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?

7

7ian7

Guest
Classic, David.

You'll be happy to know there's someone even "crazier" than you — I have done a small handful of people/places assignments entirely on the GX100, and yes, people do respond very differently — in a positive way — to the tiny camera, and for a travel assignment in Paris the depth of field was essential (although the highlights were an issue for a number of sunny situations).

By the way, I think we are all aware of your RD posts. I downloaded it on your recommendation. It's just I am in an ACR workflow, and until I hear you literally screaming eureka, I am ok with the results the latest version is giving me.

I don't shoot jpegs, and wish the sidecar jpeg feature could be shut off on the GX100 to make more room on my cards.

Ok, I have to go.

Cheers.
 
I

IamJacksBrain

Guest
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.
Maybe I'm shortsighted, but I don't see any good coming from compressing an already short dynamic range. I can always boost contrast in post processing, but I can't create dynamic range after the fact.
 
A

asabet

Guest
From what I have seen so far, I like the GRD II RAWs at least as much as the GRD RAWs. However, I think Ricoh went very wrong with the GRD II in-camera JPEGs at high ISO. I'm by far primarily a RAW shooter, but I've recently come to appreciate the ISO 800 and ISO 1600 B&W in-camera JPEGs I get from the GX100. Processing from color RAW to B&W at those ISOs, I find it very labor intensive and sometimes impossible to remove blotchy color noise, which ultimately translates to blotchy B&W tones. The only way I can get rid of them is by using heavy chroma NR in C1, which itself destroys quite a bit of detail even if I leave luma NR alone. Somehow the default GX100 in-camera process to B&W manages to avoid the blotchy tones while achieving a very nice balance between noise and NR. Consider the following two in-camera JPEGs, both at ISO 1600, The first is from the GX100, the second is the Canon G7:

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=543391486&size=o&context=set-72157600346842498

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=543385916&size=o&context=set-72157600346842498
 
A

asabet

Guest
Maybe I'm shortsighted, but I don't see any good coming from compressing an already short dynamic range. I can always boost contrast in post processing, but I can't create dynamic range after the fact.
I've never seen definitive proof that lens characteristics make a big difference in DR. Certainly there can be differences in microcontrast and perhaps local contrast, but overall contrast? Here's an interesting thread on the topic -> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=24904557.

Every comparison I've seen where the GRD II was clipping highlights relative to the GRD, the GRD II seemed to be exposing higher overall. So far, I think the DR difference between the two is quite small.
 
I

IamJacksBrain

Guest
I've never seen definitive proof that lens characteristics make a big difference in DR. Certainly there can be differences in microcontrast and perhaps local contrast, but overall contrast? Here's an interesting thread on the topic -> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=24904557.

Every comparison I've seen where the GRD II was clipping highlights relative to the GRD, the GRD II seemed to be exposing higher overall. So far, I think the DR difference between the two is quite small.
I don't know if it's the lens, the way they process the raw data, or the exposure (I find that doubtful), but the GRD II files I've seen uniformly look like they have greater overall contrast. I've also noticed that some subtle detail has suffered, but I haven't seen enough test images to determine if that's the difference in exposure or dr. I wasn't looking at the clipping for the exact same reason as you.
 
M

Mitch Alland

Guest
...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...
Absolutely, Sean, I bought the GRD finally after reading your review of it. On whether the "character" we speak about comes from the grain or not, yes, but perhaps only some of it: looking at the three pictures that I posted above — and of course this is not test not only because they are not the same scene but also because the first picture is so much better than the other two — I just have not been able to get the rich texture from either the GX100 or the GRD2, for the latter I should really say that I haven't been able to get this type of texture "yet", for I'm still working at it.

Maybe I'll have a go with the GRD2 to see what are the brightest light conditions here in Bangkok under which I can still shoot at ISO400 with the GRD2, which, by the way, is also the speed that I liked on the GX100 and with which I made some of my favourite pictures with that camera.

I like Ian's simile of the GRD being like making a "favourite film choice" and also his statement on achieving a look we like with the GX100 but, I like him, I find that I'm pushing the GX100 around very hard to do this, compared to doing it with greater ease with the GRD.

Finally, here are two example of a GX100 shot at ISO400 on a fairly bright day, and I'll now try to see what I get with the GRD2 at ISO400 under similar conditons:










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

Sean_Reid

Guest
Maybe I'm shortsighted, but I don't see any good coming from compressing an already short dynamic range. I can always boost contrast in post processing, but I can't create dynamic range after the fact.
The subject of lens contrast and its relationship to dynamic range is quite involved. I've been writing about it for several years now.

So, I'm assuming you're wondering why anyone might prefer a higher contrast lens? I take it then that you prefer lower contrast lenses? I like them both.

Cheers,

Sean
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
I've never seen definitive proof that lens characteristics make a big difference in DR. Certainly there can be differences in microcontrast and perhaps local contrast, but overall contrast? Here's an interesting thread on the topic -> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=24904557.

Every comparison I've seen where the GRD II was clipping highlights relative to the GRD, the GRD II seemed to be exposing higher overall. So far, I think the DR difference between the two is quite small.
Of course definitive proof, of anything, doesn't really exist. As I often remind my twelve year old (and as she often reminds me) all that we can do is to reject the null hypothesis. But if you want side by side examples of how lens contrast and DR interact, see my lens reviews such as the one on 28 mm RF lenses. There absolutely is a relationship if the subject contrast exceeds the DR of the camera. I began discussing this in a review of fast lenses that I did for LuLa in early 2005.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Last edited:
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Absolutely, Sean, I bought the GRD finally after reading your review of it. On whether the "character" we speak about comes from the grain or not, yes, but perhaps only some of it: looking at the three pictures that I posted above — and of course this is not test not only because they are not the same scene but also because the first picture is so much better than the other two — I just have not been able to get the rich texture from either the GX100 or the GRD2, for the latter I should really say that I haven't been able to get this type of texture "yet", for I'm still working at it.

Maybe I'll have a go with the GRD2 to see what are the brightest light conditions here in Bangkok under which I can still shoot at ISO400 with the GRD2, which, by the way, is also the speed that I liked on the GX100 and with which I made some of my favourite pictures with that camera.

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

In order to know, we really need side by side tests with no confounding variables. I'll do some as soon as my Pentax stuff is done and perhaps you'll do more. Otherwise, we have gut reactions (which I think are very important) but not, as yet, anything that we might call evidence (except for the contrast difference - thanks to your samples).

I also wonder how many of your GX-100 pictures have been made at apertures smaller than F/4.5. Diffraction is a problem for that lens beyond about that aperture (depending on focal length). I suspect that there's a difference but its less pronounced than you're thinking *so long as* the GX is not in "the diffraction zone".

I'm looking forward to learning a lot more about the GR2 I have here as soon as I can concentrate on it.

Cheers,

Sean
 
M

Mitch Alland

Guest
Sean:

The apertures of the GX100 pictures above are f/3.9, 4.1 and 3.5, although the first one is not sharply focused and probably has some camera motion, as I was walking as I took it. I should clarify that I do like the GX100, as I do the GRD2 at ISO400 and 800, and, although I am trying to see whether ISO200 can give what I want, I do recognize the high quality of the files.

I also recognize that I am giving only impressionistic reactions and that deliberate and methodical testing, particularly of the intelligent variety of your reviews, are necessary for firm conclusions. But I started this thread because there have been many postings here and on dpreview with reactions similar those of Ian and me, and I want to get all this out into a more thorough discussions in which other views and sides of this story would come out — something that this forum has shown to be good at. I must thank you for the idea of starting it — it's really useful.

It would be good if Ricoh published something on how they developed the GRD2 and what their goals and considerations were, like the following series of nine articles on the development of the original GRD, called "Inside Story", which is quite interesting to read and shows the enthusiasm of the design team for the camera:

http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/gr/gr_digital/story/01.html

They have a similar series of articles on the development of the GX100 on their Japanese site. If you think the above is good you might want to suggest that they make the GX100 articles available in English and do the same thing for the GRD2.

I'll close by posting a GRD2 picture shot at ISO100 with the 21mm converter, which I have tried to sharpen the grain to get more of a look that I want:





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

Sean_Reid

Guest
Sean:

The apertures of the GX100 pictures above are f/3.9, 4.1 and 3.5,
Well, that's close to the sweet spots for sure. I'll mention these ideas to Ricoh (almost wrote Leica through force of habit).

As for this new forum. I think its been great so far.

Cheers,

Sean
 
I

IamJacksBrain

Guest
So, I'm assuming you're wondering why anyone might prefer a higher contrast lens? I take it then that you prefer lower contrast lenses? I like them both.
I quite understand the appeal for cameras with interchangeable lenses and JPEG only point and shoots, but for the GRD II I would prefer to see a lower contrast lens. It all depends on the camera and its use.
 

cam

Active member
Sean,

i know you say that you only shoot raw and are not much interested in JPEGs. however, if i recall correctly, in your review of the original you did shoot JPEG as the raw was so slow. i am shooting JPEG on the GRD2 right now only to conserve space, rather than necessity (blew all my money on the camera, have to wait to get a larger card).

since you are in contact with Ricoh, i'd be very interested if they are going to come up with a firmware update that will turn NR completely OFF. you can turn it off, supposedly, but it is more of a 'light' version rather than off. this is a biggie for me.

you say the new camera will have a much wider appeal and i tend to agree. however, despite the RAW capabilities, most punters will still shoot JPEG (they just want the status of its ability to shoot RAW) so this is something that should be addressed. ideally, i suppose, would be three levels of NR on the camera: ON, LIGHT, OFF (completely!).

and, Mitch, all my observations on the camera stand for RAW files as well. i was being honest in that i'm still shooting JPEG mostly, but i have done so in RAW and do prefer it. again, the original files are much easier to manipulate, etc. whether your tests are scientific enough, i don't much mind. you're doing real world testing and i agree with the conclusions you're finding.
 
L

lucridders

Guest
Sean, for me you have the most valuable explanation until now. Indead, lots of people are saying that the GRDI have more detail, in fact it is the way noise is doing it without being sharper at all.
For me, Ricoh is anyhow going into the right direction.
And as all, they still have to go a long way before I can say that the cam will be usable in 50% of he situations where I like to use it = real situations.
Making pictures with a certain view that you create in advance is good, but a fact is that it stays the view from one individual, not for majority.
IMO, the more contrast with the GRDII is also not a question of being better or not. I even saw pictures where the so said micro contrast is so pronounced that you will never see this in reality = too much for me.
 
M

Mitch Alland

Guest
I find the discussion in this thread interesting. Sticking with RAW files, while some people, including myself, are saying that at ISO200 and below the "special character" that the GRD is gone in the GRD2 others, including Sean, are saying that the image quality of the GRD2 is much improved. It seems to me that both sides are right: when I first looked at the GRD2 files posted by Pavel on dpreview I concluded, like Walt, that Ricoh had made a major step forward in improving image quality.

It's like the difference between Delta 100 and Tri-X film: the former has better image quality while the latter has a special character — the trouble is that in a digital camera you cannot change the type of sensor the way you can change the type of film in a camera. Of course I am exaggerating because the GRD2 files look quite different at IS0400 than they do at ISO100. And perhaps its not reasonable to ask for the type of character at ISO100 and 200 that we can have at ISO400. As I've said before, so far I'm happy with the GRD2 at ISO400, it's just that it's often to bright here to shoot at that speed. Maybe I should get an ND filter...

Here are some attempts to get what I want from the GRD2 at ISO100 (with the 21mm converter)












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

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
"the trouble is that in a digital camera you cannot change the type of sensor the way you can change the type of film in a camera."

The ability to change ISO and white balance without having to change film has been touted as a major advantage of digital sensors. While changing film types can be mimicked in PP, is this deficiency a significant disadvantage?

Bertie
 
A

asabet

Guest
I find the discussion in this thread interesting. Sticking with RAW files, while some people, including myself, are saying that at ISO200 and below the "special character" that the GRD is gone in the GRD2 others, including Sean, are saying that the image quality of the GRD2 is much improved. It seems to me that both sides are right: when I first looked at the GRD2 files posted by Pavel on dpreview I concluded, like Walt, that Ricoh had made a major step forward in improving image quality.

It's like the difference between Delta 100 and Tri-X film: the former has better image quality while the latter has a special character — the trouble is that in a digital camera you cannot change the type of sensor the way you can change the type of film in a camera.
I think you summed it up perfectly here Mitch. I find myself missing my old D-LUX 2 "film stock" from time to time. The RAW from that camera had a really nice quality. Even more so for the Digilux 2, which I recently sold with great regret.
 
L

lucridders

Guest
I think those discussions are not quite interesting as it seems to be endless. The one is prefering this, an other that and the third between in. Come on guys, is this no a little bit the wrong way of approaching.
Everybody is thinking that his way of approach is the best and is writing than stuff to convince other people, very interesting.
Digital cams should have an advantage over film cams Knowing a litle bit of what is possible nowadays in technical and software way, I would approach it more simple.
As told before, all settings to 0 and auto should give in 75% of the situations an as good as possible picture as close as possible as what you see in real.
Than for those who likes to play and use their own phantasy the manufacturers will put lots of items you can change to create your own taste.
This way of approach will make it much more simple.
Now they realy will stick to a certain brand (surprisingly enough they say that they are not brand related) and at the end to keep on going with that brand they need to look for the right PP, the right filters (even as standard already an ND filter and so on).
What we are doing is just little bit silly in my opinion.
When I follow the ideas I see here in general than I come to the conclusion that instead of being a freedom, the cam we like is giving us limitations. Is this digital age?
And I talk of coorse about all cams even DSLR. When I see what silly things I find in my dslr's, instead of being happy I need to say that the digital age was creating hypes untill now and was even able to sell it :)
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
I quite understand the appeal for cameras with interchangeable lenses and JPEG only point and shoots, but for the GRD II I would prefer to see a lower contrast lens. It all depends on the camera and its use.
There's an argument for that, indeed.

Cheers,

Sean
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Sean,

i know you say that you only shoot raw and are not much interested in JPEGs. however, if i recall correctly, in your review of the original you did shoot JPEG as the raw was so slow. i am shooting JPEG on the GRD2 right now only to conserve space, rather than necessity (blew all my money on the camera, have to wait to get a larger card).

since you are in contact with Ricoh, i'd be very interested if they are going to come up with a firmware update that will turn NR completely OFF. you can turn it off, supposedly, but it is more of a 'light' version rather than off. this is a biggie for me.

you say the new camera will have a much wider appeal and i tend to agree. however, despite the RAW capabilities, most punters will still shoot JPEG (they just want the status of its ability to shoot RAW) so this is something that should be addressed. ideally, i suppose, would be three levels of NR on the camera: ON, LIGHT, OFF (completely!).

and, Mitch, all my observations on the camera stand for RAW files as well. i was being honest in that i'm still shooting JPEG mostly, but i have done so in RAW and do prefer it. again, the original files are much easier to manipulate, etc. whether your tests are scientific enough, i don't much mind. you're doing real world testing and i agree with the conclusions you're finding.
Yes, I did often shoot the GR in JPEG so that the exposures would take place on the same day that I pressed the shutter <G>. I'll test the JPEGs from the GR2 when I test the camera proper and I'll follow up with Ricoh. It's a good idea to be able to turn NR off entirely. Still working on the Pentax mount lenses but will be able to start in earnest with the GR in a few days.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Top