S
Sean_Reid
Guest
Also...thank you, once again, for the comments that many of you made, above, about the review. This is a great way to start the morning.
Cheers,
Sean
Cheers,
Sean
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!
Hi Lili,Having had time to digest Sean's GRD II (and GRD and GX100) review(s) I've realized just what a valuable resource his site represents.
Examples of Real World usage are juxtaposed nicely with salient points in text.
Thourough tests are one thing, living with and using the cameras for a long time are quite another altogether.
What does well in a Lab might not do well in the pocket or purse; the *domestic tranquility* of a camera like the GR/GX series is equally important.
Sean's tips about how he adapted to carrying and using these tools are enlightening (like his use of a kit of the GX100 and several optical finders).
The extremely in depth comparisons of performance between the GRD II/GT-1 combo and the GX100 at comparable EFL was of the greatest interest to me.
It drove home the pint that the GT-1 is a very very high quality add-on lens.
But being a supplementary lens there are some unavoidable compromises in bulk and, to a lesser degree, performance.
I do not think I shall be getting the GT-1 because of this.
I agree with Sean that should love to see a GRD40 or 50.
However one thing that surprised me very much was the quite decent performance of the gX100 lens at the middle and longer EFL's.
To the point that should I really desire a *longer* point-of-view in roughly the same form factor I will choose a GX100!
Perhaps, like having ones cake and eating it, one CAN have both the Razor and the Swiss Army Knife!
.. it's sorta where Mitch gets away with it as he pushes his shadows into jet black and reduces his mid tones. Leads to harsh images in a way that may not be too versatile if a soft mood is required.............then there is a need to step up a few sensor sizesis that its stronger in the midtones and shadows than in the upper quarter tones and in the highlights,
Sean,Hi Lili,
Thanks very much.
I would think that if one was really interested in these cameras, and if his or her budget allowed, it might make sense to own a GR2 and a GX100 simply for the flexibility that could give one for choosing fields of view.
I really like the lens on the GR/GR2 as well as the fact that the latter is faster in RAW than the GR or GX100. So, I'm holding on to the GR2 for a long term test.
Then again, after I tested the GX-100 this summer, I nearly bought one.
Cheers,
Sean
Sean,Hi Imants,
I was thinking about this recently. One of the things that is tricky about digital noise (from any camera) is that its stronger in the midtones and shadows than in the upper quarter tones and in the highlights, as I'm sure you know. So parts of a pictures will show something "grain-like" and others won't. I can think of three directions one might go with that:
1. Reduce the noise in the lower tones
2. Increase the noise overall
3. Add grain, digitally, to even things out
The third option interests me most - selective application of digital grain in the upper tones.
If one is working at a 28 mm EFOV, the GR2 is technically the better camera and also the one that I prefer. But, one might well prefer the GX-100 for work at 35/40 mm EFOV and the latter camera definitely is more versatile.
Cheers,
Sean
Hi Mitch,Sean,
As you know I feel uncomfortable with this issue: firstly, I'm not necessarily really after having film-like grain — all I want is for the digital noise to look good; and, secondly, I'm generally not sure what to do to make it look good, whether to increase in the highlights as you suggest or to reduce in mid and lower tones. That's why so far I've preferred to "rough up" my files by sharpening to accentuate the grain.
—Mitch/Bamgkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
first of all, thank you very much for the answers to my questions above! (i still have to figure out the RAW question as i'm intrigued by the JFI profiles -- though i thought i saw they were only for PC's?)I was thinking about this recently. One of the things that is tricky about digital noise (from any camera) is that its stronger in the midtones and shadows than in the upper quarter tones and in the highlights, as I'm sure you know. So parts of a pictures will show something "grain-like" and others won't. I can think of three directions one might go with that:
1. Reduce the noise in the lower tones
2. Increase the noise overall
3. Add grain, digitally, to even things out
The third option interests me most - selective application of digital grain in the upper tones.
If one is working at a 28 mm EFOV, the GR2 is technically the better camera and also the one that I prefer. But, one might well prefer the GX-100 for work at 35/40 mm EFOV and the latter camera definitely is more versatile.
Cheers,
Sean
ExactlyWhen I display tiff files in this way the noise in them looks much better than when I display reduced jpgs in the same way. This must be because the tiffs are 50MB while the jpgs are 500K.
—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
I talked about that method (AF center spot as a sort of RF) in my review of the first GR. The challenge, for me, comes when I am working quickly and at varying close subject distances because the AF simply can not keep up (by itself or as an initial RF substitute). A distance-marked MF focus thumbwheel, combined with the DOF, would, I think, really be the ticket.A very informative review from Sean as usual.
One of the problem areas raised by Sean was with the ease of manual focusing. I set my GRD2 up to assign the left arrow key to AF/MF toggle, as suggested in the manual, and I also set the AF mode to center spot. Then it works a lot like a rangefinder camera.
You aim the central spot, half-press shutter to autofocus, and release. Then tap the AF/MF button to lock focus in manual mode. This holds the focus for all successive shots, which then have no delay. It takes a second or so for the AF to work initially, but that's about the same time it takes me to focus my M6. Toggle back to AF to refocus only when necessary.
Big caveat: the MF display doesn't indicate correct distances when used this way (as mentioned elsewhere in the forum)... this may have frightened people off, but I think (hope) it's the displayed distance and not the actual focus distance that's wrong. The AF motor definitely does not move after you toggle the AF/MF button, so it seems to be staying at whatever focus it found during autofocus. If the autofocus is working correctly I have to assume the focus is right, even if the MF distance display shows otherwise. Have not tested it carefully enough to be absolutely sure though... there is too much depth of field! Sean?
Fixing the displayed distance or the focus, whichever is off, should be a high priority for Ricoh. The AF/MF toggle is a really valuable option.
a thumbnail would be brilliant!I talked about that method (AF center spot as a sort of RF) in my review of the first GR. The challenge, for me, comes when I am working quickly and at varying close subject distances because the AF simply can not keep up (by itself or as an initial RF substitute). A distance-marked MF focus thumbwheel, combined with the DOF, would, I think, really be the ticket.
As for the distance indicator accuracy after using this method...I'd have to try some tests when there's time. Lets open up that question as well. What are other people finding?
Cheers,
Sean
I don't think there is a need to increase the sensor size for a softer B&W mood. Decrease the ISO speed is another method. Mitch works with higher ISO's. My personal experience with high ISO settings is less dynamics and tonalities in my images. I therefor prefer ISO 80 or 100 for my B&W images... it's sorta where Mitch gets away with it as he pushes his shadows into jet black and reduces his mid tones. Leads to harsh images in a way that may not be too versatile if a soft mood is required.............then there is a need to step up a few sensor sizes