tashley
Subscriber Member
Evening all!
I purchased a GRII last week having read and heard much on the subject of its virtues. I was hoping to trade up, quality wise, from my LX2. As it happens, I don't think the comparison is as clear cut as I'd hoped.
I posted some thoughts and examples in another thread, here:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=220&page=8
Those comments refer to a bit of testing at ISO 100 and 400. The only reason I took to testing at all was that I was frankly rather disappointed with the initial results from the GRII. Now, in an attempt at curbing buyer's remorse, I have tested it at 800 and 1600 ISO versus the LX2 and found the hint of a silver lining.
The following examples were taken on a tripod with both cameras with F4 and 'all other things being equal' apart from the fact that the two cameras meter differently, so I used the same shutter speed for both and made minor exposure adjustments in Lightroom. All shots were otherwise developed from RAW in LR at LR defaults.
The order of these is displayed under each image. 100% crops only are shown since the full frame is rather boring. Shots indoor under incandescent light. The LX2 FOV is slightly narrower than the GRII at the same apparant 35mm equiv of 24mm so its images are slightly larger.
View attachment 1289
GRII at 800
View attachment 1290
LX2 at 800
View attachment 1291
GRII at 1600
View attachment 1292
LX2 at 1600
So the silver lining is this: though frankly the results are pretty nasty from both cameras, in B&W at ISO 800 they could both be made to look acceptable, even 'what I was after' if I were after a certain kind of rendition. But though the same could, just, be said of the GRII files at 1600, the LX2 has banding, clearer in the full frame, and that counts it out for any serious use at that ISO.
I've made some useability observations in the original thread referred to above and they marginally favour the GRII but I have to say that the more I use it, the less convinced I am that its ergonomics are so far ahead of the pack. In particular I find the external finder so inaccurate at anything other than close range that I have to use the LCD to compose accurately.
But it's never all bad! It's not as good all round as the LX2 even if its ISO 1600 is better. Its lens isn't as sharp, I think... but I've still had some nice shots out of it... and that's what it's all about, eh?! I use it as a carry around for when I can't take an M8 and glass, or for when I want a rough rendition. And here's one I like from this afternoon. A shot I would otherwise not have got at all, and it looks rather nice printed at 20cm wide. With apologies to Mr. Steichen...
View attachment 1293
Best
Tim
I purchased a GRII last week having read and heard much on the subject of its virtues. I was hoping to trade up, quality wise, from my LX2. As it happens, I don't think the comparison is as clear cut as I'd hoped.
I posted some thoughts and examples in another thread, here:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=220&page=8
Those comments refer to a bit of testing at ISO 100 and 400. The only reason I took to testing at all was that I was frankly rather disappointed with the initial results from the GRII. Now, in an attempt at curbing buyer's remorse, I have tested it at 800 and 1600 ISO versus the LX2 and found the hint of a silver lining.
The following examples were taken on a tripod with both cameras with F4 and 'all other things being equal' apart from the fact that the two cameras meter differently, so I used the same shutter speed for both and made minor exposure adjustments in Lightroom. All shots were otherwise developed from RAW in LR at LR defaults.
The order of these is displayed under each image. 100% crops only are shown since the full frame is rather boring. Shots indoor under incandescent light. The LX2 FOV is slightly narrower than the GRII at the same apparant 35mm equiv of 24mm so its images are slightly larger.
View attachment 1289
GRII at 800
View attachment 1290
LX2 at 800
View attachment 1291
GRII at 1600
View attachment 1292
LX2 at 1600
So the silver lining is this: though frankly the results are pretty nasty from both cameras, in B&W at ISO 800 they could both be made to look acceptable, even 'what I was after' if I were after a certain kind of rendition. But though the same could, just, be said of the GRII files at 1600, the LX2 has banding, clearer in the full frame, and that counts it out for any serious use at that ISO.
I've made some useability observations in the original thread referred to above and they marginally favour the GRII but I have to say that the more I use it, the less convinced I am that its ergonomics are so far ahead of the pack. In particular I find the external finder so inaccurate at anything other than close range that I have to use the LCD to compose accurately.
But it's never all bad! It's not as good all round as the LX2 even if its ISO 1600 is better. Its lens isn't as sharp, I think... but I've still had some nice shots out of it... and that's what it's all about, eh?! I use it as a carry around for when I can't take an M8 and glass, or for when I want a rough rendition. And here's one I like from this afternoon. A shot I would otherwise not have got at all, and it looks rather nice printed at 20cm wide. With apologies to Mr. Steichen...
View attachment 1293
Best
Tim