M
Mitch Alland
Guest
There have been several questions here of which one to get, and the choice is not that easy. I posted a few months ago on dpreview conclusions on the original GRD vs the GX100 in which I wrote that the differences between these cameras was much larger than had been indicated in most postings there — it's the same with the GRD2 vs the GX100: the differences are significant. But please note that I have not made any A-B tests but have only drawn these conclusions from using these cameras and making prints from their files. I am as eager as anyone else to see what Sean Reid concludes in his now imminent review, as I find his reviews to be balanced, always from the point of view of an experienced photographer, and the best either on the web or in magazines.
The GX100 is a very capable camera and the "stepped" zoom a very good facility for experienced photographers, who can work with is the way they would with five prime lenses by "stepping" through EFOV focal lengths that they are familier with, 24, 28, 35, 50 and 72. Hence, the first question a prospective buyer needs to decide is whether he or she can live with a fixed focal length 28mm lens or really wants the convenience of a zoom lens. But keep in mind that the GRD2 has the flexibility of adding a 21mm wide-converter, which is of excellent quality and a 40mm tele-converter, which, according to a posting by Sean Reid, is of a quality that will not disappoint those who have used the 21mm converter: this means a very high quality indeed.
As for the lens of the GRD2 and GX100 it is no doubt that the former, as a prime lens, is substantially better, with much less barrel distortion and better sharpness and contrast.
In terms of the pictures produced by the two cameras — speaking only of RAW files — I find those of the GX100 substantially softer than those of the GRD2, although I don't know the degree to which this softness is due to less contrast as opposed to less sharpness. I suspect it's both. However, I must hasten to say that the GX100 files take very well even to aggressive sharpening; and, therefore, the ultimate result in terms of image sharpness and contrast between the two cameras differs less than one would have initially expected. Nevertheless, I find it substantially easier to work with the GRD2 files to get the look that I want than with the GX100.
In terms of noise, which I like to call grain in the positive sense, the GRD2 has substantially smaller grain than the GX100: my impression is that a GRD2 file at ISO 400 may have the grain of a GX100 file at ISO 200 or even of 100. It is clear that Ricoh has made a major step forward in terms of image quality with the GRD2. Actually, this surprises me because the two cameras apparently use the same sensor, although other electronic components are different, as are the lenses.
At first, like some other people that have posted here and on other forums, I thought that the GRD2 might have lost the look of the original GRD. But after using the new camera for about a month I've now concluded that what Ricoh has done is substantially to improve the signal to noise ratio, so that the new camera produces much better RAW files at all ISO speeds. This means that I can get what I want, which is a relatively grainy look, by shooting at ISO 400 and using sharpening and contrast increase to heighten the grain effect. I can do a similar thing shooting at ISO100 and 200. As for ISO 800 I find that it is much better than on the GX100 so that I can have a higher proportion of usable pictures at this speed, not losing some of them to excessive grain in key areas of the image.
The bottom line is that I would generally rather use the GRD2 rather than the GX100, although I can get very good pictures from the latter as well. You can look at a series of 32 GRD2 shots here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/sets/72157603644012922/show/
...and a series of 20 GX100 shots here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/sets/72157603089594785/show/
—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
The GX100 is a very capable camera and the "stepped" zoom a very good facility for experienced photographers, who can work with is the way they would with five prime lenses by "stepping" through EFOV focal lengths that they are familier with, 24, 28, 35, 50 and 72. Hence, the first question a prospective buyer needs to decide is whether he or she can live with a fixed focal length 28mm lens or really wants the convenience of a zoom lens. But keep in mind that the GRD2 has the flexibility of adding a 21mm wide-converter, which is of excellent quality and a 40mm tele-converter, which, according to a posting by Sean Reid, is of a quality that will not disappoint those who have used the 21mm converter: this means a very high quality indeed.
As for the lens of the GRD2 and GX100 it is no doubt that the former, as a prime lens, is substantially better, with much less barrel distortion and better sharpness and contrast.
In terms of the pictures produced by the two cameras — speaking only of RAW files — I find those of the GX100 substantially softer than those of the GRD2, although I don't know the degree to which this softness is due to less contrast as opposed to less sharpness. I suspect it's both. However, I must hasten to say that the GX100 files take very well even to aggressive sharpening; and, therefore, the ultimate result in terms of image sharpness and contrast between the two cameras differs less than one would have initially expected. Nevertheless, I find it substantially easier to work with the GRD2 files to get the look that I want than with the GX100.
In terms of noise, which I like to call grain in the positive sense, the GRD2 has substantially smaller grain than the GX100: my impression is that a GRD2 file at ISO 400 may have the grain of a GX100 file at ISO 200 or even of 100. It is clear that Ricoh has made a major step forward in terms of image quality with the GRD2. Actually, this surprises me because the two cameras apparently use the same sensor, although other electronic components are different, as are the lenses.
At first, like some other people that have posted here and on other forums, I thought that the GRD2 might have lost the look of the original GRD. But after using the new camera for about a month I've now concluded that what Ricoh has done is substantially to improve the signal to noise ratio, so that the new camera produces much better RAW files at all ISO speeds. This means that I can get what I want, which is a relatively grainy look, by shooting at ISO 400 and using sharpening and contrast increase to heighten the grain effect. I can do a similar thing shooting at ISO100 and 200. As for ISO 800 I find that it is much better than on the GX100 so that I can have a higher proportion of usable pictures at this speed, not losing some of them to excessive grain in key areas of the image.
The bottom line is that I would generally rather use the GRD2 rather than the GX100, although I can get very good pictures from the latter as well. You can look at a series of 32 GRD2 shots here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/sets/72157603644012922/show/
...and a series of 20 GX100 shots here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/sets/72157603089594785/show/
—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/