based Ricoh milking the hipsters and pseuds

I wouldn't want a cropped sensor for a style of photography where minute grain-scale detail and gradients are paramount.

>>4493939
This isn't for the tone, it's for "quick and dirty" photojournalism, weegee type work

>>4493954
Weegee used a large format camera...

File: DSCF74714000px.jpg (3.2 MB)

3.2 MB JPG

>>4493956
and a big-ass flash
>>4493954
you cunt

An X-E1 does the Weegee job better

>>4493939
I thought I read something an anon posted some months ago where the benefit for a bayerless sensor was roughly the same as going up a format (i.e. APS-C bayerless is about the same as bayer FF).
If that's the case it's just a convenient form factor for a relatively well-detailed image at pixel-level. Would I prefer FF mono? Sure. Do I think all mono cameras costing $2000+ is drop dead retarded? Absolutely.
Will this thing sell like hotcakes because of the hipster EDC faggots? You bet your left nut it will.

Ricoh/Pentax is retarded. The first monochrome sensor camera they made was the k3-iii. Literally the worst of both worlds. Crop sensor in a non-pocketable body. Why not throw that sensor in the existing GR body at that time? Or why not make a new full frame mono sensor DSLR? At least they finally figured it out this time. Too pricey for me though, maybe if it was $1800 I’d pull the trigger.

>>4493926
>1800€ / $2200
I like shooting bw, but at these prices I'll just keep shooting film.
You can buy a new Rollei 35, developing chems and a nice scanner for less and still have enough money left over for a couple years of buying film.

>>4493926
Why don't any of the Ricoh cameras have filter threads?

>>4494075
how do you know it's not some rebranded leftover sensor from the pentax parts bin?

>>4494117
its the sensor from the k3iii

griv is that sensor in the gr3

k3iii sold absurdly bad because its $1800 for a god damn apsc dslr from 2018

Paying 1800€ for a camera that has a possibility to brick even if you just look at it the wrong way is just crazy.

>taste in color grading
stop fucking around on your laptop and just shoot

>>4493926
Why don't you just get the normal one and use a b&w filter

>>4493954
>it's for "quick and dirty" photojournalism
why the fuck would a journalist completely give up color? also the battery on these shitters lasts like 200 photos. no photojournalist uses crap like this

File: sevse.jpg (3 MB)

3 MB JPG

>>4493926
If it was 300€ less I'd get the x version.
They are clearly cashing out on the fact that street photographers love BW and that the only alternative is their aged DSLR or a 8000€ Leica.

>>4494118

>griv is that sensor in the gr3
Bullshit, look it up

>>4494130
Camera sensors only see white light and how much is entering. There is a RGB color filter mounted on top of sensors to make them see color. The most popular one is the Bayer array. You have a micro lens and filter over every pixel. The Pattern goes like this

GBGBGB
RGRGRG
GBGBGB
RGRGRG

Since you can combine these 3 colors to get every color, you can have the camera processor calculate which color a pixel has with an algorithm, which operates based on how much light of a specific wavelength/color enters the neighbouring pixels.

Leaving out the sensor not only removes the layer of lenses and filters, which block a bit of light, but also allows every pixel to gather information for itself, which lets the camera calculate light way more efficently.

This results in super sharp HDR images and great ISO performance.
These great low light HDR capabilites are also the reason why cameras in machines use monochrome sensors.

>>4494139
>Leaving out the sensor not only removes....
Leaving out the filter*

>>4494139
>This results in super sharp HDR images and great ISO performance.
>These great low light HDR capabilites are also the reason why cameras in machines use monochrome sensors.
NTA. I have a hard on for this kind of performance in a camera and black and white is kino as fuck. The problem is that if we're REMOVING parts, and simplifying things why THE FUCK are these cameras so god damned expensive? There would be a huge market for this kind of shit if we could buy one for <$1000, but this nigger company insists that for APS-C fixed lens monochrome cameras you deserve to shell out $2200? Fuck off.

The idea is so appealing. Why can't I just have a Canon Rebel with a mono sensor that costs $600 new?

File: R0008487.jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

>>4494141
As I wrote in my post, they are cashing out on the fact that the only competition costs $8000.

From a business perspective it looks different:
>Cameras are a niche market
>Ricoh serves a tiny niche in this market
>Monochrome photography is an even smaller niche
>Sensors are a custom order, because there have been no consumer grade monochrome APSC sensors until now

It's a very risky release and they have to fleece the few "freaks" who are this deep in the photography rabbit hole.

>>4494124
People buy brand new cars that lose $10k+ the moment they leave the lot.

People are retarded man

File: IMG_0463.jpg (142.1 KB)

142.1 KB JPG

>>4494139
Thanks for explaining it but I bet in real terms it makes zero difference, no human would be able to tell the camera apart from a colour / filtered one doing b&w. The only advantage I could see is on low light you might get a stop of sharpness. And really who's to say that clarity / sharpness unfilteredness is better anyway?

>>4494098
You can't buy time anon. Think the time spending on developing, scanning etc, all the shits that are inevitable time consuming in using film

>2200 for a crop sensor with no viewfinder
what exactly are you paying for here?
what does this do that those instagram girl fujis doesnt for half the cost?

>>4494204
Paying for nostalgic imitation of a 90s film point and shoot

>>4494204
It might not lose value being limited edition and novel

>>4494204
for instagram no average person needs a dedicated camera nowadays in the first place

>>4494233
Yeah but you know what I meant

File: dsf.jpg (720.9 KB)

720.9 KB JPG

>>4494172
You get better low light performance, image quality and HDR, yes.
Not $500 worth of that but it's there. It's made for specific customers as I said.

>And really who's to say that clarity / sharpness unfilteredness is better anyway?
Fun fact: Ricoh equipped the camera with an electronic shutter so that people can turn up the shutter speed and force high ISO to introduce grain to well lit scenes, so that they don't have to do it in post.

>>4493926
I bet for cheaper they couldn't have it in their portfolio as production costs, research, new sensor, red filter, software, etc. all cost a lot nowadays. Plus it's a very small market so with a low price they could never get their money back.

But still it's a price where even I call it not worth it. I'm ok paying 8000€ for a Leica Q3M because I know it lasts forever. Sure software bugs here and there but nothing that makes it a brick. And even if you can send it in in 20 years and still get a repaired camera back. In addition it has one of the best lenses ever, full frame and feel amazing in hand. While the ricoh always feels like a cheap toy that can break any moment. Also made in vietnam vs made in germany. Only advantage of the Ricoh is that it's very small. But on the other hand it's not for your pantspocket as it collects dusk like a vacuum cleaner. You need a small bag if you wanna carry it around other than around your neck/hand.

Can't think of something more consoomerist than paying €1800 for a camera without viewfinder that only shoots B&W

>>4494266
If it's so consumeristic then the sales must be through the roof, right?

>>4494266
>Can't think of something more consoomerist than paying $50,000 for a manual car with no AC or radio
That's what you sound like

>>4494206
Uhhh, anon literally every mirror less and dslr is an imagination of a film slr. Dumbass

>>4494316
Zoomers like you think all old cameras are the same and the manufacturers milk this
A Nikon F5 is night and day difference to an FM or F3

>>4493926
>apsc
pass