GRD II review

[Sean_Reid]

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

 

[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!

 

[stnami]

Nice review, it sorta shows that the 100 is ahead in versatility, just starting to lose touch at 400iso and with a bit more R and D could lead the pack.

I can't but notice that in the first image of the review the so called "grain" and "tonal qualities" of the image look incomplete, they just don't seem to gel, almost like two separate entities. Any thoughts on that?

 

[Sean_Reid]

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

 

[Sean_Reid]

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!

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

 

[stnami]

is that its stronger in the midtones and shadows than in the upper quarter tones and in the highlights,

.. 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

 

[Lili]

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,
I quite agree!
And after reading your review and as well as Mitch's, had I not just gotten my GRD I would have bought a GRD II immediately!
However, just as another poster said, I wish to fully use my GRD before supplanting it.
But that does not mean I am not tempted by by the GX100

Lili

PS- as regards RAW. I am new to RAW as well as Post Processing. One thing that really attracted me about the GR Digital was the ability to directly and easily control sharpness, contrast and saturation when shooting JPEGS.
So the RAW write times, at least for now, are of less importance to me.

 

[Mitch Alland]

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

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/

 

[Sean_Reid]

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/

Hi Mitch,

That's one way to do it, for sure. The other thing that occurred to me as I was driving this morning is that this difference (in the higher vs. lower grain areas of the picture) can be more pronounced in JPEGs that are resized for screen viewing. There's a certain amount of noise reduction that just happens as a consequence of down-sizing the file for the web. But that re-sampling has a threshold above which some noise will still be visible. So, thinking in terms of the Zone system, for example, the re-sampling may mean that the tones at Zone IV and below will still show the noise whereas those above that level may have lost it in the re-sampling. So, the difference tends to be less pronounced in prints.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Mitch Alland]

That's interesting — and encouraging, Sean.

Another thing that I noticed is from the facility that the Macintosh has for viewing picture files: you can select a tiff or jpg file in a directory and when you hit the space bar the file is displaced on the screen. When 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/

 

[Preston]

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.

 

[cam]

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

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 often do the roughening up that Mitch does as i like the look very much (i guess that's kind of your number two option). however, i have also experimented with using selective grain addition (number three) digitally using Alien Skin Exposure 2. it gives you the base, but you can adjust the grain in any of the tones to your aesthetics. it's really quite nice and makes it very easy to see what you are going to get.

as to the 40mm adaptor, i have one on order. since i already own both the GRD's, i thought it was a more elegant answer than getting a GX100. do i not remember you saying somewhere on the forum that you used the neck strap when using the GT-1?

again, many thanks!

 

[Sean_Reid]

When 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/

Exactly

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Sean_Reid]

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.

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

 

[cam]

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

a thumbnail would be brilliant!

as for the question of indicator accuracy, i played around with it this morning and it seemed to be all over the place, giving different DOF's for the same distance (and aperture and speed). it was very frustrating... or maybe it was just my eyes after staying up late to read your review

 

[Sean_Reid]

JFI profiles should work on Mac as well.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[[email protected]]

I got in yesterday evening after a long day organising a stressfull gig and doing it, then doing one in the evening, I arrived home very tired and had made a concrete decision to go to bed early:sleep006:, no such luck, I checked my emails as I always do at night, I had a quick look at the Dpreview Ricoh forum and there was a link to this GRD11 review, early to bed your joking!

I read it from cover to cover and it answered some doubts, many people had said it was not as good as the GRD so I have been sitting on the fence waiting fror a real review done with knowledge, experience, enthusiasm, honesty etc, etc and of course Sean is the man, I have a GRD and use it more than my other three digital cameras, I wont rabbit on about the review but it has persuaded me to get the GRD11 when funds permit, (I have just ordered a new full PC system)

Thanks for putting my mind at rest Sean:thumbs:

 

[7ian7]

Sean,

Last night I subscribed to your site — more on principal, in support of your efforts on behalf of all of us than because of any urgent need for immediate answers — and I'm happy I did. There's a bounty of intriguing titles at ReidReviews that I've been planning on reading for more than a year, now, and that I will most likely explore even before digging in to your GRD2 review, which on quick perusal seems interesting, too.

I am guessing you've programmed the site in Flash because that makes grabbing content without permission a bit more difficult, but I do wish that it loaded and displayed with greater ease and handled more fluidly (on my dual G5 Mac tower, anyway). I am sure it's possible, while still protecting your work from unauthorized access.

That said, absolutely no regrets here — I am totally psyched to ante up!

Mitch/Sean/Everyone else,

In terms of maximizing perceived grain/texture/noise in highlights etc, one very effective method in PhotoShop is to create a curve layer that addresses a particular area of the image — for instance a cheekbone shadow that would benefit from the enhanced texture of greater contrast — invert the new curves layer, and then paint that curve algorithm back in with a brush tool to only the desired spot. Repeating these steps for however many parts of the photograph need special attention has been working well for me. Enhanced contrast, even in targeted areas, also increases the perceived sharpness of the image, without "crunching" the file with oversharpening.

It's kind of like how we'd switch out gelatin filters in a condensor head enlarger — for instance, bumping areas up with a blast from #5, or burning down blown-out areas with a #0 — but this is easier, and the print isn't ruined if you overdo it. It's way faster than it sounds, and way more accurate than settling for overall tonal ranges. It's not unusual to have as many as ten or eleven curves layers in a .psd file, but the precision is fantastic, and the results are as "natural" as one's personal taste. I also use curves for adjusting color in targeted areas, rather than sacrificing overall saturation levels, and that works great too (one example: creating a curves layer with bumped up green channel to reduce facial rosiness in shadow areas where the magenta/red digital thing is taking over).

Working this way also means that if you use the "Layer Comps" feature, you can create several versions of the image with various combinations of your adjustment layers, and toggle between those versions with a single click, which is great too. Ok, I guess I'm starting to veer further off topic ...

This is kinda basic stuff, so forgive me, but for anyone who hasn't yet put - down - that - burn/dodge - tool - !! (which just messes up color most of the time) starting to work this way may feel like the epiphany it has been for me.


Cheers,
Ian

 

[7ian7]

P.S. — Brushes set at lower opacities are easier to control. White paint reveals and black paint hides the inverted layer. A low opacity eraser is useful, too, as is simply pulling back the opacity of an entire adjustment layer to minimize its effect. Cheers.

 

[wbrandsma]

.. 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

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.

Made with a GX100.
This thread is a very good read!!