GR Digital IV: perfect street camera?

[Samuel Dilworth]

I pop my head in here from time to time, because I just love Ricoh's ethos of unashamedly making cameras for photographers. It's flattering to imagine oneself walking down the street with a GR Digital in hand, firing off cleverly observed snapshots with the greatest of ease.

Such dreaming led me to buy a GR Digital II. But this camera was too noisy and slow for my taste, and I got rid of it within a couple of months ( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1013&message=40692967 ). I liked almost everything else about the camera. The lens was a real beaut.

The GR Digital III seemed ideal on paper – new sensor, better shot-to-shot times, faster lens – but reports of high-ISO banding noise gave me pause.

The GR Digital IV was shockingly expensive when it came out, and it's still very pricey. But my compact camera is my most-used camera, so maybe it's worth spending serious money on it.

Question: is the GR Digital IV as good as it seems? No hidden gotchas to worry about? Does the stabilisation work? Has anyone regretted buying one? Why didn't Ricoh put a GPS receiver in it?

I know the Sony RX100 is the darling of the moment, but I've rejected it for my own use on several grounds, while acknowledging its innovation and broad appeal.

 

[Menexenus]

As a new user, I must say I can find no gotchas yet.

The stabilization certainly works. But I am sure you are aware of the limits, on any camera.

The GRD IV is a sophisticated little machine, and it takes time - more than I expected - to come fully to grips with everything it offers. To make it function effectively and quickly, you have to set up and use settings. The necessary experimentation here takes time too.

I have just noticed that Cristian Sorega has detected a possible issue in P mode, which I have not yet looked into:

http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/mo-coffee.html#comment-form

 

[Samuel Dilworth]

Great!

That P mode often chooses f/2.5 seems normal enough, on the face of it: that's equivalent to about f/11 on 135-format in terms of depth of field and diffraction. Stopping down more may soften the image by diffraction or a slower shutter speed, and there's no compelling need for more depth of field with many subjects (and when there is, you can always shift the programme).

If previous GR Digitals behaved differently, maybe the new behaviour is actually an improvement? Doesn't much matter to me anyway, since I usually prefer to dial in an aperture myself.

I understand the camera is sophisticated, as was my GR Digital II. Hopefully that sophistication enables effective operation.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[rattymouse]

Great!

That P mode often chooses f/2.5 seems normal enough, on the face of it: that's equivalent to about f/11 on 135-format in terms of depth of field and diffraction. Stopping down more may soften the image by diffraction or a slower shutter speed, and there's no compelling need for more depth of field with many subjects (and when there is, you can always shift the programme).

If previous GR Digitals behaved differently, maybe the new behaviour is actually an improvement? Doesn't much matter to me anyway, since I usually prefer to dial in an aperture myself.

I understand the camera is sophisticated, as was my GR Digital II. Hopefully that sophistication enables effective operation.

Thanks for your thoughts.

It ain't cheap, but if you have the cash, the Fujifilm X100 is hard to beat. Awesome viewfinder, very sharp lens, and high iso performance up to 6400. An excellent travel/street camera.

--
Help Fight Disease! http://folding.stanford.edu/English/HomePage
Please join and be part of the solution! Lives can be saved.

I fold under the name RattyM. > 77 Work units completed, BILLIONS of calculations done, all from a Dell laptop. Everyone can be part of the solution. You just have to get started.

 

[Samuel Dilworth]

As it happens, I have neither the cash nor the desire to get a X100.

I'm looking for something small (pocketable at a pinch), ergonomic, and fun for roaming around taking snapshots. I have a Nikon SLR system for other duties, and I don't want to deal with another lens mount. I'd like a built-in GPS receiver, but that's still a rare feature.

I might just stick with my Panasonic LX3, but it's not reasonably pocketable. Its lens and sensor – while state of the art in 2008 – have been eclipsed by newer cameras. Furthermore, the LX3 is awkward to use with one hand. I found the GR Digital II easy to use with one hand, and I assume the GR Digital IV is similar.

 

[dgoakill]

99.9% of my street work was (is) done with a GR III. It is an exceptional camera. So the IV should be better yet. Yes there might be banding over or around 800iso on the III, I've never used it past 400iso. Nor did I use any APS-C sensor camera above 800 for the same reason. It's all about sensor size. I have my GR III set to over expose by .07 as from my research each camera has it's own sweet spot but setting some overexposure is necessary with smaller sensor cameras. Banding was never an issue for me.

some recent GR III street shots:







--
http://dgoakillphotography.com

 

[spacelounge]

I underexpose my grd4 .7-1, sometimes just .3.

Had the GR3 before but it got stolen. I feel the GRD4 is a nice improvement because of its faster AF, IS and the positive film rendering which actually gives usable color JPGs.

 

[Menexenus]

I see that Ming Thein, a technical perfectionist, recommends overexposure for the GRD III:

"I process the GRD DNGs in a very similar way to the M8/ M9 files actually – they require a bit of overexposure and subsequent reduction in post to ‘pop’ with tonal richness."

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/30/inspirations-from-older-cameras-the-ricoh-gr-digital-iii/#comments

On the other hand, Richard Sibley in his review of the GRD IV found that:

"...for best results, images should be underexposed and raw images edited to bring out highlight detail."

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/compacts/129237/5/ricoh-gr-digital-iv-review

I suspect that in recommending underexposure Sibley was talking about JPEGs.

 

[Samuel Dilworth]

Nice shots. And the rotating photos on your homepage are brilliant. All taken in Philadelphia?

I wish the GR Digital IV wasn't so pricey. Okay if I love it, but very expensive if I can't get on with it. But I suppose no-one can really tell me if I'll like it.

 

[Menexenus]

But I suppose no-one can really tell me if I'll like it.

You have to be comfortable with the limitations, or what are perceived by some to be the limitations.

You have to be seriously attracted by the broader philosophy of design:

http://www.seriouscompacts.com/f41/ricoh-gr-digital-camera-philosophy-design-4392/

 

[Midwest]

But I suppose no-one can really tell me if I'll like it.

You have to be comfortable with the limitations, or what are perceived by some to be the limitations.

You have to be seriously attracted by the broader philosophy of design:

Much more important than the philosophy of design, it depends what kind of photography you do. If you do street shooting or portraits or something else that can be done with one focal length, it could be a good fit. You might want to have another camera though because one focal length is a limitation, and IMO not just perceived.

 

[Menexenus]

Very fair point, Midwest.

In fact, if you have never worked with primes, the GRD IV could be a step too far.

On the other hand, some eminent photographers have been very decided in their predominant choice of focal length:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30930

 

[dgoakill]

Nice shots. And the rotating photos on your homepage are brilliant. All taken in Philadelphia?

I wish the GR Digital IV wasn't so pricey. Okay if I love it, but very expensive if I can't get on with it. But I suppose no-one can really tell me if I'll like it.

Thanks. Unfortunetly it is one of those things you just have to go for....

Really, the big issue with these cameras are the fact that they are fixed lens at 28. If this works (and you can test this by using other cameras only at 28 to see if it works for you) then it is a matter of if you want to spend the money. This camera is not going to be the only camera you own, I have a 5d2 and my wife's s90, plus some old film cams too. If you had to buy just one cam for all situations this one would probably not be it, only because of the fixed lens.

As for tweaking the GR III; I've read some people set it to over expose, some under expose. I think each camera is unique in this regard and the only way to know is experiment with the one you get and not listen to what others say, listen to your eyes when developing.

 

[britcam]

With the release of the GRD4, some found that the removal of the ability to change snap focus distance manually on the fly, without menu-diving was a big let-down, as i did.

There was also a thought expressed that with the GRD4 there was a reassignment of ISO value rather than actual gain. http://www.electricgrain.net/2011/11/21/dng-comparison-ricoh-grd-iii-vs-grd-iv/

--
britcam

 

[britcam]

Useful review of GRD4 here, with GRD3 comparison.
http://www.seriouscompacts.com/f41/ricoh-gr-digital-iv-first-impressions-5387/
--
britcam

 

[Menexenus]

With the release of the GRD4, some found that the removal of the ability to change snap focus distance manually on the fly, without menu-diving was a big let-down, as i did.

That problem of course was remedied by Ricoh's software update. You can assign the function now to the ADJ lever or an Fn key.

 

[Zvonimir Tosic]

It ain't cheap, but if you have the cash, the Fujifilm X100 is hard to beat. Awesome viewfinder, very sharp lens, and high iso performance up to 6400. An excellent travel/street camera.

X100 = Twice as heavy as the GRD4, three times slower in AF, terrible write on card speed, horrible startup time after a few dozen shots recorded on a card, basically unusable MF (fly by wire) and a menu system that is designed by Spanish inquisition.

A half baked, rushed out product. I had it, tried to love it. Lovely feeling in hands, but not delivering in very important basics — responsiveness.

The viewfinder is the marvel of engineering, I must admit. But GRD4 is a better camera simply because it's so much more responsive, and far more intuitive.

Even Pentax Q is better than X100 in all these things mentioned and feels like a well designed, thought-out camera instead.

Let's see what X200 will bring.

--
Zvonimir Tosic

"I want to be the tripod, the light meter, the motor drive."
— Eve Arnold

 

[britcam]

Thanks for that - shows how out of date I am ....
Temptation to upgrade has just raised its ugly head thou ....

--
britcam

 

[Midwest]

Very fair point, Midwest.

In fact, if you have never worked with primes, the GRD IV could be a step too far.

On the other hand, some eminent photographers have been very decided in their predominant choice of focal length:

I don't doubt it. That's why I suggested that whether the camera is right depends on your focal length needs. I had a 50mm prime for my Canon and never used it, and wondered whether I ever would until my son was born and between the focal length and the lens being f1.8 it suddenly became my favorite lens. When I'm not taking pics of my son however I nearly always use one of my two zooms. My kind of photography (other than my son's pics) don't work with a single length prime.

It's all a matter of matching the equipment to the needs, and I am sure someone who can use a single focal length camera could be happy with (say) the DR IV. I hope you settle on what works best in the long run - that's all that matters.

 

[clickclack007]

Hello sir: I must comment on your plane photograph. It is stunning and is now on my desktop. Everything about this shot is terrific and inspiring. To my thinking, the rendering of this picture is due to your eye & skills, along with the rendering that the GRD has within it. It strikes me that the Ricohs have a "soul" and is what I'm looking for in a street shooter. Thank you for posting here. Jeff

99.9% of my street work was (is) done with a GR III. It is an exceptional camera. So the IV should be better yet. Yes there might be banding over or around 800iso on the III, I've never used it past 400iso. Nor did I use any APS-C sensor camera above 800 for the same reason. It's all about sensor size. I have my GR III set to over expose by .07 as from my research each camera has it's own sweet spot but setting some overexposure is necessary with smaller sensor cameras. Banding was never an issue for me.

some recent GR III street shots:







--
http://dgoakillphotography.com

--
Remember OUR defenders of peace.