GX200 is here!

[Player]

Lili, there is a menu item for turning-off NR in the GRD2, since it is software-based, but it doesn't turn it off completely, just "lessens" it.

Folks have written Ricoh about updating the firmware to allow NR to be completely turned-off, but their response is that you need shoot in RAW if you want no NR, and they have no plans for doing so. :lecture:

 

[Player]

Lili, this is from Pavel Kudrys who runs a Ricoh website and has extensively tested these cameras:

"If you are about to shoot in RAW, then there is nothing wrong with GRDII. In fact, it's much better in this (and not only this) area than GRD. The only real GRDII downside is NR in JPEG. But once you realize what's the RAW good for, you will never revert back to JPEG. Really. I'm telling you this from a position of the man, who previously shot only in JPEG. Now I found the RAW and I don't see any good reason (maybe except the speed and size) why to return back to JPEG.

For example, with RAW you don't have to care about WB. Of course, you can fix this or that color tint even in JPEG. But in RAW you can set correct WB even if it's completely wrong. RAW does this without an impact on image quality.

And next.. Even if Ricoh (hypothetically) decide to allow us to turn the NR completely OFF in JPEG, there will still remain some amount of image processing (obvious - contrast, sharpness saturation, less obvious - chromatic aberration removal or JPEG compression). And all these processing steps have some impact on final image quality and also the dynamic range! For example, higher contrast in JPEG files results to lower dynamic range. Additionally, you can recover some additional dynamic range from RAW, which is usually irrecoverably lost in JPEG."

 

[Chuck A]

It looks like Ricoh listened to its' customers. The changes are mostly things that people on this forum have asked for. We will have to see about the 12mp sensor but I am sure that with the addition of the RAW buffer the GX200 is going to turn alot of heads. I also like the addition of another function button and 1:1 RAW. Perhaps Ricoh will see fit to give us the 1:1 RAW in a firmware update of the GX100.

I just bought the GX100 because the prices went down and am very impressed with the camera. It is truly a photographers camera. I was worried about the 5-6 sec RAW times but I find that it hasn't been a problem yet. I have been working more slowly these days. One major complaint for me is how grainy the EVF is and I don't see anything about an upgrade to it. I have owned a few cameras with an EVF and they were miles better than this one.

I await Sean's wonderful review as usual.:salute:

 

[Lili]

Player,
Thanks, I was under the mistaken impression NR was affecting even RAW.
Good to know it is not.
At any rate, if the GX200 writes raw so very fast, it might induce me to give up jpeg shooting altogether (excepting the large files and storage issues)
One thing I love about the GRD first gen, is that ican adjust sharpness, contrast, and saturation to my hearts content in JPEG without NR artifacts rearing up.
Long Live Grain!

 

[Player]

Player,
Thanks, I was under the mistaken impression NR was affecting even RAW.
Good to know it is not.
At any rate, if the GX200 writes raw so very fast, it might induce me to give up jpeg shooting altogether (excepting the large files and storage issues)
One thing I love about the GRD first gen, is that ican adjust sharpness, contrast, and saturation to my hearts content in JPEG without NR artifacts rearing up.
Long Live Grain!

Lili, you can get the nice grain look with the GRD2, it's just that you have to shoot RAW, and at a higher ISO. I suspect the situation is going to be the same with the GX200.

 

[Joan]

Sounds like a great upgrade to me in almost all respects, but those sample images on Photography Blog sure aren't a good advertisement for the jpegs ... they are simply smear city. :-( Has anyone downloaded the RAW files?

 

[ShiroKuro]

This looks really interesting, LC1 attached ..... Think there will be a GRD lll soon to follow....

 

[ShiroKuro]

and with the TC1

 

[VladimirV]

Has anyone downloaded the RAW files?

Yes, and the RAW files are vastly superior, no smearing and reds do stay red and don't desaturate. Unfortunatelly the GX200 has the same smeary and horrible jpg engine that plagues the GRD II. If you shoot RAW all is fine and the IQ is great but jpg is useless. For jpg shooters the GRD I and GX100 are still the better option.

 

[Terry]

Yes, and the RAW files are vastly superior, no smearing and reds do stay red and don't desaturate. Unfortunatelly the GX200 has the same smeary and horrible jpg engine that plagues the GRD II. If you shoot RAW all is fine and the IQ is great but jpg is useless. For jpg shooters the GRD I and GX100 are still the better option.

I just don't understand with programs like Lightroom and Aperture etc. why you would shoot jpegs these days. The work required on a raw file is really not different than a jpeg and you have so much more flexibility. I'm not trying to be snobby but would love a good reason for shooting jpeg.

 

[VladimirV]

I'm not trying to be snobby but would love a good reason for shooting jpeg.

For me is just the ease of use, if I can get a good jpg out of the camera I do not have to process it at all, the GRD I allows this for b&w and low ISO color pictures. In fact the GRD I jpgs are not that different from the RAW files after a normal conversion. It might also be that I do not like the workflow in Lightroom and take too many pictures so instead of processing them I'd rather look at them or go out and take some more .

 

[Lili]

Terry,
With GRD First Gen, I have enough control over the various image parameters, that I seldom need to do any post processing.
Also, the jpeg engine in the GRD is superb. It is hard for me to match the quality unless I want low-noise, Hi-ISO images.
Which I normally do not, liking the noise/grain/texture in such cases.
Now that the New Gen Ricohs have buffers, and seem to have smeary JPEGS, should I get one I would perforce use RAW.
Abit off topic; I do like the customisable "MY" settings on the GRD II, GX100 and GX200.
Very very useful, those are

 

[naoip]

On a side note, would be nice to have a 50mm version of the GRD2

That would personally be my dream camera!!

I wonder if the GX 200 will be a quieter camera,i found the GX100 pretty loud..The new lens cover is a major plus,i found the old one a pain after a while..

 

[Terry]

Terry,
With GRD First Gen, I have enough control over the various image parameters, that I seldom need to do any post processing.
Also, the jpeg engine in the GRD is superb. It is hard for me to match the quality unless I want low-noise, Hi-ISO images.
Which I normally do not, liking the noise/grain/texture in such cases.
Now that the New Gen Ricohs have buffers, and seem to have smeary JPEGS, should I get one I would perforce use RAW.
Abit off topic; I do like the customisable "MY" settings on the GRD II, GX100 and GX200.
Very very useful, those are

I never used the first GRD so I can't comment there. However, with all of my cameras I seem to like the camera to give me the most neutral results that I can adjust later (for example: easier to add contrast later). Also, for me idiot that I am, the less I have to mess around with image parameters while shooting the better chance I have of not making a mistake on my settings. I tend to forget to set things back to normal.

 

[Player]

And shooting Raw is easier in the sense that you don't have to worry about in-camera white balance.

 

[Lili]

I never used the first GRD so I can't comment there. However, with all of my cameras I seem to like the camera to give me the most neutral results that I can adjust later (for example: easier to add contrast later). Also, for me idiot that I am, the less I have to mess around with image parameters while shooting the better chance I have of not making a mistake on my settings. I tend to forget to set things back to normal.

I quite understand, Terry.
My in-camera workflow is helped by the fact that I have, through diligent practice (and a lotta tears), learned to be able to evaluate the image using the LCD, both live preview and review (if there is time).
This is a luxury that I never had with film and only works if I've time to do so.
Plus, I never show my failures

 

[Lili]

And shooting Raw is easier in the sense that you don't have to worry about in-camera white balance.

WB is one of the quickset on the mode wheel on my GRD, but your points welltaken Player

 

[Joan]

Vladmir, thanks for the confirmation that the RAW files are superior to those sample jpegs. I assumed they would be, but when I tried to download one, it was going to take almost 20 minutes on my connection and I gave up.
17 MB is a big file for each shot!

Terry, I agree with you in principal that RAW is not much harder to process than jpeg, but honestly, 9 times out of 10, I really LIKE the jpegs from the Digilux 2 (iso 100) ... they've already taken care of the noise, the colors are fab, and it all looks beautiful. So, I toss the raw and keep 'em! Same was true with the E410, jpegs were so nice, I rarely needed to mess with the raw files. Only reason I shot both was if I needed to rescue the highlights that the E410 often clipped.

Am I just a lazy slob? :ROTFL:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Yes . LOL

Kidding Joan but the best quality of image will come from a Raw file since this gives YOU ultimate control. The issue with any camera and in camera jpegs is you are letting the OEM make the call with the firmware algorithms which are not always correct and not always correctable without getting into PS and making corrections Also the more corrections and saves you make with a jpeg the more you will knock the quality of the file down. So you are best to always shoot Raw and make non destructive corrections in a raw processor than save out to a Tiff as you master file . Than if you want to post,e-mail or whatever you can make a jpeg from your Master Tif file. I know it sounds like a lot of work but the results and obviously the control you gain will be worth it. Not saying you can't get nice results from jpeg, you can but your are stuck in the mud with it. Raw you have the option to reprocess it next week or next year and make more non destructive corrections to it in a different way and output a master. Also software changes and improves so this is also a benefit of Raw. For someone getting into this like you, I would rather teach you the best path than short change you and that path is Raw.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Let me add something . Be nice if a camera can shoot both though. So if your not in the mood or in a hurry you can just send or use the in camera jpeg. Than as time permits and or need to improve the image than you have the Raw to do that.

Dumb question does this shoot both at the same time