painter seeking artistic camera

[artistinmemphis]

Hi,
I'm a painter primarily working in oils doing portraits and lanscapes. I live in Memphis, Tennessee, USA. I hike sometimes miles back into outdoor settings looking for good landscapes to paint. I usually document the scene with a camera, but I never paint from photographs, I really prefer painting from life. I love taking photographs as an art form. I'm looking for a camera that encourages artistic treatment of photography, and has manual settings that are easily accessible. I learned photography on a 35 mm slr in college through taking black and white courses. I am totally new to Ricoh. I saw a post on flickr saying that a GX100 was someones all time favorite camera, and that there are wheels that you turn for settings. That interested me because so many cameras are menu driven. I would like to find a digital camera that is simple to use, does Ricoh fit that bill?

My laundry list:
Fast lense, accessible manual controls, some zoom or interchangeable lenses, manual focus, good for documenting artwork, compact unless slr, durable, grippable ( I have large hands).
Can you recommend a Ricoh I could start with, I would like to spend $200 tops on a used camera so I can see if I like Ricoh's. I don't think they are sold here locally. I would appreciate any practical direction you can give. I'm also looking at the LX3 from Panasonic, Canon S90, or just going with an entry level dslr from Pentax or Canon and using my cell phone camera for day to day shots.

Thanks,

Matthew

 

[odklizec]

Hi Matthew and welcome here! Nice to see a real non-photographic artist here! Is there a place (either real or virtual) where we can see your paintings?

As for your question, it's always a hard choice I think the best camera meeting your requirements us GRD3. It allows great degree of customization, it's pocketable, lens is fast and almost free of any quirks (unnoticeable barrel distortion or chromatic aberration) an it produces reasonable JPEG output. I personally prefer to use RAW, but JPEG is good enough in range of ISO80-400. After ISO400 is better to use it in B&W mode. True, there is no zoom, but thanks to this fact, the lens quality is exceptional. LX3 or S90 are great options too (S90 uses the same sensor as GRDIII). But the LX3 usage is in my opinion a bit cumbersome and the lens quality of both LX3 and S90 is nowhere as good as GRDIII lens. GX100 is probably a bit old (and slow in RAW) for today's standards. GX200 is nice for ISO100-200 but its very noisy for anything above ISO200. And there is of course new GXR. But I think it's a bit too expensive to be just a casual or documentary tool?

All in all, my vote goes to GRD3.

 

[thelps]

I think the GRD III could be a good choice. If the cost of the GRD III is too high you could consider a GRD II -they sell for somewhat less than the GRD III, but to eek the best out of the GRD II images you'd need to be able to post process the RAW files. The GRD III does have a f1.9 lens over the f2.4 of the GRD II also.

I have seen GX100s available new still, so a used one should be priced well under depending on condition. How firm are you on the budget of $200? I assume this is USA$$'s ?

 

[socket]

I would suggest the GX100 (with a 24-72mm zoom) or the GRD I (28mm fixed lens).

I'm sure you'll get one of these second hand for a reasonable price. Even here in Canada, where Ricoh is not distributed, I can find GX100s and GRDs second hand at reasonable prices.

I have a GX100 and have very little experience with cameras, but I find it very easy to use. I don't find the RAW write times annoying, unless I'm trying to take multiple shots quickly.

If you don't want the flexiblity of a zoom, I'd go for the GRD I. By reputation (I don't have the camera, although I'm looking for one), it produces pictures with a different 'non-digital' look. People say you either love it or hate it.

It is a JPEG camera. Its an older camera and the RAW implementation is not very good, taking around 12 seconds to write to file. Most people find this unworkable. However, I hear the quality of the JPEGs is very good. I think thereafter, Ricoh's became more RAW-oriented cameras, as the implementation became, and the JPEGs in later versions just aren't as good.

I think it is fair to say that Ricoh's are very easy to use. However, they are criticized for noisy output. The early ones I'm recommending here aren't the most reliable, either. Nothing is perfect.

 

[artistinmemphis]

Hi Matthew and welcome here! Nice to see a real non-photographic artist here! Is there a place (either real or virtual) where we can see your paintings?

[/quote]
Thanks so much for the welcome! I have a new website with some of my artwork:
http://matthewleestudio.com I'd love to get some feedback.

I have seen GX100s available new still, so a used one should be priced well under depending on condition. How firm are you on the budget of $200? I assume this is USA$$'s ?

[/quote]
$200 U.S. is probably not firm, but I wish I could get my hands on a Ricoh locally before shelling out any cash.

I don't find the RAW write times annoying, unless I'm trying to take multiple shots quickly.

Can anyone explain what RAW write times are? I don't understand what RAW means really.

Thanks for all your posts and thoughtful suggestions.

 

[socket]

Can anyone explain what RAW write times are? I don't understand what RAW means really.

I'll make a stab at it.

High end compacts usually store two types of files RAW and JPEGs.

The RAW file is the unprocessed image taken by the sensor. It's like the negative taken in film photography. The JPEG ('the print') is the RAW image processed 'in camera' according to a recipe defined by the camera maker (especially when it comes to how noisy or 'smooth' the image is) and by the user (contrast, colour saturation, sharpness, etc.).

A JPEG has less colour information, dynamic range, etc than the RAW file, but is very convenient. A RAW file has much more information, but requires a separate 'darkroom' software program (like Silkypix or Photoshop) to view and edit it. You have to convert a RAW file into a JPEG for it to be printed or viewed on the web.

If you are really interested in image quality and 'fiddling around' with the image, then you'll want to work with the RAW files. If not, or you don't have the patience or time to mess around, then you can just use the JPEG. A JPEG can be processed with software, too, but because the file is lower quality and doesn't contain as much information in it, less things can be done with it.

All the cameras you mention have RAW capacity. Newer cameras don't have a noticeable time lag when saving the JPEG and RAW file to a memory card. However, older cameras do take time to write these files. The GX100 has about a 6 second time lag while the GRD I has a 10-14 second lag.

I usually don't notice the time lag on my GX100 because I am usually very slow and deliberate with my pictures. A more recent camera like the GX100 successor, the GX200, has almost no time lag.

You can disable saving a RAW file, thus shortening the write time, but then you have to be satisfied with the quality of the JPEG. Both the GX100 and GRD I are reputed to have very good JPEGs, while later Ricohs don't.

Hope that helps!

 

[thelps]

socket,

that was very well said, I don't think I could describe it better myself.

As we know jpgs are 8 bit colour/pixel, but I am unsure as to how many bits the Ricoh RAW files are? they are likely 12 bit/pixel? anyone know for sure?

 

[artistinmemphis]

Awesome, I understand much better, thank you, much appreciated Socket. Sounds like RAW would definitely be of interest to me. One reason I prefer not to paint from photographs, is a camera tends to sort of flatten a scene, and assigns a particular value and color to everything, whereas the naked eye can see a million shades and adjust to see light and many colors which in a typical photograph might appear dark or dull. So having RAW files would allow a little more creativity in the processing. Excellent.

 

[artistinmemphis]

I'm attaching a few pics and paintings from a recent trip to California.

 

[Muddy]

I gave my GX 200 to my daughter, she's studying fine art, she seem to be happy with her camera size and image quality.

 

[dearxh]

Wow,Nice pictures! I also have some experience about painting. Now I am only doing some quick sketch some times because of heavy work and study. :?