BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Yes, most people on earth believe that, because it's true.

Everyone can take advantage of high quality equipment. Pros most socially redeeming quality is getting the subject and composition correct.


Yeahbut, with Petty driving a stock Pinto, and me driving a 500+ HP car set up for racing, he would lose big time. Of course you would need to shave 50 or so years from our age...
.

Other than lighting, all those things can be accomplished with the $19 Vivitar. People don't spend big bucks on camera and lens for composition or emotional content. That story can be told with a box camera.

If you can't appreciate the high quality resolution an expensive, high quality camera and lens can give you compared to a $19 Vivitar, then yes, no need for all that expensive equipment. Otherwise, buy the best you can afford or what your photography is worth to you.

I gotta admit I don't recall ever seeing a photo taken with a $19 Vivitar from Best Buy. Perhaps the resolution is really is just as good as a $9000 camera and lens, but I seriously doubt it. If you know of one on the hog, post up the references as I did with the high dollar pics.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Mi don’t see the relevance of these words to a Ricoh “GR iii”. It really is a fine camera; comparing this camera to something by Vivitar is like comparing a Cadillac to a Chevy.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Even then I wound bet on Petty to win because skill matters. He would drive that Pinto to the edge of its capability, drifting in corners etc. You could not drive the race car to the edge of its performance zone and you would likely spin out or crash or he might bump you and make you crash.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

The OP question was:
"Does UHH frown on Ricoh owners? Just wondering because I don’t think I have ever seen a Ricoh post."
Others replied essentially that "it doesn't matter it's the nut behind the camera that matters"
My post is relevant to those statements. What I said is it DOES make a difference if you use a $19 Vivitar vs $9000 Nikon gear. I don't use Ricoh gear but I'd guess a $1000 Ricoh will produce better results than a $19 camera, and it does make a difference. I could be wrong, never using either.
Sounds like you also think it makes a difference?

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

A camera is just a tool. Any camera can take good pictures or bad pictures. It depends on where you point it.

Burkley Loc: Park City

Nice gear only helps me diminish the number of good shots gone bad because of technical issues like incorrect exposure and focus. I have utmost respect for those in a bygone era taking action sport shots or birding with a manual focus prime long lens. They to me are the Richard Petty’s of photography.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

There are too many ‘answers’ in ignorance of a the Ricoh camera in question. Neither a $19 Vivitar nor a $9000 Nikon is likely to be close to the camera in question, nor close to the OP’s needs, so these questions sound relevant even though they aren’t.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Thinking about what you said above, if your talking about medium format cameras, In that case due to the larger size of the sensor or medium larger optics, the results can be noticeably different from the 24x36 mm format.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

True that. However, the same guy pointing a $19 Vivitar and a $5000 Nikon at the same scene will get very different results as far as resolution goes. I know my 2mp Kodak DC280 I bought in 1998 gets no where near the results of my 24mp Nikon D5200, and I think my Nikon could perform a lot better with high quality (expensive) glass.

Pretty certain I'd be VERY happy to own a Nikon Z9 and also certain my photo's would benefit from the purchase.

On the other hand, I'm not too unhappy with my Iphone camera, but then it takes much better photo's than that old Kodak but not quite up to par with my D5200. My Panasonic FZ18 is my favorite camera, super fun to use. The only issue for me was the image quality could have been a bit better, although not too shabby for a $300 camera. I'm guessing the Z9 would knock it's socks off. I could be wrong of course.

Speaking of which, If I were relegated to one handed shooting, a cell phone is certainly light enough, and a billion or so one handed cell phone selfies are taken every day. Sooo, if camera's don't matter, then what's wrong with the guy using a cell phone?

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Ok so what are you waiting for? Buy the Z9.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

The amount of photo's I take today and what I do with them doesn't come close to justifying the expense. I can't even justify buying a high quality lens for my current camera. I'm quite happy editing my kids pictures they send me from their cell phones. If I were younger I probably would already own a Z9, or more likely a Panasonic mirrorless.

I've been quite happy with my Panasonic camera's and spend a fair amount of time suppressing the gas to move up to one of those puppies. I tell myself I don't take enough pics to justify the bucks, and at my age may not be around long enough anyway. On the other hand, perhaps I would take more pics with a new camera and what the heck, can't take the money with you. It's a battle, and so far, I'm winning😁

keywest305 Loc: Baltimore Md.

I went from the D850 to Z9 after a lot of thought. I told my wife some guys sit in bars and some gamble or have expensive cars or motorcycles as hobbies. I have a camera as my main hobby so at my age 64 I worked my whole life giving to the family and my kids needs. Now their all grown and married so now I retired and deserve this camera. I do really think this camera is fabulous. This will be my last upgrade though.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I understand.

But if you like taking photos, you use the camera, it is something you like to do, maybe that is the justification. I shoot M43 as well it is a very good format with good IQ.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Nothing is wrong with it per se, but a cell phone tends to lack control.

A Ricoh GR - which this is supposedly about - provides that control.