Robert Campbell
Well-known member
And grace is a little girl who...virtue is a grace...
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!
GRD2 v GX100, shootout or an ideal pair?
- Thread starter Jack
- Start date
Lili
New member
Hi Jack
I'll be really interested in your impressions. Have a great time!
My GX100 came into it's own last night - we went to see Canadian singer Feist at the Royal Albert Hall last night (3 hour drive), I had the M8, nocti and 75 'cron packed away . . . .but I forgot to turn the M8 off, and the bag must have been pressing . . . no spare battery . . . . damn!
So these were with the GX100
here's the hall . . . . I told that guy to keep still!
this is the band - the lighting was pretty subdued
sometimes it's tough to sleep after the long drive - sitting in bed and fiddling with the camera:
(chandelier from Murano, cobwebs from Suffolk
. . . . and yes, we do have a bath in our bedroom.
Nice concert shots Jono
And, as you saw, small is nice sometimes, at least as a Backup
nostatic
New member
So you think the IQ on the DLux3 is better than the Ricohs?
My GRD2 should show up in a day or so. I'll shoot it back to back with my DLux3.
It's just my initial impression that the D-Lux3 IQ is (was) better -- meaning I see what to my eye looks like a bit more DR, a bit better color straight out of the camera and perhaps a bit more detail rendered in the final images. However I don't want to go on record saying that since I traded my D-Lux3 for the GX100 and don't have the two to compare directly. It would be great if you shot a few comparatives and posted them to see if my impressions are correct.
helenhill
Senior Member
Ah, another thing to be BLAMED for.......
YOU will be sooooo in LUV
you'll Wonder why it took you so long
Promise!
Best, H :grin::clap:
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Jack
I shot with both the D-Lux3 and the GX100 for some time - I think I agree with you, the D-lux just about takes it . . . . but for convenience and useability, the Ricoh certainly seems far ahead.
Now all they need to do is to produce something like the Gx with a much bigger sensor.
clay stewart
New member
I had them both for a time. Both nice little cameras. GRD2 is easier to pocket and quicker to get a shot with - no lens cap. I think the AF is a bit faster with the GX100 in low light, if I remember right. Image quality is close, but I like the GRD2 better. I don't much care for zooms,(except for that silly Nikkor 17-35 that's been calling to me for a few years and that Zuiko 11-22 -haven't caved in yet) so I kept the GRD2, but I made some good images with the GX and if there was no such thing as a GRD2, then I think I would have a GX100.
Okay, here are some ISO comps. Poor I admit, but I waited until it was dark.
First image is the full frame shot (GRD2) at ISO 400 for reference:
Here are a set of hand-held versions all taken with as close to same settings I could get, strait out of ACR with no adjustments, no added NR and no added sharpening. Lenses both at 28mm, NR OFF, f4. The "sharp" ISO 1600 images were only 1/6th sec shutter speed, 800 1/3 and 400 2/3 sec, hence the blur... Top row is the GX, bottom is the GRD, left is ISO 1600, center is 800 and right is 400. This is a screenshot of 50% crops all lined up in CS3. Interestingly, I did have camera stabilization on in the GX; the GRD2 doesn't offer it and yet shows less movement in the images. Weird:
I think the story is pretty obvious, but ISO 1600 is usable (barely) with the GRD2, but not at all with the GX100. ISO 800 is also much cleaner on the GRD2, while ISO 800 on the GX100 is almost equal to the GRD2 at 1600. 400 is pretty good on both -- the shutter speeds were very slow, but the noise is visible in the shadows and while the GRD2 is better, the two are pretty comparable IMO for all practical shooting purposes, especially in a P&S.
Other points of note:
1) The GRD2 has a much better and more accurate color straight out of the camera.
2) The GRD2 displays a more accurate LCD image.
3) And the biggie, the GRD2 writes its full-sized raw in about half the time the GX100 does...
Color and exposure comps tomorrow during daylight at ISO 100.
First image is the full frame shot (GRD2) at ISO 400 for reference:
Here are a set of hand-held versions all taken with as close to same settings I could get, strait out of ACR with no adjustments, no added NR and no added sharpening. Lenses both at 28mm, NR OFF, f4. The "sharp" ISO 1600 images were only 1/6th sec shutter speed, 800 1/3 and 400 2/3 sec, hence the blur... Top row is the GX, bottom is the GRD, left is ISO 1600, center is 800 and right is 400. This is a screenshot of 50% crops all lined up in CS3. Interestingly, I did have camera stabilization on in the GX; the GRD2 doesn't offer it and yet shows less movement in the images. Weird:
I think the story is pretty obvious, but ISO 1600 is usable (barely) with the GRD2, but not at all with the GX100. ISO 800 is also much cleaner on the GRD2, while ISO 800 on the GX100 is almost equal to the GRD2 at 1600. 400 is pretty good on both -- the shutter speeds were very slow, but the noise is visible in the shadows and while the GRD2 is better, the two are pretty comparable IMO for all practical shooting purposes, especially in a P&S.
Other points of note:
1) The GRD2 has a much better and more accurate color straight out of the camera.
2) The GRD2 displays a more accurate LCD image.
3) And the biggie, the GRD2 writes its full-sized raw in about half the time the GX100 does...
Color and exposure comps tomorrow during daylight at ISO 100.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
TESTING RESULTS
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Best compliment in a long time . Thanks Helen:ROTFL:
Here is a size comparison since that was mentioned earlier too. Note I snapped this under my print viewing station at the office this morning and not under my lights, so apologies for the quality and the seam First thing I'll point out in addition to the obvious size difference, is the wrist strap mounting locations. On the GX100 you have a loop slot on each side of the camera at the top. On the GRD2 you have those as well as one at the bottom right looking from behind -- as I have it mounted here. A small point, but with the wrist strap mounted low right, it is totally out of the way of your fingers and camera controls when actually carrying and using the camera -- nice little touch Richo! :clap:
PS: I have the finder for the GX100 but didn't bother mounting it. IMO it makes the camera enough larger to push it out of the realm of P&S size...
Cheers,
First thing I'll point out in addition to the obvious size difference, is the wrist strap mounting locations. On the GX100 you have a loop slot on each side of the camera at the top. On the GRD2 you have those as well as one at the bottom right looking from behind -- as I have it mounted here. A small point, but with the wrist strap mounted low right, it is totally out of the way of your fingers and camera controls when actually carrying and using the camera -- nice little touch Richo! :clap:
PS: I have the finder for the GX100 but didn't bother mounting it. IMO it makes the camera enough larger to push it out of the realm of P&S size...
Cheers,
Here is a DR torture test, shooting from shadows towards bright blue sky.
First here is the GX100 version. Lens at 50mm setting, the way I'd carry if shooting with it and the GRD2's 28. Both cameras were set to full raw, normal color, spot AF, AWB, AE - Auto, no exposure comp on camera. I had to pull this GX100 shot back -.65 on exposure in raw to match overall exposure of GRD2 next. I think the GX100 does need about -2/3 permanently dialed in on EV since it tends toward over-exposure:
Here is the GRD2 shot, strait out of the camera, AWB, AE and no exposure comp:
As is obvious, the GRD2 holds more DR as it holds the bright sky; has far superior color in the sky -- GRD2 is true blue where GX100 is heavy cyan lean in the blues and magenta lean to the gray asphalt; and the GRD2 clearly has better auto exposure -- in fact GRD2 is spot on for this image situation while GX100 needs a -2/3 EV added to camera. In a real situation, I would have to mess with WB on the GX100 image to get it right, but would be able to use the GRD2 file as-shot.
First here is the GX100 version. Lens at 50mm setting, the way I'd carry if shooting with it and the GRD2's 28. Both cameras were set to full raw, normal color, spot AF, AWB, AE - Auto, no exposure comp on camera. I had to pull this GX100 shot back -.65 on exposure in raw to match overall exposure of GRD2 next. I think the GX100 does need about -2/3 permanently dialed in on EV since it tends toward over-exposure:
Here is the GRD2 shot, strait out of the camera, AWB, AE and no exposure comp:
As is obvious, the GRD2 holds more DR as it holds the bright sky; has far superior color in the sky -- GRD2 is true blue where GX100 is heavy cyan lean in the blues and magenta lean to the gray asphalt; and the GRD2 clearly has better auto exposure -- in fact GRD2 is spot on for this image situation while GX100 needs a -2/3 EV added to camera. In a real situation, I would have to mess with WB on the GX100 image to get it right, but would be able to use the GRD2 file as-shot.
These are all ACR conversions, but FTR LR uses the same parameters if you keep both programs updated.
Okay, couldn't live with the color above, so made some default setting changes to the GX100; I set EV to -.7 and WB to "Outdoors" (yes, that's what it's called on the GX100). Now the base color coming out of the file is quite good, at least in a n outdoor situation, and auto exposure is much better. Here is a follow-up shot taken this time at the 28mm lens setting from slightly forward of where I was before. However it is now about an hour later and smoke from a nearby brush fire has blown in and added significant haze. All in all, this is far more "true" to the scene than the above AWB/0 EV version and totally acceptable to me:
Okay, couldn't live with the color above, so made some default setting changes to the GX100; I set EV to -.7 and WB to "Outdoors" (yes, that's what it's called on the GX100). Now the base color coming out of the file is quite good, at least in a n outdoor situation, and auto exposure is much better. Here is a follow-up shot taken this time at the 28mm lens setting from slightly forward of where I was before. However it is now about an hour later and smoke from a nearby brush fire has blown in and added significant haze. All in all, this is far more "true" to the scene than the above AWB/0 EV version and totally acceptable to me: