GRD vs. GX100 Detail...

[zoranT]

just a remark about the sharpness debate:

To argue that the GRD lens is better than GX100 because it is "crisper" or whatever is like arguing that a poem is better because it uses lots of sharp consonants like "T" or "S" (instead of soft "M", "A" and "O").

I particularly like the natural "softness" (if that s really the case) of the GX100, because in some cases the RAW developed images remind me on film, and also I did not buy it to become Ansel Adams or Andreas Gursky. Look at these cameras as two different poems. One uses perhaps more "T"s but it s not a better camera or better lens because of it.

Further, I do not understand why sharpness is understood in an absolute manner. Everything appears sharp in foreground if the background is blurred. So, the composition determines "sharpness" a great deal.
I am looking with my eyes not with an exactor blade...

regards
Zoran/Vienna

PS I would like to underline my comments by showing two GX100 examples, but need first to flickr up some pics, I suppose, before being able to post it here...

 

[wbrandsma]

With the amount of posts/threads on the Canon forum I can imagine Lucridders seeks his luck in this quiet little Ricoh forum. And Lucridders, I am very sorry for being so-called B&W artistic and fully ignoring the noise and less IQ of my Ricoh. I am sorry I can't see the better performance of the Canon G9 (though the post was about the GRD and GX100). I'm not interested in the Canon G9, but if I would I'd have asked for it (maybe) in the Canon forum. If I don't like my Ricoh I'd sell it. I can't beat your years in photography (I'm only 34) and my GX100 is only my second digital camera. I started photography when I was eight, but learned it is all about making photographs and not the camera's. 1,000 people will see the differences between a enthousiastic photographer and a camera fanatic.



--
Wouter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wouter28mm/

 

[wildeone]

to clarify what was said earlier:

I have also the GX100 and I have to say that it is working veruy well
and compared with other brands, it is better in my opinion. I owned
lots of brands and even different DSLR and I have to say, the day you
know what you are doing, you will have nice pcs with the GX100. The
reviews here on this webiste are colored and not a little bit. I had
Canon before and I have to say that the pictures of the GX100 are
much better. But as told, on this website, everything is Canon and
Nikon and few other brands. I can tell you also per example that I
have for the moment also the Casio 1050 and that when comparing with
some DSLR, this small point and shoot is doing a better job lots of
time. Do you hear good reviews from Casio? No, so this says enogh!!!

link: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1013&message=25561209

 

[Lucridders]

Yes, the reviews are not fair. When GRD and GX100 is average and just recommanded, than lots of brands are even worser and than you see better quotations. I am not disappointed, as we are now in the period that digital cameras become little by little usable. Ricoh is not more bad than the rest, but also the opposite is true. I know quite well about what we talk, as we make lots of CCD systems for industrial use. But the recoomandation average and just recommended is correct, but also for lots of other cameras who are even less in quality. I will buy also he GRDII but again I am realistic and have to say that the minor improvements they have made are in fact not improvements. And it seems that Ricoh is telling now themselves that the earlier cameras produce too much noise as they mention now hat the iso400 will have the same noise as iso 100 on the GRD-I; When we need really improvements, we do not have to focus on what is good, but we have to focus on what is bad. When we write software or we design new machinery, we are not inerested in what is good, only the bad things are interesting for us to improve things.