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!

GRD II vs. GX-100 - I'm stuck

W

wbrandsma

Guest
Wouter,

I like the speed skating photo, but I'm very confused by it. I don't see how the skaters could be so sharp at 1/2 second, and 32 mph. I certainly believe you, but I'm amazed. Were you panning with them?
I would think the motion of their hands and legs would blur even if you were panning.

Just very curious how you pulled it off.

Best,

Mitchell
I was panning. The sharpness is mostly related to the 24mm wide angle and the distance to the skaters. The image beneath was made with a 35mm focal length. This enhances the feeling of speed.



And because we love speedskating :thumbup:.
 

Mitchell

New member
Wouter,

Thanks for your response. The first photo really makes it clear. The slow skater on the right is blurred because you are panning, and the fast skater's hand is blurred even though his body isn't. I can see how the skaters in the original shot are not blurred because you got them when they are holding their stride before their next step as speed skaters do.

Mystery solved. It shows how one can makes shots succeed even when it seems unlikely.

Thanks,

Mitchell
 

kai.e.g.

Member
Our next door neighbours (from whom we purchased the land on which to build our house) were [Italian] speedskating champions in the 1950's - they met each other that way. I just showed your shots to them (both now in their 70's) and they just loved them. He is still actively involved in the sport as an official, and also coaching/teaching.

My first post here, I think (I lose track where I've posted & when sometimes!), but I've been quietly lurking/absorbing for a week or so. I'm going through the same decision-making process: one day I'm convinced it'll be the GX-100 and the next, it's just as certainly the GRD II. It all boils down to RAW Buffer vs. Focal Length Versatility.

And, despite what I perceive to be it's many compromises, I'm still keen to see Sean's G9 review, even if for no other reason than to confirm all my doubts about it. If one were to base the decision purely upon the gushing reviews found in the popular press/websites, the G9 would be the best thing since sliced bread. I'd essentially like a GX-100 with a RAW buffer, and would ask for little else. At least there's time on my side: I can't really purchase anything until a number of other priorities are taken care of around here - our house is new, and we have a lunar landscape for a garden which needs fixing this springtime - which could mean not until the next crop of cameras is announced... in the meantime, I'll drop in and shoot the breeze here from time to time :)
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
I'm working on that G9 review right now and *may* have it published by the end of the week. The camera has some strengths, to be sure, but also some notable weaknesses.

BTW, the other issue one might consider in the GX100 vs. GR2 decision is whether he or she wants a higher contrast or moderate contrast lens.

Cheers,

Sean
 
W

wbrandsma

Guest
Our next door neighbours (from whom we purchased the land on which to build our house) were [Italian] speedskating champions in the 1950's - they met each other that way. I just showed your shots to them (both now in their 70's) and they just loved them. He is still actively involved in the sport as an official, and also coaching/teaching.

My first post here, I think (I lose track where I've posted & when sometimes!), but I've been quietly lurking/absorbing for a week or so. I'm going through the same decision-making process: one day I'm convinced it'll be the GX-100 and the next, it's just as certainly the GRD II. It all boils down to RAW Buffer vs. Focal Length Versatility.

And, despite what I perceive to be it's many compromises, I'm still keen to see Sean's G9 review, even if for no other reason than to confirm all my doubts about it. If one were to base the decision purely upon the gushing reviews found in the popular press/websites, the G9 would be the best thing since sliced bread. I'd essentially like a GX-100 with a RAW buffer, and would ask for little else. At least there's time on my side: I can't really purchase anything until a number of other priorities are taken care of around here - our house is new, and we have a lunar landscape for a garden which needs fixing this springtime - which could mean not until the next crop of cameras is announced... in the meantime, I'll drop in and shoot the breeze here from time to time :)
Grazie mille. Italy has had very succesful speedskaters and a beautiful icetrack in Baselga di Pine. In 1950's you had Enrico Musolino, Guido Caroli, Guido Citterio, Mario Gios, Renato De Riva, and more recently Roberto Sighel, and Enrico Fabris as speedskaters. Great to read that there are more speedskating fans beyond the Netherlands and Norway.

I agree with you that the GX100 should have a better RAW buffer, but the lens makes this camera one of a kind. In June I doubted between the Panasonic LX2/Leica D-Lux 3, Canon G7, Ricoh GRD, and Ricoh GX100. The Canon felt good in the hand, but was too much menu oriented and lacked a serious wide angle (no RAW either). The Panasonic/Leica deal has a good wide angle, but the widest angle only in 16:9 mode (I prefer 3:2). The GRD has a great lens, but was too pricey for me (and I can still use my GR1). The GX100 has great ergonomics (like the GRD) and a fantastic lens. I especially adore the step zoom mode. I have not regret it.
Good luck with your decision making!
 
M

meilicke

Guest
It all boils down to RAW Buffer vs. Focal Length Versatility.
Believe me, I hear your pain :).

But, if you read Sean's review of the GX-100 (www.reidreviews.com, paid site), you will see you do not lose too much by going jpeg with some appropriate in-camera settings. Not quite raw, but when you need the ability to take pictures rapidly, it seems jpeg is still OK. Note - I do not yet have my GX-100, so this comment is not from personal experience.

-Scott
 
W

wbrandsma

Guest
I think the jpegs are OK. In particular the B&W jpegs. I only use the RAWs, because no noise reduction is applied (, but I am almost always suprised and pleased with the B&W jpegs I get when shooting RAW).

Forgot to say Scott that I love the streak of the ball on your baseball image!
 
Last edited:

Lili

New member
I think the jpegs are OK. In particular the B&W jpegs. I only use the RAWs, because no noise reduction is applied (, but I am almost always suprised and pleased with the B&W jpegs I get when shooting RAW).

Forgot to say Scott that I love the streak of the ball on your baseball image!

Wouter, the lack of noise reduction on JPEG (as well as the slow RAW write times) are the reason I almost always shoot jpegs with my GRD.
Agreed on the Baseball image!
 
M

meilicke

Guest
Thanks Wouter and Lili. It is an interesting exercise in patience, combining the long shutter lag of the S45 with a player actually hitting the ball.

-Scott
 

kai.e.g.

Member
Sean - glad to hear we might see the G9 review soon, though as a very recent subscriber, I'm very much enjoying all your other articles in the meantime.

That's a good point regarding JPEG's from the GX100 many of you make - thanks - and the nice part of it is that the nervous amongst us can shoot RAW/JPEG initially until our confidence in the results is high enough to simply shoot JPEG the bulk of the time... switching to RAW only when a difficult scene warrants it. Mind you, if I'm perfectly honest with myself about it, even the 4 seconds of RAW write time would not bother me that much most of the time - I fairly rarely fire off even two shots in rapid succession. So it might just be a case of getting to worried about a specification that looks worse on paper than in practice [for me].

Wouter, their names are not amongst your list, but I might have the time frame wrong... or maybe they didn't participate internationally. Anyway, his surname is "Zonca", if that rings a bell.
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Sean - glad to hear we might see the G9 review soon, though as a very recent subscriber, I'm very much enjoying all your other articles in the meantime.

That's a good point regarding JPEG's from the GX100 many of you make - thanks - and the nice part of it is that the nervous amongst us can shoot RAW/JPEG initially until our confidence in the results is high enough to simply shoot JPEG the bulk of the time... switching to RAW only when a difficult scene warrants it. Mind you, if I'm perfectly honest with myself about it, even the 4 seconds of RAW write time would not bother me that much most of the time - I fairly rarely fire off even two shots in rapid succession. So it might just be a case of getting to worried about a specification that looks worse on paper than in practice [for me].
I'm glad to hear it. I found the RAW delays on the original GR to be very problematic but the shorter delays with the GX100 don't bother me so much. Still, the GR II's buffer is great to have.

Cheers,

Sean
 
A

asabet

Guest
Thank you all for your help with my dilemma, including those who have been posting images and talking about both cameras in other threads. In the end I bought a used GX-100 (from Amin on this site - thanks Amin). Both cameras had weaknesses that were significant to me, so it was a real struggle to commit to either one. The lower price of the used GX-100, and an ideal package (camera plus CV 28/35 finder), sealed the deal. Perhaps something will come up in a year or so, but in the mean time, I will enjoy the new camera!

-Scott
The GX100 was possibly the most enjoyable digital camera I have used, though hard to decide between that, Digilux 2, and others. Hopefully you all won't mind me sticking around this great forum for the images and gear talk now I no longer have a compact camera and am mainly shooting film :). Regards, Amin
 
M

meilicke

Guest
Well it has been a week since I received the camera. I like it quite a bit for the controls, size, and image quality. The one thing that really surprised me was the CV 28/35 mini finder that I also purchased. I am having a hard time with it. The lines tend to disappear on me depending upon the scene I am looking at. Sometimes looking around a bit helps. Maybe I am just so used to my DSLR and putting a big hulking thing to my face, that it just seems strange to put such a small camera there. I feel like eating it like a chocolate bar.

But really, that is such a small thing to worry about. I will either get used to the finder and like it, get a slightly larger one (for my glasses mostly), or just use the LCD and adapt to a "looser style", as Mitch Alland has said.

The camera itself is really a blast.

-Scott
 
V

VladimirV

Guest
Good to hear you're happy with your purchase and are enjoying the camera.

I had the same problem with the GV-2 Ricoh OVF and find that the GV-1 although bigger works much better and you can see the framelines easier.
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Well it has been a week since I received the camera. I like it quite a bit for the controls, size, and image quality. The one thing that really surprised me was the CV 28/35 mini finder that I also purchased. I am having a hard time with it. The lines tend to disappear on me depending upon the scene I am looking at. Sometimes looking around a bit helps. Maybe I am just so used to my DSLR and putting a big hulking thing to my face, that it just seems strange to put such a small camera there. I feel like eating it like a chocolate bar.

But really, that is such a small thing to worry about. I will either get used to the finder and like it, get a slightly larger one (for my glasses mostly), or just use the LCD and adapt to a "looser style", as Mitch Alland has said.

The camera itself is really a blast.

-Scott
If it doesn't seem to work, try the GV-1 or the CV 28 (which is larger).

Cheers,

Sean
 
H

hiro

Guest
The one thing that really surprised me was the CV 28/35 mini finder that I also purchased. I am having a hard time with it. The lines tend to disappear on me depending upon the scene I am looking at.
...
I will either get used to the finder and like it, get a slightly larger one (for my glasses mostly), or just use the LCD
Have you tried the EVF? I much prefer it to the LCD. At first sight it looks a bit pixelly but that's because you're getting a magnified view compared to the LCD, in reality they're about the same resolution. I prefer the fact that the virtual image is at infinity (with eyepiece adjusted right!), making it easier and more natural to look at than a little screen just in front of you. And although it has drawbacks compared to an OVF, it does give you a TTL view, SLR style, along with full readout. You can even use it in playback mode to review your images with some privacy!
 
M

Mitch Alland

Guest
I agree with Hiro in the sense that the EVF can be better than an OVF that has no read-out information: although under conditions of very bright light I can still frame with the LCD because I only use it to establish the edges of the frame and usually look at the subject itself when pressing the shutter, I find the GX100's EVF more useful than an optical VF without any read-out because the latter does not allow me to see when I need to reduce the aperture because the small-sensor camera cannot (at that aperture) use a fast enough shutter speed — this is also what flares out on the LCD.

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