Reading mode: Light Dark

GR V 12 Bit

Go to last post
O

oliveoil

Leading Member
Messages
681
Reaction score
61
Location
UK
I read some concerns re the GR V being 12 bit..The Nikon Coolpix A is 14 Bit..Please can anyone explain the relevance of this to me and could it be a possible deal breaker..esp if nikon lower their price.

Thanks for your opinions.
 
Tom Caldwell said:
Tom Caldwell wrote:

Therefore looking at a Nikon A (if the price reduces) because of 14 bit raw is missing quite a few other details of comparison upon what many others might make a decision. Like whether you are actually going to enjoy the ride.

--
Tom Caldwell
Click to expand...
I hear Ricoh is going to make a special edition GR with "soft Corinthian leather." :-)
 
I quite happily ordered the Ricoh yesterday and I'll get a free leather Ricoh case;-))
 
Tom Caldwell said:
Tom Caldwell wrote:
Tom Caldwell said:
aleksanderpolo wrote:

No doubt that there is going to be some difference in DR, 0.8EV seems to be a reasonable number. But when you need to push 5EV to see the difference, I think we are pushing deep into the pixel peeping level. ;)

Would a 14bit raw cooler? Sure. How much is one willing to pay for the ability to push 5EV a little better? $300? That's left for the buyer to decide.
Click to expand...
I can add to that - would 90% of users take images where they would be able to see the difference? Make that 99%.

Therefore a lot of this debate is based on the fanatical need to have the very best of something and for most they might not really care whether it takes 4.5 seconds to get to 100 or 5.0 seconds, but 4.5 seconds sells better.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, you are right about the subjectiveness of it all. In my subjective opinion neither camera has anything that makes it a "poor" camera but weighing the positives against one another has me putting the GR on top.

Drawbacks for the Coolpix A would mainly be a _slightly_ inferior lens to the GR, less customization options, perhaps more sluggish AF, higher price tag and overpriced accessory viewfinder. That would pretty much be it for me. All of these are more of a deal breaker than had the Coolpix A been a 12/14 Bit sensor camera.

Extended perks with the GR for me is: A bit slimmer, a lot lighter, a slightly better lens, user interface familiarity, better button ergonomics, SNAP mode, perhaps faster AF, already have spare batteries and charger, cheaper accessory viewfinder. Also, $300 less for the camera itself is welcome, of course. Sure, you can always argue that the Coolpix price will drop - but you have to compare asking and current pricing. Also, I have been informed that the GR will be priced aggressively ($360 less than the Coolpix A here) and that the long time Ricoh dealer over here says the price WILL drop after a while, he thought that six months into the release it would drop another $80-100.

Had both cameras been equal in all aspects from price to performance I would still have chosen the GR for familiarity. Had the Coolpix A been slightly better I might still have chosen the GR. Had the Coolpix A been a lot better I would have resigned and picked the Coolpix A and cursed Ricoh for trailing behind. And, I would have gotten the Coolpix A even if it is more expensive.

Had the Coolpix A been more like the 28Ti of yesteryear I might have put it first. I have had many fancy film cameras; the Minilux 40/2.4, Contax T2/T3, Yashica T4, Oly mµII, but never the Nikon 35Ti nor the 28Ti. And I almost got hold of a Minolta TC-1 with 28/3.5. My boss had one 35Ti and he traded in a 28Ti which was the coolest camera to date. I would have purchased all over it, purchase purchase. Also don't forget the Minolta TC-1 - a chubby little camera with a 28/3.5 lens, here compared to the GR1. Note the very good button layout of the film GR1:


Considering all of these golden oldies the Coolpix A fails to impress me. The GR for me is a return to the GR1 in a way and I can accept APS-C as a sensor size that I am comfortable with. Awesome. Woot woot.
--
 
Last edited:
Oh, this comparison is even cooler:


I also totally forgot two cameras, the Hexar AF and the Rollei AFM, toyed with the Hexar AF, thought it too bulky but the lens was stellar. I got a loaner Rollei AFM but honestly didn't like it that much. But, options were aplenty in those days...



--
not affiliated with anyone except myself
 
Last edited:
AngryCorgi said:
AngryCorgi wrote:
IMO, there's no real value in publicly classifying the rational or irrational nature of other people's decision making process or how they weigh different performance aspects.
Click to expand...
Just because a consumer has a right to ask any question and form a buying decision, it doesn't mean an onlooker may not have an opinion about consumer's state of affairs. We talk about social right to freely form an opinion, and share it.

So if someone says that giving importance to 14-bit RAW vs 12-bit RAW conversion makes or beaks a deal in Coolpix A vs GR debate, it is justifiable to assume the consumer has no to very little clue about what makes a good photographic experience within the product category, and cannot understand the necessary balance of different features that makes a final product truly desirable for such product category.

Such criticism is made not to 'spank' the consumer, but to shed some extra light on information and features he or she totally neglected because of the lack of knowledge, rooted in presumptions and lack of experience, or simply, because of the absolute and theoretical stature about a certain value, overlook a whole set of features that are much more important from the scope of relative product category than any theoretical and absolute value alone.

--
Zvonimir Tosic
“A portrait is not made in the camera, but on either side of it.”
— Edward Steichen
 
Last edited:
Mousetrapper said:
Mousetrapper wrote:

Oh, this comparison is even cooler:


I also totally forgot two cameras, the Hexar AF and the Rollei AFM, toyed with the Hexar AF, thought it too bulky but the lens was stellar. I got a loaner Rollei AFM but honestly didn't like it that much. But, options were aplenty in those days...


Click to expand...
 
Zvonimir Tosic said:
Zvonimir Tosic wrote:
Zvonimir Tosic said:
AngryCorgi wrote:
IMO, there's no real value in publicly classifying the rational or irrational nature of other people's decision making process or how they weigh different performance aspects.
Click to expand...
Just because a consumer has a right to ask any question and form a buying decision, it doesn't mean an onlooker may not have an opinion about consumer's state of affairs. We talk about social right to freely form an opinion, and share it.

So if someone says that giving importance to 14-bit RAW vs 12-bit RAW conversion makes or beaks a deal in Coolpix A vs GR debate, it is justifiable to assume the consumer has no to very little clue about what makes a good photographic experience within the product category, and cannot understand the necessary balance of different features that makes a final product truly desirable for such product category.
Click to expand...
There remains still the possibility of your own fallibility, and so it may be that YOU have no clue about the other consumers workflow/audience/style. A wise man never excludes himself from the list of possible "flawed subjects".
Zvonimir Tosic said:
Such criticism is made not to 'spank' the consumer, but to shed some extra light on information and features he or she totally neglected because of the lack of knowledge, rooted in presumptions and lack of experience, or simply, because of the absolute and theoretical stature about a certain value, overlook a whole set of features that are much more important from the scope of relative product category than any theoretical and absolute value alone.

--
Zvonimir Tosic
“A portrait is not made in the camera, but on either side of it.”
— Edward Steichen
Click to expand...
Note: I didn't decry your public judgement of others, I merely said that "IMO, (in my opinion) there is no real value in it". ;)

"Opinion" and "value" being the key words here.

--
-AC-
 
Last edited:
The bits in question are for storing the sensor's measurement of the captured light.

A much more important factor is the sensor efficiency; how much of the light delivered by lens is the sensor able to accurately capture.

With the current APS-C sensors at the current levels of efficiency, the difference for 12/14 bits is barely worth talking about. Essentially it's just using more bits to carry the same light recording.

But when the next boost in sensor efficiency comes along, 14 bits will have a definite advantage. More bits to carry more recorded light.

I think that's the current state of play. I've examined the Nikon output and it's very good, but it's not the next leap in APS-C efficiency.

However, because of how the bits get used, it's possible a bit of trickery could be incorporated into exploiting the extra bits for recording the data from current sensors, theoretically to perhaps allow for a little better tonal graduation. But in various attempts I've seen at testing this, the results have been fractional at best, barely perceptible.

Even if such fractional benefit exists, it's easy to show how insignificant they are in everyday terms.

Remember, when most people see their images, they are on an 8 bit graphics display (with many laptops still only 6 bits), and are transported in 8 bit JPEG files. Even if you shoot raw and convert to 16bit tiffs, when you look at it on screen, it's in 8 bits. Even the whizziest monitors are still only 10 bit.

But arguably the best JPEGs from any APS-C are those from the Fuji X100 which has a 12 bit sensor. Proving the old adage, it's not how big it is, it's what you can do with it!

So if we are all looking in 8 bits, why have 12 or 14? The answer is choice. Shooting raw lets us play around with some extra data for our tones and pallets. But when we're finally ready to show it off the the world, we usually squeeze it back into an 8 bit colour space.

-Najinsky

PS: I made some generalisations which some may wish to beat me up over, but in terms of GR vs A, 12 v 14 really is a very minor thing, and not one that will be influencing my decisions.
 
Last edited:
Member said:
Najinsky wrote:

The bits in question are for storing the sensor's measurement of the captured light.

A much more important factor is the sensor efficiency; how much of the light delivered by lens is the sensor able to accurately capture.

With the current APS-C sensors at the current levels of efficiency, the difference for 12/14 bits is barely worth talking about. Essentially it's just using more bits to carry the same light recording.

But when the next boost in sensor efficiency comes along, 14 bits will have a definite advantage. More bits to carry more recorded light.

I think that's the current state of play. I've examined the Nikon output and it's very good, but it's not the next leap in APS-C efficiency.

However, because of how the bits get used, it's possible a bit of trickery could be incorporated into exploiting the extra bits for recording the data from current sensors, theoretically to perhaps allow for a little better tonal graduation. But in various attempts I've seen at testing this, the results have been fractional at best, barely perceptible.

Even if such fractional benefit exists, it's easy to show how insignificant they are in everyday terms.

Remember, when most people see their images, they are on an 8 bit graphics display (with many laptops still only 6 bits), and are transported in 8 bit JPEG files. Even if you shoot raw and convert to 16bit tiffs, when you look at it on screen, it's in 8 bits. Even the whizziest monitors are still only 10 bit.

But arguably the best JPEGs from any APS-C are those from the Fuji X100 which has a 12 bit sensor. Proving the old adage, it's not how big it is, it's what you can do with it!

So if we are all looking in 8 bits, why have 12 or 14? The answer is choice. Shooting raw lets us play around with some extra data for our tones and pallets. But when we're finally ready to show it off the the world, we usually squeeze it back into an 8 bit colour space.

-Najinsky

PS: I made some generalisations which some may wish to beat me up over, but in terms of GR vs A, 12 v 14 really is a very minor thing, and not one that will be influencing my decisions.
Click to expand...
Thankyou for explaining that so clearly..also to others, thanks very much for your replies.
 
One thing that I found to be helpful in practice is the ease of setting up exposure bracketing on Ricoh. You can assign one of the button/slot to it, or you can store the setting in one of the three My mode: one flick of a finger and you are in bracketing, no menu diving needed and it makes a huge difference in preserving highlight if DR is limiting. Might need to consider this too when you are contemplating the difference between 12 and 14 bit. :)
 
Member said:
Najinsky wrote:

The bits in question are for storing the sensor's measurement of the captured light.

A much more important factor is the sensor efficiency; how much of the light delivered by lens is the sensor able to accurately capture.

With the current APS-C sensors at the current levels of efficiency, the difference for 12/14 bits is barely worth talking about. Essentially it's just using more bits to carry the same light recording.

But when the next boost in sensor efficiency comes along, 14 bits will have a definite advantage. More bits to carry more recorded light.

I think that's the current state of play. I've examined the Nikon output and it's very good, but it's not the next leap in APS-C efficiency.

However, because of how the bits get used, it's possible a bit of trickery could be incorporated into exploiting the extra bits for recording the data from current sensors, theoretically to perhaps allow for a little better tonal graduation. But in various attempts I've seen at testing this, the results have been fractional at best, barely perceptible.

Even if such fractional benefit exists, it's easy to show how insignificant they are in everyday terms.

Remember, when most people see their images, they are on an 8 bit graphics display (with many laptops still only 6 bits), and are transported in 8 bit JPEG files. Even if you shoot raw and convert to 16bit tiffs, when you look at it on screen, it's in 8 bits. Even the whizziest monitors are still only 10 bit.

But arguably the best JPEGs from any APS-C are those from the Fuji X100 which has a 12 bit sensor. Proving the old adage, it's not how big it is, it's what you can do with it!

So if we are all looking in 8 bits, why have 12 or 14? The answer is choice. Shooting raw lets us play around with some extra data for our tones and pallets. But when we're finally ready to show it off the the world, we usually squeeze it back into an 8 bit colour space.

-Najinsky

PS: I made some generalisations which some may wish to beat me up over, but in terms of GR vs A, 12 v 14 really is a very minor thing, and not one that will be influencing my decisions.
Click to expand...
I like your analysis and logic! I think, the OP will be just as happy with GR IV, or maybe a $98 Samsung P&S...small sensor-big sensor, 12 bit-14 bit, who cares! My Geo Metro drives me from point A to point B at speed limit...and so does someone sucker's Ferrari.
 
sounder71 said:
sounder71 wrote:
sounder71 said:
Najinsky wrote:

The bits in question are for storing the sensor's measurement of the captured light.

A much more important factor is the sensor efficiency; how much of the light delivered by lens is the sensor able to accurately capture.

With the current APS-C sensors at the current levels of efficiency, the difference for 12/14 bits is barely worth talking about. Essentially it's just using more bits to carry the same light recording.

But when the next boost in sensor efficiency comes along, 14 bits will have a definite advantage. More bits to carry more recorded light.

I think that's the current state of play. I've examined the Nikon output and it's very good, but it's not the next leap in APS-C efficiency.

However, because of how the bits get used, it's possible a bit of trickery could be incorporated into exploiting the extra bits for recording the data from current sensors, theoretically to perhaps allow for a little better tonal graduation. But in various attempts I've seen at testing this, the results have been fractional at best, barely perceptible.

Even if such fractional benefit exists, it's easy to show how insignificant they are in everyday terms.

Remember, when most people see their images, they are on an 8 bit graphics display (with many laptops still only 6 bits), and are transported in 8 bit JPEG files. Even if you shoot raw and convert to 16bit tiffs, when you look at it on screen, it's in 8 bits. Even the whizziest monitors are still only 10 bit.

But arguably the best JPEGs from any APS-C are those from the Fuji X100 which has a 12 bit sensor. Proving the old adage, it's not how big it is, it's what you can do with it!

So if we are all looking in 8 bits, why have 12 or 14? The answer is choice. Shooting raw lets us play around with some extra data for our tones and pallets. But when we're finally ready to show it off the the world, we usually squeeze it back into an 8 bit colour space.

-Najinsky

PS: I made some generalisations which some may wish to beat me up over, but in terms of GR vs A, 12 v 14 really is a very minor thing, and not one that will be influencing my decisions.
Click to expand...
I like your analysis and logic! I think, the OP will be just as happy with GR IV, or maybe a $98 Samsung P&S...small sensor-big sensor, 12 bit-14 bit, who cares! My Geo Metro drives me from point A to point B at speed limit...and so does someone sucker's Ferrari.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're getting at here. The point isn't that 14 vs 12-bit should never matter, just that it should matter less than almost any other feature. It would be like buying a Ferrari instead of a Porsche just because the Ferrari used fractionally larger brake pads.
 
BingoCharlie said:
BingoCharlie wrote:
BingoCharlie said:
sounder71 wrote:
BingoCharlie said:
Najinsky wrote:

The bits in question are for storing the sensor's measurement of the captured light.

A much more important factor is the sensor efficiency; how much of the light delivered by lens is the sensor able to accurately capture.

With the current APS-C sensors at the current levels of efficiency, the difference for 12/14 bits is barely worth talking about. Essentially it's just using more bits to carry the same light recording.

But when the next boost in sensor efficiency comes along, 14 bits will have a definite advantage. More bits to carry more recorded light.

I think that's the current state of play. I've examined the Nikon output and it's very good, but it's not the next leap in APS-C efficiency.

However, because of how the bits get used, it's possible a bit of trickery could be incorporated into exploiting the extra bits for recording the data from current sensors, theoretically to perhaps allow for a little better tonal graduation. But in various attempts I've seen at testing this, the results have been fractional at best, barely perceptible.

Even if such fractional benefit exists, it's easy to show how insignificant they are in everyday terms.

Remember, when most people see their images, they are on an 8 bit graphics display (with many laptops still only 6 bits), and are transported in 8 bit JPEG files. Even if you shoot raw and convert to 16bit tiffs, when you look at it on screen, it's in 8 bits. Even the whizziest monitors are still only 10 bit.

But arguably the best JPEGs from any APS-C are those from the Fuji X100 which has a 12 bit sensor. Proving the old adage, it's not how big it is, it's what you can do with it!

So if we are all looking in 8 bits, why have 12 or 14? The answer is choice. Shooting raw lets us play around with some extra data for our tones and pallets. But when we're finally ready to show it off the the world, we usually squeeze it back into an 8 bit colour space.

-Najinsky

PS: I made some generalisations which some may wish to beat me up over, but in terms of GR vs A, 12 v 14 really is a very minor thing, and not one that will be influencing my decisions.
Click to expand...
I like your analysis and logic! I think, the OP will be just as happy with GR IV, or maybe a $98 Samsung P&S...small sensor-big sensor, 12 bit-14 bit, who cares! My Geo Metro drives me from point A to point B at speed limit...and so does someone sucker's Ferrari.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're getting at here. The point isn't that 14 vs 12-bit should never matter, just that it should matter less than almost any other feature. It would be like buying a Ferrari instead of a Porsche just because the Ferrari used fractionally larger brake pads.
Click to expand...
I'd prefer to have the bigger brake pads and rotors if I owned one of those beasts.
 
AngryCorgi said:
AngryCorgi wrote:
AngryCorgi said:
Tom Caldwell wrote:
AngryCorgi said:
aleksanderpolo wrote:

No doubt that there is going to be some difference in DR, 0.8EV seems to be a reasonable number. But when you need to push 5EV to see the difference, I think we are pushing deep into the pixel peeping level. ;)

Would a 14bit raw cooler? Sure. How much is one willing to pay for the ability to push 5EV a little better? $300? That's left for the buyer to decide.
Click to expand...
I can add to that - would 90% of users take images where they would be able to see the difference? Make that 99%.

Therefore a lot of this debate is based on the fanatical need to have the very best of something and for most they might not really care whether it takes 4.5 seconds to get to 100 or 5.0 seconds, but 4.5 seconds sells better.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Tom Caldwell said:
Tom Caldwell wrote:

Fanatical needs does not a fanatic make, well said. I am sure that a 1 second extension of a lens is more than useful when the need is urgent.

I come from a different angle. I don't know just how deep the firmware on the Nikon A is. But I do know that the GRDIII/IV, the GXR and presumably the GR have a very high level of customisation. This might not be to everyone's choice or necessity. But I would really like to see some input from someone who knows both Ricoh and the Nikon A in particular on just how their various levels of customisation work.
Click to expand...
Here's my best shot at it Tom.

-Ray
-------------------------
www.flickr.com

Ray Sachs Assorted Photographs

This is an assortment of viewable photographs, arranged into rough categories and recent events. The first three sets are always updated with my most liked shots in each of three general categories. The next sets are relatively recent photos of specific events, trips, locations, topics, etc.
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
Zvonimir Tosic said:
Zvonimir Tosic wrote:
Zvonimir Tosic said:
AngryCorgi wrote:
IMO, there's no real value in publicly classifying the rational or irrational nature of other people's decision making process or how they weigh different performance aspects.
Click to expand...
Just because a consumer has a right to ask any question and form a buying decision, it doesn't mean an onlooker may not have an opinion about consumer's state of affairs. We talk about social right to freely form an opinion, and share it.

So if someone says that giving importance to 14-bit RAW vs 12-bit RAW conversion makes or beaks a deal in Coolpix A vs GR debate, it is justifiable to assume the consumer has no to very little clue about what makes a good photographic experience within the product category, and cannot understand the necessary balance of different features that makes a final product truly desirable for such product category.

Such criticism is made not to 'spank' the consumer, but to shed some extra light on information and features he or she totally neglected because of the lack of knowledge, rooted in presumptions and lack of experience, or simply, because of the absolute and theoretical stature about a certain value, overlook a whole set of features that are much more important from the scope of relative product category than any theoretical and absolute value alone.
Click to expand...
 
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