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!

Conclusions on GRD2 vs GX100

M

Mitch Alland

Guest
Thanks, Sean, for your intervention to keep this thread from becoming nasty. It has, however, gone quite a bit off-topic on the non-remarkable issue that one can improve pictures, or get them the to be the way that one wants, by post-processing; or that alternatively one can use the JPGs straight out of the camera.

Perhaps we can get back to discussing the comparative qualities of the GX100 and GRD2. Actually, I don't mind off-topic discussions at all as long as they are not baby-talk.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
I'll have a lot to say about that question as soon as I can wrap up this article. Still plugging away with RAW files cookin' in the oven right now.

Cheers,

Sean
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Hi Drafi,

Its not your English at all. I'm just steadily trying to bury that term because it never made sense. So my post was a joke.

Best,

Sean
 
D

Drafi

Guest
Actually, I don't mind off-topic discussions at all as long as they are not baby-talk.
As an answer to this sentence, may I quote Sean?:

"That's the kind of comment that just tends to inflame and doesn't advance the discussion at all."
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
As an answer to this sentence, may I quote Sean?:

"That's the kind of comment that just tends to inflame and doesn't advance the discussion at all."
I agree and I imagine that Mitch may also, upon reflection, agree as well. The rules have to apply to all of us, myself included.

Cheers,

Sean
 

Lili

New member
In regards to P&S, post process, and all that.
NO digital camera I have used has ever produced perfect results every time without input on my part.
I have owned and used a Nikon Coolpix S5, Fuji Finepix S5200 and F31FD, Pentax K100D and my GRD.
ALL of them require effort on the part of the photographer to produce the best possible image, either by in-camera controls or in post.
One great thing about the Gr series and GX100 is that the degree of in-camera control matches or exceeds some DLSR's (ie my k100D) and the fact that these controls are so easily accessible.
My images are passable at best, but I am pleased with them and the GR suits me perfectly.
Mitch and others produce absoutely stunning work.
The camera they use does not concieve the images for them.
But the cameras control and quality certainly helps.
 
Last edited:
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
The camera they use does not make the images for them.
But the cameras control and quality certainly helps.
That's a good summary that balances the perpetual debate between "equipment makes the picture" and "equipment doesn't matter". I'm of the same mind as you on this.

Cheers,

Sean
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Admin Note: We've recieved a few reports on this post... Just want to compliment you all on self-managing this thread BACK on topic, and for not letting it cross all the way over the line into another forum spite-fest, seeing who can out-insult whom... Thanks for continuing to express differences of opinion politely!

Cheers,
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Morning folks I have received a few reports on this thread and not going to go in and edit everything out due to time constraints on my end but did want to bring something up to calm things down just a tad. Opinions and discussions from everyone are certainly welcome but certain phrases or words do tend to inflame sometimes. Just like we don't want to upset a dinner guest at your home we sometimes need to avoid generalizing and what we like to call flame bait words . Lucridders comments like this "I have to say that you need to be blind when you still buy one of those cams" are and do by many folks tend to be flame bait. Let's be careful how we word our posts and there intent is. We come from all over the world and language sometimes between cultures is confusing but just like we don't discriminate on culture, race, religion and so on let's be a little careful how we word our posts. Honestly Jack and I are so happy this forum is truly a place for friends and conversation that promotes learning and sharing it is that spirit that we all want here. Let's keep it on that track. Thank You very much for your time and for those that made the reports we would like to thank you for keeping us alert on the threads and how they are going in the direction they should go. We have no limits on topics and discussion except to keep it friendly at all times.

From a personal level i see these camera's as another tool in the bag to get certain looks to your style of shooting. I love some of the images that have been posted here and also has opened my eyes to these small sensor camera's. Thanks Guy
 
7

7ian7

Guest
Pretty much every single image from every camera benefits from some level of post-processing (XS70, maybe not, but Pola negs, definitely). Isn't "post-processing" really a digital term anyway? Processing is intrinsic to all film camera work. Whether it's done by Chuck Kelton or PhotoMat, it's still processing, still happening after the fact of shooting the picture. Nothing happening inside any camera I've ever used, and nothing delivered by the — admittedly remarkable — range of amazing software presets available today, comes close to the nuanced accuracy of working a file in a custom fashion, both in the darkroom and especially on the computer. Sean (and David Paul Carr, in his adamant posts) are both right on; the advancements of the RAW conversion programs are definitely getting us closer to the accuracy and appeal of contact sheets. Historically, my photographer friends who've claimed "not doing much" after the fact of taking a picture have generally created prints that haven't done much for me.

I agree with those that say there are many frustrations or annoyances when using the GX100 as a social camera. Some, such as flash exposure compensation, may be correctible, and some, such as the coversion hood — which I use with a neutral B+W filter instead of a lens cap — blocking the flash, can not. Focus delay and RAW write time result in tons of missed moments, too. But those erratic social photography situations benefit tremendously from shooting RAW and using ... post-processing. : ) So maybe the GX100's positives outweigh its annoyances, even as a social camera.

Finally, to Mitch's original point, as a GX100 user with about two grand worth of other gear purchases in line ahead of a GRD2, I'm glad to hear that my camera is even vaguely in contention against the new flagship model.

Cheers.
 
S

stnami

Guest
Mitchell the best colour cameras for colour have been the 5050,7070 Olympus series..but they have taken a new direction a long time ago
Drafi I never singled out the Ricoh's as the only culprits in their in house processing but it was a ricoh thread so that is the camera mentioned........

PP work is applied to most photo industries , with the exception of industries like journalism (well it should but not always the case}, probably the conceptual art scene when it is used as a information tool only, and even then the image is usually placed in a different context and gathering of pure information.
Most social shooters want the best possible out of the box and small digitals are yet to catch up with the small film cameras of old.

Back to the cameras..........in the wash up PP is important to these cameras in order to obtain the best possible results from their strengths which are the compressions in the dynamic range and the incredible depth of field
 
M

Mitch Alland

Guest
...I agree with those that say there are many frustrations or annoyances when using the GX100 as a social camera...Focus delay and RAW write time result in tons of missed moments, too. But those erratic social photography situations benefit tremendously from shooting RAW and using ... post-processing. : ) So maybe the GX100's positives outweigh its annoyances, even as a social camera.

Finally, to Mitch's original point, as a GX100 user with about two grand worth of other gear purchases in line ahead of a GRD2, I'm glad to hear that my camera is even vaguely in contention against the new flagship model.
Ian,

For street photography, which I suppose is the same as social photography, both being basically equivalent to genre paining, as Sean writes in his excellent street photography article, the auto-focus delay is not really an impediment because, with the huge depth of field, one can use SNAP focus or manual focus set at one meter or so — this makes the camera even easier to use than pre-focusing with a Leica-M, again because of the huge DOF. The four second write speed hasn't bothered me because somehow my photography doesn't depend on shooting pictures in rapid succession: for the pictures that depend on timing if I haven't gotten on the first press of the shutter the picture is gone anyway, as the subject would have moved to another position or changed expression.

As for the GX100 being even vaguely in contention with the GRD2, it's a lot more than that: after all, as Imants has observed, my GX100 series of Chartres and the chateaux of the Loire is better than my GRD2 series of Huahun Market, both linked in the original post. As I wrote above a lot of the quality differences between the two cameras can be equalized in post-processing by fairly aggressive sharpening and contrast increases of the GX100 files. I only realized how much the GX100 files needed to be sharpened when, working on a landscape photograph, I found that I couldn't get the RAW file to anywhere near the sharpness of the JPG produced by the camera until I applied USM at 100/5/20 — that middle 5 is very aggressive — so it looks like the GX100 applies very strong sharpening, at least to fine details. In any case, the GX100 is no slouch as a camera.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
 
J

jorgeAD

Guest
To me point-and-shoot is not really a piece of equiment but an attitude.

It means treating cameras as gadgets instead of genuine photographic tools. Understanding a camera as a gadget puts power and control in the hands of the manufacturer... understanding it as a tool puts control and creativity back in the users hands !

Despite Sean efforts I am afraid the term (and P/S mentality) is not just here to stay but spreading like wildfire... and likely the reason the GRD II wont get more than the ABOVE AVERAGE qualification (just like the GRD I did) at the Digital Purchasers... err I mean Photography Review site (which I find commendable in many other senses).

Sorry Mitch, no more drifting off your original topic... but I consider this one of photography's most liberating aspects...

Regards
Jorge
 
M

Mitch Alland

Guest
...Despite Sean efforts I am afraid the term (and P/S mentality) is not just here to stay but spreading like wildfire... and likely the reason the GRD II wont get more than the ABOVE AVERAGE qualification (just like the GRD I did) at the Digital Purchasers... err I mean Photography Review site (which I find commendable in many other senses)...
Jorge,

While the reviews on dpreview are good in providing an inventory of a camera's features in comparison to other cameras, I wouldn't pay much attention to the judgments because they are meant for consumers rather than experienced photographers. For example, the dpreview conclusions on the GX100 don't even include the stepped zoom facility as a "Pro", that is, a desirable feature of the camera; and there is only one mention of this facility, which is characterised as and "unusual" feature: clearly the reviewer has not understood he significance of the stepped zoom, which is of significant value to most experienced photographers and whose significance is highlighted in Sean's review.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
 
7

7ian7

Guest
Coincidentally, I attended Peter and David Turnley's opening at the Leica gallery yesterday, and the prints hanging on those walls ... let's just say that those kinds of prints don't happen — ever — by simply hitting the start button on an enlarger light and walking away.

Photojournalistic images involve as challenging and precise "post-process" manipulation as any other kind of work, and receive it, albeit in the name of representing "truth." There is a ton of historical evidence to support this claim.

I get the sense that a lot of people associate "PP" with gimmicks or looks or cross-processing or special effects or heavy retouching, but in most cases, all it means is having the eye and the skill to achieve on paper, working with a negative or a file, an accurate representative balance between 1) what happened in front of the camera and 2) how the photographer experienced that event.

You'd think that would just occur naturally, but beyond the initial feeling of looking at a 2.5 inch LCD or a fresh contact sheet, it really doesn't.
 
7

7ian7

Guest
Mitch,
Social photography often occurs in living rooms with less distance between camera and subject than the 2.5 meter Snap mode on the Ricohs.

To me, point & shoot is a term for the feeling I get when snapping away with whichever trendy little Canon or Fuji my (young adult) niece owns at any given moment. They're always tiny, they're always easy, and they're always .... there.

What one can pull from those files after the fact is open to debate, but that may be entirely besides the point ... and shoot.
 
M

Mitch Alland

Guest
What is a "fine print"?

I have recommended these three books before and, although they deal with the darkroom, they are, I think, the best introduction to post-processing for anyone not familiar with darkroom work. They are Anselm Adams' "The Negative" and "The Print", and the following book by Bartlett and Tarrant:

http://www.amazon.com/Black-White-P...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200106773&sr=8-6

Adams' books introduce you to his concept of visualization as well as the zone system and his concept of a "fine print", while the Bartlett and Tarrant book shows a series of "straight prints" without any manipulation and then details step by step the changes in overall contrast and selective burning and dodging, which transforms the initial photograph into an expressive print. Short of taking a good darkroom workshop, these books are the best way of learning the possibilities in B&W printing.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
 
Top