Ricoh GR II

[Sean_Reid]

This is the new GR II thread. Welcome all who are interested. Some of the initial posts here are migrating from a thread on another board so things may seem out of order at first but that should sort itself out once we get past the original posts that are being imported.

-----------------------------


Mitch, I'm happy to read about whatever impressions you form as you work with the camera. I haven't tried Lightzone - I'll have to look into it. So far I'm converting in Photoshop. The problem, for me, with picking up new RAW converters is that it takes time to learn them and I'm in the midst of 12 articles. C1 4.0 is crashing with certain operations, alas, and 3.7.7 doesn't support the files.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Sean_Reid]

The "40 mm" adapter will be here in mid-December. I've spoken directly to Ricoh about it. I think I'll stick with Photoshop ACR for now, for simplicity, and because it's in wide use. The new camera is dramatically faster in RAW and I've done the stopwatch exposure timings already using my standard 1 GB Ultra II cards. (Walt, I'll try the card you recommend later on as well, thanks.)

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Sean_Reid]

This is actually a technique I've been writing about for a few years now. For B+W work, it can make a great deal of sense to filter the color noise before converting to BW. In fact, with color, if I filter noise at all I always leave the luminance noise alone and only filter the color noise. You can see how this shakes out by switching a noisy file into LAB space and using the dust and scratches filter on only the two (A and B) chrominance channels.

Chromatic noise is not removed, per se, when one converts to monochrome. Rather its translated into what we might call "tonal noise". What might have been blotches of strange color in the midst of a red, for example, would now be blotches of strange tone within some kind of grey. Some think of it as grain-like and thus ignore it but I don't find that it usually has the same kind of evenness as luminance noise and thus it doesn't look especially grain-like to me.

I'm mostly a C1 guy and with the JFI B&W profiles, one can stay in BW (visually) while still changing the color noise slider. If you have C1, try it and watch what happens. It works as sort of an "undercurrent-esque" control, like varying WB with a JFI profile active.

There's one caveat. Just as filtering color noise (for a color picture) can destroy certain interesting subtle variations in color (as we see when we look closely at paintings and as the M8 is able to produce regularly) so too can filtering color noise for a BW picture also destroy certain small tonal variations that may have activated an otherwise inert passage of the picture's surface.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Sean_Reid]

I don't think there's really all that much difference in dynamic range between the GR, GX100 and GR2. What may sometimes look like differences are probably due to some other variable. I don't think I've ever tested any small sensor camera that was able to hold as broad a dynamic range as a larger sensor camera. Any differences there are among them, in this respect, are going to be pretty minor. Its the nature of the beast.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Sean_Reid]

Some of us are lucky in that most of our work is in BW. As such, we can usually pull a great deal of chroma noise out without really touching detail at all. One may find that tweaking that process gives even better results than the layering.This is something I've done, as a comparison alternate, in many camera reviews (such as the one of the D-Lux 2).

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Sean_Reid]

Mitch,

I think maybe it's time to just start adding grain in post as needed. There's nothing sacred about the file as it comes from the camera. I know what you're after but form and content are the thing. If you can get the form you want from grain then just add it. I think it may be time to consider cutting the umbilical cord with respect to needing noise in the original file. It will make the cameras more flexible for you. Otherwise, I really think the tail starts to wag the dog and the need for that in-camera grittiness starts to bind your wings a bit.

Consider grain in post your Rodinal. You can create grit and gravel to your heart's content.

Or not...it's not my call, of course.

There's no way I, personally, would ever even consider a GRD 1 now that fast RAW has come to Ricoh.

Have I noticed a problem with high ISO and bright light, etc? No, because I just crank down the ISO as I would with any camera. Then, if I was after the look you like, I'd find my favorite grit and grain recipes. Those can be fine-tuned to your taste.

You realize that higher ISO on any camera effectively reduces dynamic range, right? The higher the noise floor creeps, the narrower the DR becomes. I use high ISO when I need to but only then. I often shoot at ISO 3200 but its because I need every bit of that sensitivity.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Mitch Alland]

[Copy of posting from LUF GRD II thread]

First, let me post two pictures that I think illustrate well the difference between the GX100 and the original GR-D, which could be a reference for looking at which of these two cameras the GRD II resembles. (I posted this on dpreview, but don't recall whether I did so in the other long thread here). The first picture is taken with the GRD and the second with the GX100. To me, the most striking difference is how the textures are rendered much better by the GRD — just look at the woman's blue jeans in the first pciture; there is nothing like that in the second, which is much "smoother".

 

[Sean_Reid]

Mitch,

Now that you have the GR II, maybe you want to do a few side by side exposures to see how things shake out. Also, as we were discussing, your particular GX-100 may have a bum lens.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Mitch Alland]

[Copy of posting from LUF GRD II thread]

Originally Posted by sean_reid
...Which RAW development programs are people using and liking?...

Sean:

I've tried ACR (Lightroom and Photoshop), SilkyPix, Raw Developer (Mac only) and LightZone. While I like SilkyPix a lot — very good for highlight recovery, and a lot of control in general — I think that Raw Developer has the best rendering, extremey good sharpening and noise removal, and superb B&W conversion. However, I use LightZone — although I'd probably be tempted to use SilkyPix or Raw Developer if I were doing colour instead of B&W — because it's so much simpler to do the RAW development and post-processing in one program. Also, LightZone work off the original DNG file and saves its "stack" of what you've done together with the new TIFF file. If I used RAW Developer or SilkyPix I'd have to keep the DNG file, the TIFF file put out by the raw developer as well as the TIFF file out put by LightZone: a minor inconvenience.

I like LightZone for three major reasons. First ,unlike Photoshop Curves, it allows you to manipulate specific ranges of tones ("zones") without affecting other tonal ranges; second, it has vector-based selection tools with which you can work directly on the screen on a WYSIWYG basis, changing the selections and feathering by puling and pushing the selection on the screen and seeing everything ratger than having to go into a different mode, as in Photoshop; third, you can save the whole "stack" of tools, that is, all the adjustments you made for one picture as a "style", which you can then call up and apply to use, or adjust further, for another picture: this is very useful for photos that have similar lighting and can speed up working on a batch of such photos — if the style contains semections, these can be adjust for the second picture.

 

[Mitch Alland]

[Copy of posting from LUF GRD II thread]

Second, I got my GRDII last night and here are the first four pictures that I have worked on. All of these pictures have extensive post-processing in LightZone, including selective burning and dodging. Generally, I find that the files requires much less work — if one is not obsessive — than GX100 files, and, at the higher ISOs, also less than GR-D files. I find the camera very good at ISO 400 and 800.

 

[Mitch Alland]

[Copy of posting from LUF GRD II thread]

Originally Posted by sean_reid
...I haven't tried Lightzone - I'll have to look into it. So far I'm converting in Photoshop. The problem, for me, with picking up new RAW converters is that it takes time to learn them and I'm in the midst of 12 articles...

Sean, LightZone is quite easy to understand in terms of its paradigm. However, making tonal and contrast adjustment by pushing zones takes some getting used to: initially, I felt that I always had to go into Photoshop to finish up with a final Curve tweak, but now can do everything in LightZone. If you're in he middle of testing 12 cameras, you may want to stick with Photoshop.

The other issue with LightZone is that it's written in Java, which means it uses and needs a huge amount of your computer' resources, needs a huge amount of RAM and, at the end of a long edit with many tools stacked up, can slow to a crawl when refreshing the screen and saving files — even with my latest 17 inch MacBook Pro with 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo and 4GB of RAM, of which I allocate one-half to LightZone.

I look forward to your GRD II review, as I have to decide whether to sell my GX100 and my GRD. Although I have the 21mm converter for the GRD/GRD II and shall get the 40mm one my initial inclination is to keep the GX100 for the convenience of the stepped zoom and the ability to switch so easily between 24-28-35-50mm focal length — I hardly ever use 72mm. An important part of the decision will be when I get back to Bangkok next week and see whether GX100 files can hold up for the huge prints (40x52 inches or 100x133cm) that I have been able to make with the GRD, even at ISO 800.

As for the GRD, I'm toying with the idea of keeping to shoot at ISO 200 because that speed on the GRD II may be to "fine" — too exquisite — for me; but it's hard to go back to 14 second file save times after the GX, which takes 3-4 seconds, which is about the same as the GRD II, except that with the latter one can shoot two shoots, one immediately after the other, before the camera writes the two files. But as I've only had the GRD II for only one day it's premature to decide what to do with the GRD and the GX100.

It would be great if you could get the 40mm converter before you do your GRD II tests, because, if it is good, it allows the camera to be used for another type of shooting, even more than the way the 21mm converter does because 40mm-type shots are more different than 21mm ones compared to 28mm. I find the 21mm converter to be spectacular: I put it in the same class as the Leica-M 21mm ASPH, which I think is a fantastic lens.

In any case, with 12 cameras to test, don't run yourself ragged even with Christmas, and it's financial imperatives, coming up.

 

[Mitch Alland]

[Copy of posting from LUF GRD II thread]

Very interesting idea, Walt. As you guessed, I'm staying away for the time being from ISO 200.

It is still too early for me to have real conclusions on this camera. ISO 800 looks better than on the GRD, and ISO 400 looks somewhat like ISO 200 on earlier camera. On the dpreview Ricoh Talk forum someone characterised the GRD2 as followsL

it has the edge of the original, but some of the tonalities of the GX100. it does not have the in-your-face feel of the GRD.

What I am looking for is to get the rendering of textures of the earloer GRD. I'll have to see as I figure out how best to process the GRD2 pictures to achieve that. But I think you know that I'm not trying to get an "exquisite" look, but an expressive one. Below are two more pictures, the first at ISO 800 and the second at ISO 400:

 

[Mitch Alland]

[Copy of posting from LUF GRD II thread]

Originally Posted by sean_reid
...For me, a focus ring, and aperture ring and a shutter speed dial are all important. But...I do like the GR and GX-100 very much and I certainly do like the new camera as well. I also expect to see other interesting things from Ricoh who are earning a name for themselves as a "photographer's" camera company. I've been having some interesting discussions recently with Ricoh Japan and they certainly are quite interested in knowing what photographers want from them.

Honda is the same way. Before they introduced their latest flagship touring motorcycle, they spent several years interviewing touring riders to find out what they wanted, what mattered to them, etc...

Sean:

My favourite camera in terms of handling is still the M-6, with which I haven't shot since July 2006, when I got the GR-D. On the other hand, I have gotten so used to shooting using the LCD for framing with the GRD and GX100 that I don't know whether I would that easily go back to an M-6-type camera. What Walt says is very much true for me as well, in that there is an advantage for street photography in looking like an innocuous tourist with while framing with the LCD of the GRD.

You might also want to look at the following thread on the dpreview, where I have posted the same pictures as here and where people are asking interesting questions about whether the GRD II blows highlights more easily than the GRD:

First GR-D II Pictures [Page 1]: Ricoh Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Incidentally, how companies listen to their customers is also important. Around 1969 Volkswagen introduced a car called the 411, a compact-sized four-door car with an air-cooled rear engine that almost drove the company into bankruptcy: having listed to so many customers waning a larger than the beetle four-door car they produced the 411 because they thought that they were in the business of making cars with rear-end air-cooled enginees, forgetting that what they really were was a company that made economical, reliable cars at a time when most cars were not that reliable. And we know about Leitz and the M5, which is something that the company never really recovered from. So, I hope that Ricoh Camera is listening to customers in the right way, they way Honda is, which means that they should not produce a camera with an internal OVF (couldn't resist that one Sean).

But, seriously, listening to the market is difficult because to do this effectively a company must not only have good market research and a good customer information feedback system, but must also lead the market by introducing new features and systems based on its new technology, from its R&D, that customers sometimes cannot anticipate because they don't know what innovation may be possible. It's not that easy.

 

[Mitch Alland]

[Copy of posting from LUF GRD II thread]

Thanks, Walt. That's very interesting. I haven't made as much progress with ISO 800 yet, but I really like ISO 400 and feel that I can now get the GR-D2 files at this speed to be what I want, including the grain, as in the three pictures below:

Having gotten here with ISO 400, I should be able to get there with ISO 800 as well.

Sean, the trouble is that ISO 200, the speed that I like best on the GR-D, is too fine-grained, too exquisite for me; and this could be a problem because ISO 400 is often too fast for the bright light in Bangkok, particularly because in aperture priority mode, the camera, like the GR-D, shoots only up to 1/740 sec and you have to reduce the aperture to get a faster speed, which means that you quickly get to apertures that are to small. Have you noticed this? Is there another way to shoot that avoids this problem?

One possibility would be for me to keep the GRD for shooting at ISO 200, but, once you get used to 3 second RAW-saving time, it's very difficult to go back to the 14 seconds of the GR-D.

Finally, I should add that I'm beginning to see at ISO 400 the type of rendering of textures like the GR-D that I wrote about in another thread.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Man you guys got this going fast. Awesome

Some nice images also.

 

[Jack]

Hi Mitch --- great to have you here!

Thanks to you and Sean for getting this thread up --- these are some really great street images!

 

[Sean_Reid]

Given a little time for things to get rolling, I think this could be an active little forum. Thanks for the gracious hosting.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Mitch Alland]

Yes, I hope so. I like the idea of a forum free form brand chauvinism, although I have nothing about enthusiasm and advocacy of cameras and lenses that people like.

On the dpreview Ricoh Forum, which has recently been infested by a virulent troll, I have posted an invitation for people to join us here. Sean, you might want to add to that invitation.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[dlw]

I'm curious about what I'm seeing in the sample JPEG's posted, there seems to be quite a bit of barrel distortion and/or blurring out towards the edges of the images. Though it's not consistent across the images posted so far.

Is this generally the case or is it being accentuated by the JPEG compression or is there some cropping going on?

In other words, can you get a flat field image using the GRD-II or is that asking for too much?

 

[dlw]

Originally Posted by Maggie_O
Back on topic, is anyone using the GRD II for color work or is it just not suited for that?

I've been wondering that myself.

Walt, if you'd like to send me a DNG I'd be happy to run it through my process and post some results (I'm a recent convert from CaptureOne to Raw Developer). The early image you posted of a bramble of bushes might be a good candidate to compare against the store interior/bisection.

Since I'm more a fan of b/w conversion using the LAB lightness channel I'd like to try that as well.

- David