factor used).
(At least in the case of my Panasonic Lumix cameras), macro auto-focusing abilities suffer greatly from using any zoom magnification at all (so I don't). How much zoom magnification were/are you able to use (and still reliably auto-focus)?
(Assuming that the camera's image-sensor provides adequate pixel-resolution in such situations), an alternate approach of increasing the sensor-subject distance (followed by post-cropping the image to restore the same effective magnification) increases the focus-width in direct proportion to the ratio of the change in camera-subject distance. Thus, when this approach is considered in reverse (and when referenced from some fixed amount of maximal post-cropping), the effective magnification can be increased while only reducing the focus-width in direct proportion to a reduction in sensor-subject distance (together with a corresponding decrease in the amount of post-cropping applied to the image).
Granted, it would be nice to have more than 10 Mpixels pixel-size to post-crop. However, I have seen (merely) 8 Mpixels on a 1/2.5" CCD image-sensor push the limits of pixel density (DMC-TZ4). 10 Mpixels on a 1/2.33" MOS image-sensor seems as far (if not farther) than I would tread ...
The Depth of Field looks good - and a testament to the DoF achievable with cameras employing small image-sensors ... as while using zoom magnification will increase the resolution (in pixels represented per unit distance from the image-sensor) at the far-field of the focus-width, it also dramatically reduces the focus-width itself (by the square of the zoom magnification factor used).
(At least in the case of my Panasonic Lumix cameras), macro auto-focusing abilities suffer greatly from using any zoom magnification at all (so I don't). How much zoom magnification were/are you able to use (and still reliably auto-focus)?
(Assuming that the camera's image-sensor provides adequate pixel-resolution in such situations), an alternate approach of increasing the sensor-subject distance (followed by post-cropping the image to restore the same effective magnification) increases the focus-width in direct proportion to the ratio of the change in camera-subject distance. Thus, when this approach is considered in reverse (and when referenced from some fixed amount of maximal post-cropping), the effective magnification can be increased while only reducing the focus-width in direct proportion to a reduction in sensor-subject distance (together with a corresponding decrease in the amount of post-cropping applied to the image).
Granted, it would be nice to have more than 10 Mpixels pixel-size to post-crop. However, I have seen (merely) 8 Mpixels on a 1/2.5" CCD image-sensor push the limits of pixel density (DMC-TZ4). 10 Mpixels on a 1/2.33" MOS image-sensor seems as far (if not farther) than I would tread ...
waloszek
Member
Hi Remko,
Thank you for your appreciation.
I shoot only JPEG, because I am too lazy for RAW. These are sections, but too not (I forgot the not in my initial post...) much. I did also some contrast enhancement in PSE8, but nothing special.
So far, I like the P10, although the image quality isn't stellar... But the P10 is very flexible, the macro is great, and it will be my bread-and-butter module. In some distant future, I will present my experiences with the P10 on my Website (there are already some pages about the GXR: http://www.waloszek.de/gxr_e.php).
Best regards, Gerd
PS: Why not buy at Foto Koch (http://www.foto-koch.de)? (But I do not want to recommend any dealers here...)
Thank you for your appreciation.
I shoot only JPEG, because I am too lazy for RAW. These are sections, but too not (I forgot the not in my initial post...) much. I did also some contrast enhancement in PSE8, but nothing special.
So far, I like the P10, although the image quality isn't stellar... But the P10 is very flexible, the macro is great, and it will be my bread-and-butter module. In some distant future, I will present my experiences with the P10 on my Website (there are already some pages about the GXR: http://www.waloszek.de/gxr_e.php).
Best regards, Gerd
PS: Why not buy at Foto Koch (http://www.foto-koch.de)? (But I do not want to recommend any dealers here...)
waloszek
Member
Hi Detail Man,
I am not quite sure, whether I can follow your arguments - sorry... I did not use the macro zoom setting (which is a kind of electronic magnification), but just zoomed to the long end in macro mode. All Ricoh cameras show the largest magnification in macro mode at the wide end (the smallest rectangle captured). Thus, you always get a smaller magnification in the tele range. However, you get greater focus distance and less DOF, which both can be advantageous.
I experienced indeed some AF issues when doing macro shots in the tele range. Sometimes I switch to Spot AF and in difficult cases to MF (sometimes with magnification in the viewfinder).
I also found out when comparing my P10 with my wife's CX1 that Ricoh seems to have changed macro behavior once again, probably beginning with the CX2. Up to the R5, minimum focus distance at 200mm was about 15cm - with the slimmer R6 it increased to about 25cm, making tele macro much less usable. And it stayed there until and including the CX1. Therefore, my wife always uses the macro mode at the wide end. However, with the P10, minimum focus distance at 200mm is 10cm, which leads to nearly the same magnification as for wide angle. Then the minimum distance increases to about 27cm at 300mm (only half of the magnification of 200mm).
I asked already Pavel, who has a CX3, whether he can verify my P10 observations for the CX3. If it behaves the same, Ricoh missed a marketing chance to tell people of the improvement...
Best regards, Gerd
I am not quite sure, whether I can follow your arguments - sorry... I did not use the macro zoom setting (which is a kind of electronic magnification), but just zoomed to the long end in macro mode. All Ricoh cameras show the largest magnification in macro mode at the wide end (the smallest rectangle captured). Thus, you always get a smaller magnification in the tele range. However, you get greater focus distance and less DOF, which both can be advantageous.
I experienced indeed some AF issues when doing macro shots in the tele range. Sometimes I switch to Spot AF and in difficult cases to MF (sometimes with magnification in the viewfinder).
I also found out when comparing my P10 with my wife's CX1 that Ricoh seems to have changed macro behavior once again, probably beginning with the CX2. Up to the R5, minimum focus distance at 200mm was about 15cm - with the slimmer R6 it increased to about 25cm, making tele macro much less usable. And it stayed there until and including the CX1. Therefore, my wife always uses the macro mode at the wide end. However, with the P10, minimum focus distance at 200mm is 10cm, which leads to nearly the same magnification as for wide angle. Then the minimum distance increases to about 27cm at 300mm (only half of the magnification of 200mm).
I asked already Pavel, who has a CX3, whether he can verify my P10 observations for the CX3. If it behaves the same, Ricoh missed a marketing chance to tell people of the improvement...
Best regards, Gerd