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!

Conclusions on GRD2 vs GX100

M

Mitch Alland

Guest
There have been several questions here of which one to get, and the choice is not that easy. I posted a few months ago on dpreview conclusions on the original GRD vs the GX100 in which I wrote that the differences between these cameras was much larger than had been indicated in most postings there — it's the same with the GRD2 vs the GX100: the differences are significant. But please note that I have not made any A-B tests but have only drawn these conclusions from using these cameras and making prints from their files. I am as eager as anyone else to see what Sean Reid concludes in his now imminent review, as I find his reviews to be balanced, always from the point of view of an experienced photographer, and the best either on the web or in magazines.

The GX100 is a very capable camera and the "stepped" zoom a very good facility for experienced photographers, who can work with is the way they would with five prime lenses by "stepping" through EFOV focal lengths that they are familier with, 24, 28, 35, 50 and 72. Hence, the first question a prospective buyer needs to decide is whether he or she can live with a fixed focal length 28mm lens or really wants the convenience of a zoom lens. But keep in mind that the GRD2 has the flexibility of adding a 21mm wide-converter, which is of excellent quality and a 40mm tele-converter, which, according to a posting by Sean Reid, is of a quality that will not disappoint those who have used the 21mm converter: this means a very high quality indeed.

As for the lens of the GRD2 and GX100 it is no doubt that the former, as a prime lens, is substantially better, with much less barrel distortion and better sharpness and contrast.

In terms of the pictures produced by the two cameras — speaking only of RAW files — I find those of the GX100 substantially softer than those of the GRD2, although I don't know the degree to which this softness is due to less contrast as opposed to less sharpness. I suspect it's both. However, I must hasten to say that the GX100 files take very well even to aggressive sharpening; and, therefore, the ultimate result in terms of image sharpness and contrast between the two cameras differs less than one would have initially expected. Nevertheless, I find it substantially easier to work with the GRD2 files to get the look that I want than with the GX100.

In terms of noise, which I like to call grain in the positive sense, the GRD2 has substantially smaller grain than the GX100: my impression is that a GRD2 file at ISO 400 may have the grain of a GX100 file at ISO 200 or even of 100. It is clear that Ricoh has made a major step forward in terms of image quality with the GRD2. Actually, this surprises me because the two cameras apparently use the same sensor, although other electronic components are different, as are the lenses.

At first, like some other people that have posted here and on other forums, I thought that the GRD2 might have lost the look of the original GRD. But after using the new camera for about a month I've now concluded that what Ricoh has done is substantially to improve the signal to noise ratio, so that the new camera produces much better RAW files at all ISO speeds. This means that I can get what I want, which is a relatively grainy look, by shooting at ISO 400 and using sharpening and contrast increase to heighten the grain effect. I can do a similar thing shooting at ISO100 and 200. As for ISO 800 I find that it is much better than on the GX100 so that I can have a higher proportion of usable pictures at this speed, not losing some of them to excessive grain in key areas of the image.

The bottom line is that I would generally rather use the GRD2 rather than the GX100, although I can get very good pictures from the latter as well. You can look at a series of 32 GRD2 shots here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/sets/72157603644012922/show/

...and a series of 20 GX100 shots here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/sets/72157603089594785/show/

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

Sean_Reid

Guest
Hi Mitch,

Each time I think just about ready to wrap up that review, I find one more thing I need to tweak. But, yes, as we discussed yesterday, the GR2 is able to deliver a S/N beyond that of many small sensor cameras, including the GR and the GX100.

Throughout this review that I hope to finish very soon, I compare the GR2 and the GX100 as well as the Canon G9. To me, the most interesting current small sensor cameras, for the serious photographer, are the D-Lux 3, the GR2 and the GX100. I'm partial to the Ricohs because I like the option of working: A) at fixed and known focal lengths and B) with external optical finders but the D-Lux cameras, undeniably, have real strengths.

I may be able to wrap this up and publish by tomorrow but this isn't a good review to publish as a draft so I've got to make sure its really ready. Being a reviewer is like having a major term paper due every day. <G>

Cheers,

Sean
 
L

lucridders

Guest
After also months of using the GX100 and now GRDII, I have to say that you need to be blind when you still buy one of those cams. I call those cameras "guessing cameras" as you never know in advance what result your picture will have when you use it for daily shots. My conclusion is that those are made only for people who likes PP a lot and hours of work to make every image usable.
I was buying those also because on the forums they tell that they are superb. Well, in real they are good at the baiscs, but needs still a long way to go. Using it as carry around cam is not an option as even for my carry around pictures, I need more quality. So, when I read that pro-people are using this next to their DSLR, I have my doubts about those users.
I give the GX100 and GRDII a "not recommended" and this for daily use and also buold quality.
 

Otto

New member
Hi Mitch,

snip... To me, the most interesting current small sensor cameras, for the serious photographer, are the D-Lux 3, the GR2 and the GX100. I'm partial to the Ricohs because I like the option of working: A) at fixed and known focal lengths and B) with external optical finders but the D-Lux cameras, undeniably, have real strengths.
...snip

Cheers,

Sean

Sean, would you include the LX2 with the D-Lux 3 as they are really one in the same?

Good shooting,
Otto...
 
K

KJB

Guest
After also months of using the GX100 and now GRDII, I have to say that you need to be blind when you still buy one of those cams. I call those cameras "guessing cameras" as you never know in advance what result your picture will have when you use it for daily shots. My conclusion is that those are made only for people who likes PP a lot and hours of work to make every image usable.
I was buying those also because on the forums they tell that they are superb. Well, in real they are good at the baiscs, but needs still a long way to go. Using it as carry around cam is not an option as even for my carry around pictures, I need more quality. So, when I read that pro-people are using this next to their DSLR, I have my doubts about those users.
I give the GX100 and GRDII a "not recommended" and this for daily use and also buold quality.
Mitch,
I enjoyed your photos very much. The Ricoh's image quality and functionality seem remarkable given its is a compact camera. The GX100 images seem to have a bit more bite to them and more contrast which may be a product of post processing. Overall I think one can't really go wrong with either of them when one considers the benefits of using such a small form factor for street/people photography. I have seen similar benefits in using my M8 over my DSLRs but these Richos take the compact concept to a whole other level.
Ken
 
J

jorgeAD

Guest
I call those cameras "guessing cameras" as you never know in advance what result your picture will have when you use it for daily shots. My conclusion is that those are made only for people who likes PP a lot and hours of work to make every image usable (...) I give the GX100 and GRDII a "not recommended" and this for daily use and also buold quality.
Oh dear,

Falacious unfounded statements like these got you in trouble at the ricoh forum. It all seems to no avail since you are still carrying on and havent shown a single picture to prove your points, yet always claim months of experience and numerous tests and comparisons...

To me the GRD II practical RAW writing times make all the difference. The GRD I great lens, fantastic handling and amazing form factor are all still there. So you must actually know what you are doing...What a drag! Fortunately this is one of very few small sensor cameras that actually lets you apply what you know !!

It comes down to perfecting your technique and working towards your own standards, instead of endlessly trying out one camera after another (or software) at default settings and shooting JPG, looking for a magic bullet...

Would these two pictures, taken minutes apart, work equally well with the same out-of-camera settings? I used no hand coloring, no selections, not even a curves adjustment! Three minutes per photo can make the content so much stronger... Why give that up if you really care about photography?



30 seconds exposure, F5.6, ISO 80 with a GRD II synced to an external Sunpak 383super Flash. After flash exposure the camera was pointed towards the beds edge and left there for the remaining exposure.



1/60 of a sec. F5.6 , ISO 80 with a GRD II, synced to a Canon 580 EX using the MicroSync trigger and Wein HSH adapter. The following two-minute Russell Brown faux IR conversion variation did the "coloring" trick (just apply -180Master, -70saturation instead of -100saturation to the second Hue & Saturation Adjustment Layer):

http://public.fotki.com/JorgeAD/digital_photograpy/caminoinfrax4red.html

FYI: just returned from a night out (its 3 AM in Costa Rica as I write). Took tons of usable, tack sharp, well exposed photos... The GRD2 is no point-and-shoot, but a very reliable little camera if you know what you are doing !
 
S

stnami

Guest
lucridders statement is not too far off the mark nor is it ludicrious........ the Ricohs do require a fair amount of PP work and due to that they really are not for the masses who want images straight out of the box.
Having written that............. yes they are the best of the small P&S's as far as tools for creating interesting images in B&W, others do a better job in colour (though with a limited colour pallette they can produce the goods).
Mitch your GX100 series works a lot better than the other work..........maybe you are becoming too familiar with the streets of home and the idle image has crept in............
 
D

Drafi

Guest
lucridders statement is not too far off the mark nor is it ludicrious........ the Ricohs do require a fair amount of PP work and due to that they really are not for the masses who want images straight out of the box.
I am sorry but I don't agree at all. I have been using the GX100 for a while now, and I can use most of the pictures I am taking "straight out of the box", no problem. I can also use some PP to improve some of the pictures, but that's optional, just like in other cameras, e.g. the Canon Ixus I had before. I am still using the large majority of my photos without any PP.

I know you are not alone with your impression that the GX100 and GRD are not so good for P+S. But to be honest, I could never quite see what actually gives people this impression. What do they actually mean?

I am of course very happy about the control and the good ergonomics the GX100 gives me while photographing, and this was one of the reasons why I bought the camera. But these possibilities of customization and manual control are additional benefits for me and do not diminish its capabilities as P+S camera, if I want to use it as such. It gives me the same reasonable results as other cameras, if I take pictures without touching any controls at all.
 
S

stnami

Guest
I owned a GRD for some time, did a heap of stuff with it. There are a truck load of cameras that produce acceptable images straight out of the box as the ricoh does, but that's it they are pictures.
If you want to get the best out of the camera you have to PP, the same went with film you either went to the drug store or for better results processed yourself (if you knew how) or sent them to a pro lab.
But you are happy so be it, I guess it depends on one's expectations..........
 
D

Drafi

Guest
If you want to get the best out of the camera you have to PP, the same went with film you either went to the drug store or for better results processed yourself (if you knew how) or sent them to a pro lab.
That's true - not only for the Ricohs but for all cameras. It does not mean the Ricohs are worse or more difficult to use for point and shoot photography than any other camera. So, I still cannot quite see the logic in the argumentation.
 

Mitchell

New member
Stnami or others,

Could you say which P/S do a better job in color? I'm a color guy and would love to know.

Thanks,

Mitchell
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Just a reminder...Above all, civility is essential in these forums. Differences in point of view are worth discussing but I want to be sure that the sorts of personal arguments that have developed on another Ricoh forum are not replicated here. That hasn't quite happened yet but this thread could drift that way.

My own experience is that many files from the GR II could go straight to print with no Photoshop work at all. But I never work that way myself, no matter what the camera is, there are always changes I want to make to the file. I don't see the Ricohs as particularly needing any more post-work than any other camera.

Keep it civil please.

Cheers,

Sean
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
I owned a GRD for some time, did a heap of stuff with it. There are a truck load of cameras that produce acceptable images straight out of the box as the ricoh does, but that's it they are pictures.
If you want to get the best out of the camera you have to PP, the same went with film you either went to the drug store or for better results processed yourself (if you knew how) or sent them to a pro lab.
But you are happy so be it, I guess it depends on one's expectations..........
I think it depends on expectations, yes, but also on what kind of pictures one wants to make. I know that you use post-processing a lot in your work but I also know photographers who do strong work with very little post processing.

I, personally, almost always work with important files to some extent in post just as I always spent a good amount of time in the dark room with final prints. I tend to handle different passages in a picture in different ways and some of that variation comes from local changes in make in PS. That said, I can often get a lot of the way there with a versatile RAW conversion program.

It might be interesting for us to discuss the ways in which we do or do not use PS to modify or transform pictures, not matter what camera they came from. My film camera negatives were rarely printed straight either; there were always individual development variations with sheet film, paper contrast decisions, burning, dodging, sometimes flashing, sometimes warm developer applied locally to certain parts of the print before it went to the stopbath, etc.

Cheers,

Sean
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
After also months of using the GX100 and now GRDII, I have to say that you need to be blind when you still buy one of those cams.
Luc,

That's the kind of comment that just tends to inflame and doesn't advance the discussion at all.

Sean
 

Will

New member
I have also wondered why there is the impression that the GRD and GX cameras are not so good for point and shoot pictures. I have never had any trouble with them in that regard. I'm beginning to think it may be a consequence of people seeing the stunning images that these cameras can produce in the right hands. These pictures are so good that perhaps they make casual photographers have higher expectations of the ricoh cameras than they do for the other small sensor cameras. They aren't actually comparing like with like.
I do agree though that there really is no point in buying a Ricoh unless you are intending to make use of the controls. For snaps of your holiday with the kids or a drunken party with your friends then a Canon Ixus or the like is a cheaper, and perfectly good alternative. Printed at 4 x 6 it is probably impossible to see a difference anyway.
 
D

Drafi

Guest
My own experience is that many files from the GR II could go straight to print with no Photoshop work at all. But I never work that way myself, no matter what the camera is, there are always changes I want to make to the file. I don't see the Ricohs as particularly needing any more post-work than any other camera.
That's what I mean, Sean. When people say, the GX100/GRD is no point and shoot, it often sounds as if the pictures need more PP than those of other cameras. That's not my impression. Maybe it would be better to say that the Ricohs can be more than point and shoot cameras, namely serious tools for the enthusiast. Then I could agree wholeheartedly.
 
Top