PDA

View Full Version : GX100 vs GRD2: comparison picture



Mitch Alland
8th December 2007, 05:25
I attach the JPGs converted from RAW files developed in Lightroom, both with sharpening at 25 and a slight increase in contrast. They are both shot at ISO 200 at 28mm and with SNAP focus. Any comments on how they compare? The first is from the GX100 and the second from the GRD2.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

wbrandsma
8th December 2007, 05:31
I would say they are almost identical. The upper image is slightly warmer and a touch darker, while the lower image has a little bit more blown highlights. Is the upper image the GX100?

Guy Mancuso
8th December 2007, 05:33
They GRD2 looks to have more contrast and punch to me. Nice test images to include heavy light and dark shadows. The GX100 looks to have about a half a stop more DR to it maybe more

iansky
8th December 2007, 05:40
Hi Mitch,

Great comparison shots and I must say that I stick with my previous conclusions from using both the GRD and GX100 - The GRD2 image has that little bit more "bite" composed of better contrast and sharpness.

I can see it in particular in the area of the brown bottle on the table as well as in the large plant pot in the middle ground - I am hoping it is not my eyes and brain being biased toward the GRD but suspect not.

Guy Mancuso
8th December 2007, 05:49
We have to be careful with sharpness because contrast can fool you a little but I agree the GRD2 appears sharper.

Mitch Alland
8th December 2007, 05:59
Guy, come to think of it, it's not very fair of me to ask people to judge from these crummy JPGs. Looking at the TIFFs in Photoshop at 100% and 50%, it becomes quite obvious that the GRD2 file is substantially sharper, with more contrast — and I think — a bit more dynamic range. Ultimately, the prime lens has to show through! What surprises me is that I don't see more obvious barrel distortion with the zoom lens at 28mm, although it has plenty at 24m.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

Guy Mancuso
8th December 2007, 06:30
I don't know Mitch i can see the jpegs pretty good of course there not the same as the master tiff's but you can get a pretty good clue. if i was buying just by image alone, need to learn more about the camera themselves i would opt for the GRD2 just by the look of the files. About distortion well we all know the wider the worse it gets but these look pretty darn good. i don't see barrel

cam
8th December 2007, 06:32
Great comparison shots and I must say that I stick with my previous conclusions from using both the GRD and GX100 - The GRD2 image has that little bit more "bite" composed of better contrast and sharpness.

i have to agree with Iansky here -- i chose the GRDII shot without batting an eye. (some of us work with crappy JPEGs, ahem!)

i really wish you had gone whole hog and included the original GRD in the mix. i know you hate testing (so i appreciate you doing this in the first place), but pretty please? very few people have access to all three to do this.

thank you.

Mitch Alland
8th December 2007, 06:47
Cam, I had all three cameras with me but I was at lunch with five people and just couldn't get my self to do the third shot; but why don't you have a look at the JPGs that Will provided in the "master" thread started by Sean? I think those give a pretty good idea as well — and I'm curious whether others will reach the same conclusion as I did.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

Mitch Alland
8th December 2007, 06:48
I don't know Mitch i can see the jpegs pretty good of course there not the same as the master tiff's but you can get a pretty good clue. if i was buying just by image alone, need to learn more about the camera themselves i would opt for the GRD2 just by the look of the files...Pretty good eyes, squire!

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

wbrandsma
8th December 2007, 06:57
It is a close call, but I sure do believe the fixed lens is sharper. I also think the lens does make the difference between the two cams. When the GR1 arrived in the nineties, they even called it the best 28mm lens for your money. So it ought to be sharper then the GX zoom lens. I would love to get my hands on a GRD2 as a companion to my GX100.

Hank Graber
8th December 2007, 07:02
Mitch,

Can you put the originals up at yousendit.com and post a link? I'd like to see what they are like after some post adjustments.

Mitch Alland
8th December 2007, 07:08
I can do that if you tell me how. That is, assuming I have a broadband connection in Huahin, where I'm going tomorrow through Monday night; otherwise I'll have to do it on Tuesday. Last time I went, over two months ago, I picked up a free signal, but I don't know whether it'll still be there.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

Mark Turney
8th December 2007, 07:13
Without a doubt to my eyes, the lower picture has the edge in terms of punch and bite - probably a bit more contrasty and sharp as mentioned above. The overall depth of #2 feels more real.

Good posting Mitch.

Thanks.

Jack
8th December 2007, 07:16
The second image looks a lot sharper to me too --- I see more detail in the label on the bottle on the cart and on the leaves of the bush at the rear.

dhsimmonds
8th December 2007, 07:16
Hi Mitch

Great comparison shots, with not too much diffrence on my screen.

Screen shots are one thing but I wonder if you have done any large print comparisons? Even soft proofs can show big differences in some lens comparisons. (Great thread by the way!)

Mitch Alland
8th December 2007, 07:19
Dave, I'm going to the seaside in the morning and won't be able to print until later in the week.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

Guy Mancuso
8th December 2007, 08:35
I can do that if you tell me how. That is, assuming I have a broadband connection in Huahin, where I'm going tomorrow through Monday night; otherwise I'll have to do it on Tuesday. Last time I went, over two months ago, I picked up a free signal, but I don't know whether it'll still be there.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

Mitch a very simple way to use you send it. Is go onto there site than load up a zip file of the raws or single file depending on your need than send the e-mail to yourself. than when you get the e-mail to say download here click on that than copy the address and just post it here. I use this setup all the time for raws, plus it last 7 days and a 100 downloads . This way you don't have to do it for everyone each time. Hope that helps and yes this squire does have a good eye for that stuff. LOL Thanks

Maggie O
8th December 2007, 08:42
Without a doubt to my eyes, the lower picture has the edge in terms of punch and bite - probably a bit more contrasty and sharp as mentioned above. The overall depth of #2 feels more real.

Good posting Mitch.

Thanks.

Seconded. (Or maybe thirded by the time I post this.)

I am now gassing for a GRD II. But this isn't the season to buy things for myself.

Mitch Alland
8th December 2007, 14:18
I have uploaded the GRD2 and GX100 DNG files and you can download them from the following link, which will be valid for 7 days and 100 downloads:

http://download.yousendit.com/85839BD76C135747

Please post you conclusions here if you look at the files.

—Mitch/Bangkok

thomasl.se
8th December 2007, 14:34
Thanks for the pics, Mitch.

The 2nd looks like it was taken with a real camera; one arguably worthy of mention on a specific non-Ricoh specific fora.

I quite agree with Mark's comment that it soaks up the depth of the scene; the difference between them on my 99ppi LCD is instantly obvoius, and I expect to look harder at a GRD vs GRDII comparison.

Thomas

Stuart Richardson
8th December 2007, 15:08
Thanks for the files Mitch! This is exactly what I was looking for. You are making my decision difficult though. In the grand scheme of things, they are close, but when you look at the files, things definitely favor the GRDII. Resolution is higher, native contrast is higher, and it has a greater impact somehow. I suspect it is greater microcontrast, though I have no idea what that is ;). It just seems like the colors are brighter, the detail crisper and there appears to be slightly less noise. Granted, if you pump up the contrast just a tiny bit in the GX-100 file, they get much closer, but the GRD still has better resolution. Overall, I am not sure it would be enough to steer me away from the possibilities of the zoom lens...but the lack of the raw buffer...

hmm, the decision is pretty difficult. If the GRD were a fixed 35, I would have it in a heartbeat, but 28mm is a little wider than I see at times. I tend to prefer 24mm and 35mm to 28, which is causing me to lean towards the GX-100.

David Paul Carr
8th December 2007, 15:16
Thanks for doing that Mitch. The GRD shot is definitely sharper in the top right hand corner (there's a threaded metal rod that is a good reference point). I opened up both the raw files in Lightroom and Raw Developer. In neither case is it possible to sharpen the GX100 shot to look like the GRD. That said, the framing isn't exactly the same and in the centre of the image things look far more similar although the GX100 file seems to lack contrast (or is it flaring?...).

Sean_Reid
8th December 2007, 15:41
I attach the JPGs converted from RAW files developed in Lightroom, both with sharpening at 25 and a slight increase in contrast. They are both shot at ISO 200 at 28mm and with SNAP focus. Any comments on how they compare? The first is from the GX100 and the second from the GRD2.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

Hi Mitch,

Thanks for doing this. I'll take a look at the converted RAW files.

Cheers,

Sean

Sean_Reid
8th December 2007, 15:47
Thanks for the pics, Mitch.

The 2nd looks like it was taken with a real camera; one arguably worthy of mention on a specific non-Ricoh specific fora.

I quite agree with Mark's comment that it soaks up the depth of the scene; the difference between them on my 99ppi LCD is instantly obvoius, and I expect to look harder at a GRD vs GRDII comparison.

Thomas

A real camera? I'm fairly sure they were both made with real cameras.

Cheers,

Sean

Sean_Reid
8th December 2007, 15:52
We have to be careful with sharpness because contrast can fool you a little.

Differences in contrast can definitely make it harder to judge resolution. Now where have I heard that before? <G>

Cheers,

Sean

Sean_Reid
8th December 2007, 15:54
Hi Mitch,

I haven't opened the RAWs yet but if you get a chance to redo these, try them at ISO 100 at F/4 so that we don't have to factor in diffraction. Also, manual mode with matched shutter speed is a good way to go. The GX100 is focused back slightly further than the GR2.

Don't you just love testing <G>? Thanks again.

Cheers,

Sean

LFPhoto
8th December 2007, 18:15
Viewing at 100% grd2 appears sharper - look at beer label. Shadow noise looks to be a little less with grd2 - see far wall behind beer bottle, hammered effect on trash can lids behind carts. At normal viewing size though, it's a push... Brian.

gromitspapa
8th December 2007, 21:29
Hello. My name is Lucridders and I look forward to helping on this forum each day. Just kidding...

I don't think one photo of the same scene from two cameras is enough to be conclusive; i.e. sample variation. I'll get two different results with the same camera on the same scene. The GRD2 image is sharper, as you'd expect from a prime, and I'm sure it would prove to be so over many shots. Were the images taken with a tripod? Where was each image focused?

I converted the RAW images directly into JPEGs without any adjustment, and it looked like the GRD2 image was more contrasty, but also more blown out on the highlights. Here's some 100% crops of a couple parts of the scene, the first of the pairs coming from the GX100:

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1282009/78b.jpg

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1282010/ed0.jpg

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1282007/91a.jpg

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1282008/e1b.jpg




The first two here are only resized, again the first one being from the GX100. The third one is the GX100 image with a bit of contrast and sharpening added:

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1282011/766.jpg

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1282012/c1b.jpg

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1282013/7f5.jpg




From this example, it looks to me like the GRD2 blows out the highlights worse than the GX100, which I consider a problem with it (the camera I have). The shadow detail seems only slightly better in the GRD2, so it seems the dynamic range is a little better in the GX100 to me. The GRD2's EXIF shows it was shot at 1/380 sec @ f/5 and the GX100 was 1/350 @ f/4.8. Both images at IS0 200 and EV -0.3. The GX100 got a little more light, assuming it was constant across the two captures.

Mitch Alland
8th December 2007, 22:31
...The GX100 is focused back slightly further than the GR2...Sean, they were both set at SNAP focus and I was in the same position, sitting.

—Mitch/Huahin
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

thomasl.se
9th December 2007, 02:15
A real camera? I'm fairly sure they were both made with real cameras.

Cheers,

Sean
Let's strike that comment I made; not aimed at the GX but it came out wrong.

Thomas

SimonL
9th December 2007, 03:23
Thanks for the DNGs Mitch. Although handheld etc they're the first images I've seen where I can begin to make an informed decision.

The centre of the images are pretty much on a par as far as the Mk 1 eyeball can tell from normal viewing distance. OK so the GRD II is better in various aspects but not enough to score significantly over the GX if a zoom is important to you.

It's in the corners & edges that the prime starts to take the lead. The metal studding in the top right corner is the best example although they can be found all round the image.

Thanks again.

Simon

Sean_Reid
9th December 2007, 04:06
Sean, they were both set at SNAP focus and I was in the same position, sitting.

—Mitch/Huahin
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

Hi Mitch,

Then either SNAP distance varies between those two cameras or there was some movement of the camera position because the GX-100 is focused slightly behind the GR2. I'm certain of this. We also know that the GX-100 is going to be soft at F/5.0, because of diffraction, though I don't yet know what the aperture sweet spot range is for the GR2. At the 6 mm (28 mm EFOV) position, the GX-100's resolution peaks at about F/3.4 and falls off noticeably beyond F/4.3 or thereabouts.

This kind of testing is tough (as Guy recently rediscovered), which is probably one of the many reasons that you dreaded doing it. Introduce even one confounding variable (such as the different exposure levels or the slight difference in focus) and its easy to draw mistaken conclusions.

Thanks very much for doing the comparison. I know that you hate this kind of testing and did it only because we asked you to. But, I think we have to be cautious about drawing any kind of conclusions from this comparison simply because we still have some confounding variables in play. For example, if we were looking at the foliage in the distance, beyond the building, we might conclude that the GX shows better resolution than the GR. And if we looked at the lettering on the cooler, we might conclude the opposite. And this comes because of a slight difference in focus distance. It doesn't take much.

We can say from these samples, however, that, at about F/5.0, the GR 2 seems to have a higher contrast lens than the GX100, for better or worse. But we can't yet know much about the resolution differences.

Best,

Sean

Mitch Alland
9th December 2007, 04:20
Yes, it can be torture...

—Mitch/Huahin
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

Sean_Reid
9th December 2007, 04:29
Absolutely. Scientists are very used to it but photographers, of course, are not. The good news, though, is that I don't think your GX-100 lens is off much.

Cheers,

Sean

Mitch Alland
9th December 2007, 04:50
...The good news, though, is that I don't think your GX-100 lens is off much...Yes, the test at least showed me that. Also, I think you've now got a good list of issues to look at in your test, including the relative blow-out of highlights of the three camera. But, then, you probably would have looked at all these things anyway with all your experience in testing.

—Mitch/Huahin
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

asabet
9th December 2007, 20:10
Thanks for sharing the RAWs Mitch. Seems likely, based on the couple comparisons I've seen so far, that these two cameras share the same sensor. I can't say much about dynamic range based on the few shots I've seen, but I doubt it is significant;y different between the two cameras. As for resolution, I share Sean's observation that the focus is further back on the GX100 image. Here is a crop comparison (processed identically from RAW in Lightroom) demonstrating the better focus of the GX100 on more distant portions of the image.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2329/2099321847_c8ee3574af_o.jpg

I'm hard pressed to see an image quality difference between these two cameras based on samples I've seen so far.

lucridders
10th December 2007, 10:25
For me the two are quite identical. Again, quie difficul to judge as the two shots are not taken identically with the lens on the same spot. So, very dangerous to say what or how. Seems that the GRDII is not sharper to me, just it seems to have an other white as the GX100 (white balance difference?)
I see anyhow a very big difference in contrast and due to this it looks sharper. This is done of coorse in cam and I think that it has nothing to see with real sharper than the GX100.