Reading mode: Light Dark

Your chance to create specs for the next GRD series camera

Go to last post
F

fotogenetic

Senior Member
Messages
2,958
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego, CA, US
Thought I'd do something more productive than complain about how disappointed I am with the GRD II.

Let's each create 3 versions of what we think the ideal GRD III would be in the following 3 categories:

1. Most realistic - something that will make it the best model in its class but which is possible for them to create now given current, proven technology

2. Most revolutionary - your chance to go wild (do I hear B&W only sensor?)

3. Most revolting - the camera that if they made, would cause us all to riot outside of every one of their offices

--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogenetic/
 
1. MOST REALISTIC (general theme: "don't fix it if it ain't broken")

Sensor: 1/1.63" primary-color CCD with 10.01 million effective pixels (larger than GRD II and similar to LX3 in terms of size and optimization of photodiodes)
Lens: Same as GRD I and II (a proven performer)

Focus (the most critical feature which they got right in the GRD I but screwed up in the II). Hybrid AF with CCD method and external autofocus sensor (active or passive).

Processor: GR Engine III which has dual buffer so that processing of images never interferes with capture of images (which happens with GRD-II if you wait just a second after capturing an image). At least 2 fps in continuous mode with instant review with each shot.
Flash Sync: Up to 1/2000 sec no matter what mode you are in

ISO sensitivity: ISO 80-ISO 3200 (3200 available due to optimization of photodiodes)

Noise Reduction: Off (really means none as opposed to minimal), Low, Normal, High. ISO's below 200 should not have ANY NR applied, even in JPG. I'm tired of plastic looking JPG images. User should be able to program what he really wants.
Flash: Improved fill-flash with onboard flash.

LCD: Same as GRD-II but 3.0 inch okay as long as it does not affect structural integrity of body

2. MOST REVOLUTIONARY (but with practical applications):
Almost same as above but with following changes:

Sensor: 4/3 sensor w/ 12.3 million effective megapixels. Choice of Bayer filter or no filter for sharper B&W only images
Lens: f/2.0 max aperture, 28mm equivalent on 35mm frame

Viewfinder: VF-3 with augmented reality overlay (camera settings displayed inside optical finder frame)
ISO sensitivity: ISO 80-6400

Processor: GR Engine III which allows for 3 fps in continous mode with instant review after each shot.
Accessories: Wireless IR remote

Additional auxiliary lenses (16mm ultra-wide, 85mm portrait, 120mm tele, 300mm super tele) making this same as an interchangeable lens camera but without risk of dust on sensor

3. MOST REVOLTING:

Sensor: 1/1.8" sensor with 12.3 million effective megapixels (don't increase megapixels unless you do something to optimize photodiode layout or increase size of sensor)

Lens: 24-85mm f/2.8-4 (no variable aperture zoom in an effort to please the masses! Build for professionals and make having a professional level camera appeal to the masses.)

Viewfinder: full EVF or integrated Galilean viewfinder (no pixels in my viewfinder please and no tiny, tunnel vision finder)

Processor: GR Engine III which unecessarily "smoothes" low ISO images to mask the sensor which has been crammed with too many megapixels for its size (no thank you!). Slow 1.2 fps with single buffer.

Focus: Same CCD method AF with over .3 sec AF lag and no option for shutter release priority (which is what current GRD II has)

--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogenetic/
 
All I'd ask for from my GRD2 in technical terms would be reduced noise and higher top-end ISO. Maybe the image stabilisation from the GX. Wouldn't say no to a faster lens but it's no big deal. A sturdier spring on the flash would be nice but again not important.

Most of what I'd want would be firmware changes. Fewer pointless icons and redundant information on the screen, and I'd like the in-raw averaging multi-exposure feature that the Pentax K10D has. Usable JPEGS (ie more control over the conversion; particularly the tone curve, sharpening and noise reduction) would be nice but to be honest I'd still just shoot raw.

The most fantastic thing would be to have the camera as it is but have an SDK to allow users to code stuff - along the lines of the CHDK which has been hacked into some Canons. The hardware is all good, but there is so much untapped potential in it and much more ease of use which could be added.

--
http://flickr.com/photos/stewartpratt/
 
Here is my list:

1. Most realistic
  • The same 10MP sensor as used in GRDII (definitely no more MP!!!).
  • Large and dual RAW buffer (allowing at least 3fps and 5 + 5 frames).
  • Rear wheel (from GRDI).
  • An option to use all shutter speeds for all apertures (from GRDI).
  • True NR OFF switch and optional color NR from R7-R8 (not the luminance NR..just chroma NR)
  • User selectable internal ND filter.
  • Compressed DNG.
2. Most revolutionary
  • Large senor with max. 10MP (4/3 would be just enough)
  • New lenses for large sensor - 28mm/f2.8-3.5 and 50mm/f2.0-2.8 version
  • Everything from GRDII + above "realistic" list
3. Most revolting
Everything from "realistic" list, plus following things:
  • 28mm and 50mm version of GRDIII (let's say GRDIII Wide and GRDIII Portrait)
  • A bit brighter lenses, let's say f1.4-f1.8 for 50mm and f1.8-f2 for 28mm lens.
BTW, the problem with sensors (even with small 1/1.7 ones) is that they are made by 3rd parties..not by Ricoh. Ricoh have to buy what's available on the market. So any hope for 1/1.6 or 2/3 sensor is only a false hope, because as far as I know, there are currently no commercially available sensors of such sizes and specs. (I believe that LX3 sensor is not sold to 3rd parties?).

And the things getting even worse. Currently available 1/1.7 sensors have completely mad 13 or 15MP resolution! This is really bad. Even the 12MP sensor used in G9 and GX200 is noisy like a hell. I'm not a pixel peeper and I like some kind of noise. But too much noise (and so noise reduction) is bad. And noise is not the only problem of such crammed sensors. Another problem is even worse dynamic range and decreased ability to produce blurry background. And finally more MPs = even bigger data to process and store, which means less time to do it properly or slow camera performance.

If nothing else, I really..really hope for no more megapixels in GRDIII. GRDII sensor proved to be a relative good noise performer (at least in RAW) beating single handedly both G9 and GX100. So why to make the things worse with 12 or more MPs? There is really no need or call for higher resolutions. Definitely not from customers' camp. It's just silly marketing, calling for even higher MP counts.

TO EVERYONE IN RICOH (and all brands)! WE DON'T NEED OR EXPECT MORE MEGAPIXELS IN OUR CAMERAS!!! THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

( ...and now a feel better ;))

--
Ricoh GR/GRD/GX100 Forum
http://www.ricohforum.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7597032@N05/
http://www.pbase.com/odklizec/grdgrd2
 
1

dump the pop up flash and do a small built in one (all movable parts on such a nicely made camera tend to be flimsy - the awfull flash is definitely)

toghether with this make the hot shoe compatible to other flash systems - I want to use my Nikon flashes (so no arguement of shadowing due to accessory lenses with a built in flash)

I didnt know the GRD 1 had a thumb wheel instead of that horrible rocker switch (the thing is stupid).

The wheels should work like Nikon wheels with a hold button function (push function button - function is active until tap release or ok - use wheel to change setting, confirm with ok button - or optionally setup in menu, use release button tap to confirm).

Get completely rid of the plastic bajonett ring. it is cheap and definitely not needed - contacts can be secured differently (A rubbercap with securestring at 6 o clock to be opened, when usin accessory)

Get rid of any flimsy material on the outside (make the shiny buttons with a matte finish and the button icons with white paint engraved in the button like pro camera lense markings)

Change the position of the SD card for better access (switch SD card with battery).

All menu items can be sorted and grouped freely by the user (in the menu system as it is - no new My Menu for this please).

More setup possibilities for picture controls (color, sharpening, contrast, ...)

2

Change lense mechanism to extend into the camera and make the camera to a not shape shifting solid brick. I even would accept a slighly thicker body for that.
Combine this with a good wheather sealing of the camera (shooting in the rain)

Bigger sensor while holding to 10MP.

3
Dont give more MP - what we have is enough! NO MORE MEGAPIXEL

No Zoom, No Zoom, No Zoom !

Keep the design, dont change the beautiful look and understatement of this fine tool.
 
I'm liking the different ideas everyone has had thus far.

I think for the internal lens, it's a matter of whether the advantage of having a thinner body when in storage is better than having a thin body when in use but slightly thicker when in storage. Also, the current lens design is tried and proven and I'd be cautious in changing something that's already good. That being said, the lens is fragile when extended, and the only way to protect it is with the GH-1, but it is impractical to attach that EVERY time you use the camera after pulling it out of your hip pocket.

By the way, I always carry my GRD in my right front hip pocket.
--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogenetic/
 
I actually use both studio flash (Speedotron Force 10) as well as Nikon Speedlights (2 SB-28's) with my GR-D and GR-D II using the Cactus V2 Wireless Slave units. If you truly want shadowless flash performance, this is the way to go. Using Nikon flashes on the hot-shoe is awkward and still results in shadows behind the subject. The only way to use hot-shoe mounted flash without amateur looking shadows is by using a ring flash. I am experimenting with one right now and will post results when I get a chance.

By the way, I can use a Nikon flash on my GRD-II hot-shoe without any problems in A mode or M mode. Both work perfectly fine. In addition, I do not know what additional capabilities the Sigma flashes will give you. I don't think the fill-flash is any better than using Nikon flashes in M mode with manual exposure.
--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogenetic/
 
I like the way the GRD2 draws so I'm not sure I would change it much. Add weather sealing and keep MPs the same or smaller. I don't use the flash so lose that.

However, it would be great to also have a DP1-like GRD with larger sensor (and not too many MPs).

In my view the GRD2 is the king of the current compacts followed closely by the GX100 (I don't have the GX200). I also loved the DP1 but it had too many negative quirks and does not have third party RAW support yet.
 
I agree the GRD2 is already a great camera (especially the sensor), but with the slow AF full press lag due to omitting the external AF sensor and lack of shutter release priority as well as the use of a rocker switch vice the fast rear wheel dial, the GRD1 is an even better camera. All Ricoh had to do was stick the GRD2 sensor on the GRD1 body and the GRD2 would've been the "King" of the serious compact digital cameras.
--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogenetic/
 
fotogenetic said:
I agree the GRD2 is already a great camera (especially the sensor),
but with the slow AF full press lag due to omitting the external AF
sensor and lack of shutter release priority as well as the use of a
rocker switch vice the fast rear wheel dial, the GRD1 is an even
better camera. All Ricoh had to do was stick the GRD2 sensor on the
GRD1 body and the GRD2 would've been the "King" of the serious
compact digital cameras.
--
Click to expand...
fotogenetic. I agree with all your original points (in 1) and mostly above with the exception that the one time I used a friend's GRD2 I thought that Ricoh had actually improved the menu interface. I didn't have time to analyse why but it felt much more useable. They got one thing right in addition to RAW speed.

But also is the sensor in the GRD2 any real improvement over GRD1?

It seems to me, reading this stuff, that after the dust has settled the tide of opinion has kind of turned against the GRD2. I can only hope Ricoh are listening.

In my dream alternate universe GRD, I would like to keep the overall form factor but with:
a. a built-in glass finder as in the original (but maybe a little larger).
b. The ultra fast focus of the GR1.

c. And just maybe no LCD preview screen at the back to distract and take space but a small LCD settings display screen.

d. A button that chooses from film characteristics. e.g one of four film-types pre-configured and set from my laptop. e.g 2 classic b&w and 2 classic colour - TRi-X, Agfa isopan, Agfa Ultra and Fuji Superia.

Or, just put a GRD 1 digital sensor in the GR1.
 
Reading this thread shows how important for camera companies to do real market research rather than following random internet discussions. Also, Ricoh seems to have some real photographers on their design staff, which has resulted in the excellent handling characteristics of the GRD cameras.

The idea of a built-in optical VF has been rejected by Ricoh because, as they state in their series of articles on the design of the GRD, the OVF that they could put in this size camera would be nowhere nearly as good as the external VF that can be used. Indeed, the GR1 film camera was criticized for the poor quality of the built-in VF.

The idea of no LCD screen of the back throws away a major advantage for most street photographers of these small sensor cameras, encouraging a "loose" shooting style by using the LCD for framing — establishing the edges of the shot — while looking directly at the subject when pressing the shutter.

The idea of the GRD2 sensor and file quality being better than that of the GRD is simply wrong: read Sean Reid's review of the GRD2. The trouble here is that most of these postings are written without differentiating between JPG and RAW files. Using RAW files the quality of the GRD2 files are at least one stop better than that of the GRD: a 400 ISO GRD2 file has the quality of an ISO 200 GRD file.

I just don't know how the autofocus of the GR1 film camera compares to that of the GRD2, but with the much greaert DOF of the GRD2/GRD it's preferable to use SNAP or manual focus, which allow shooting without shutter lag.

—Mitch/Potomac. MD
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
 
mitchall said:
The idea of the GRD2 sensor and file quality being better than that
of the GRD is simply wrong: read Sean Reid's review of the GRD2. The
trouble here is that most of these postings are written without
differentiating between JPG and RAW files. Using RAW files the
quality of the GRD2 files are at least one stop better than that of
the GRD: a 400 ISO GRD2 file has the quality of an ISO 200 GRD file.
Click to expand...
I disagree (in part) with this, while the GRD II shows less noise, it has blotchy noise at high ISOs and especially at ISO 1600 a GRD II RAW files is worse than a GRD I JPG where you can esily remove all color noise using Noise Ninja.

The GRD II RAW files are better for color work up to ISO 400 but above that the GRD I is much better in color and b&w. Also the GRD I has a different color characteristic and b&w contrast and even when using RAW the GRD I is easier to process and produces better results with less work.

I am not very impressed by the GRD II sensor when using high ISO. Also I do not believe the 1 stop advantage and have not noticed this so far. It is true however taht the GRD II selects a faster shutter speed when using the same ISO but when looking at the RAW it is clear why, it underexposes the images slightly but brings the exposure up for the JPGs. Maybe this explains the horrible JPGs and Ricohs refusal to disable the NR since the noise in the RAW files is very visible in shadow areas and difficult to remove without sacrificing details.

Overall I hope Ricoh puts the GRD I sensor, rear wheel and AF in the GRD II if nothing else for the GRD III.

--
http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cristiansorega
 
stewartpratt said:
mitchall said:
The idea of the GRD2 sensor and file quality being better than that
of the GRD is simply wrong ... Using RAW files the
quality of the GRD2 files are at least one stop better than that of
the GRD
Click to expand...
Aren't those two contradictory statements?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, that was a typo: my post should have read:
stewartpratt said:
The idea of a the GRD sensor and file quality being better than that of
the GRD2 is simply wrong...
Click to expand...
—Mitch/Potomac, MD
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
 
Too bad GRD1s are gone. Pop Flash had them for a while, but no longer.
 
Crossbar Aloha said:
fotogenetic said:
I agree the GRD2 is already a great camera (especially the sensor),
but with the slow AF full press lag due to omitting the external AF
sensor and lack of shutter release priority as well as the use of a
rocker switch vice the fast rear wheel dial, the GRD1 is an even
better camera. All Ricoh had to do was stick the GRD2 sensor on the
GRD1 body and the GRD2 would've been the "King" of the serious
compact digital cameras.
--
Click to expand...
fotogenetic. I agree with all your original points (in 1) and mostly
above with the exception that the one time I used a friend's GRD2 I
thought that Ricoh had actually improved the menu interface. I didn't
have time to analyse why but it felt much more useable. They got one
thing right in addition to RAW speed.
Click to expand...
Crossbar Aloha said:
But also is the sensor in the GRD2 any real improvement over GRD1?
Click to expand...
I can actually say for a fact that the GRD2, when shooting the same scene with equal ISO's, has less noise. I owned both the GRD1 and GRD2 at the same time and did tests of my own. There is approximately 1 stop of improvement in RAW images in both chroma and luminance noise. The luminance noise is finer "grained" (which for some people reduces the appeal). For me, I like the tighter grain pattern at high ISO's because it means I can get the same results at ISO 800 that I used to get at ISO 400 on the GRD1. Most people are afraid to shoot at ISO 800 and above, but not me. A lot of people use that word "unusable" but it is relative. If you have decent composition or an engaging enough subject, it overcomes the noise. Also, if you photograph high contrast subjects, it also overcomes the noise.
Crossbar Aloha said:
It seems to me, reading this stuff, that after the dust has settled
the tide of opinion has kind of turned against the GRD2. I can only
hope Ricoh are listening.
Click to expand...
It has in my mind. I've just lost more photos than I wanted to because expectations that weren't hard to meet with the GRD1 (as far as AF speed), weren't possible with the GRD2. I beg to differ with a previous poster who states that newer camera models of the same series do not have to be an improvement to previous models. That is pure apologetic rationalization. Rather, the sad fact is that engineers who do not understand the true nature of the thing they have created (in an effort to improve things), or businessmen (in an effort to reduce cost) make "subtle" changes which they do not think will affect usage, but they never talk to the actual photographer out there who has squeezed out every last drop of usage out of the camera and knows the true nature of the camera. For a camera of the GRDs calibre, Ricoh needs to realize that their camera truly a high performance instrument that can't lose ground on things already established in previous models.

But don't get me wrong, the GRD2 is still a great camera, it is just hobbled by annoyingly slow shutter release due to AF lag in all but the brightest of lighting. I've got an Olympus Epic Stylus that AF's faster (it's got hybrid AF). I have a Sony W1 which AF's faster (it's got hybrid AF). I had a Coolpix 990 which AF's the same (it is a 9 year old camera). There are Ricoh cameras like the R4, GX, GX8, GRD1, etc that AF faster if you want them to, or if you want to you can wait for AF lock. You have the option. With the GRD2, you don't have the option. And, by the ways, after contacting Ricoh PMMC, they DO NOT plan on a firmware fix for this (add functionality of shutter release priority).
Crossbar Aloha said:
In my dream alternate universe GRD, I would like to keep the overall
form factor but with:
a. a built-in glass finder as in the original (but maybe a little
larger).
Click to expand...
I personally prefer the approach Ricoh took with the hotshoe mounted finder because it gives you larger glass (no tunnel vision) without adding bulk. I can actually still fit the GRD with finder in my right front hip pocket.
Crossbar Aloha said:
b. The ultra fast focus of the GR1.
Click to expand...
Yes!
Crossbar Aloha said:
c. And just maybe no LCD preview screen at the back to distract and
take space but a small LCD settings display screen.
Click to expand...
I think removing the LCD preview screen loses a capability that you don't need to lose if you simply turn the monitor off or cover it with a "eFilm" LCD hood (which I have done on mine).
Crossbar Aloha said:
d. A button that chooses from film characteristics. e.g one of four
film-types pre-configured and set from my laptop. e.g 2 classic b&w
and 2 classic colour - TRi-X, Agfa isopan, Agfa Ultra and Fuji
Superia.
Click to expand...
That would be sweet! Or, as Nikon has done with their D-SLR's, allow the use of "tone curves", which I have written about extensively in the past and developed for the earlier Nikon D-SLR's.
Crossbar Aloha said:
Or, just put a GRD 1 digital sensor in the GR1.
Click to expand...
--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogenetic/
 
I do take the point you make about AF lag, but I've always prefocused - even on SLRs - and especially so with digital compacts. So I've never really found it an issue, in fact the GRD2 seems faster than a number of other cameras I've used.

FWIW, I also agree with you that it seems a retrograde step from the GRD (not having owned one of those myself).

But IMO it's not so hard to work around, most of the time certainly.

--
http://flickr.com/photos/stewartpratt/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top