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!

Has Ricoh gone in the wrong direction with the GRD2?

M

Mitch Alland

Guest
A consensus seems to be forming here and on the dpreview Ricoh Talk forum that Ricoh has introduced too much noise reduction in the GRD2 in-camera processing of JPGs, particularly at higher ISOs. Although I don't normally shoot in JPG mode on some occasions I have done so, when, for example, I was running out of space for DNG files on an SD card. Today I've looked at GRD2 JPG files and it does look like there is substantially more noise reduction in the GRD2 JPGs than in those from the GRD.

But what concerns me more is how the RAW files look. While I am happy about the look I can get from the GRD2 at ISO400 and 800 which, in some of my shots I like better than that of the GRD, at ISO200 and below I find the look of the GRD2 too "fine grained" or "too smooth" for my taste compared to that of the GRD. Some photographers have written that the GRD2 has lost most of the "character" that the GRD had. I think that there is something to this, particularly at ISOs below 400.

In processing RAW files of ISO200 I have sharpened the grain in an effort to get the look that I want; but I'm not that happy with the results, which you can see on my flickr site in the link under my signature below.

The GRD, like the GR1/GR21 film cameras, has been a niche product, with virtually a cult following in Japan. It looks like Ricoh is now trying to reach out to a broader market, which seems risky to me because they run the danger of losing their grip on their core constituency of experienced photographers, who have been enthusiastic about the camera. Me feeling is that the GRD has been bought by many people after seeing photographs online produced with this camera — I know that quite a few photographers bought the GRD after seeing my B&W pictures on flickr.

On the other hand, many color photographers may prefer the look of the GRD2.

Any thoughts on whether the GRD2 has lost much of the character of the GRD and whether Ricoh has gone off in the wrong direction? But please specify whether you are referring to the look of JPG or RAW files.

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

Mark Turney

Guest
Mitch,

This question has really been bothering me ever since I starting seeing the first images produced from the GRD II. I keep wanting to get a GRD II; but, since I really can't justify two cameras of similar purpose, my suspician is that I would wind up going back to the GRD I. Although they are in different leagues, this happened to me when I bought a GX100 last year - I soon found that I just didn't like the GX100 images as much as the GRD images, and so I soon sold it and now solely carry my GRD.

To put a twist on the question you posed above, let's ask this a different way: Are the GRD II's RAW captures superior, inferior, or similar to those from the GRD I? I ask this because Ricoh claimed on their web site (I'm only quoting from memory here) that the GRD I was built with the best components - chosen for their low noise and high quality.

In building the GRD II, did Ricoh opt for cost-cutting by utilizing many of the same components as the GX100? Basically, did they cram GX100 electronics into a GRD body? And, by doing so, have the RAW captures been degraded with comparison to the GRD I?

The reason I ask the above questions is because the sensor and electronics may be the factors here, not the in-camera software. Even jpgs are simply RAW data converted by the camera's software as opposed to pp the RAW data after the capture.

Mark T.
 
M

Mitch Alland

Guest
Mark:

I doubt highly that it's a question of manufacturing quality. I would think it's more in the nature of the new sensor itself, as the lens is the same as in the GRD, except possibly for better coatings.

—Mitch/Bangkok
 
7

7ian7

Guest
I'm not sure it's "cost-cutting" per se, as the definition of "progress" within the photography world has a storied (depressing) history of leaving the favored tools and materials of many professionals and serious amateurs behind.

The Polaroid Spectra was sharper, cleaner, more compact, more durable and created more accurate colors than the XS70 ....but its output lacked "poetry", and that is where the XS70 excelled, leaving a cult of devotees in its wake, many of whom are still coveting their last, outdated boxes of the finally discontinued TimeZero film.

My guess is this is shaping up to be a little bit like that. Ricoh r&d are doing there best to achieve "progress" and there is surely a profit component as well— I think more in broadening appeal (always dangerous) than in cutting costs in some cynical way. However progress has rarely favored idiosyncrasy.

The GX100 is a great little camera. The GRD is a special little camera. Many would disagree, but given equal captured moments, if it's purely about the final image, and how it speaks to the artist's initial inspiration and intent, and how it renders an interpretation unique to its own characteristics, in my book special trumps great every time.
 
M

Mitch Alland

Guest
To make it clear what I'm talking about in terms of the "character" or "texture" of the GRD vs the GX100 and the GRD2, at the risk of criticism, I'll repost pictures that illustrate my point, as follows (all at ISO200):

1. GRD
2. GX100
3. GRD2

In the last (GRD2) I've sharpened the grain but just don't achieve the same textures that I get with the GRD.












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

Mark Turney

Guest
You're right Mitch. There's just something about the character of the GRD image that 'feels' a bit more 'real' to me. But, just to clarify to anyone reading this, the GX100 and GRD2 are worthy cameras. If it wasn't for the direct comparison of the GRD to GX100 to GRD II, then most of us would likely not notice the difference, as all three produce fantastic images.

Mark T.
 

cam

Active member
JPEG person here and without a doubt, the original GRD is king. i've played with the GRDII for over a week and have people oohing and ahhing over the quality of the photos. i personally preferred when they liked the content rather than the form. one person has already gone out and bought a GRD!! and a few others are considering it. bah humbug!

whilst there are certain aspects of the GRDII i love, it just isn't the same. however, i don't regret getting it rather than a second GRD because i think it's very useful in low light situations. it also still has something special to it versus other makes, just not as distinctive as the original. and, with JPEGs, there is a lot less room for manipulation in PP with the II (meaning as well that people not adept at this or willing to do it will prefer the II -- probably a wider audience).

i miss the character of the original and am eagerly awaiting it's return. as i've said before and i'll say it again -- i love my GRDII but i'm madly in love with the GRD.
 

Lili

New member
I agree with Cam,
I shoot almost entirely JPEGS and the amount of control I have in-camera with the GRD is terrific. I love the grain, the 'bite' in both B&W and Color and hate losing that.
 
L

lucridders

Guest
Seems at the end that Ricoh was not listening that well to the existing customers with a GRDI.
IMO they are quite right. How much they sold from GRDI, not a lot. Sales of the GX100 is much better.
This is something Ricoh was also noticing, so they decide to create a similar cam with the GRDII. For me it is not any problem, I should prefer that they focus more on other things than the grain (only liked by a few people in fact)
I am sure it will sell to a more general public better than when they should make an upgrade that will have the same grainy result as the GRDI.
I will not say that it can not be nice such a grain, the reality is that 99% of the people do not like it and that 99% of the people are shooting in color instead of B&W.
Also in an other way I have to say Ricoh is right, as it is in fact all based on software. This means that you can do the same look as the GRDI with the GRDII by using the right PP.
On the other hand, it would be nice per example that Ricoh should give a software where you can simulate with the GRDII the view as you have with the GRDI. As they have the source codes, it will not be a big deal to make a raw software that can do this.
Even more, every self respecting brand should make a software adepted to the RAW conversion they do in the cam.
Now, you see that when using software X, you have an other result as when using software Y.
This is also the reason why brands as Nikon is making the own Rawsoftware versions, made for their cams.
At the end, Ricoh will sell more and this will maybe bring profit on long term to more demanding users.
 
7

7ian7

Guest
By the way, I keep meaning to mention (here and on dpreview) that the "special" characteristics I love about the GRD have as much or even more to do with the beautiful way it renders saturated colors, not simply for its vintage "tri-x" look in b&w.

And yes, if there had never been a GRD the newer Ricohs would sit comfortably in a group with the Panasonics and Leicas, and hold the edge for their minimally-processed RAW files and great ergonomics and tactile controls. But that is a hypothetical; the original GRD does exist, and the results it produces are different enough to earn its singular status among photographers, and different enough to have already inspired a number of lengthy threads, with many posts expressing guarded or full-on disappointment about the changed characteristics in the new model.

I guess in part, many of our negative posts bely a hope that these opinions may still influence in some small way the direction of Ricoh's product development. It's not to take potshots or draw lines in the sand. Ultimately all of us will be using their newer cameras at some point anyway, at least that's my guess.
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
To make it clear what I'm talking about in terms of the "character" or "texture" of the GRD vs the GX100 and the GRD2, at the risk of criticism, I'll repost pictures that illustrate my point, as follows (all at ISO200):

1. GRD
2. GX100
3. GRD2

In the last (GRD2) I've sharpened the grain but just don't achieve the same textures that I get with the GRD.

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

Some, though not likely yourself, may skim the following post and misunderstand it. Fortunately, you'll probably understand exactly what I'm saying.

Unfortunately, if you're comparing three different pictures, that doesn't really tell us much about the differences among those three cameras. There are too many confounding variables. And if the GX-100 is stopped down more than about F/4.5, we know that it will be soft because of diffraction.

I definitely do not think that GR II is a move in the wrong direction, overall. Quite the contrary, I think its a better (especially much faster) camera than the GR. Now, I haven't done any JPEG comparisons but if they increased the smoothing in the JPEGs that's unfortunate and I believe, mistaken (but I also need to check the extent to which this can be turned off). And, as I've said before, I have not ever tested a digital camera that gave its best performance with JPEGs.

The GX-100 just arrived and once I finish these Pentax articles I can start some comparison tests. I think we're going to discover a few things:

1. ...that the detail levels of GX-100 RAW files are not all that different than that seen in files from the GR2, if one is using optimum apertures. Stopped down past F/4.5, the GR2 *may* show better res. So if one really wants to work at F/5.6, that fixed lens may have an advantage. Too soon to say, though.

2. Speaking only of converted RAW files...I think that much of what people are describing as GR "character" (vs. the GR2) may really just be noise. That noise can do things to the surface of a picture which many may like and I understand completely why some might prefer a noisier camera. But it helps to be clear if, indeed, this is the real difference between them.

It's very easy to confuse noise with detail because they both activate the picture surface in similar ways. I suspect that the GR2 is just providing a cleaner file than the GR. To emphasize, I don't mean JPEG smoothing, I mean a lower noise RAW file from the start.

If thats the case, I can see why some may seek the GR specifically in order to have that extra noise. But, overall, a lower noise camera is more versatile because its allows photographers a wider range of ways in which their pictures can look. Though some may be loath to do it, noise, simulated grain, and other kinds of surface textures can be added to a file quite successfully. So photographers who want that kind of file can certainly get it if desired.

Photographers who are less interested in noise need to start with a cleaner file. Every kind of noise reduction costs the file something. Luminance noise reduction always reduces resolution. Color noise filtration is less noticeable but it too removes fine variations in color detail. So, there's always a visual price when one has to filter a noisy file.

So, among the thousands of potential GR2 customers there may be some who prefer noisier cameras but also many who do not. The former can add noise or simulated grain with great success. The latter can not remove noise without also losing either some color detail or some resolution. So, if I were Ricoh I would definitely aim for the lowest signal to noise ratio possible...not, I emphasize, the most aggressive noise filtering/smoothing but rather the best ratio of image information versus stray electrical noise.

Again, I have a lot of testing to do but my hunch is that the GR2 shows a higher S/N ratio at most ISO levels (quite apart from any smoothing) as well as, of course, much faster performance in RAW. My guess is also that the lens remains exactly the same between the GR and the GR 2. I wouldn't be surprised to see the GR2 prime outperforming the GX-100 zoom at certain apertures but we'll see.

Cheers,

Sean
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Mitch,
I ask this because Ricoh claimed on their web site (I'm only quoting from memory here) that the GRD I was built with the best components - chosen for their low noise and high quality.
Mark T.
All manufacturers say that. <G> What it usually means is the best given the technology at a given time and within the constraints of whatever budget is set for those parts.

Cheers,

Sean
 
7

7ian7

Guest
I'm not convinced that these characteristics are so easily attained after the fact by using post-processing, as I have been attempting it. That doesn't mean it can't be done.

Anyway, I personally like it when a piece of gear imparts its own "native" footprint, even before I go to work on the image. "Absolute" resolution has never been my version of the ideal starting point — Hasselblad 500CMs have a creamy, signature look that is very different than the blown-out but detailed backgrounds rendered by Pentax 67 lenses, so which to use was always as much a creative choice as a technical decision. To me, the idea that Ricoh is adopting less "signature" characteristics to appeal to a greater common denominator is disappointing.

Then again, it may boil down to the science of what they have been attempting to achieve — mainly faster write times and higher "resolution" — and may not be a "philosophical" decision on their part at all. Hard to say, but someone at that company MUST be aware of the same kinds of differences we are noticing in the new camera.

And without a TON more advertising and promotion, and a price-reduction, I find it hard to see those efforts challenging Canon's predominance in any meaningful way. But I guess Ricoh's Asian market may still hold serious potential for sales growth.

Ok — must stop writing — sorry — not good at writing — less — sorry. .. ..
 
D

David Paul Carr

Guest
Nobody picked up on my thread about Raw Developer settings but, although expressed differently, I was touching on this. The GRD2 is a different beast and I do not like the JPEG s at all. Raw seems incredibly dependent on software choices and settings and I still haven't found my own solution. Raw Developer gives me glimpses of the sharpness and image structure I was hoping for but at the expense of a lot of trial and error... That said, I have had my GRD2 for just over a week now and have already used it on three commercial jobs (something that never happened with the GRD). In each case it was the fantastic depth of field that made it the right choice (group shots, event photography). Last night, in snap mode (80 ISO and f5.6) and using Pocket Wizards and a hand held off camera flash I managed to shoot some great spontaneous reportage in the middle of a dancing crowd. In every case I have noticed that the small size of the camera (I bring it out after "getting" the job with my Canons) changes completely the way people react to my presence. None of this would have been possible without the faster raw write time of the newer model. Sorry, I can't post any of the pictures: all done for commercial clients and I don't have the necessary permissions to put the stuff on the web.
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Nobody picked up on my thread about Raw Developer settings but, although expressed differently, I was touching on this. The GRD2 is a different beast and I do not like the JPEG s at all. Raw seems incredibly dependent on software choices and settings and I still haven't found my own solution. Raw Developer gives me glimpses of the sharpness and image structure I was hoping for but at the expense of a lot of trial and error... That said, I have had my GRD2 for just over a week now and have already used it on three commercial jobs (something that never happened with the GRD). In each case it was the fantastic depth of field that made it the right choice (group shots, event photography). Last night, in snap mode (80 ISO and f5.6) and using Pocket Wizards and a hand held off camera flash I managed to shoot some great spontaneous reportage in the middle of a dancing crowd. In every case I have noticed that the small size of the camera (I bring it out after "getting" the job with my Canons) changes completely the way people react to my presence. None of this would have been possible without the faster raw write time of the newer model. Sorry, I can't post any of the pictures: all done for commercial clients and I don't have the necessary permissions to put the stuff on the web.
That's very interesting and impressive, really. This past summer I was shooting the premier of the Simpson's movie in Springfield, VT and I decided to use the GX-100. A few days later I was starting a shoot for an architectural client and he said; "Hey I saw you shooting at that Simpson's thing. What was that tiny camera? Were you playing some kind of joke?"

Cheers,

Sean
 
Last edited:
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
I'm not convinced that these characteristics are so easily attained after the fact by using post-processing, as I have been attempting it. That doesn't mean it can't be done.
..
Which characteristics? The grain-like look of the noise?

As for the larger question of "character" and "signature looks" I've been arguing for the importance of these (in lenses and cameras) for many years now. Ask Mitch where he first got the idea to try a Ricoh GR. I've also argued for the significance of small sensor cameras as a format, which is why this is not called the "Point and Shoot" (ugh) forum. But increasing the S/N ratio in a camera doesn't mean it has less character, only that its character has changed. Noisy small sensor files are really the rule, rather than the exception, among most of these cameras. Having a small sensor file with a high degree of S/N (as opposed to smoothing) is actually a highly unique accomplishment; its not at all common among small sensor cameras.

So again, I understand why some may prefer noisier cameras as a rule. But, I also understand why that would not be a direction Ricoh would want to move in when it considers its customer base overall.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Last edited:
7

7ian7

Guest
Sean, I agree in theory with everything you are saying (and even like the idea of potentially having the resolving strengths of my GX100 proven by your tests to be at or near the level of the GRD2! Nice.).

But I still believe the draw of the original GRD is kind of reminiscent to making a favorite film choice and sticking with it — the camera's lack of versatility is in line with a philosophy of drilling-down as many variables as possible, which in the context of a pocketable camera, I think is cool, and creatively inspiring in its own way.

Regardless, I am be eager to read about your findings.

Signing out. For real this time.

Ian
 
7

7ian7

Guest
Sorry, yes Sean — the grain-like look, but while maintaining a gentler curve to the contrast. I find that with the GX100 I can achieve interesting results at 200, but it still requires a greater boost in contrast and sharpness — which tends to teeter on a self-conscious "look". The GRD at 64 has something special. Anyway, I am working on my new website, which will feature a boatload of GX100 pictures, many of which may actually confirm your viewpoint about versatility, so in a couple of weeks once it's up, I will share the link with those interested in checking it out. Thanks again, Ian
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
But I still believe the draw of the original GRD is kind of reminiscent to making a favorite film choice and sticking with it — the camera's lack of versatility is in line with a philosophy of drilling-down as many variables as possible, which in the context of a pocketable camera, I think is cool, and creatively inspiring in its own way.
Ian
Absolutely, and as I've said above I can see why one might like that. But, I also understand Ricoh wanting to improve the technical performance of its cameras.

Cheers,

Sean
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Sorry, yes Sean — the grain-like look, but while maintaining a gentler curve to the contrast. I find that with the GX100 I can achieve interesting results at 200, but it still requires a greater boost in contrast and sharpness — which tends to teeter on a self-conscious "look". The GRD at 64 has something special. Anyway, I am working on my new website, which will feature a boatload of GX100 pictures, many of which may actually confirm your viewpoint about versatility, so in a couple of weeks once it's up, I will share the link with those interested in checking it out. Thanks again, Ian
What Mitch's testing so far suggests is that the GR2 has a higher contrast lens than the GX-100. That's good in some ways and not so good in others.

If the GR2 has a higher contrast lens than the GR (and I don't know if it does) that's probably going to be due to improvements in the lens coatings.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Top