i've searched around and I can't seem to find a good picture comparison between the two cameras especial for street photography (Eg deep dof). I'm trying to understand how much image quality difference there is in real life. The other reality is that I will probably never print larger than 8.5x11. So based on what I'm reading, I'll loose dynamic range, ability to crop, and some detail with the GRDIV vs GR but I'd like to see some real pictures to see. Anyone see a good side by side picture comparison?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Ricoh GRDIV vs. GR picture comparison?
- Thread starter hanwook
- Start date
Pangloss
Senior Member
IQ differences between these two cameras at the pixelpeepturbation level? I can give you a simple, straightforward answer: the GR wins. If you want the technical nitty gritty at the sensor level check DXOmark, they have all the numbers for you.
In real life, for street photography? In real life for street photography IQ differences between two such similar cameras (GRDIV vs. GR) are much less relevant than other factors, the most important of which is most certainly how good a photographer you are. Sensor size and DXOmark scores? Who cares...
In real life, for street photography? In real life for street photography IQ differences between two such similar cameras (GRDIV vs. GR) are much less relevant than other factors, the most important of which is most certainly how good a photographer you are. Sensor size and DXOmark scores? Who cares...
PGR streetshooter
Leading Member
The only things these 2 cameras have in common is interface and the intuitiveness of use.
The GR is not an upgraded GRD4. The GRD4 has history and in that history is upgrades, firmwares, user tips etc.
The GR starts a new line. With that we have to have a new frame of reference. The files are almost too good if you compare to the GRD's. if you approach the GR as a new camera, then you'll free your mind and see the light.
I've made and sold 16 x 20's from the GRD4. The GR would do that easilly. The GRD4 has mojo and is as good as it gets, not just for me either. The GR is great on the street but the mojo comes and goes. Shortly I'll have it figured out and then decide its place in my hand.
It's not operation with this camera, it's tones in the Raw files. Highlights mostly... Jpegs, someone can comment...
Check out my blog or Flickr site.... Images updated daily..
Don
--
Cheers, Don
blog
The GR is not an upgraded GRD4. The GRD4 has history and in that history is upgrades, firmwares, user tips etc.
The GR starts a new line. With that we have to have a new frame of reference. The files are almost too good if you compare to the GRD's. if you approach the GR as a new camera, then you'll free your mind and see the light.
I've made and sold 16 x 20's from the GRD4. The GR would do that easilly. The GRD4 has mojo and is as good as it gets, not just for me either. The GR is great on the street but the mojo comes and goes. Shortly I'll have it figured out and then decide its place in my hand.
It's not operation with this camera, it's tones in the Raw files. Highlights mostly... Jpegs, someone can comment...
Check out my blog or Flickr site.... Images updated daily..
Don
--
Cheers, Don
blog
Have a look here (00.36.35) at a 13 x 19 print, shot in RAW of course, with a Canon S70, which had only 7 MP, if I recall correctly. The author appears quite proud of it.
Bear in mind too that Rembrandt's DxO score would have been quite low. And Monet's so low it might have been negative!
Bear in mind too that Rembrandt's DxO score would have been quite low. And Monet's so low it might have been negative!
iaredatsun
Leading Member
I didn't know Rembrandt and Monet were photographers as well as great artists. Those guys must have been so talented! A pity DxO score hadn't been invented back then.
Pangloss
Senior Member
And size. And shape. And handling. And LCD screen. And lack of EVF. And the fact that they are both fixed lens 28mm (equiv. fov) cameras designed mainly for street photography. And they use the same raw format files. And probably the JPEG engine is the same or very similar. Etc.
Except for the sensor, these two cameras are very similar or identical in most characteristics, or at least in most characteristics that matter for street shooting, which is their main purpose.
As a result of the difference in sensor, the GR will perform better in low light, but that's about it. Part of the advantage in low light performance is offset by the fact that for the same dof, one has to shoot with a smaller aperture with the GR vs. the GRDIV.
Oh yes, apparently (according to Ray) the GR shutter is louder than the GRDIV shutter. So I guess you are right. They have very little in common, specially when it comes to street photography.
Last edited:
From the good comments and advice already given I have little to add but a slightly different perspective.
I thnk that they are indeed quite different cameras in similar sized boxes to do much the same sort of job.
The GR is not an upgrade of the GRDIV but in true Ricoh tradition a completely different camera. They felt no need to change the already well proved shape and ergonomics. Why change anything that works well? But my understanding of the cameras is that they will image differently, but not necessarily competitively.
There will be many great images yet to come from the GRD series.
By the nature of their use we are unlikely to get anything more than set up images as comparitives as it is the abilty to catpure the world as it us this second that is this type of cameras forte.
Therefore even though I owned a very nice GRDIII and intend to get a GR (soon) I did buy a GRDIV as the last and final iteration of a highly developed small sensor camera of its type. The fact that I will own and use both a GRDIV and a GR does not bother me at all in the knowledge that they are both highly developed cameras for a purpose, in similar clothing, but quite different in how they achieve their objective.
Not normal if it expected that their either be a natural progression or shape, badge, re-arrangement cues that it is a different model that you are holding. In fact the GRDIV can quite easily be mistaken for an original GRD at a casual glance. I expect such similarity between the GRDIII and GR.
If you don't already have an affinity for the GRD type just get a GR. As an aps-c sensor in a box much the same size as the GRD with Ricoh firmware and handling has to be very compelling.
I thnk that they are indeed quite different cameras in similar sized boxes to do much the same sort of job.
The GR is not an upgrade of the GRDIV but in true Ricoh tradition a completely different camera. They felt no need to change the already well proved shape and ergonomics. Why change anything that works well? But my understanding of the cameras is that they will image differently, but not necessarily competitively.
There will be many great images yet to come from the GRD series.
By the nature of their use we are unlikely to get anything more than set up images as comparitives as it is the abilty to catpure the world as it us this second that is this type of cameras forte.
Therefore even though I owned a very nice GRDIII and intend to get a GR (soon) I did buy a GRDIV as the last and final iteration of a highly developed small sensor camera of its type. The fact that I will own and use both a GRDIV and a GR does not bother me at all in the knowledge that they are both highly developed cameras for a purpose, in similar clothing, but quite different in how they achieve their objective.
Not normal if it expected that their either be a natural progression or shape, badge, re-arrangement cues that it is a different model that you are holding. In fact the GRDIV can quite easily be mistaken for an original GRD at a casual glance. I expect such similarity between the GRDIII and GR.
If you don't already have an affinity for the GRD type just get a GR. As an aps-c sensor in a box much the same size as the GRD with Ricoh firmware and handling has to be very compelling.
Another comparision of course would be with the GXR 28mme. The shapes are different, but the GXR and GR both have the same size sensors (although the GR has newer and much improved one). I had my GXR out yesterday for street shooting using snap focus (3mm, f.1) and it did not miss a shot.
Rube
Rube
The more things change the more they stay the same.
The GXR provided the P10 and the S10 as R/CX and GX replacements. Then the 28mm aps-c as the GRD with large sensor. Now the CX and GX are gone, the P10 and S10 likely superseded and the GR rivals the 28-module which I would regard as still a very viable working product.
Confusing? Yup.
Russell Dawkins
Forum Enthusiast
I am still wondering, having pre-ordered a GR, whether I can in fact expect images sharper than the GRD IV in very dark theater situations, given the slower lens and lack of image stabilization in the GR.
Can anyone tell me if there is a technical reason why there is no image stabilization in the Ricoh GR, the Nikon A or the Fuji X100, yet it is incorporated in their smaller-sensor models? Is the sensor too heavy to move quickly enough with available battery power?
Can anyone tell me if there is a technical reason why there is no image stabilization in the Ricoh GR, the Nikon A or the Fuji X100, yet it is incorporated in their smaller-sensor models? Is the sensor too heavy to move quickly enough with available battery power?
Perhaps the less confusing way to say it would be the GXR-28's guts (with updated sensor) in the body of a GRD 3/4. And we've probably seen the last of the GXR line and the small sensor GRD line, so it seems a good place for them to go strategically for the large part of their customer base who love a small and excellent 28mm option.... I suspect the GXR never sold well but the GRD line always did, so this made perfect sense. It makes WONDERFUL sense to me as a consumer!
-Ray
Ray, fair comment.
I still have not seen or held a GR but did make a concerted effort today to try and find a Nikon A to just get the feel of so that it could vibrate some magic at me. Didn't work none were stocked the saleswoman at my best bet stop seems to have never heard of it.
But from what I have heard of the GR there are still quite a few thing present in the GXR that the GR just cannot match. The GXR can also be a nice prime 50mm macro. An aps-c zoom and, above all, a cracking good LM mount camera. We need three more GR types just to cover those basis.
I have no idea just how well the GXR sold but anecdotal evidence suggests that the M mount module alone probably justified its existence.
The detailed description of how the focus peaking assist worked on the GR kindly put up by Aleksander left me surprised if not completely struck dumb. After the very neat intuitive way the GXR focus peaking can be set up Ricoh would not only be throwing away a promising camera type half done but probably their market lead in intuitive focus peaking assist that seems to hit the rocks whilst crossing over to the GR.
It will be easier to see how the GR sets out to bridge the gap between the GRDIV and the GXR once I can handle them side by side.
I think that the true comparison to be made is not with the GRDIV, or anything else, but with the GXR. When the heat is on I think the GR will prove to be a nice compact subset of the GXR but not quite there. The new GXR, which by my guess alone will eventually come, will be a powerhouse camera and just as desirable as the present GR.
If the GR were to be the sole entry in the Ricoh pantheon of cameras then surely they would have crammed very feature of the superseded GXR into that body. I doubt if Ricoh is done with surprises yet.
Russell I have done a lot of serious theatre stuff.
A 28mm effective lens is just too far away. Period.
Additionally f2.8 is just scraping the bottom of the barrel minimum lens speed for acceptable work. I did use the GRDIII successfully to photograph a tumbler troupe at a small circus. The lens was so wide and the circus so small that I could get most of the audience in the image as well as stop motion with tumblers in the air. But this was with a f1.9 lens not stabilised, but I did use monopod support. The dynamic range was pretty good considering the bright/dark of a circus. The image was also sharp.
I would link the images but I can't in the setup I am using at the moment.
But standard theatre - unless you are in the front row ... then you are below stage and that has its own problems.
I don't know a lot about image stabilisation on sensor. However the larger the sensor mass the harder to push it around. This has not stopped aps-c sensors being stabilised. But I also believe that the stabilised sensors need some room to move around and probably generate heat and drain batteries faster needing more battery capacity. These would probably be significant factors in the tight internal space of a GR.
Ricoh re-patented a stabilised sensor in what was obviously a GXR module some time ago. Stabilised PK module? Stabilised LM mount module?
Interesting - well then maybe the GXR line is dead but perhaps they'll follow up with a dedicated product similar to the GXR with the M mount?
I could be wrong here, and perhaps this is just my bias, but the whole idea of focus peaking and that level of manual focus assist is of far FAR greater utility on a camera/mount intended to use with manual focus lenses of various focal lengths than on a fixed lens 28mm with good AF and that relies so heavily on snap focus.
I've had focus peaking available on a few cameras now and the only time I've used it as more than a curiosity was with a Nex 5 (which peaking was added to in firmware). I had some legacy lenses that I'd been using with my m43 gear and adapted to the Nex while I had it. And focus peaking was just a completely wonderful and useful tool with that camera and those lenses. But I rarely used it with the Nex AF lenses and only used it with longer focal lengths when I did. For the wider lenses I used 'em with auto focus or zone focus and critical focus was just very rarely an issue.
I currently have it on the RX1 and I've used it occasionally for macro type shots but that's about it. I tried it on the X100s but that was a pretty bad implementation IMHO (only white, even the highest intensity level was hard to see except against very dark backgrounds) and GXR (good implementation but no utility for me with the 28mm only). I've seen it in the menus of the GR but haven't tried to use it and likely won't, even if its an excellent implementation...
Agreed. When I was saying it was a bridge between the two I really just meant between the GXR A12 28mm module and the GRD rather than the whole universe of GXR modules. I should have been more clear.
I agree and I hope they're not.
-Ray
aleksanderpolo
Forum Enthusiast
Tom, I was thinking more about it. Perhaps one way to improve the focus peaking assist is to change the assigned button so that pressing it toggle the peaking/magnification on/off (like how it works on GXR-M), while press and hold the button enter into the "FA/move AF point" setup.
On the other hand, Ricoh might judge that on an AF camera like GR, it is more important to have easy access to moving AF point than to focus peaking, and that's why it is behaving this way. Doesn't hurt to separate the two function though, I think...
On the other hand, Ricoh might judge that on an AF camera like GR, it is more important to have easy access to moving AF point than to focus peaking, and that's why it is behaving this way. Doesn't hurt to separate the two function though, I think...
Maybe you could view this chinese website
http://www.mobile01.com/newsdetail.php?id=13473 for comparison.
http://www.mobile01.com/newsdetail.php?id=13473 for comparison.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum