GXR system

Sorry for the long post but...

I don't do much pixel peeping either... just look at the photograph to see composition ( most important for me), colors, shades, etc.! Since my other cameras are D700 and Lumix GF1, so of course I compare everything to those by default!

Also, you enjoying the grain and camera's sub par ISO noise performance are two different things. In a digital environment almost everything is addable/removable! Noise should be no exception! In my view, in an advanced camera you should see noise creeping in at around ISO 3200 and above, anything less I would not spend money on these days. Two years ago it was different and only top of the line cameras behaved that way. Most of the new cameras, specially those hitting the market in the last few month have incredible ISO performance! Even small sensor ones... except for Ricoh that is, who don't even have a higher setting than 3200. I personally never set my ISO higher than 1600 anyway, but being able to, just shows how clean the sensor really is! You think Ricoh didn't put in a higher setting because they don't believe in it? I think it's because they couldn't clean the noise anymore than they have! Same for Leica! From what I've heard M9 is already much cleaner than M8! It's all a matter of capability!

Some one said, not many cameras are that clean these days! I disagree! Just go to your local shop and try them... look at D7000, Canon 7D, Pentax k5, Fuji Xpro1, Lumix GX1, etc.... they are all pretty good with respect to high ISO noise give and take! It just annoys me that at ISO400 and above I have to watch GXR for noise so carefully!

GRD4ABC said:

Today few cameras have "clean ISO all the way to at least 6400 "

Click to expand...

Check out these shots from the new Canon 5D Mark III:

First, ISO 12,800:



Then ISO 20,000:

5D3 at ISO 50, 6400, 12800. Source photos are from "Imaging Resource"
I think the "cleanness" is done by sacrificing details.

Well... at least if anything, they sacrifice at ISO 12600 and above! Ricoh does it at 1200! Even lower I think... are you arguing against the capabilities that are readily available today? When was the last time you actually checked out what other brands can do? Should look into it! It's eye-opening! This level of operation has been available for a while now and is becoming more and more normal!

sorry, i simply can't participate in this 'religion of high ISO, noiseless images."
to me, it's simply ridiculous.

photography is about making images with light, not a couple of stray photons.

i find myself using ND filters even with ISO 80 because i can't work with large apertures in sunshine at 1/4000 s.

z

I think you misunderstand!

I totally agree that all this mambo jumbo has nothing to do with actual photography! But go inside a very dark church and then see how your images turn out at high ISO if your camera is not capable! The noise in them will make even the purist you upset and we're not talking nice grain here, we're talking ugly luminescent noise that shows up in shades of purple and green! Yikes! I have paid for that dearly not having the high ISO capability. There's nothing wrong with being able to capture clean images at relatively high ISOs. I mean come on we're talking about ISO 3200 here... hardly a big deal nowadays. P&S cameras all have it and have it good!

I do think the this ISO game has been elevated to new ridiculous levels myself (ISO 12600, 25400, etc.) but at lower levels it's a necessity with digital! After all digital is just reaching a mature state like film was in the 90's! Clean images at relatively high ISOs is a pre-requisite I think.

BTW, using an ND filter at ISO 80 has nothing to do with our discussion here! High or Low ISO, that is a function of your camera's DR (Dynamic range) which can cause the whites in your image be rendered burned out, specially in situations like you described... don't mean to lecture, I think you know all this anyway...

Just one thing... How can you people compare 36mm sensors to APS-C sensors? The 36mm sensors will have way less noise by default! 5D, M9 etc. are not fair comparisons.

I see your point!

However, there was a time (2009/10) when this argument held a lot of water but these days the manufacturers have mastered the pixel packing techniques down to a science... heck, it is a science!

For the purposes of comparison here though, just look at Canon 7D, Nikon D7000, Pentax K5, Fuji X-pro1, among others! All of these are APS-C size and phenomenal in ISO performance!

The moral of the story here is that GXR should really be as good as these other guys! There is no reason why they shouldn't when they even use some of the similar if not the same sensors! The rest is semantics my friend!

First of all,

an M9 and a GXR perform damn good at good light,

it seems as soon as the lights go out, they both suffer from noise.

No matter whether the set is cheap or expensive, no matter if its FF or APSC.

So the glass is not the problem, than what else?

The sensor technology? The software?

But lets analyse my average usage;

holiday pics, family pics, and streetpics. Most of the time ISO 800 is more than enough, we can agree a GXR suits my purpose i think,

now you want me to go out to a church and make a picture that can be published as picture of the year in the annual holy-churches-picture-book-of-the-world;

so, i need to buy a 5d at some 4000usd to do that, than i need to book a trip to an interesting church, say in Avignon at, well some 1000 usd, i than make this miraculous picture in a 1 shot at iso 125654 and blow the hair of all photographers horizontal with my pic of the year,

i than go home and store my precious 5D in a moisture controlled box worth another 1000 usd.

Great,

So , lets summarize;

spent 1000 usd on a GXR to make 4000 shots a year

spent 6000 usd to make 1 picture a year.

Now why would i want to spent time on complaining why the f?"k my GXR cant shoot this pic of the year, when i'm more than satisfied with my other 4000 shots?

Most photographers make pictures, there are a dozen brands who fullfill that need perfect.

Ricohs make images, this is a niche market. You love it, or hate it, and if the latter, go buy a 5D and be happy aswell.

Now where did i put that chocolat bar, i need some sugar....

I go into a dark church and shoot at ISO 200 with a mini tripod to hold the camera still. Perfect results. No need for elevated ISO settings.

I never got a single shot with 35mm color film rated ASA 800, in thirty five plus years of film photography, that looked anywhere near as good as the output of the GXR at ISO 3200, never mind ISO 1600. That's a two stop gain right there.

I did nearly all my photography for those years at ISO 25 to 400. now I work mostly at 200 to 800, 1600 very occasionally. With my M4 and Nikon F today, i use Ilford XP2 Super ... ASA 320. Just don't need any more.

It's nice to have stratospheric ISO available, but for the miniscule number of occasions where it is needed , it is not worth complaining about the lack. It doesn't help make better photographs.

zigorus,

zigorus said:

I go into a dark church and shoot at ISO 200 with a mini tripod to hold the camera still. Perfect results. No need for elevated ISO settings.

It's nice to have stratospheric ISO available, but for the miniscule number of occasions where it is needed , it is not worth complaining about the lack. It doesn't help make better photographs.

Click to expand...

But it doesn't hurt, either!

And at the moment, when someone moves in your church, all your tripod will be useless. So, FWIW, there are occasions, where i want better ISO and that is any sort of "concentrated" hearing, be it theatre or concert, where even the "clack" of those fabulous SLRs is a nuisance to everybody.

Lift the GXR "on par" sensorwise, add possibly a tele to the lensors, and it would sell like mad with stage shooters.

Karl

FFF said:

FFF said:

I go into a dark church and shoot at ISO 200 with a mini tripod to hold the camera still. Perfect results. No need for elevated ISO settings.

It's nice to have stratospheric ISO available, but for the miniscule number of occasions where it is needed , it is not worth complaining about the lack. It doesn't help make better photographs.

Click to expand...

But it doesn't hurt, either!

And at the moment, when someone moves in your church, all your tripod will be useless. So, FWIW, there are occasions, where i want better ISO and that is any sort of "concentrated" hearing, be it theatre or concert, where even the "clack" of those fabulous SLRs is a nuisance to everybody.

Lift the GXR "on par" sensorwise, add possibly a tele to the lensors, and it would sell like mad with stage shooters.

Click to expand...

i've been successfully photographing people in dark places like that with available light and ISO 400 film for many years. i think with ISO 1600 sensitivity, i can make some very nice photos of people in those places without even working hard at it.

it would be nice to have another 2 or 10 stops of sensitivity and i'll be delighted if it happens. but i'm not worried about it never happening, and the GXR performs very nicely just as it is.

lest this turn into another stupid my opinion vs your opinion , i'll bow out of the conversation now.

z

zigorus,

zigorus said:

i've been successfully photographing people in dark places like that with available light and ISO 400 film for many years. i think with ISO 1600 sensitivity, i can make some very nice photos of people in those places without even working hard at it.

Click to expand...

Well, i don't, probably sheer stupidity ;-)

But i'd gladly learn, how you achieve this.

I need some DOF, no flash, bad light and moving people, which have to be a bit more than just recognizable.

TIA
Karl

zigorus said:

lenseye said:

.. And yes, Leica is also terrible in ISO performance. ...

Click to expand...

i hear this all the time and i flatly disagree. i like the look of grain in low light work and with the M9 at ISO 1600 and 2500 I'm always having to add noise to the image , it is too smooth.

I also disagree with your statements about the GXR's performance at ISO 200. but then i look at photos for the photos, not for what noise there might be. If all i'm looking for is pixel cleanliness and noise, there isn't much interesting in the photo anyway.

z

Click to expand...

There seems to have always been two schools of photography since glass plates were the vogue.

One always pursues the perfect scientific rendition of accuracy and the other is more "art" where noise and even out of focus can be tolerated if the image is pleasing to the eye.

I think that these two schools will always exist and I cannot think why either should be subject to the other. In fact very artful images can also be perfectly captured and some perfectly captured "realistic" images are not pleasing to the eye one little bit.

Therefore some demand noise-free perfect images at ever increasing iso ratings, other can stand some noise as long as AA filters and noise suppression routines are kept to a minimum. To these the art of the capture transcends realism and fine details can be accepted with noise if the art justifies this.

So it is an endless argument on often different requirements. We all want our camera gear to work well but after this a camera becomes an extension of personality.

Pity the poor camera manufacturer trying to cater for all tastes. It is a case of "whaddayouwant guys?" You wanted noise suppressed free images now you want perfect realism or is it a case of different bands have different lead singers?

However I must admit that the acid test is which camera you reach for off the rack when you head out the door. Up until recently my Ricoh cameras were my travelling light camera that was always there. Whe the going was tough and perfection necessary then the Canon dslr kit went. But just recently the GXR goes as well in a sidecar. Not up to the dslr on the workshop floor just yet but it does get closer in every iteration.

I am not so sure on whether it is just "better sensors" or it is "better noise suppression firmware" that allows Canon gear to work so well at seemingly high iso settings. Maybe you need a lens the size of an expensive EOS lens to get the best images (duck! - just thinkin' out loud guys, no disrespect).

All I know is that if you shove a Canon raw file into Capture One that is pretty well perfect ex-camera and then go into the little section that allows you to remove the camera's internally applied noise suppression and remove that noise suppression then you soon see that Canon does in fact have a great noise suppression set of firmware (keeping realism virtually intact) as a high iso image then gets slightly sharper but as noisy as old heck.

So grainy-image mavins - the secret is out. Those requiring noise free realism don't touch it.

Mmmmm makes me thing I had best try using "MAX" noise suppression in a Ricoh and selectively removing the noise suppression in Capture One - all good photographers use RAW file processing don't they?

--
Tom Caldwell

Your response and tone are kind of typical for this forum! You can shout, curse, and exaggerate all you want! Since when is capturing a clean image equivalent to capturing the picture of the year?... Can't follow your thinking! Did you even read the post before attacking the keyboard... don't answer that.

Don't have to spend 4K on a 5D or whatever, can spend a similar amount to GXR price and get almost anything else!

Signing off... nothing to be gained here...

lenseye said:

M-mount module, while hugely convenient for using L/M mount lenses, it suffers from a number of shortcomings that have been discussed here and elsewhere over the past months.

Click to expand...

I'm curious which shortcomings are most relevant for you, but at the same time also wish to pose a question: Don't most cameras suffer from shortcomings? Among the leading 1.5x crop cameras including some recently made available, I can't think of one that doesn't suffer from one or more performance or usability gaps that affect me. Compromise is therefore required, or a change in system preference if compromise won't do.

If I want to use the same lenses on a digital camera as on a film rangefinder, by default I've got a fairly restrictive set of cameras from which to choose. At this moment in time the GXR / Mount A12 is the best mix of cost, capabilities, and compromises, for me.

I'm not sure what kind of thread this is. I read most of the replies and it gets silly. I've tried many of today's cameras, primarily serious compacts, but also a few DSLRs, and I keep returning to the GXR. I use both the A12s and the Mount unit. The GXR does color really well, and it makes beautiful B&W conversions. Depending on my vision I often add noise in Silver Efex Pro. The GXR has a certain texture that really appleals to me.

Like others, a too clean digital image is not that interesting to me. Perhaps I was spoiled by B&W film.

FFF said:

FFF said:

i've been successfully photographing people in dark places like that with available light and ISO 400 film for many years. i think with ISO 1600 sensitivity, i can make some very nice photos of people in those places without even working hard at it.

Click to expand...

Well, i don't, probably sheer stupidity ;-)

But i'd gladly learn, how you achieve this.

I need some DOF, no flash, bad light and moving people, which have to be a bit more than just recognizable.

Click to expand...

If I may:

• hold the camera steadily
• pick when to shoot carefully
• focus carefully
• expose correctly
• understand the dynamic range you have to work with and make the most of it.
• practice a lot

This is what makes fine photographs. Not astronomical ISO settings or Mpixel numbers.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

I spend a lot of time with my GXR almost everyday! It never leaves my bag or shoulder!

This whole thread has spun out of control primarily due to brand loyalists and philosophers who can't tolerate any criticism and/or negative comments about GXR. Pity! Difference of opinion is what makes for a good healthy discussion!

To answer your question, for me, mediocre ISO noise performance and weird low light metering algorithm are the two biggest drawbacks! I have learned how to live with the second one and carry a small light-meter for low light situations. I've gotten used to it so to speak! I like Ricoh images so a little work around is worth it...

However, just can't get used to the noise issue specially in dark situations. You can't always carry a tripod, many public places don't allow them and long exposures are not always an option, in fact more often than not they're not. When I see almost every other decent camera out there has better ISO noise performance I ask why can't Ricoh do that? Hate opening some of my shots in Lightroom to see noise because that means I have to correct it through software and lose sharpness as a result. In some cases it doesn't matter but in many others it does. It particularly matters when you try printing A3/A3+ size where noise and lack of sharpness becomes more visible. They say it used to be like that with film, well I couldn't care less, I am not using film! This is a digital medium and I want the capability be there when I need it. Film should not be compared to Digital!

BTW, I am not one of those who shoots with ISO set at 6400, don't think I ever have either, but like a clean sensor up to 3200 just in case... I don't think that is too much to ask for the price they charge!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1013&message=41053005

z