Street Photography using the RICOH GR 28mm lens 

Thank you! I didn't include it because for it to be relevant then I'd have to add tons of other info (Auto or Manual ISO, the metering mode, and the exposure compensation). But I can tell you for sure, that if the shutter speed is 1/250 or faster, then I am using Av + Auto ISO. If you see the shutter speed below 1/250, often 1/60 or slower, then I am using M + Auto ISO. Those are my two main 'modes' of shooting, as I once covered in this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FuvePJzaShw.html

It really is! :)

Thank you! :)

Thank you very much!! :)

I still have mine. It's great! :)

Thanks! :)

Thanks!! :)

Yeah, that's massive DOF! :)

Thanks for the correction!! I knew as I was saying it that it was wrong, but didn't want to interrupt my thought as I think my point still made sense. :)

How does the math work? I've never been able to grasp sensor size with field of view and pixels per inch from a CMOS sensor to a full frame.

@@AlexsaurusRex If you look at the size of a full-frame sensor and an APSC sensor you can compare the dimension. APSC is about 22-23mm wide, while full-frame is about 36mm wide. 23 * 1.5 is (not quite, but close to) 36. It's actually closer to 1.6x crop factor (23 * 1.6 would be about 36). Basically, the full-frame sensor is about 1.5x bigger than the APSC sensor. So a given focal length would have that much more FOV. So, conversely any lens on APSC has an FOV that's 1.5x tighter. Since FOV is a consequence of focal length, we can just multiply the focal length by the same factor and get corresponding FOVs. So, a 20mm lens on APSC has the same FOV as a 30mm lens on Full-frame (more or less). And finally, cropping is the same thing. If I crop an image an image from a 20mm lens by 30% I will get an image that's about what a 30mm would have produced. For the pixel pitch, you need to also square the change because then you're considering the area not just the length/width of a side. So, imagine a 16 pixel sensor, it must be 4 pixel on a side (4 x 4 = 16). If I make the sizes halve as long, it's now 2 x 2 which is only 4 pixels. So a 50% 'crop' results in 1/4 the resolution. I think explained this very poorly, but it's the best I can do without diagrams. :)

@@AlexsaurusRex For geometric relations, it’s best to approximate the lens as a pinhole. Now think how the FOV changes when you double the focal length. Replicate that field of view by cropping. A quarter of the sensor’s area will be used. In the case of the GRⅢ, that’s six megapixels. Unfortunately, I cannot add drawings here, but you can take a ruler and a pen yourself.

Thank both of you! I could just compare this info to a diagram online. But absolute thanks for breaking it down for me 🥰

Yeah, it's great! I have one and have started making videos about it. Check one out on our channel. We'll do some videos for the Ricoh channel as well. :)

It's extremely well made! I believe it has a magnesium alloy body so it feels sturdy and tough. I've dropped my GR II on concrete a few times actually and it's still kicking! :)

Well, we didn't do street portraits, but did you see the recent geisha portrait video we did?

I will make a video very soon, but so far I love it! 40mm has been my favorite focal length / FOV for years! :)

Nice! :)

Yeah, I just make a trade there the other day. :)

Thanks for watching! The staircase is here: goo.gl/maps/WEfv2JYAPbEpP5Jg6

When I use snap focus (which is not always) I typically use either 5m of 2.5m.

Flip screens are nice thing to have, but I personally prefer the tiny size of the GR. Anyway, it's great to have different cameras for different situations! :)

I've been using the GR3x for a few weeks now. I don't see any issues with sharpness. Perhaps in lab tests there are differences, but in practice it's perfectly sharp.

Not really. I don't know which shot you're referencing, so maybe it would have been fine to shoot at f/5.6 and 800 ISO, maybe 1/125 and 800 ISO, but anyway, 1600 ISO on the GR3 is perfectly fine. :)

Because it keeps my beard warm. :)

Because it keeps my beard warm. :)

It's his facemask.

I'm a ninja! :)

@@duaneshort186 Yes i get that but wtf is the point he is outside. Why are people so sheepish

@@photomorti As for the scarf, I imagine he`s more comfortable with that than a regular mask. I agree I'd rather wear one like this if using the LCD screen for shooting. I did this for a short time when visiting Kyoto last November. Using the viewfinder of a camera can cause the finder to fog up when exhaling, though many/most regular masks cause the same issue. There are some masks that do not do this though. But as for the mask itself, why to wear one, he probably felt that he'd make too many others uncomfortable if he didn't have anything. In Japan, you think of everyone else more than you think about yourself, basically. It's nice in many ways, but in Japan, honestly, it is to a fault. I wear a mask many times when I know it's completely stupid (I actually feel it's always stupid) because it will make others uncomfortable. If I wasn't in Japan where it's normal to inconvenience yourself for others, I wouldn't. Edit: I guess the cold weather is a key factor as for fogging the viewfinder though. In Kyoto in November it was an extreme annoyance until I found a mask that didn't cause the issue. Until then, however, I wore a scarf much like the one he is using here. Generally preferable to other types of masks, though they all suck.

Because it keeps my beard warm. :)