Ricoh GR Preview extended with further details and more comparisons

Ricoh has been making fixed, prime-lens cameras for a lot longer than Sigma. This is simply their first large sensor model.

Apr 24, 2013permalink

VladimirV

Richard, this is not quite their first large sensor model, in more than one was the GXR with A12 28mm and GXr A12 50mm were large sensor fixed, prime-lens cameras quite a while ago.
Most people just focused in presenting the GXR as a system camera where it was more a collection of fixed lens cameras.

You are right in that Ricoh had the GRD and film GR1 cameras way before Sigma and this is just an evolution of these cameras.

Apr 25, 2013permalink

Vladimir - what I meant was it's the first large sensor compact in this range. I should have been more precise.

You raise an interesting point about the GXRs - should they be considered a system or a series of individual cameras? I know then well, having used the 55 equiv and 28 equiv a fair bit (though we've never had a chance to use the large sensor zoom), but I'd not really thought of them that way.

Apr 25, 2013permalink

One issue with the Studio Scene Test is the Nikon Coolpix A image is underexposed. A images receive 1/3 EV less exposure than the GRD V, but images appear closer to 1/2 EV underexposed. Perhaps DPR was trying to protect the highlights, but normally Matrix Metering does a better job than these studio samples.

RAW files from both cameras look wonderful, much better than the E-PL5 I just picked up.

Apr 24, 2013*permalink

Are you talking about the current (old) test scene or the new test scene?

The shots from our existing scene are comfortably within a 1/6th of an EV of one another. We manually expose the test scene and middle-grey match, in JPEG, since that's the way ISO is assessed.

Matrix metering is not used, nor are we making any decisions about protecting highlights.

We'll look at any variance from expected ISO as part of our review (it's quite possible that one of the cameras is misreporting by 1/3EV, or both are out by 1/6th in opposite directions... Either way, our old test scene shouldn't be used to assess ISO accuracy).

Apr 24, 2013permalink

Monochrome Guy

I have ordered mine following a bit of consideration and comparison to Coolpix A. The 'A' definitely had my attention as a street shooter until this camera was announced. I look forward to availability of the OVF accessory.

I like the sharpness of the lens and even if the JPEG of the Nikon fares better, I am a Raw shooter so I'm good with that. I am a customization fan and have never owned a Ricoh, which should be quite an improvement over my Nex cameras.

My primary use for this camera will be black & white shooting.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Emacs23

It's a little difference in practice, once some advanced NR applied

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Nukunukoo

The lens seems quite small for 18mm/f2.8 on an APS-C sensor. I assume that the sensor is as far as it can be from the first internal lens element. Haven't seen the studio shots but I expect no mind-blowing corner performance here.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

NKNK
The corner performance seems quite good.
PS
Did I make it into your fan club? I love your posts :-)

Apr 23, 2013permalink

pictureAngst

Pcmag have a review that includes impressive imatest results here: http://mobile.pcmag.com/?ref=310197&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcmag.com%2Farticle2%2F0%2C2817%2C2417599%2C00.asp

At f2.8 centre is 2105 lpp, corners 1927 lpp - pretty sharp! Corners become 2120 lpp by f4.

Also, using the 21mm adaptor gives pretty good results considering - 1906 lpp in the corners at f4.

Sounds like a great lightweight landscape tool.

Apr 23, 2013*permalink

Timmbits

You bring up a very good point. One to which it is very difficult to find answers. I suspect that when using smaller apertures, in this lens, and the pancake lenses, they retain only a "crop", or the center section, of what would otherwise have been a much larger lens. This makes for less light going in, as the outer parts of the lens don't need to be focused through that same size hole: they're not there. It makes it easier to design a sharp lens, and lowers production costs.
I'd very much like to see lux numbers, of a pancake lens compared to a conventional one, with the same field of view. (angle)

Apr 23, 2013permalink

rossdoyle

"Haven't seen the studio shots but I expect no mind-blowing corner performance here." The studio shots are one click after the preview title page linked here -- why write this instead of looking for yourself?

Apr 24, 2013permalink

Would be interesting to see what the outcome of having the 35MM crop mode on and 21MM wide angle converter at the same time.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

What equivalent mm angle would the converter give you with the crop mode on?

Apr 23, 2013permalink

pictureAngst

26.25mm

The converter is 0.75x so it'll be 0.75x35

Apr 24, 2013permalink

So almost the same as the 28mm. So you could go between 21 and 26.25 with just a custom button push without taking off the conversion lens?

Apr 25, 2013permalink

whtchocla7e

I remember reading something along the lines of this camera having a 35mm crop mode. Where is that available? Is there a button or a menu setting to turn it on? Is the framing adjusted on the screen?

To me that's as good a having both the 28mm and 35mm equivalents all in one camera. I prefer that to using a wide angle adapter on a 24mm lens ala Fuji. I hope it's true.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Timmbits

may as well just get an x20 or rx100 at that, as it'll use only part of the sensor.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

There's a sample image in the gallery in the 35mm Crop mode. It's mentioned on page 1 of the preview and is listed as one of the options that can be assigned to one of the Fn buttons.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

pictureAngst

Agree the 35mm crop will be useful.

Just bear in mind that the depth of field will be greater (say f4 equiv) than if using a lens that gives 35mm across the full sensor area.

Apr 24, 2013permalink

The first thing I check when comparing the ISO performance is the EXIF data to see if the ISO rating correspond to an actual advantage or not.
You can find them here:
http://imageshack.us/f/341/59375191.png/
The A seems to retain slightly higher shutter speeds, but before declaring the A the "winner" (a-la-dpreview crowd) check out the crops: the GR seems slightly brighter at every ISO (look at the white surfaces such as the typed paper) which may explain the shutter speed differences. Again to me they look very similar....
But I urge people to check the EXIF before starting high ISO wars: you may be surprised!
Also another nice finding of the EXIF: check out the shutter count. The GR has almost double count. This tells you why Ricoh is better: Makers of addictive cameras! :)
Also check the dates the pictures were taken. January 17 Coolpix, Jan 19 the Ricoh! Speaking of being tight lipped....I wonder why Ricoh waited that long.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

..or maybe DPR guys don't bother with setting up the dates of the test cameras they receive?

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Darn I thought since it was a PNG file, it was an actual photo that I could look at.

The so named EXIF data is all well and good, but how about actual raw/dng files that I can extract? Have you seen any for download? That is any except the ones from DPReview of the test scene?

Apr 23, 2013*permalink

@HowaboutRAW the test scene is ideal for this kind of comparison of high ISO as the lighting conditions and the camera settings are identical.
Although, granted, the high ISO is much better judged at real world conditions: in low lit environments...but if you want to compare the ISO ratings, shots like these are perfect.

Apr 23, 2013*permalink

rondom:

The ISO 3200 raws I shot with the Coolpix A sure seem to have less noise problems that that from the Ricoh, I'm awaiting more Ricoh GR raws samples.

Generally regarding the DPReview test scene: It is not good for making high ISO performance judgements, because there is only one deep shadowed area, and it is not full of subtle colour.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Kodachrome200

i just think this thing looks great. sony claimed the rx100 was the greatest pocket camera of all time. maybe it was. but now to me this is. well well done

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Joe Ogiba

Show me a link to were Sony claimed the RX100 was the greatest pocket camera of all time.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

chillgreg

Try google instead of being confrontational. Sony quotes the WSJ in their marketing.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Joe Ogiba

The New Your Times said that , not Sony.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Kodachrome200:

Like the Nikon CP A, this Ricoh's body is a good bit bigger than that of the Sony RX100. These bodies, not counting the lenses, are about the size of the Sony RX1.

Apr 23, 2013*permalink

Actually the Ricoh is about 1.5cm wider than the RX100 (head-on) but essentially identical in every other dimension.

Ultimately, though, the RX100 is a very different type of camera - its zoom lens gives it much broader appeal.

Apr 24, 2013permalink

R Butler,

For a body this size 1.5cm wider is a good bit bitter, take say a Pentax K5 body and add 1.5cm to the width, even starting with a bigger body that's a lot.

Apr 24, 2013permalink

For a typical Ricoh shooter these tests are interesting, but also slightly irrelevant. If you want crisp paperclip details and legible bottle labels from a mile away you don't go with a pocketable camera with a medium size sensor. Therefore minute differences in IQ between Nikon and Ricoh is not that important. But a larger sensor is obviously welcome: more dynamic range and much better high ISO...
Camera responsiveness, user interface will be deciding factor here and Ricoh may have an edge on those points.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

LarryLatchkey

Well said! The tiny differences in IQ here are so relative... As if people were walking around with a reference picture at 100% screen revolution...
Lense performance though is another question. Count this together with the handling and to me Ricoh has more than an edge.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

DrugaRunda

There is actually a lot difference from those particular samples

Ricoh - nice and even, excellent corners
Nikon corners = mush
Sigma - head and sholuders above the other two in center while about par with Ricoh in corners, and no moire.

If IQ at low iso is a priority Sigma looks like a clear choice.

High ISO, GR has a bit more chroma noise than Coolpix, but also more acutance, it seems that Nikon may be using some NR in Raw, but in principle very similar performance.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

In corners, the black and white checkerboards at the top of the frame (lower part of frame is a white background, and not useful),
the Nikon is sharper than the other 3 cameras by a wide margin.

Because you asserting that Nikon has "only a bit" less chroma noise than the GR, I'm guessing you're seeing what you want to see.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Zvonimir Tosic

Marcus, I'm not sure which picture you have looked at, but those chechered corners, at f2.8, Nikon looks depressingly awful. I'm not sure what it means to you, but in the real world it means GR has a better lens (if nothing else). In other specs, both cameras are almost like twin brothers.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/ricoh-gr/6

We are talking about the DPR Studio Scene RAW here:

Apr 23, 2013permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/ricoh-gr/8

@Zvonimir Tosic

You are looking at a different page. The above poster is talking about page 8 (Studio Comparison - RAW) not page 9 (A vs GRD comparison) where for some strange reason, DPR only showed f2.8. (They should add f8 to the crops to the comparison on page 9).

The Studio Test Scene was shot a f8, and here the Coolpix A shows better corners than the X100s, RX1 and GRD (Notice the checkerboard and words Kodak Grey Scale on top border. see link below).

DPR mentions that by 1 or 2 EV from wide open, images are sharp across the frame on both cameras, but the Studio Test scene shows the extent to which the Nikon lens is more even (center, borders, and corners). But all anybody here wants to talk about is f2.8.

f4-f8, the sweet spot, is where you want corners and edges of the frame to be close to the center sharpness. DOF is so shallow at f2.8 corners are just not a priority.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

The corners of our current (old) test scene are not in the focus plane and shouldn't be sharp. If they are, it suggests fairly pronounced curvature of field.

Apr 24, 2013permalink

Johan Borg

Note: The Sigma DP1 Merrill has only been added to our test scene in JPEG mode, since we're too lazy to fire up Sigma Photo Pro and press Save Image with default settings.

Sigma DP1 Merrill must be the single most meaningless camera to add to a JPEG only comparison, given how much that model benefits from RAW.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

zodiacfml

Agreed. Sigma owners know this and if I'm going to consider the Ricoh or Nikon, I should be able to compare them in RAW. Besides, the SD1M comparison image is present, somewhere. It's not very different and a comparison is still possible.

The Fuji X-trans RAW files are more questionable than the Sigmas.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Matthew Miller

I disagree. The _value_ of the RAW image samples is that they're all converted with the same software in the same way. If you want to see samples converted using the manufacturer's individual algorithms, that's what the JPEG samples are for. (In camera vs. desktop software doesn't make much difference for this purpose; if that software happens to have different behavior that's interesting but not really relevant.)

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Johan Borg

In camera vs desktop RAW conversion makes a huge difference in some cases and if the only value in the RAW samples was to compare identical conversion between two cameras, then it should be limited to DNG files only since all other formats will have different code paths, whether that is inside an Adobe product or across two applications.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Matthew Miller

@Johan: no, that's not the case. DNG is just a container format. Proprietary RAW formats are *also* just container formats. Once the container is decoded, the actual conversion path is identical regardless of input file type. Bits are bits.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

GeorgeZ

Yawn, every preview gets 3 news items now, IF it ever becomes a REview even a fourth one. There are articles on "review in progress". This is really ridiculous, what exactly has the amazon purchase done in terms of reviews? You even regularly mention the lack of review cameras when they are absolutely available from your parent company, what's up with that?

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Timmbits

maybe all of their resources are being diverted to cameraphones ("connect").
maybe amazon execs just don't get it... they have stopped believing in DPR, thinking the smartphone will replace everything. time to replace ignorance at the help with someone with a more sober vision?

Apr 23, 2013*permalink

pomoville

Photo sites should ban the word yawn. It seems to be the most frequently expressed sentiment, and, ironically, one of the most exhausting.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Revenant

Most professional review sites get review samples directly from the manufacturers. That's how it usually works.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

GeorgeZ

@Revenant: That may be how it usually works, but when amazon acquired dpr good old Phil said that there will be more reiews thanks to more staff and stuff. I.e. that they have easier access to test cameras. Doesn't look that way.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Revenant

The DPR guys have said many times that they receive their cameras from the manufacturers, so I guess Amazon hasn't been very helpful in that regard. Maybe someone from DPR reading this would like to explain why?

Apr 23, 2013permalink

JacquesBalthazar

One question from me, for the reviewer: what are the real life consequences of GR's 12-bit RAW processing vs the A's 14-bit ? I would have assumed there would be an impact on DR and maybe also on colour gradation. Or not?

Apr 23, 2013permalink

oracle1

Virtually none. People have been discussing this for years now and you will most likely never see any benefit from 14bit, only possibly in some very extreme circumstances. There's some very informative threads about it elsewhere if you search for it.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings

Not true at all that it makes "virtually no" difference.

The Pentax K-30 being only 12-bit RAW cost the K-30 at least 1 EV of Dynamic Range vs the K-5 when DxOMark tested them.

From DxOMark:

K5 14.1 EV DR

K-30 13 EV DR

K-01 12.9 EV DR

All three cameras use the same Sony 16 mp Exmor sensor, but the K30 / K01 aren't able to fully take advantage of the huge DR performance that sensor provides.

If you shoot and edit RAW, or photograph scenes with wide DR, 14-bit lossless RAWs are preferable for maximum latitude.

Note: the D7000 and Coolpix A, two 14-bit RAW capable cameras, scored 13.9 EV and 13.8 EV for DR (dynamic range) respectively and they use the same Sony Exmor sensor found in the 3 Pentax cameras.

Date can be found here:

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Richard Murdey

@marike6

Jaques very clearly asked about "real world" performance, and you quote DxO mark...

Apr 23, 2013permalink

JacquesBalthazar

@marike6: thanks for the reference. 1 EV DR difference can be meaningful, and something nice to have when one tries to salvage a pic marred by exposure error or excessive contrast. I am very impressed by the IQ I get with the A, shooting raw. I am pretty sure that in 90% of cases (or more), the GR will provide just as much quality. Cool cameras..... Wonder how the GR's 21mm adaptor performs....

Apr 23, 2013permalink

falconeyes

Mark, while you are right that a 14 Bit DAC can make a small difference at low ISO DR, you are wrong when asserting that the sensors are equal except for the DAC.

As the 12/14 Bit DACs are actually embedded on-chip with the Sony sensors, they are clearly different beasts.

The difference a 14Bit DAC makes is smaller than 1EV in DR and depends on the sensor resolution and Full Well Capacity.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

@Richard Murdey

Dynamic Range is a "real world" consequence
and the DxOMark tests provide tangible evidence of the impact of 12-bit vs 14-bit RAW.

But if you want I'll revise my answer: for snapshots, you may not notice a big difference. Post processing RAWs in Lightroom, or shooting high contrast scenes, you may find the extra latitude of 14-bit RAWs significant. Happy?

@falconeyes

I only said that the above cameras all use the same exact same Sony 16 mp Exmor sensor. Re: Dynamic Range, DxOMark wrote about the K-30/K-01 being limited in DR compared to the K-5 / D7000 as a consequence of having 12-bit RAWs so you'll have to take it up with them.

Apr 23, 2013*permalink

JohnyP

Another useless preview. In the last 30 days there have been 2 camera reviews! Most cameras are either announced or previewed. Those previewed ones are likely to end up just like Nikon D4 - previewed and forgotten.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

One of those reviews and both previews published in that time were by the same writer. As a result, there are other writers close to finishing other reviews and they'll be published shortly.

Also, this is an extension of the preview to take both this and the Coolpix A closer to a final review. There are plenty of other sites that will call their preview a 'review' on day one and then add to it - are you really going to beat us with a stick for being more honest with our readers?

Apr 23, 2013permalink

JackM

There is a lot of information in these previews. You just have to read it and think for yourself. You sound like most average people, who need to be spoon fed information, and need their conclusions drawn for them.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

JacquesBalthazar

@R Butler: what would be the downside in publishing a schedule of coming reviews? It is not like you would be disclosing strategic insight to your "competitors". Such a schedule would help potential buyers better time their own purchases. Those of them who trust your methodology and share your views anyway. The indirect advantage of publishing that schedule would be to force you guys to feel the healthy heat of a public deadline... ;-)

Apr 23, 2013permalink

GeorgeZ

Richard, since you're using the word "honest", you shouldn't really call the Sigma bit a preview but a "first look" or "beefed-up press release with some pics in it".

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Revenant

GeorgeZ, isn't "first look" exactly what a preview is supposed to be?

Apr 23, 2013permalink

The all important RAWs in the Studio Comparison, there seems to be little difference in terms of sharpness between the GRD and Coolpix A. Acutance looks virtually identical, except in the corners and borders which unlike at f2.8, the Nikon is sharper.

High ISO are a different story, as by ISO 800 the Nikon is showing significantly less Chroma noise.

Still, because of the price, and the great GRD ergonomics, I'll be buying a GRD. If I were a rich man, I'd buy the Coolpix A fully loaded with hood and VF.

Apr 22, 2013permalink

Bamboojled

I agree with your assessment...

In RAW the Nikon A seems to pull ahead throughout the whole studio scene, and at the Higher RAW ISO's the Nikon really starts to pull ahead.

It's interesting the reviewer is waxing poetic for the Ricoh so early on in the pre review process with sentences like "The result is a camera that it will take a little while to get the best out of but, like a pair of good shoes, will start to conform to you if you persevere a little."

I understand that this is a great camera and look forward to the full review of this and the Nikon A without special coloring or prejudices from the reviewer.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Prognathous

Bamboojled, this isn't a technical manual. It's a review. It's perfectly fine for the reviewer to show enthusiasm and voice his subjective opinions. It'll make for a very boring reading if the reviewer tries to write in a cold uninvolved language.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Emacs23

Studio shots taken at closed apertures. No wonder, there's practically no difference (other than one caused by different focus points — dpreview isn't careful enough about them).
In my opinion advantages of GR are:
1) Better body with better UI and better control
2) Much better lens, which kills Nikon.
3) Price
The only advantage of A is 14bit RAW.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Bamboojled

@Prognathous
While I agree that this is not a technical manual, I expect reviews to be unbiased, and show products in equal light.

When a reviewer starts making comments like it "feels like an old pair of shoes" this is coloring the review against a like product, especially considering that the Nikon A has the same menu system as a Nikon DSLR (talk about feeling like an old pair of shoes if your a Nikon DSLR shooter).

Regardless, if the reviewer chooses to use that kind of language (feels like an old pair of shoes), I hope he shows all of that old shoe (holes and all).

Apr 23, 2013permalink