[OoKU]

Ricoh 23mm and 26mm f/2.8 APS-C lens patent for a compact camera
Ricoh has a new patent for a 23mm and 28mm f/2.8 APS-C lenses designed for a compact camera

Embodiment 1:

f = 25.99 mm,F = 2.86,ω = 28.3

Embodiment 7:

f = 23.42 mm,F = 2.88,ω = 30.9

Other Embodiments:

2: f = 26.05,F = 2.87,ω = 28.3

3: f = 26.05,F = 2.87,ω = 28.3

4: f = 28.00,F = 2.88,ω = 26.6

5: f = 26.05,F = 2.88,ω = 28.3

6: f = 24.68,F = 2.88,ω = 29.6

8: f = 26.04,F = 2.88,ω = 28.3

9: f = 26.06,F = 2.88,ω = 28.3

10: f = 26.05,F = 2.88,ω = 28.3

26mm and 23mm F2.8 for APS-C compact cameras from RICOH?An image on a sensor?SS???

[D1N0]

A 35mm equivalent gr would be nice

[house]

I've seen many request for this. We'll see if it was just talk or if it will sell.

[OoKU]

26*1.53=40mm.

[D1N0]

I know but there is also a 23.42. What does the omega stand for btw? (small w)

[Serkevan]

That's typically an angular measurement - it would make sense because it's inversely proportional to FL (23mm -> 30.9 w, while 28mm -> 26.6 w). However, the numbers don't fit the FOV of the lenses on an APS-C camera at all (they are about half of what I expect), so I'm not sure.

[D1N0]

In that case it is closer to a m43 sensor

[BigMackCam]

In that case it is closer to a m43 sensor

Q replacement?

Hey, I can live in hope, even if it's fantasy

[D1N0]

If you can live with a fixed lens Q you may call it a Q replacement if you want.

[reh321]

Q replacement?

Hey, I can live in hope, even if it's fantasy

I got my Q-7 because the lenses are interchangeable

[BigMackCam]

If you can live with a fixed lens Q you may call it a Q replacement if you want.

I got my Q-7 because the lenses are interchangeable

I missed the part about it being a fixed lens Out of curiosity, where does it say that?

[JPT]

It would make a lot of sense to make a camera that is essentially the same as the GR III with a longer lens. They've done most of the hard work already, so it's an easy way to extend the appeal of the series. The only question to me is why they haven't done it in the past.

The question of 35mm or 40mm is difficult, but I think 40mm makes more sense. 35mm is more of a classically popular focal length, so it would attract people who felt 28mm was a bit wide, but it would not be so attractive to people who wanted a camera to supplement their existing 28mm GR. There isn't enough space between them and the GR III has a fairly usable 35mm crop mode. So I think 40mm would appeal to both people who already have a GR and those who avoided the GR as being too wide.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the Q.

[D1N0]

where does it say that?

"compact cameras"

[Viking42]

It would make a lot of sense to make a camera that is essentially the same as the GR III with a longer lens. They've done most of the hard work already, so it's an easy way to extend the appeal of the series. The only question to me is why they haven't done it in the past.

The question of 35mm or 40mm is difficult, but I think 40mm makes more sense. 35mm is more of a classically popular focal length, so it would attract people who felt 28mm was a bit wide, but it would not be so attractive to people who wanted a camera to supplement their existing 28mm GR. There isn't enough space between them and the GR III has a fairly usable 35mm crop mode. So I think 40mm would appeal to both people who already have a GR and those who avoided the GR as being too wide.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the Q.

+1

I seriously considered the GRIII as a compact complement to my DSLRs, but was put off by the 28mm equivalent focal length - too wide. I have owned since the '80s a little Rollei 35SE film camera with a 40mm fixed lens, and that focal length feels so natural and "right" that I could happily travel (and often did) with that one camera only. To have a digital version of this camera would be a no-brainer for me. Had the GR been available in either 35 or 40mm equiv. I would have bought one.

As an aside, I recall there was some research done by, I think Leica, back in the '50s or '60s, that determined 40mm was the most natural focal length for a "normal" lens as it matched the angle of view of the human eye. Perhaps that's why I like the Rollei so much. I will have to dig around the web to see if I can find that....

PS -- Sigma has been doing the fixed lens variety thing (wide-normal-tele) with their Merrill and Quattro series for some time. Seems like a sensible approach.

[Serkevan]

As an aside, I recall there was some research done by, I think Leica, back in the '50s or '60s, that determined 40mm was the most natural focal length for a "normal" lens as it matched the angle of view of the human eye. Perhaps that's why I like the Rollei so much. I will have to dig around the web to see if I can find that....

I really have to buy that 43 LTD, don't I?