The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

The GRD2 in San Juan

Lili

New member
Jack, Ray, Mark

Okay, mine was a leading question. Sean did a good review of these cameras, and I've owned both (the GX100 twice). My criticism of the review is that it dealt minutely with IQ differences, but, let's face it, compared to larger format cameras the quality is rubbish on all small cameras . . . okay, you can make a virtue of it and lots of people have proved you can take wonderful pictures with them, but deciding on one on the basis of minute differences in image quality is seems pretty odd to me.

My take on it is this:
1. the GRD II has slightly better micro contrast, but the lens isn't fundamentally much better than the zoom on the GX100
2. The GRD applies some noise reduction in the RAW files (not so good)
3. adding the adaptors for 21 and 40 on the GRD is fine . . . but then it's bigger than an M8 - so if you have an M8 . . .
4. the 24-72 zoom on the GX100 can be put into 'step' mode, which means that you have 24, 28, 35, 50 and 72 mm 'click' stops, AND it remembers where you were, so if you want to treat it like a 28mm, then put it there and leave it. (but you still have the others if you want them)
5. the controls and speed of action are the same.
6. the longer focal length of the GX100 is much better for macro . . . which is the one place where small sensor cameras really offer advantages with their big depth of field.

So, with the GRDII it's arguable that you'll get very slightly better IQ than the GX100, but it's very very marginal. Handling is a wash. On the other hand, the GX100 has a very useful zoom lens with an unusual wide angle.

Until some smart company puts out a 4/3 sensor in a small camera with characteristics like the Ricoh, then there are obvious shortcomings in all these cameras - so it's always going to be a compromise. At least the Ricohs work like 'real' cameras, and to me, the compromises of the GX100 are much more attractive than those of the GRDII.

I haven't mentioned the SD1, simply because I'm not going to use a different raw converter just so that I can use a compact camera with a 28mm f4 lens and cruddy interface - even if it does have a bigger sensor (mind you, that's just me, not knocking the results).
All EXTREMELY valid points Jonoslack! Currently were I in the market and noe so happy with my GRD first Gen, I would opt for the GX100 in a heartbeat.

Edut; that was NOT to denigrate the GRD II, but rather that I think I would prefer the GX100 in hindisght.
Not enough to ditch my GRD first gen tho
Terry, your work rocks, glad to see you on the Ricoh Wagon ;)
 
Last edited:

sizifo

New member
jonoslack, you definitely make many valid points, but I guess it depends on what's important for you.

I went from GRDI to GRDII. And the differences are not to be dismissed. I really think the image quality is substantially better, and my impression when comparing GX100 raw files is that there is a real difference as well. One may be able to argue one way or the other by pixel peeping, but the GRDII files have a definite edge for me.

Also, I remember there were some posts by Mitch on this from a few months ago which may be useful to read, since he has all three.

Now the major advantages of GRDII over both of these is that raw is much more usable. In addition, the GRDs are that little bit more pocketable. Because they don't have the protruding flash bit, they really can fit into a very small pocket, and for me this is important.

There are also minor UI improvements which have not made it into the GRDI firmware update that also make a significant difference, e.g. the manual focusing. Don't know how the GX compares on this front.

On a very personal level, the GRDs feel like cameras that have been made almost to perfection. They are a rare pieces of electronics that I've almost fallen in love with :angel:. The build quality of the GX and it's shape (hmm), just doesn't quite cut it in this respect.

Vid
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Hi Jono:

No arguments at all from me! Why I personally leaned toward the GRD is kind of two-fold. One I wanted to get a limited DoF effect in a compact P&S and need a fast lens to get anywhere near that, combined with the fact I felt the fixed lens was potentially a better performer wide open. (When I saw Terry's files wide open, I was frankly pretty impressed and confirmed that at least the fixed lens was good enough :)) Moreover, like Vid's comments above, I liked the build quality and control layout on Terry's a lot when I played with it and didn't feel any need to mess with that. Finally, I already own the D-Lux 3 which has a zoom and produces excellent images (for a P&S), and I almost always leave it at its 28 setting when I'm using it anyway. So it wasn't a scientific comparison of the GRD2 and GX100 by any stretch, rather an impulse purchase of what I felt will deliver the best of what I want out of it. Plus the ability to use 3 AAA's in a pinch is pretty neat and wasn't sure the GX offered that?


Cheers,
 
A

asabet

Guest
Jack, Ray, Mark

Okay, mine was a leading question. Sean did a good review of these cameras, and I've owned both (the GX100 twice). My criticism of the review is that it dealt minutely with IQ differences, but, let's face it, compared to larger format cameras the quality is rubbish on all small cameras . . . okay, you can make a virtue of it and lots of people have proved you can take wonderful pictures with them, but deciding on one on the basis of minute differences in image quality is seems pretty odd to me.
From my experience as a GX100 owner and what I have read of the GRD II, I'd say that the main advantages of the GRD II are 1) Smaller size; 2) Lens retracts into body; 3) More lens contrast (not always preferred by everyone, but in general preferable in this instance, particularly with the GX100 susceptibility to veiling glare); 4) Less barrel distortion at 28mm; and 5) RAW buffer allowing consecutive RAW images without the 5-6 second wait characteristic of the GX100. Based on evaluation of the early files, I initially thought the GRD II was doing NR on the RAW files. However, I don't see any detail loss/smearing, and the consensus opinion seems to be that there is no NR being applied to the RAW files. The in-camera JPEGs are another story. There is a great deal of NR applied to high ISO GRD II in-camera JPEGs (much more so than to GX100 images), and this cannot be disabled.

Ricoh has agreed to send me a GRD II for testing. I'll be comparing it with the DP1 and perhaps some other cameras as well. Unfortunately, I no longer have the GX100, so I won't be able to compare them directly.
 

jonoslack

Active member
From my experience as a GX100 owner and what I have read of the GRD II, I'd say that the main advantages of the GRD II are 1) Smaller size; 2) Lens retracts into body; 3) More lens contrast (not always preferred by everyone, but in general preferable in this instance, particularly with the GX100 susceptibility to veiling glare); 4) Less barrel distortion at 28mm; and 5) RAW buffer allowing consecutive RAW images without the 5-6 second wait characteristic of the GX100. Based on evaluation of the early files, I initially thought the GRD II was doing NR on the RAW files. However, I don't see any detail loss/smearing, and the consensus opinion seems to be that there is no NR being applied to the RAW files. The in-camera JPEGs are another story. There is a great deal of NR applied to high ISO GRD II in-camera JPEGs (much more so than to GX100 images), and this cannot be disabled.

Ricoh has agreed to send me a GRD II for testing. I'll be comparing it with the DP1 and perhaps some other cameras as well. Unfortunately, I no longer have the GX100, so I won't be able to compare them directly.
Hi Amin
Well, I don't disagree with any of your points, but I think that they are all 'two tenths of SFA arguments' i.e. compared to the compromises one is already making over small sensor cameras they are pretty minor. On the other hand, the advantages of the GX100 as a 'pocket' camera are really quite pronounced.

Still, it's only my opinion :thumbup:
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Vid
jonoslack, you definitely make many valid points, but I guess it depends on what's important for you.

I went from GRDI to GRDII. And the differences are not to be dismissed. I really think the image quality is substantially better, and my impression when comparing GX100 raw files is that there is a real difference as well. One may be able to argue one way or the other by pixel peeping, but the GRDII files have a definite edge for me.
I also had the GRD . . . zzzzz I found raw impossible to use. On the GX100 however it's perfectly useable, I know the GRD is faster, but it's only a couple of seconds, and the crucial issue with this is whether it bugs or not.

Also, I remember there were some posts by Mitch on this from a few months ago which may be useful to read, since he has all three.
Well, Mitch was using the camera as his main camera, was happy to carry around the add-on lenses, and didn't like the 'gestalt' of the M8. I'm not for a minute questioning his feelings, but most of us want a pocketable second camera with as few compromises as possible - not a main camera to spend hours in PP getting just the right grain consistency.

Now the major advantages of GRDII over both of these is that raw is much more usable.
It's fine on the GX100 (havent' shot a single jpg only shot). . . see above comment.

In addition, the GRDs are that little bit more pocketable. Because they don't have the protruding flash bit, they really can fit into a very small pocket, and for me this is important.
Well, I agree here - no question. . . but the GX100 will fit quite comfortably into a shirt pocket, perhaps that's enough.

There are also minor UI improvements which have not made it into the GRDI firmware update that also make a significant difference, e.g. the manual focusing. Don't know how the GX compares on this front.
As far as I can remember all of that is in the GX100

On a very personal level, the GRDs feel like cameras that have been made almost to perfection. They are a rare pieces of electronics that I've almost fallen in love with :angel:. The build quality of the GX and it's shape (hmm), just doesn't quite cut it in this respect.

Vid
I agree about the shape and build quality . . . but it's a good swap for such a useful zoom range, and I doubt there would be a great deal of difference in the result should you drop them!

Actually, I subscribe to the 'gestalt' feel of the GRDII completely, BUT, and for me it's a BIG but, the GX100 provides a very very similar image quality, an identical user interface and a lovely zoom range for a little less money.

It's about getting the shot just as much as how it 'feels' to get the shot!
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Jono:

No arguments at all from me! Why I personally leaned toward the GRD is kind of two-fold. One I wanted to get a limited DoF effect in a compact P&S and need a fast lens to get anywhere near that, combined with the fact I felt the fixed lens was potentially a better performer wide open. (When I saw Terry's files wide open, I was frankly pretty impressed and confirmed that at least the fixed lens was good enough :)) Moreover, like Vid's comments above, I liked the build quality and control layout on Terry's a lot when I played with it and didn't feel any need to mess with that. Finally, I already own the D-Lux 3 which has a zoom and produces excellent images (for a P&S), and I almost always leave it at its 28 setting when I'm using it anyway. So it wasn't a scientific comparison of the GRD2 and GX100 by any stretch, rather an impulse purchase of what I felt will deliver the best of what I want out of it. Plus the ability to use 3 AAA's in a pinch is pretty neat and wasn't sure the GX offered that?
Hi Jack
the GRDII is f2.4 at 28mm, the GX100 f2.7 - won't get you much more dof.
The lens is better wide open, but not by much - Sean does confirm that, my feeling is that both lenses out-perform the sensor.
The build quality is so close as to make very little difference, the control layout is the same on the GX100.

I'm not sure why I'm fighting this particular corner:ROTFL:

I KNOW the GRDII feels nicer, is slightly smaller, and has a slightly better lens. It's just that if I'm going to have something smaller than the M8, I'd rather it covered more bases.
Incidentally, the GX100 is 111X68X25 220gm
GRD2 is 107X68X25 and 168 gm

FWIW!

You say that you only use your D-lux3 at 28mm . . . I think that's true of mine as well, but I certainly use the Gx100 at 24mm - often.
 
Last edited:
A

asabet

Guest
Hi Amin
Well, I don't disagree with any of your points, but I think that they are all 'two tenths of SFA arguments' i.e. compared to the compromises one is already making over small sensor cameras they are pretty minor. On the other hand, the advantages of the GX100 as a 'pocket' camera are really quite pronounced.
That was my feeling as well, which is why I opted for the GX100. Was just laying out the reasons for going the other way. I think they're both plenty good, and I can see why someone would pick either one over the other.

Regards,
Amin
 

nostatic

New member
I'm close to ordering a GRD2 from Popflash, but for me the decision is a little different. Since I have a DLux3, I see no advantage in the GX-100. The things that I do want are better/closer macro, no lens cap, smaller size, faster lens/operation. Seems like the GRD2 does all of that. If I didn't have the DLux3 it would be a much tougher choice...
 

Lili

New member
Allow me to clarify my earlier statement.
I in no way regret having got the the GRD first gen, I do feel however that if one needs more than one efl, the GX100 is a far more practical solution that the adapter lenses, no matter how good they are (and they are superb).
The GX100 may be bigger and need a lens cap, but compared to GRD, both lens and at least GH-1 adapter, its positively svelte.
I do not find the GRD to be limiting at all, I take as many or more shots I like with it than both the Fuji and Pentax combined.
ANd that counts only those shot with the main 28mm efl lens.
'nuff said.
:)
 

sizifo

New member
Hi Vid

Actually, I subscribe to the 'gestalt' feel of the GRDII completely, BUT, and for me it's a BIG but, the GX100 provides a very very similar image quality, an identical user interface and a lovely zoom range for a little less money.
Thanks for your response.

I really agree with everything you say, except the very very similar image quality point. In my limited experience the difference between a prime and a zoom on a small sensor is comparable to the difference prime & zoom + a large sensor. Despite the probably correct observation that the lenses on all these cameras outdo the sensors.

For example, even at 1600 iso on the GRDII the quality of the prime comes through, very definitely (I think in his review Sean very nicely says that "it cuts through the noise", or something very similar). The danger of strict camera tests is precisely here. If you, say, compare the GRDII file at iso 1600 and the GX100 at base iso, it's very unlikely you'd appreciate the difference in the quality of the lens, but it's definitely there.

Another example I can think of is from the thread http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=802. I posted a seagull photo with a D70 + kit lens. And the quality of the prime in Will's photo definitely shines through, despite all the pluses of the large D70 sensor.

I was also wondering why Mitch would want to carry all the converters instead of taking the GX, or at least GRD+GX instead of GRD + converters, and asked him this before buying the 40mm converter. His response is post 57 in http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=656&page=3, and for him it came down mostly to the quality of the primes.

Not related to the above, I've found it very helpful being forced to use a single focal length. I think of a four sided pyramid coming out of the camera (capturing the photo on the 5th side), and am getting better and better at judging the angle of the sides, which feels very rewarding. Likely, it's much harder to learn this kind of thing when you have that zoom button at your disposal.

Cheers,

Vid
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Okay. GRD2 just arrived and I've been playing with it. I like the control layout. A lot. So now I think I want to ADD the GX100 and sell the D-Lux3...

PS: Prolly old news here, but the battery for the GRD2 is identical to teh D-Lux3.

:D,
 

Terry

New member
Okay. GRD2 just arrived and I've been playing with it. I like the control layout. A lot. So now I think I want to ADD the GX100 and sell the D-Lux3...

PS: Prolly old news here, but the battery for the GRD2 is identical to teh D-Lux3.

:D,
I need to check my different batteries. I know my d-lux3 and Fuji used the same size but with different specs. Didn't realize the GRD and d-lux were the same. Bonus.

Jono completely suckered you in for the GX100 (not that I didn't do my job well either). Me I would wait for Photokina and see what the new model is going to be.

I will be curious to see how you customize the the buttons as well as my1 and my2.

And of course.....pictures please:grin:
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Vid
Thanks for your response.

I really agree with everything you say, except the very very similar image quality point. In my limited experience the difference between a prime and a zoom on a small sensor is comparable to the difference prime & zoom + a large sensor. Despite the probably correct observation that the lenses on all these cameras outdo the sensors.

For example, even at 1600 iso on the GRDII the quality of the prime comes through, very definitely (I think in his review Sean very nicely says that "it cuts through the noise", or something very similar). The danger of strict camera tests is precisely here. If you, say, compare the GRDII file at iso 1600 and the GX100 at base iso, it's very unlikely you'd appreciate the difference in the quality of the lens, but it's definitely there.
Well, I'm not denying it, but I would go back to my 'two tenths of sweet FA'. I think the results from all these cameras are rubbish - if you want to pixel peep between a 28mm fixed lens and a 24-72 zoom, then that's fine, but if you ask me, the difference is between 'just a tiny bit better than the minimum one would expect' and 'a little bit better than the minimum one would expect'.

I don't deny for a minute that you can tell the difference, but I would question the qualitative difference between the two.

Another example I can think of is from the thread http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=802. I posted a seagull photo with a D70 + kit lens. And the quality of the prime in Will's photo definitely shines through, despite all the pluses of the large D70 sensor.
yes, well, the D70 has a much MUCH bigger sensor, and I think it's a completely different ball game.
I was also wondering why Mitch would want to carry all the converters instead of taking the GX, or at least GRD+GX instead of GRD + converters, and asked him this before buying the 40mm converter. His response is post 57 in http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=656&page=3, and for him it came down mostly to the quality of the primes.
It was Mitch who said that he couldn't use an M8, because he didn't like the 'gestalt'. Whilst I respect this, the idea that you can reject an M8, and then get poncy about the differences between lenses on a GX100 and a GRDII - especially when you are going to crucify the files in post processing . . . . (mind you, I often like the way he deals with files, but that isn't the point).



Not related to the above, I've found it very helpful being forced to use a single focal length. I think of a four sided pyramid coming out of the camera (capturing the photo on the 5th side), and am getting better and better at judging the angle of the sides, which feels very rewarding. Likely, it's much harder to learn this kind of thing when you have that zoom button at your disposal.
Well, I quite agree, but you can put the GX100 on step zoom, and then leave it at a specific focal length. Surely you are disciplined enough to stick to this to get the best out of the 5th side?

Sorry if I seem bolsy - I really don't mean to be, but I do feel that some people are being very precious about the fixed focal length and prime lens aspects of the little GRDII, and the DP-1 come to that. These cameras are great, and they produce fine results in lots of circumstances, but let's face it, they are there to make images when you can't carry something better. If you can carry a GRDII with a 21mm adaptor and a 40mm adaptor, then you can carry an M8 . . . or a small dSLR, which will, in both cases, produce MUCH MUCH MUCH better results.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Okay. GRD2 just arrived and I've been playing with it. I like the control layout. A lot. So now I think I want to ADD the GX100 and sell the D-Lux3...

PS: Prolly old news here, but the battery for the GRD2 is identical to teh D-Lux3.

:D,
HI Jack
Sounds good - The GX100 battery is the same as well.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I'm just sitting back waiting for the final word on which one to get. One time i am not out there leading the horse to the water shed. Happy to be dragged by a rope on the back end. LOL

And if I buy another damn thing the rope should be around my neck.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I'm just sitting back waiting for the final word on which one to get. One time i am not out there leading the horse to the water shed. Happy to be dragged by a rope on the back end. LOL

And if I buy another damn thing the rope should be around my neck.
Hi Guy
Stay there - you want a small point and shoot - you got one (M8)
 

Lili

New member
If I may Devils Advocate here for minute
Yes, if you take a GRD and one or spare lens adapters, you could take an M8
But you cannot make the M8 as smallas the GRD by itself (without add-ons)
And even with lenses, the GRD does cost quite a bit less
Just sayin :p
 

jonoslack

Active member
If I may Devils Advocate here for minute
Yes, if you take a GRD and one or spare lens adapters, you could take an M8
But you cannot make the M8 as smallas the GRD by itself (without add-ons)
And even with lenses, the GRD does cost quite a bit less
Just sayin :p
Hi Lili
Hah - yes - you're so right . . . and the GX100 is even cheaper! (and you don't need any add on lenses)
 

Will

New member
I have all three GRD GRD and GX100. The one that would need surgery to remove is the GRD2.
 
Top