Reading mode: Light Dark

GRD vs. GX100 Detail...

Go to last post
N

nboyer

Veteran Member
Messages
5,135
Solutions
2
Reaction score
111
Location
VA, US
For those who claim that the GRD beats the GX100 in detail, any comments on the following? The differences are not trivial. While I don't photograph resolution charts, the results do carry some correlation to real world shooting. -Norm

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/RicohGRD/page10.asp
Ricoh GR Digital (JPEG)
Horiz LPH 1550 2000
Vert LPH 1500 1900
5° Diagonal LPH +1000 n/a

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ricohgx100/page12.asp
Ricoh GX100
Horiz LPH 2000 2600*
Vert LPH 1950 2400*
5° Diagonal LPH +1000 n/a

PBase supporter
 
I cannot dispute the evidence of the charts, however, I only shoot in Raw and my GRD images are definately sharper with more contrast than those taken with my GX100.

You will also find similar comments from Mitch Alland who has done a lot of work with both.

This fact became very evident to me recently when shooting images from both and reviewing the fine detail in areas of grass, the GRD had more bite and the GX100 images (Raw) did not have the fine detail - this is as I would have expected, a quality fixed focal length should always beat a quality zoom in terms of image resolution so no surprises for me.

You can see some of my GRD and GX100 images on my site (GX100 are under Jul date)
http://ianskyphotosite.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html
 
Well I have to say I have a GX100 (very nice camera, BW at ISO 800 looks great with the grain, natural and no bands) but I also have a sony a700 with the 16-80 Zeiss lens, the Zeiss is sharp, very sharp, but I'm impressed on how much detail the GX100 can resolve at low ISO.
 
Which do you think is the better overall camera? Apart from the fact that the GX100 has a zoom lens.

The GX100 is a newer model, right?

Cheers
 
...know which is better. Those who have both claim that the GRD produces more detail. If you compare the two reviews here on DPR, it would suggest that the GX100 shows more detail. If you look at the MTF charts on Ricoh's website, it would suggest that the GRD has a better lens. My guess is that the 10MP sensor on the GX100 is contributing to better overall detail. I'm very curious to see the GRD II images when they come out. I'm guessing that it will produce even more overall detail than the GX100.

So which is better, I dunno. The GX100 has about half the write time with RAW and has a more flexible zoom range. -Norm
rocklobster said:
Which do you think is the better overall camera? Apart from the fact
that the GX100 has a zoom lens.

The GX100 is a newer model, right?

Cheers
Click to expand...
--

PBase supporter
 
rocklobster said:
Which do you think is the better overall camera? Apart from the fact
that the GX100 has a zoom lens.
Click to expand...
This is impossible to say, the GX100 is a newer model and is more flexible but the GRD is more specialized. If you want to be flexible get the GX100 if you want a camera that does one thing but this it does great, then get the GRD.

I personally prefer the GRD look to the GX100 look but both are great cameras, the GRD has more noise and is sharper.

--
http://picasaweb.google.com/Cristian.Sorega
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cristiansorega
 
I have not looked at the links that you showed but I did my own simple back to back tests and posted links on this forum some time ago.

My findings were that the GR-D has almost no barrel distortion whereas the distortion on the GX100 is noticeable wider than about 50mm. The GR-D also seems to have a better lens all round. Although the GX pips the GR-D ever so slightly in "speed" at wide angle - this doesn't last and the lens "slows" appreciably as the telephoto is engaged.

Furthermore the GX processes the images more highly than the GR and I think that if you looked closely enough you would find that the GX images are more "smeared" than those of the GR. (I haven't looked closely myself as I think the whole argument is irrelevant).

The GX complements the GR and the GR is the camera for the enthusiast who wants to put that little extra thought into the capture. It is a great camera to experiment with and to learn.

Notwithstanding this it is obvious that I have both cameras and surprisingly use them both quite regularly.

If you are a more general photographer and need some zoom the GX will suffice well. If you want to take some cutting edge images or just want a close-up camera that is handy to carry or even just that street image camera then the GR is the way to go. I find room for both - I have forced myself to be able to afford both and am not caught by having to chose one or the other. I find neither camera particularly useful for country panoramas as the lack of sensor size shows up on both.

All I am doing here is to set out some of the reasons for buying one or the other for those who unfortunately only going to be able to buy one. I am not trying to raise the image quality issue - we will go round and round in circles over that one.

--
Tom Caldwell
 
When the chips are down the GX has more barrel distortion than the GX but it is not bad and many other manufacturers would be glad to have as little as the GX has however the GR has almost no distortion at all on its lens - I suppose this is an advantage of a prime.

--
Tom Caldwell
 
Sorry, but the GX100 is much sharper and beter than the GR-D. When saying in an other way I think hat some people needs a visit to the doctor to control their eyes. (: The GX100 is showing also more gradation in a picture than he GR-D. When taking B&W pictires, you can never have a good test (unless you photograph charts). For me, also a crop to 100% nis not relevant. I am in photoraphy now for 40 years and the best to compare is as done here at dpreview. Also very good and simple is a normal picture in color (10 x 15cm) and compare this by using a microscope. Than you will be surprised what you see and what differences you really have.
 
Lucridders said:
Sorry, but the GX100 is much sharper and beter than the GR-D. When
saying in an other way I think hat some people needs a visit to the
doctor to control their eyes. (: ...
Click to expand...
That simply is not true: in working of RAW fils, the GX100 pictures are much softer than those of the GR-D and require much more aggressive sharpening. What is surprising is that most of the time, but not always, the GX100 files can be sharpened to approach the sharpness of the GR-D files. Note that I say "approach" not "achieve" the sharpness of the GR=D files. Maybe after 40 years in photography your eyes aren't what they once were...

--Mitch/Paris
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
 
Excellent images Mitch (as usual)

I probably did not explain myself well - these are well within the panoramic capabilities of these cameras - I was thnking more of the lookout and misty hills type images - you know the ones where people even stitch together four or more images of a distant view from the lookout ...

The sort of images where there is no real subject and all you can see is monotonous trees or ocean. Then I suppose those sorts of images are fairly boring no matter what camera you use (smile)

At Coffs Harbour there is a high lookout ridge that allows view to the horizon and capes up to 70 miles away. Usual Australian coastal hills and dull drab green trees wih the city of Coffs Harbour lying at your feet.

The effect of being there is quite dramatic but it does not photograph well - especially with a small sensor camera.

--
Tom Caldwell
 
but my eyes tell me also that the GR-D works better - for your proposition to be true the GR-DII must be still-born and we must wonder why Ricoh and those that will buy the GR-DII would bother.

The GX100 does apply a bit more processing out of the box and it does take good images but the GR-D works just that little bit better for me.

--
Tom Caldwell
 
I am not interested in post processing. Than it seems beter to me to go back to film again :). Do a little test or look here on DPreview what he says about it and this is the reallity. And believe me, I am very critical, but it seems that some people have to say that it is beter because they own it. And again, no black and white pictures as his is showing only 50% of the trueth!!! A human eye is not made to see black and white.
 
plain sill, maybe it is, but it is reallity. When taking B&W as you do, you can not see the quality from a camera.
 
Lucridders said:
plain sill, maybe it is, but it is reallity. When taking B&W as you
do, you can not see the quality from a camera.
Click to expand...
Mitch shoots RAW which is colour so I doubt he's having any trouble seeing the quality photos he's getting from his camera. as to your comment about the human eye not being made to see black and white -- several of my friends are colour-blind. some partially, some alost completely. what each eye can see is the luck of the draw, colour included.

i'm confused as well that you are now trashing the GX100 after praising it in other posts (better than Canon, some DSLR's, etc). and you admit that the reviews on here were unfairly biased against Ricoh, yet you say people should look at DPR's image tests. is this some sort of language barrier or have you become disillusioned with your camera?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
sd630 less resolution than sd450 (i think...)
Replies
1
Views
2
webazoid
W
7
GX100 / 1st (Positive!) Impressions
Replies
2
Views
3
Mark Turney
Mark Turney
U
FZ30 and Leica = powerful combination
4 5 6
Replies
100
Views
101
flylow
F
J
From dpreview Very Interesting Results
Replies
0
Views
1
jimr
J
J
WOW! From dpreview's ....
Replies
9
Views
10
jimr
J

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