GXR/A12 vs GF1

[andrewteee]

I just received the GXR today as well. Not much time with it yet, but it appears to have good dynamic range and the high ISO performance is very good. In my brief experience it seems to make beautiful B&W pictures. Because of the cost I don't want to like it, but now I'm not sure that plan will pan out. I did not get the EVF because of the additional expense, but I can already tell that if I keep the GXR I'll want it.

Because the lens sticks out more the "bulk" is about the same as the E-P2 with the Panasonic 20/1.7 lens, though perhaps the GXR is slightly lighter.

 

[barjohn]

Just been doing some test shots and I am amazed at the IQ so far, even at ISO 1600. Like you I was hope to not particularly like it but some aspects are wowing me. Unfortunately the AF isn't one of those. I will write more on the focus after I play with it more tomorrow.

 

[andrewteee]

I just did a quick test against the E-P2 with the 45 macro. I think I just lost some love for the E-P2. The GXR DNGs seem very workable for dynamic range, detail and B&W work. They are very pleasing, like a lot of B&W film work I like. And as you say, ISO 1600 is clean. The GXR also feels more solid and comfortable in hand. The AF is indeed slow, and the manual focus zoom helps with that, but I'd like to see it have additional zoom levels to get even closer in the zoom pane. I plan to spend some time with it this weekend.

Now I'm starting to think again about what other units I'd like to see.

 

[barjohn]

A little more discussion about the AF... First, it tends to move the lens a great deal and to do so slowly while seeking focus and then suddenly accelerate to a given focus. However, in the process it sometimes misses the stopping point resulting in the indicator showing in focus but the image showing it is not. Sometimes it just hunts and can't seem to find the focus. My guess as an engineer is that this is fixable in firmware. They can't make the motor any faster than it is but they can improve the servo loop so it stops at the right point. The combination of less lens movement distance as it hones in on the focus point should allow for better and faster stopping. It can't compete with the EP1 or GF1 in this area. The way they implemented the MF would be good except for the fact that the magnification is a bit low (and only one setting, also fixable in firmware) but it is easy to switch it on and it only occupies a rectangle in the center which is much better than the whole screen like the GF1. The other bad news here is that the focus point doesn't snap into being so you have to guess and the focus by wire of the focus ring lags so you can over shoot and then trying to come back you miss again. There is no reasonable excuse for this behavior and it should be fixed.

One cool thing they did was when you push the button to use the EVF, after you take the shot, if you push the play button is displays on the back LCD and then when you 1/2 press the shutter it switches back to the EVF without having to do anything else. I much prefer this to the GF1's mode.

I'll post more tomorrow.

 

[bradhusick]

John,
Please tell us how you like the EVF compared to the one on the GF-1.
-Brad

 

[barjohn]

Update on AF
Today in daylight the AF is much snappier and I would say that it is the equal of the EP1 or maybe even a little faster. A really big difference between tungsten lighting and daylight as far as AF performance goes. I also tested it in a rather dark room and performance was very close to GF1 performance. Apparently there is something about tungsten light and the contrast detect that gives it the biggest problem in AF performance.

The LCD and VF are really excellent with super high resolution and smoothness and nice color and contrast. There is no contest between the GF1 and the GXR in this regard.

The thing that is really blowing me away is the image IQ. It may be just poor memory but I think the IQ beats that of the Nikon D90 I had. I am going to compare similar shots and see if I am right. The DR is also excellent. I am starting to worry that I won't want to send it back.

One thing I forgot to mention is how quiet the camera is. A faint click is all you hear unless you turn on the fake sound.

 

[barjohn]

Here are some image comparisons all shot at ISO 200. I was a little off on the GF1 kit lens in that I set it at 24mm instead of 25mm and was using 4:3 on GF1 and 3:2 on GXR. All were shot on a tripod with the tripod kept in the same position and all within minutes of one another. I let each camera select its shutter speed and f-stop. On all images, the GXR image is on the left and the GF1 image is on the right. They are as imported into LR3 beta with no PP applied and are screen snaps of the RAW images in each case.

 

[bradhusick]

John, thanks for these!!!

Can you take some comparison shots with the 20mm f/1.7 pana lens vs. the 50mm GXR?

 

[Terry]

Which color is more accurate on your last shot of the plate/napkin/tablecloth?

 

[retow]

Looks as if the GXR has the upper hand in the IQ department. Could play with one today at Photo Village in NYC and was told that Ricoh is working on a firmware upgrade to improve AF/reduce Af hunting.

 

[barjohn]

I will shoot some comparison shots using the 20mm f1.7 lens on the GF1 tomorrow as i have to go out and do some honey-dos shortly. The color of the reds is more accurate on the GXR. I can't recreate the color on the napkins because the sun is no longer where it was when I took the pictures to give me the same effect against the black and white napkins.

I have also discovered that one of the reasons the Ricoh hunts in low light that the AF assist light does not come on soon enough. Under the same low light conditions, the GF1 turns on the AF assist lamp and the GXR does not. Once the level is low enough (almost dark) the GXR turns on the light and focuses just fine. Still not as quick but very close. This should be easily fixed in firmware.

I have created Color Checker Passport profiles for both the GF1 and the GXR for use in LR 3 and I find the color profiles have very little effect on the GXR (it stays almost the same) but a pretty significant effect on the GF1.

 

[barjohn]

Looks as if the GXR has the upper hand in the IQ department. Could play with one today at Photo Village in NYC and was told that Ricoh is working on a firmware upgrade to improve AF/reduce Af hunting.

The difference in detail captured is significant. Even after playing with both images in LR 3 Beta and playing with sharpening the GXR has significantly more detail and much better dynamic range. The images look deeper and richer and subtle details are clearly visible in the GXR that are only hinted at in the GF1 image. To be fair, in small prints up to 8x10 you might not see the detail differences but you would definitely see the DR differences in high contrast scenes.

 

[Terry]

How are you evaluating the dynamic range? I know you let each camera chose the aperture and shutter speed but the difference doesn't seem to be simply dynamic range the exposure on all of the GF1 images is hotter.

 

[barjohn]

Terry, I am looking at the histograms and the images and looking at the detail in both the shadows and the highlights. The GF1 tends to blow the highlights and even when I try and recover them the same level of detail is missing.

I have attempted to recover the highlights on the GF1 image in the magnified shot and I have magnified images of the GF1 and GXR shadow too.

The first two are GXR and the last two are GF1.

 

[retow]

The difference in detail captured is significant. Even after playing with both images in LR 3 Beta and playing with sharpening the GXR has significantly more detail and much better dynamic range. The images look deeper and richer and subtle details are clearly visible in the GXR that are only hinted at in the GF1 image. To be fair, in small prints up to 8x10 you might not see the detail differences but you would definitely see the DR differences in high contrast scenes.

I was on the fence with my decision, but your pictures and comments might just have pushed me to pull the trigger Also, as you mention, the size of the GXR is nice, about the same as the Canon G10. Build quality and finish seem top notch, definitely a premium product. The grip is simply excellent and easily allows one hand shooting.

 

[tmrgrs]

Terry, I am looking at the histograms and the images and looking at the detail in both the shadows and the highlights. The GF1 tends to blow the highlights and even when I try and recover them the same level of detail is missing.

I have attempted to recover the highlights on the GF1 image in the magnified shot and I have magnified images of the GF1 and GXR shadow too.

The first two are GXR and the last two are GF1.

. . . I just have to jump in here and say that this GF1 image is clearly over exposed in comparison to the GXR image. It's no secret that you have to use EV compensation with the GF1 when shooting in bright sun light.

. . . The other problem that I have with this comparison is the use of a 14-45 zoom lens on the GF1 while comparing it with the prime lens module on the GXR. Why not use the 20/1.7 lens on the Pany instead? Zoom lenses offer focal length flexibility at the expense of image quality and these images don't show the real capability of the GF1 when using a lens of comparable IQ characteristics in my opinion.

. . . And lastly. I understand there is some interest here in mirrorless cameras no matter what sensor format but this forum is supposed to be dedicated to the 4/3 format. Will the NX10 be joining the Ricoh here in this 4/3 forum as well?

 

[kevinparis]

barjohn

the last set of photos... some serious mismatches going on... not
same FOV ... and the JPEG sizes of the GF1 pics are much smaller than the GXR ones... plus no other details of ISO/Aperture etc

you know I am not a pixel peeping brickdust sniffing member of this fraternity... but i did briefly use a GXR pre production model, and while it was nice...i didn't see such a difference as you are with my 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras

cheers

K

not slamming the ricoh... but your GF1 pics seem much worse than i would expect

 

[Lupo]

Here are some image comparisons all shot at ISO 200. ..

It seems to me all the photos of the GF1 too bright, fuzzy and lack contrast.

...the GF1 is a camera that up to ISO 800 is as good as a DSLR? Never! :toocool:

 

[Terry]

It seems to me all the photos of the GF1 too bright, fuzzy and lack contrast.

...the GF1 is a camera that up to ISO 800 is as good as a DSLR? Never! :toocool:

This is not me being a fangirl about the GF1 but I can pretty safely say that these shots are not indicative of the results I've seen from the GF1/G1/GH1.

John,
I really don't think you can talk about the DR of one versus the other without matching the exposures and these are very far apart.

 

[barjohn]

A few points here.

1. I am well aware that this is a 4/3rds forum as I own one and have owned others. My intent here is to try and help those that may have been on the fence as I have been. I will attempt to match exposures and use the 20mm f1.7 lens though I have to say that I have never seen that large a difference between it and the kit lens. I would agree that the GF1 tends to overexpose in bright sunlight as was happening here so I will set up manually to match.

2. The images don't match up in size on the DR examples because I was using the Macs magnification to go above 100% without pixalating so that the difference would be visible in the screen captures. Since I was going from memory they aren't a perfect match but it was not intentional to favor one over the other. It was a quick response before I ran out the door to try and answer Terry's question.

3. I am also trying to give it to you as I see it. Hence the JPGs are screen shots of the RAW images as displayed in LR and not the actual images though I would be happy to send anyone the original RAW files to play with that wants them.

4. I took the camera with me this afternoon down to try and do some street shooting and with moving subjects i found another flaw in the AF. When you 1/2 press the shutter it freezes the image until focus is achieved and then suddenly it is back to a live moving subject only the subject isn't where it was when you started to take the shot. This is very disconcerting and something they need to fix. I tried zone focusing too but I haven't had time to check the results yet so I don't know how successful I was or wasn't as the case may be.

Part of what I am looking for is a camera that gives excellent results as to image IQ with minimum PP. I don't mind some but would prefer to keep it to a minimum and the same goes for the camera's exposure capability under normal conditions. It should get it right most of the time without user intervention. User intervention should be limited to those tricky conditions that require the human eye and brain. (IMHO)