Najinsky: The test scenes don't look that good to me. A little soft in places and the reds are too pale, tending to pink.
However the test scenes for the GR at imaging Resource, look absolutely stunning. Tack sharp, excellent colour and a great balance between soft textures and fine detail.
It's confusing to see two vastly different results. If I hadn't seen the IR test scenes I'd be having a few doubts about the IQ now.
If the intention was to use out of camera JPEGs, then for some purposes (where the chroma noise didn't matter) then the Nikon might be better. But personally, I prefer the approach taken by Ricoh to minimise the chroma noise.
However, I won't be judging these cameras on out of camera JPEGs at ISO6400. That's of very little interest to me. I shoot raw with my own NR workflow, and try to keep as close to true base ISO as possible. Hi ISO is for emergency use only.
Differences I see:
The Ricoh image is 14MP, the Nikon 16MP. Odd. They are both reported as 16MP Cameras.
The Ricoh at 1/640 vs 1/800 means the Ricoh received MORE light and should therefore have LESS noise.
In respect of the results. I would find the Ricoh more usable. The Nikon appears to have better saturation but it also has more false colour in its noise (more chroma noise). The Ricoh while having less saturation, has no remaining chroma noise, only luminance, which is more akin to grain. The absence of chroma noise means the saturation can easily be boosted without boosting noise.
The easiest place to see this is the purple napkin. Superficially, the Nikon looks better as it has retained more saturation. But on closer inspection, you can see it's now a patchwork of false colour with various shades of blues and reds making an appearance. The Ricoh retains an even colour and even when the saturation has been boosted, it retains a much more even colour and texture.
The test scenes don't look that good to me. A little soft in places and the reds are too pale, tending to pink.
peevee1: Another fixed focal length fixed lens cam? Do you ALWAYS shoot at a single focal length and don't care about composition and perspective at all? How many people are like that? They all have been served by X100 2 years ago (and a few of them may upgrade to X100s, maybe). RX1, Nikon A, Ricoh GR etc will just fail in the market, because the market is too small. If any customer will buy a camera like that by mistake, they will return it as soon as they find out that it is just as limited as their phone, only there is no even the "pinch to zoom" digital zoom.And this GR does not even have any stabilization, at all, so it sucks even compared to a good smartphone.
Zooms offer great convenience, especially as you move towards the Tele end. But they can also make you a bit lazy with your compositions where you simply zoom to make it better, rather than explore to make it best.
I periodically force myself to use a single focal length to help develop my seeing eye. The X100 was great for this but quite hefty.
A few months ago, I would have been disappointed at 28mm, preferring 35mm for a single FL, but more recently I've been discovering just how versatile this FL can be and I'm ready to give it a go, so the new GR just ticks all the right boxes for me.
The Imaging resource site has just posted their test scene from the new GR and the rendering from the lens/sensor is just sublime. GR is a real stunner. I could examine the raw straight away, thanks to the use of DNG.
jacketpotato: There was sufficient body girth (looking at handgrip) to put F2.Maybe even F1.8 with a litte extra portrusion that the phtographers this is aimed at would been fine with .. what a camera that woud have been.
F/2 is not important for me anymore for this type of camera.
Performance is clearly great wide open across the frame. Even my Fuji suffers a bit wide open. I look through my X100 images and it's very clear I'm getting my best images mostly in range from F/2.8 to F/6.7.
F/1.4 would bring something real and tangible, but F/2 vs F/2.8, where the's F/2 really need to be stopped down anyway, it's a 1 to 3% advantage at best.The key figures here are:
◦ 16.2MP APS-C ◦ 28mm/2.8 ◦ 245 g ◦ 117 x 61 x 35 mm
The smallest lightest fixed lens APS-C.
But not only the smallest and lightest, it's got the full Ricoh ergonomics and control interface for un-compromised shooting.
Add in the excellent Sony sensor, then a GR lens. Seriously sweet, serious compact.
Many people will take comfort in their F/2 camera, and I'm happy for them. But I almost lost my shorts on many occasions thanks to the X100 weight, risking serious indecent exposure!
245 g is a new league of serious compact.
I have to say I'm delighted with how this has turned out.
I heard the rumours of the APS-C sensor and feared it would pass over an imaginary 'compactness/performance' threshold that lives in my head and manifests itself in my subconscious decisions not to take a camera out with me.
But looking at the size, weight, features and performance, it looks like they may have just bang-on nailed it.
Really looking forward to your updates in the coming weeks.
Re: WB not available on the ADJ button.
This would be good feedback to give directly to Ricoh if you get the chance. They have a history of listening to user feedback and releasing feature enhancing firmware to implement the more practical suggestions.
qwertyasdf: Ricoh GR has a loyal albeit small fan base, curious to know what's the magic of the GR series?
Now, for almost the first time, you don't need to sacrifice great IQ to enjoy the richer shooting experience. A great day for Ricoh fans.
Now, those who strive towards great IQ don't need to tolerate/compensate a sub-standard shooting experience. A great day for a new wave of soon to be Ricoh fans.
All in all, a great day for photography I think.
It's a design thing.
GR is Ricoh's high grade brand of lens. GR Digital is a compact body designed to enjoy the lens through photography.
Usually, compact bodies take their cues from consumer electronics and the photographer spends a lot of time fighting with poorly placed and/or poorly thought-out controls.
Ricoh gets it right. Putting the right controls in the right place and implementing them from a photography perspective. Once you customise the controls for your shooting style (or set multiple configurations if you use multiple styles) you're good to go.
Your mind is free to contemplate the photography, not the camera operation.
It's a very simple concept, but can make a huge difference in enjoying photography. It's not magic, and the real mystery is why more camera makers can't get it right!
There's lots of small design details too that you come to appreciate in actual use. Like the recessed strap lugs mean there are no snagging points when you stow and un-stow the camera.
Najinsky: Will this do the software correction for the lenses prior to encoding?
Many of the m43 lenses require significant software correction to remove distortion. There are a handful of lenses with low distortion (for example the 2 45mm's, the 25/1.4 and the 75/1.8, perhaps the 12/2) but most of the rest will need correcting.
If the capture is only 1920 x 1080, wont there will be noticeable resolution loss with some lenses due to the severity of the distortion?
Mainstream raw converters correct the distortion during conversion so relatively few people ever see how bad it is. But pre-corrected distortion can be very extreme, almost like a fish eye in some cases and would be very noticeable if uncorrected.
You can use a dcraw based raw utilities to view the uncorrected files, but for some lenses it's best to avoid eating for a least a few hours before viewing ;-)
With such distortion resolution loss is unavoidable.
However, I've since read the sensor is 2k x 2k. And from that snippet I'm now guessing:
a) BMCC will probably correct for distortion.b) The distortion will lead to a resolution loss with some lenses.c) But in reality it's probably not a big deal.
Just use the cost savings from the camera to buy the good lenses with low distortion. And even for the more distorted lens, some resolution loss away from the centre will be acceptable anyway.
Will this do the software correction for the lenses prior to encoding?
Najinsky: LOL. That one wouldn't have even made my keeper list, let alone my portfolio. I'm going to have to check my archives to see what hidden treasures I missed.
Sometimes I think I 'get' the concept of art, but then the ethanol wears off and I'm just left with a headache.
Is the artist allowed to like or not like his images too? If so he must be free to choose which images he takes forward with him, and which to abandon. It's the artists call.
The respect for this image seems to come from it's subsequent role in photographic history. Long after the artist decided to compose, shoot, process and print. And long after he decided if it went to his keepers pile.
I like to think of my comments as relating to the artist at the human level. The self criticism of ones own work and achievements.
That image wouldn't have made my keepers list. It's a simple and honest and human comment.
The fact that it's attracted a harsh critical response by todays art snobs, who as always have the gift of hindsight, though rarely foresight, only leads me to wonder if one day historians will consider it an iconic post that changed the boundaries of commenting as we know it.
What's interesting, is the edited version shown at the smithsonian site linked to below.
It has the car bumper at the photo's right edge cropped out.
It's interesting to contemplate how this happened.
For example was this done by the editor at the smithsonian site, who thought to himself, that bumper to the right of this iconic image looks a bit messy and should really be cropped out.
Or maybe the artist himself struggled with the artistic interpretation of the bumper and his decision to leave it in the frame.
Or perhaps this is a change he made when producing the new print, to counteract the possibly of a lawsuit by showing the images are not the same.
Riveting stuff, no?
For those to tired to hunt for the link I'll copy it here:
Yes Mam, right away. No wait, I have to watch this paint dry.
Perhaps you can recommend a book that explains why everyone needs to like the same thing?
LOL. That one wouldn't have even made my keeper list, let alone my portfolio. I'm going to have to check my archives to see what hidden treasures I missed.
Najinsky: Why did this go on the connect site. Is computer software no longer part of the main DPR site?
Indeed. Looks like this playground lost its monitor. Cool, we can play with matches and use potty mouth words like poo poo. Tee Hee.
WolfyWho: Is it just me, or does the OMD beat all 3 of the others in this test in terms of sharpness? What am I missing? There's definitely more dynamic range in the X100s that I can see, compared to the OMD.
Download the Raw ISO 200 JPEGs. The Martini bottle, below the cap is the royal crest, between "By Appointment To Her Majesty The Queen" and "Suppliers of Martini Vermouth"
OM-D is notably beating the X100s (and X-Pro 1) here. To really see what's happening you need to zoom in many times perhaps 10X so you can see what's really happening. There are too many differences to list, but the most obvious are:
The actual text is well defined versus soft.The lions face, mane and crown is distinct versus mush.The shield rendering is distinct versus mush.The small lion on top has a distinct tail versus mush.The White on Red letting is much better.
Anyone with eyes will see these stark differences if they choose to..
Corner softness (at F8?) is playing a part (the image is distorted and soft here), but it is the random mush that gets rendered when the contrast drops that is proving to be a signature for this sensor. Nowhere close to the hyped FF quality, and being bested by μ4/3 here.
Why did this go on the connect site. Is computer software no longer part of the main DPR site?
osu9400: Sorry for being a pessimist here, but we are talking about Google. Does this mean:1. This product is no longer a priority and won't see further development?2. Will we start seeing tons of Google ads in the product?
@ Kananga, what development? Development seems to have been frozen. Not even support for Retina Macs (it works, but it uses a scaled display mode rather than native Retina).
And while I'm pleased by the announcement of their intention to evolve the product, I just hope it means adding new filters and features, not just transitioning it to a cloud based subscription service.
Phil Askey: There's no Android API for reading raw pixels from the sensor, you always get a pre-processed 'bitmap' which (as you stated) has been demosaiced, gamma corrected and white balanced (and whatever else the manufacturer's camera driver does to the data on the way through). On a rooted phone it may be possible to access the low-level camera device and read data off that way, hence it's more likely that IF a phone camera ever supports RAW it'll come via the phone manufacturer's own camera app or a change in the Android API.
@Phil: re: "Seems a bit pointless to process RAW files from a camera...an Android device".
Everything is pointless until there is a point. It's within the definition.
iOS has built in support for raw files in that they are recognised media types. This means they are recognised as and can be used as images. It uses the embedded JPEG for display, but for most cameras these are good quality and at least it makes the files directly usable.
There are then the third party apps that can actually process the raws to develop the image.
When combined, this provides a lot of flexibility for photographers who shoot raw.
Import the shoot and they are instantly usable as images. But if you screwed up the capture and need to rescue the shadows/highlights/WB, you can fix those by developing the raw.
It is a little less useful on Android because raws are not recognised media types and therefore require additional processes to extract the previews and try to keep them associated with the raws.