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!

GX100 vs GRD2: comparison picture

thomasl.se

New member
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
 
Last edited:

Stuart Richardson

Active member
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.
 
D

David Paul Carr

Guest
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?...).
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
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/10268776@N00/
Hi Mitch,

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

Cheers,

Sean
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
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
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
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
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
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
 
Last edited:
L

LFPhoto

Guest
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

New member
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:












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:










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.
 
S

SimonL

Guest
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
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Sean, they were both set at SNAP focus and I was in the same position, sitting.

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

Sean_Reid

Guest
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
 
M

Mitch Alland

Guest
...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/10268776@N00/
 
A

asabet

Guest
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.



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

lucridders

Guest
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.
 
Last edited:
Top