GR-D versus Lx1 versus R4

This is not meant to be a rigorous test and I don't intend to upload photographic proof. However as a "crazy" who now owns three seemingly similar cameras I have the unique oportunity to put them to a direct, if unsystematic, test on what is possibly the last cold wet miserable weekend of winter.

Its dark, and a small clock is sitting on a low table illuminated by a standard lamp about 3/4 metres away.

So I have all three cameras out and I idly "test them" by taking the picture.

It is pushing the envelope. I try the R4 at full optical zoom and 1600 ISO and progressively work back to 200 ISO. The camera fixes itself at 1/8 exposure. The clock face is quite clear and readable if a bit noisy when zoomed in on review. At lower ISO the picture is a bit darker but the noise only slightly less (these "tests" were all "reviewed on the lcd").

When I try the LX1 there is no way I can get the clock face without motion blur. It is taking the image at 1/2 400 ISO (its maximum). When I over-ride the camera shutter speed and fix it at 1/8 the blur is less but still noticeable.

I realise that there are differences in the optical zoom capabilities, and ISO settings and that the LX1 was set on OIS type two (non-continuous) - however this version of OIS is supposed to be better.

As a cross reference I set the slow-shutter speed limit on the R4 to 1/2 and try that. Now there is some blur but not as bad ats the LX1.

Given that the R4 is under the greater "disadvantage" of higher ISO and greater optical zoom I was rather surprised to see it ace the LX1 on virtually all counts.

I tried the GR-D with the same tests even though it had a 28mm fixed lens and no IS. I had to really magnify the lcd to review the image and by this time the clock face was becoming pixilated however I could not see evidence of motion blur and excetpting for the lack of optical zoom the GR-D seemed to be coping quite well.

Tried the tests briefly in colour. Lot of colour-noise - best image was GR-D then R4 and then the LX1 loping along last.

I really like the LX1 and it produces very good images - but it certainly seems to be a fair-weather sailor and struggles when asked to perform in poor light. The surprise package is the R4 - it may be shaded by the GR-D at 28mm but it performs exceptionally well at zoom when under more difficult lighting conditions.

The slow shutter speed limit is a bit like "cheating" - whereby the camera refuses to work at a slower speed than the limitation (which can be modified). At least this gives their IS system a chance to do its job properly. This works and 1/8 seems to be my personal low-light limit. The fact that the camera is not aimed at tripod-shots is borne out by the "occasional-use" plastic thread.

If you go "tripod" - then remember to set the slow-shutter limit to "off".

I don't think my testing really proves anyhting that we might not work out ourselves naturally. It was just an interesting exercise when I had access to all three cameras.

The R4 is a pretty good little bit of kit and it has that image stabilised long zoom in a neat little package - bit of a taste for what a zoom-GR-D might be like?

--
Tom Caldwell

Further to my "test" and another thread on a "focus issue" with the R4 I must note that in my low-light test of the R4 in full zoom and 800 ISO the camera completely refused to focus conventionally. Switching to "macro" focus resulted in slow but faultless spot-on focussing.

Macro-focus mode works across the full focus range even when the regular focus has given up. It is just slower.

--
Tom Caldwell

Unless I'm missing something, when using the same shutter speed and effective magnification, motion blur should be the same among different cameras - regardless of the quality of the lens or sensor. Could it be that the shutter timing on of the cameras is a bit off?

Prog.

Prognathous said:

Unless I'm missing something, when using the same shutter speed and
effective magnification, motion blur should be the same among
different cameras - regardless of the quality of the lens or
sensor. Could it be that the shutter timing on of the cameras is a
bit off?

Click to expand...

My opinion is that the difference is because of the different efficiency of the anti-shake methods. The R3/R4/R5 "move the CCD" method does work well.

Regards.......... Guy

Guy Parsons said:

My opinion is that the difference is because of the different
efficiency of the anti-shake methods. The R3/R4/R5 "move the CCD"
method does work well.

Click to expand...

I don't see how any image stabilization can affect subject motion blur (such as the movement of the seconds indicator). OIS/AS should only be effective against hand shake.

Prog.

A good digital camera that can take good pictures in low light is the Fuji F30/F20. I use my Fuji F30 in low light situat ions and the Ricoh GR-Digital in out side situations. Both are excellent digital cameras.

Prognathous said:

I don't see how any image stabilization can affect subject motion
blur (such as the movement of the seconds indicator). OIS/AS should
only be effective against hand shake.

Click to expand...

Re-reading the OP I do still think Tom is talking about "motion blur" to mean hand held shake, so my post still stands. He is just discovering that the R4 is a really good camera.

And for Tom, I leave my R3 with the limit off so I can attempt 1 second exposures at wide angle, they do work. May take 3 shots and get one really good one out of them.

Meanwhile as an aside, if using clock faces to see the effect of slow shutter speeds or trying to measure time between shots with continuous shooting.........

I found the main problem with shooting clock faces is that the majority of battery powered clocks move the sweep second hand erratically and with bounce. You must use a clock that has an AC motor so gets a smooth sweep of the second hand, or a very few rare battery clocks do have a smooth seconds hand operation.

You could photograph bounce in the hands and get a weird result.

One good way to check cameras for slow shutter speed accuracy is to use a record turntable (remember them?). Their speed is quite good enough for reliable results. Mark the turntable with some masking tape and some reference points around the edge. Use the fact that its RPM is 45, 33.333, or 78 to make sensible markings.

45 RPM takes 1.3333 seconds per revolution.
33.333 RPM takes 1.8 seconds.
78 RPM takes 0.769 seconds.

But of course a clock with a smooth action seconds hand is the best, as it's already marked out for you.

Camera shutter settings can be wildly inaccurate, just as the stated ISO speeds can be wildly inaccurate.

Not only that, the camera firmware may take shortcuts in reporting speeds, it may report 1/2 sec exposure but may be a small cluster of times around that.

My Nikon film camera is like that, the LCD shows shutter speeds in 1/3 stop increments, but the shutter speed is really continuously variable when operating in auto exposure modes in order to get exact exposure.

Regards............... Guy

What is the point of a test if you are never going to post any results? I can say anything I like about my cameras, if it remains unsupported. I don't wish to sound nasty, but you really do have a lot to say, and very little to show, for all of your long-winded opinions. If the test is just to prove something to yourself, then keep it to yourself. If you want us to respect your opinion, give us some proof.

How about some visual evidence? All of this waffle is meaningless without some kind of pictorial support.

Ray Kinnane
Saga-shi, Japan

To me these tests make any sense at all. Isn't it enough to say (1) the LX1 cannot go beyond ISO 400 (2) the GR-D has no zoom or image statbilization, which in any case is of limited value for a 28mm lens and (3) the R4 has zoom lens, fast ISO speed as well as image stabilization? End off story. You then don't need to proceed to compare apples and oranges.

—Mitch/Paris

Correction of first sentence: "To me these tests don't make any sense at all."

In the absence of Tom's explanation I can see where he is coming from. This is meant to be Spring here in Oz and the last nearly week has been wet and miserable outdoors, so it's a case of indoors activity. Tom decided to play with his cameras, that's all.

Wisely he did not post examples because he appears to know it doesn't mean much.

My next move could be to compare my R3 with my Olympus E-300, I know which one would win the quality stakes, but I also know already the one that wins the total convenience stakes. So I'm prepared to live with differences in quality and probably never bother to make direct comparisons.

Regards.......... Guy

Guy Parsons said:

Tom decided to play with his cameras, that's all.

Click to expand...

And so we get a two page breakdown of his games? Woopee!

Guy Parsons said:

Wisely he did not post examples because he appears to know it
doesn't mean much.

Click to expand...

Wisely? Without any samples, his waffle means absolutely nothing. So it is a waste of space. Play with your cameras, if that's what excites you, but if it means nothing, keep it to yourself. Or if you want to be believed, or if you want the information to even be useful, show us the pictures. I think we just have a frustrated novelist on our hands.

Guy Parsons said:

My next move could be to compare my R3 with my Olympus E-300, I
know which one would win the quality stakes, but I also know
already the one that wins the total convenience stakes. So I'm
prepared to live with differences in quality and probably never
bother to make direct comparisons.

Click to expand...

As any sensible person would, and wouldn't.

rayk

Rayk, I personally think your replys are unnecessarily nasty, and I am at a loss as to why this is?

From the outset Tom set the scene of his 'experiment' with "This is not meant to be a rigorous test.." and finishes with the statement "I don't think my testing really proves anyhting ... ... It was just an interesting exercise when I had access to all three cameras.", both of which indicate to me that his 'results' are little more than opinion.

Since when has opinion been banned from these forums, that every comment must be justified with pictures? Comments like "... but if it means nothing, keep it to yourself. " in my opinion are not in the spirit of these boards.

It would be a different story if Tom was 'proving' something or was trying to dupe people out of money, or claiming a breakthrough, but it is clear he is just providing food for thought.

You said previously "I can say anything I like about my cameras, if it remains unsupported.". I say go right ahead. The internet remains a medium on which the reader must establish the credibility of what they are reading for themselves. Post what you like but if its proven wrong by a reader (whether publicly or by themselves), dont expect your word to mean much to them any longer.

I for one appreciate posts like Tom's and look forward to more people sharing thoughts and opinions based upon personal experience, with or without 'proof'.

--
carny..

p.s. I dont profess to be any expert, or to know Tom, or to try and defend what he is saying, but I am a regular reader of the forums and I think that is enough credibiility for my above post..

My experience is that Ray likes to make nasty posts even though he has no been provoked: he likes to make fun of people and vaunt his imagined superiority. The only solution is just to filter him out mentally, and not to read his posts — a sort ot mental "twit filter".

—Mitch/Paris

I agree, I for one do want to know other peoples opinion based on their experience with different cameras. It could be said also that images do not prove anything either as they could have been altered just to prove a point. As stated, it is your judgment of the integrity of posters that can be used to gauge whether what they say has merit, and you can build this up over time by following what various posters have said.

It has been noted by visitors from other forums that this forum provides honest opinion and data about Ricoh products.

Brian

Tom,

thank you for your posts! I really appreciate you taking the time to test your cameras. You certainly have contributed in helping me decide to get a GRD. Don´t listen to posters that just want to let out their negativity towards life, that do not show kindness and and have no respect.

I appreciate polite honesty, but not the nasty remarks made by the above poster.

Keep up the good work, I surely have fun reading your posts and do not think they are long-winded. I very much enjoy your enthusiasm and get inspired to go out there and shoot some more great GRD pictures!

Sorry Brian,

I did not refer to you as the "above poster" (since your reply is directly above mine)...I think we all know which poster(s) I am talking about...

Thanks Guys,

One way or another - whether it is shoot the messenger or the support that I have been given - it all leads to a debate and I suppose that any airing of opinions must be valued.

If I set myself up as a rigorous tester then maybe my few random images may have been worth showing but the result was that they were of no artistic or technical merit and I delected them. Nevertheless I did repeat them a few times to make sure that a result was not a fluke of circumstance.

What I found was that the LX1 and R4 were competitors of a sort but the R4's much larger zoom put it in a class of its own. the LX1 seems much more solidly built and looks the money but there is no doubt (non-rigorous testing and absence of images aside) that the R4 tans its hide when it comes to low light images at zoom. It is hardly fair to compare the 4X zoom against the 7X zoom of the LX1 and by the same token the handling of the LX1 is particularly good and its normal-light images are good enough to make LX1 owners enthusiasts of the camera. The Ricoh ISO settings are also in a different league from those of the LX1.

Those that seek specific requirements from a carry-about might glean some guidance from what I have said - certainly might save buying the wrong camera for their needs. I like them all - I am not recommending an one of them but hoping that recounting my personal experience may have been of some use.

One thing that makes owning these three cameras easier is that they share the same batteries and charger. I like them all.

GR-D = exquisite wide angle in heavy duty body - have to work at it to make it perform to its capability

R4/5 = competent big optical zoom in a very small package - budget priced and feels flimsy compared to the GR-D but a gutsy performer no less

LX1 = competent image stabilised good-light performer - controls easy to use and build quality is better than the R4 (or it feels that way). Falls off quickly in low light but because of its full manual control features is effectively closer to the R4 and GR-D than a regular point and shoot. Sits somewhere between the R4 and GR-D but does not have the strengths of either but retains a charisma of its own that has created a fanatical following.

--
Tom Caldwell

Carny said:

Rayk, I personally think your replys are unnecessarily nasty, and I
am at a loss as to why this is?

Click to expand...

I do not perceive Ray response as 'nasty', but merely severe. In fact I agree with his points.

Carny said:

From the outset Tom set the scene of his 'experiment' with "This is
not meant to be a rigorous test.." and finishes with the statement
"I don't think my testing really proves anyhting ... ... It was
just an interesting exercise when I had access to all three
cameras.", both of which indicate to me that his 'results' are
little more than opinion.

Since when has opinion been banned from these forums, that every
comment must be justified with pictures? Comments like "... but if
it means nothing, keep it to yourself. " in my opinion are not in
the spirit of these boards.

Click to expand...

You are welcome to express your opinion... But reporting on a meaningless test is just a way to bash one camera (in this case, the LX1). Tom is presenting 'facts' that lead to a conclusion which is only his. Unfortunately many people will make the conclusion theirs after reading a piece that looks like it is based on science. In a sense Tom overdid it, good part of these readers would believe him if his report was half as long.

I would like to add, that does not mean these readers have bad judgement-- only that they don't understand enough to know that there is a problem with the experiment. Not every one spend their time learning about digital photography.

Carny said:

It would be a different story if Tom was 'proving' something or was
trying to dupe people out of money, or claiming a breakthrough, but
it is clear he is just providing food for thought.

Click to expand...

As I understand it Tom would like our feedback on how to improve his experiment, which is laudable. I wish he would have asked for it more clearly and would not reach conclusions before receiving the feedback.

Carny said:

You said previously "I can say anything I like about my cameras, if
it remains unsupported.". I say go right ahead. The internet
remains a medium on which the reader must establish the credibility
of what they are reading for themselves. Post what you like but if
its proven wrong by a reader (whether publicly or by themselves),
dont expect your word to mean much to them any longer.

Click to expand...

As far as I concerned this writing does undermine the autor's credibility. I hope Tom will try to make amends, maybe by trying again another dark winter evening?
;-)

Regards,
--
-- Denis.

sunskisurf said:

Tom,
Don´t listen to posters that just want to let
out their negativity towards life, that do not show kindness and
and have no respect.

Click to expand...

I don't actually have any negativity towards life, just towards people who purport to have knowledge that they never show the results of. I enjoy my cameras by using them to take photographs, which other people are welcome to see. I don't sit and stroke them, or waffle on endlessly about them, and tell people how many photographs I took today with each one. Without actually ever posting anything.

And you would buy a camera on the strength of somebody's rhetoric, when that person never shows what the camera can do for them? And as somebody above said, it is just a means of justifying his purchase, at the expense of putting down another brand.

C'mon, Tom. Let's actually see what you can do with it, rather than just keep trying to convince us how much you know. Or perhaps you are trying to convince yourself of that?

rayk