GR lll Review

Started 2 months ago | Discussions
John Gellings Veteran Member • Posts: 5,096
Re: GR lll Review
2

James Bligh wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

illd3fined wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

illd3fined wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

For the record GR3 received DPREVIEW SILVER AWARD when GR had got DPREVIEW GOLD AWARD.

in 2013 the GR was a groundbreaking concept. what would even the GRII get today

It is strange the review does not say a word about QC issues of GR3. And it does not mention the presence and role of preprocessor though it says ‘noise reduction applied to the Raw at all ISO values 200 and up.’

By giving SILVER AWARD the reviewers may have wanted to say something not told in text?

ha wow, you really want to convince yourself of a non-existent conspiracy (thats only in your head)

Neither of us can be sure of anything.

a lot has happened since 2013. the GRIII is a good camera just no longer the breakthrough the original GR was

I will say it a mediocre.

James, we get it. You don’t like it and you don’t trust Ricoh. Don’t you get tired coming here every day to say the same thing?

When you think for a moment you will know life is a repetition of boring routine.

True, one can make it that way for sure. I’m just trying to understand though. Are you really hurt that the GR3 is not perfect or is it just boredom posting?

 John Gellings's gear list:John Gellings's gear list
Ricoh GR III Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-T30 Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 +6 more
dissonate
dissonate Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: GR lll Review
2

I may have missed it in the review, reading on my phone while walking in traffic...

But I dont think it mentioned no lens cap, which is a big plus for me.

I also dont think it mentioned the internal 2GB memory, which would have saved me on two occasions so far in my life, one time I forgot a card, the other time I had a card fail.

-- hide signature --

Travel Photo Journals: http://www.falseguide.com

one blind eye Forum Member • Posts: 53
Re: GR lll Review

Ken Bates wrote:

Hi All. Just read the review for the GR.lll and all seems fair enough.

The only thing I would add is that I can handhold at 1/4 sec. with about 80% critical sharpness rate. ( double that time for macro )

It's not cheap. I would have liked to have keep the GR ll flash.

But I must say, I love this camera.

Thanks all.

Which review?

 one blind eye's gear list:one blind eye's gear list
Canon PowerShot G5 X II
dissonate
dissonate Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: GR lll Review

The one on this very site

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ricoh-gr-iii

-- hide signature --

Travel Photo Journals: http://www.falseguide.com

James Bligh Senior Member • Posts: 2,354
Re: GR lll Review

Alex Sarbu wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

illd3fined wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

For the record GR3 received DPREVIEW SILVER AWARD when GR had got DPREVIEW GOLD AWARD.

in 2013 the GR was a groundbreaking concept. what would even the GRII get today

It is strange the review does not say a word about QC issues of GR3.

Issues affecting a limited number of cameras and subsequently fixed at no cost to the user? Hardly a reason to bash the camera for it.

I don't think it affects a limited number of cameras; the evidence rather suggests it affects most of cameras. Not to bash the camera but to document the facts.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62662804

And it does not mention the presence and role of preprocessor though it says ‘noise reduction applied to the Raw at all ISO values 200 and up.’

The preprocessor (accelerator unit) whose presence is a plus and which doesn't merely do noise reduction. We discussed this to death in the Pentax forum, with people trying to show loss of detail with test charts <rolling eyes>

Ale

That's what I want to know in detail, it may be decided it is a plus or not after we know facts.

-- hide signature --

You really want you a pound of flesh, don't you?
-- Mallory to Miller in the movie 'The Guns of Navarone'

James Bligh Senior Member • Posts: 2,354
Re: GR lll Review
2

John Gellings wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

illd3fined wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

illd3fined wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

For the record GR3 received DPREVIEW SILVER AWARD when GR had got DPREVIEW GOLD AWARD.

in 2013 the GR was a groundbreaking concept. what would even the GRII get today

It is strange the review does not say a word about QC issues of GR3. And it does not mention the presence and role of preprocessor though it says ‘noise reduction applied to the Raw at all ISO values 200 and up.’

By giving SILVER AWARD the reviewers may have wanted to say something not told in text?

ha wow, you really want to convince yourself of a non-existent conspiracy (thats only in your head)

Neither of us can be sure of anything.

a lot has happened since 2013. the GRIII is a good camera just no longer the breakthrough the original GR was

I will say it a mediocre.

James, we get it. You don’t like it and you don’t trust Ricoh. Don’t you get tired coming here every day to say the same thing?

When you think for a moment you will know life is a repetition of boring routine.

True, one can make it that way for sure. I’m just trying to understand though. Are you really hurt that the GR3 is not perfect or is it just boredom posting?

I am deeply disappointed by GR3, I bought GR2 in December 2018 which was several months after GR3 was announced and specs and product photos were available. If GR3 was an attractive/enticing product I may easily have chosen/bought a GR3.

As it happened QC issues ensued, I had not foreseen that but build quality of GR3 looked not great to my eyes.

And I think image quality, especially the color I believe it has something to do with preprocessor processing of RAW, of GR3 RAW/JPEG is mediocre.

You may read more of my opinion in the following post.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62662804

-- hide signature --

You really want you a pound of flesh, don't you?
-- Mallory to Miller in the movie 'The Guns of Navarone'

thelps
thelps Regular Member • Posts: 476
Re: GR lll Review
2

James Bligh wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

illd3fined wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

illd3fined wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

For the record GR3 received DPREVIEW SILVER AWARD when GR had got DPREVIEW GOLD AWARD.

in 2013 the GR was a groundbreaking concept. what would even the GRII get today

It is strange the review does not say a word about QC issues of GR3. And it does not mention the presence and role of preprocessor though it says ‘noise reduction applied to the Raw at all ISO values 200 and up.’

By giving SILVER AWARD the reviewers may have wanted to say something not told in text?

ha wow, you really want to convince yourself of a non-existent conspiracy (thats only in your head)

Neither of us can be sure of anything.

a lot has happened since 2013. the GRIII is a good camera just no longer the breakthrough the original GR was

I will say it a mediocre.

James, we get it. You don’t like it and you don’t trust Ricoh. Don’t you get tired coming here every day to say the same thing?

When you think for a moment you will know life is a repetition of boring routine.

True, one can make it that way for sure. I’m just trying to understand though. Are you really hurt that the GR3 is not perfect or is it just boredom posting?

I am deeply disappointed by GR3, I bought GR2 in December 2018 which was several months after GR3 was announced and specs and product photos were available. If GR3 was an attractive/enticing product I may easily have chosen/bought a GR3.

As it happened QC issues ensued, I had not foreseen that but build quality of GR3 looked not great to my eyes.

And I think image quality, especially the color I believe it has something to do with preprocessor processing of RAW, of GR3 RAW/JPEG is mediocre.

You may read more of my opinion in the following post.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62662804

I am deeply astonished and am enjoying my GR III. Early experiments with the IBIS show promise for images I could not make with the GR II. No QC issues with my GR III.

I have seen some images, mainly BW that exhibit a very nice 3D pop that is reminiscent of the imagery that the DP2 was famous for. I have never seen this 3D pop with the GR II, so I think GR II users will miss out on this. See this sample of the cyclist as one example.

https://www.grblog.jp/article/4621/?bitly_hash=0zfTa0Mq18&fbclid=IwAR1qhswcIjP2Hgb_bcg7stJawkx_ClS0ybhdISgBP9kXdWV84gAjEp8aIQM

 thelps's gear list:thelps's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Ricoh GR
dissonate
dissonate Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: GR lll Review
1

That https://www.grblog.jp site linked above looks like an official Ricoh Japan site, I had not seen it before but it has heaps of content

In particular for me, the handheld night shots in this post are exactly the kind of shots I would take (when not hiking!)

https://www.grblog.jp/article/4263

All of those shots would have been very difficult on the GR II

I think when I get my GR III I will confidently set the low shutter auto iso to 1/10 and play about with down to 1/4 on full manual

-- hide signature --

Travel Photo Journals: http://www.falseguide.com

James Bligh Senior Member • Posts: 2,354
Re: GR lll Review
2

thelps wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

illd3fined wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

illd3fined wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

For the record GR3 received DPREVIEW SILVER AWARD when GR had got DPREVIEW GOLD AWARD.

in 2013 the GR was a groundbreaking concept. what would even the GRII get today

It is strange the review does not say a word about QC issues of GR3. And it does not mention the presence and role of preprocessor though it says ‘noise reduction applied to the Raw at all ISO values 200 and up.’

By giving SILVER AWARD the reviewers may have wanted to say something not told in text?

ha wow, you really want to convince yourself of a non-existent conspiracy (thats only in your head)

Neither of us can be sure of anything.

a lot has happened since 2013. the GRIII is a good camera just no longer the breakthrough the original GR was

I will say it a mediocre.

James, we get it. You don’t like it and you don’t trust Ricoh. Don’t you get tired coming here every day to say the same thing?

When you think for a moment you will know life is a repetition of boring routine.

True, one can make it that way for sure. I’m just trying to understand though. Are you really hurt that the GR3 is not perfect or is it just boredom posting?

I am deeply disappointed by GR3, I bought GR2 in December 2018 which was several months after GR3 was announced and specs and product photos were available. If GR3 was an attractive/enticing product I may easily have chosen/bought a GR3.

As it happened QC issues ensued, I had not foreseen that but build quality of GR3 looked not great to my eyes.

And I think image quality, especially the color I believe it has something to do with preprocessor processing of RAW, of GR3 RAW/JPEG is mediocre.

You may read more of my opinion in the following post.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62662804

I am deeply astonished and am enjoying my GR III. Early experiments with the IBIS show promise for images I could not make with the GR II. No QC issues with my GR III.

I have seen some images, mainly BW that exhibit a very nice 3D pop that is reminiscent of the imagery that the DP2 was famous for. I have never seen this 3D pop with the GR II, so I think GR II users will miss out on this. See this sample of the cyclist as one example.

https://www.grblog.jp/article/4621/?bitly_hash=0zfTa0Mq18&fbclid=IwAR1qhswcIjP2Hgb_bcg7stJawkx_ClS0ybhdISgBP9kXdWV84gAjEp8aIQM

The cyclist, 3D pop? To my eyes it looks unnatural and it has zero attraction aesthetically. Second photo, the flowers shot, is not bad but macro or that kind of photography is not my playground. Third picture is a comedy. Nonsense in GR Wonderland.

-- hide signature --

You really want you a pound of flesh, don't you?
-- Mallory to Miller in the movie 'The Guns of Navarone'

thelps
thelps Regular Member • Posts: 476
Re: GR lll Review
1

James Bligh wrote:

thelps wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

illd3fined wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

illd3fined wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

For the record GR3 received DPREVIEW SILVER AWARD when GR had got DPREVIEW GOLD AWARD.

in 2013 the GR was a groundbreaking concept. what would even the GRII get today

It is strange the review does not say a word about QC issues of GR3. And it does not mention the presence and role of preprocessor though it says ‘noise reduction applied to the Raw at all ISO values 200 and up.’

By giving SILVER AWARD the reviewers may have wanted to say something not told in text?

ha wow, you really want to convince yourself of a non-existent conspiracy (thats only in your head)

Neither of us can be sure of anything.

a lot has happened since 2013. the GRIII is a good camera just no longer the breakthrough the original GR was

I will say it a mediocre.

James, we get it. You don’t like it and you don’t trust Ricoh. Don’t you get tired coming here every day to say the same thing?

When you think for a moment you will know life is a repetition of boring routine.

True, one can make it that way for sure. I’m just trying to understand though. Are you really hurt that the GR3 is not perfect or is it just boredom posting?

I am deeply disappointed by GR3, I bought GR2 in December 2018 which was several months after GR3 was announced and specs and product photos were available. If GR3 was an attractive/enticing product I may easily have chosen/bought a GR3.

As it happened QC issues ensued, I had not foreseen that but build quality of GR3 looked not great to my eyes.

And I think image quality, especially the color I believe it has something to do with preprocessor processing of RAW, of GR3 RAW/JPEG is mediocre.

You may read more of my opinion in the following post.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62662804

I am deeply astonished and am enjoying my GR III. Early experiments with the IBIS show promise for images I could not make with the GR II. No QC issues with my GR III.

I have seen some images, mainly BW that exhibit a very nice 3D pop that is reminiscent of the imagery that the DP2 was famous for. I have never seen this 3D pop with the GR II, so I think GR II users will miss out on this. See this sample of the cyclist as one example.

https://www.grblog.jp/article/4621/?bitly_hash=0zfTa0Mq18&fbclid=IwAR1qhswcIjP2Hgb_bcg7stJawkx_ClS0ybhdISgBP9kXdWV84gAjEp8aIQM

The cyclist, 3D pop? To my eyes it looks unnatural and it has zero attraction aesthetically. Second photo, the flowers shot, is not bad but macro or that kind of photography is not my playground. Third picture is a comedy. Nonsense in GR Wonderland.

LOL. You need a new monitor.

 thelps's gear list:thelps's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Ricoh GR
teemodk Senior Member • Posts: 1,190
Re: GR lll Review
3

thelps wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

thelps wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

illd3fined wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

illd3fined wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

For the record GR3 received DPREVIEW SILVER AWARD when GR had got DPREVIEW GOLD AWARD.

in 2013 the GR was a groundbreaking concept. what would even the GRII get today

It is strange the review does not say a word about QC issues of GR3. And it does not mention the presence and role of preprocessor though it says ‘noise reduction applied to the Raw at all ISO values 200 and up.’

By giving SILVER AWARD the reviewers may have wanted to say something not told in text?

ha wow, you really want to convince yourself of a non-existent conspiracy (thats only in your head)

Neither of us can be sure of anything.

a lot has happened since 2013. the GRIII is a good camera just no longer the breakthrough the original GR was

I will say it a mediocre.

James, we get it. You don’t like it and you don’t trust Ricoh. Don’t you get tired coming here every day to say the same thing?

When you think for a moment you will know life is a repetition of boring routine.

True, one can make it that way for sure. I’m just trying to understand though. Are you really hurt that the GR3 is not perfect or is it just boredom posting?

I am deeply disappointed by GR3, I bought GR2 in December 2018 which was several months after GR3 was announced and specs and product photos were available. If GR3 was an attractive/enticing product I may easily have chosen/bought a GR3.

As it happened QC issues ensued, I had not foreseen that but build quality of GR3 looked not great to my eyes.

And I think image quality, especially the color I believe it has something to do with preprocessor processing of RAW, of GR3 RAW/JPEG is mediocre.

You may read more of my opinion in the following post.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62662804

I am deeply astonished and am enjoying my GR III. Early experiments with the IBIS show promise for images I could not make with the GR II. No QC issues with my GR III.

I have seen some images, mainly BW that exhibit a very nice 3D pop that is reminiscent of the imagery that the DP2 was famous for. I have never seen this 3D pop with the GR II, so I think GR II users will miss out on this. See this sample of the cyclist as one example.

https://www.grblog.jp/article/4621/?bitly_hash=0zfTa0Mq18&fbclid=IwAR1qhswcIjP2Hgb_bcg7stJawkx_ClS0ybhdISgBP9kXdWV84gAjEp8aIQM

The cyclist, 3D pop? To my eyes it looks unnatural and it has zero attraction aesthetically. Second photo, the flowers shot, is not bad but macro or that kind of photography is not my playground. Third picture is a comedy. Nonsense in GR Wonderland.

LOL. You need a new monitor.

Or a new forum 

 teemodk's gear list:teemodk's gear list
Oppo R7 Plus
Alex Sarbu Forum Pro • Posts: 10,017
Re: GR lll Review

James Bligh wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

illd3fined wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

For the record GR3 received DPREVIEW SILVER AWARD when GR had got DPREVIEW GOLD AWARD.

in 2013 the GR was a groundbreaking concept. what would even the GRII get today

It is strange the review does not say a word about QC issues of GR3.

Issues affecting a limited number of cameras and subsequently fixed at no cost to the user? Hardly a reason to bash the camera for it.

I don't think it affects a limited number of cameras; the evidence rather suggests it affects most of cameras. Not to bash the camera but to document the facts.

Of course it's bashing; you decided you don't like the camera and you're quite vocal about it.

An example of broken buttons isn't the same as "most of the cameras".

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62662804

And it does not mention the presence and role of preprocessor though it says ‘noise reduction applied to the Raw at all ISO values 200 and up.’

The preprocessor (accelerator unit) whose presence is a plus and which doesn't merely do noise reduction. We discussed this to death in the Pentax forum, with people trying to show loss of detail with test charts <rolling eyes>

Ale

That's what I want to know in detail, it may be decided it is a plus or not after we know facts.

The accelerator unit was used for years, until we've got the K-1 to K-1 II upgrade (same camera, mainboard changed with the new one including the accelerator unit). Only then people started "seeing" problems. There is no "pure" RAW... but the accelerator-processed one is supposedly less "pure".

Look at real life images.

Alex

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Ricoh GR III Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 II Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +8 more
James Bligh Senior Member • Posts: 2,354
Re: GR lll Review

Alex Sarbu wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

illd3fined wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

For the record GR3 received DPREVIEW SILVER AWARD when GR had got DPREVIEW GOLD AWARD.

in 2013 the GR was a groundbreaking concept. what would even the GRII get today

It is strange the review does not say a word about QC issues of GR3.

Issues affecting a limited number of cameras and subsequently fixed at no cost to the user? Hardly a reason to bash the camera for it.

I don't think it affects a limited number of cameras; the evidence rather suggests it affects most of cameras. Not to bash the camera but to document the facts.

Of course it's bashing; you decided you don't like the camera and you're quite vocal about it.

An example of broken buttons isn't the same as "most of the cameras".

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62662804

And it does not mention the presence and role of preprocessor though it says ‘noise reduction applied to the Raw at all ISO values 200 and up.’

The preprocessor (accelerator unit) whose presence is a plus and which doesn't merely do noise reduction. We discussed this to death in the Pentax forum, with people trying to show loss of detail with test charts <rolling eyes>

Ale

That's what I want to know in detail, it may be decided it is a plus or not after we know facts.

The accelerator unit was used for years, until we've got the K-1 to K-1 II upgrade (same camera, mainboard changed with the new one including the accelerator unit). Only then people started "seeing" problems. There is no "pure" RAW... but the accelerator-processed one is supposedly less "pure".

Look at real life images.

Alex

And I see dull (and incorrect) colors which even the dpreview reviewers who seem to not dare to offend Ricoh have admitted in pictures taken with GR3.

-- hide signature --

You really want you a pound of flesh, don't you?
-- Mallory to Miller in the movie 'The Guns of Navarone'

Alex Sarbu Forum Pro • Posts: 10,017
Re: GR lll Review
2

James Bligh wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

illd3fined wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

For the record GR3 received DPREVIEW SILVER AWARD when GR had got DPREVIEW GOLD AWARD.

in 2013 the GR was a groundbreaking concept. what would even the GRII get today

It is strange the review does not say a word about QC issues of GR3.

Issues affecting a limited number of cameras and subsequently fixed at no cost to the user? Hardly a reason to bash the camera for it.

I don't think it affects a limited number of cameras; the evidence rather suggests it affects most of cameras. Not to bash the camera but to document the facts.

Of course it's bashing; you decided you don't like the camera and you're quite vocal about it.

An example of broken buttons isn't the same as "most of the cameras".

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62662804

And it does not mention the presence and role of preprocessor though it says ‘noise reduction applied to the Raw at all ISO values 200 and up.’

The preprocessor (accelerator unit) whose presence is a plus and which doesn't merely do noise reduction. We discussed this to death in the Pentax forum, with people trying to show loss of detail with test charts <rolling eyes>

Ale

That's what I want to know in detail, it may be decided it is a plus or not after we know facts.

The accelerator unit was used for years, until we've got the K-1 to K-1 II upgrade (same camera, mainboard changed with the new one including the accelerator unit). Only then people started "seeing" problems. There is no "pure" RAW... but the accelerator-processed one is supposedly less "pure".

Look at real life images.

Alex

And I see dull (and incorrect) colors which even the dpreview reviewers who seem to not dare to offend Ricoh have admitted in pictures taken with GR3.

You see "dull" colors because of the choice made for the standard profile. With a camera so customizable, it's silly to complain about such a thing.

But of course, there's a conspiracy and reviewers are trembling under Ricoh's foot <rolling eyes>

Alex

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Ricoh GR III Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 II Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +8 more
Tungsten Nordstein
Tungsten Nordstein Senior Member • Posts: 1,752
Re: GR lll Review

James Bligh wrote:

illd3fined wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

For the record GR3 received DPREVIEW SILVER AWARD when GR had got DPREVIEW GOLD AWARD.

in 2013 the GR was a groundbreaking concept. what would even the GRII get today

It is strange the review does not say a word about QC issues of GR3. And it does not mention the presence and role of preprocessor though it says ‘noise reduction applied to the Raw at all ISO values 200 and up.’

By giving SILVER AWARD the reviewers may have wanted to say something not told in text?

Isn't  pointing out the use of baked-NR already implying the use of an imaging pre-processor? Maybe  they felt like it was obvious and not that unusual itself.

Anyway, no one bothers to talk about baked-in NR or imaging pre-processing in the GRII.

-- hide signature --

'I don't take photographs, I delete them.'
Tungsten Nordstein, 2909

 Tungsten Nordstein's gear list:Tungsten Nordstein's gear list
Ricoh Caplio GX100 Ricoh GR Digital Ricoh GR Digital IV Sigma dp2 Quattro Ricoh GR II +6 more
James Bligh Senior Member • Posts: 2,354
Re: GR lll Review

Alex Sarbu wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

illd3fined wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

For the record GR3 received DPREVIEW SILVER AWARD when GR had got DPREVIEW GOLD AWARD.

in 2013 the GR was a groundbreaking concept. what would even the GRII get today

It is strange the review does not say a word about QC issues of GR3.

Issues affecting a limited number of cameras and subsequently fixed at no cost to the user? Hardly a reason to bash the camera for it.

I don't think it affects a limited number of cameras; the evidence rather suggests it affects most of cameras. Not to bash the camera but to document the facts.

Of course it's bashing; you decided you don't like the camera and you're quite vocal about it.

An example of broken buttons isn't the same as "most of the cameras".

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62662804

And it does not mention the presence and role of preprocessor though it says ‘noise reduction applied to the Raw at all ISO values 200 and up.’

The preprocessor (accelerator unit) whose presence is a plus and which doesn't merely do noise reduction. We discussed this to death in the Pentax forum, with people trying to show loss of detail with test charts <rolling eyes>

Ale

That's what I want to know in detail, it may be decided it is a plus or not after we know facts.

The accelerator unit was used for years, until we've got the K-1 to K-1 II upgrade (same camera, mainboard changed with the new one including the accelerator unit). Only then people started "seeing" problems. There is no "pure" RAW... but the accelerator-processed one is supposedly less "pure".

Look at real life images.

Alex

And I see dull (and incorrect) colors which even the dpreview reviewers who seem to not dare to offend Ricoh have admitted in pictures taken with GR3.

You see "dull" colors because of the choice made for the standard profile. With a camera so customizable, it's silly to complain about such a thing.

But of course, there's a conspiracy and reviewers are trembling under Ricoh's foot <rolling eyes>

Alex

I guess people in camera industry may have enough reason to worry about job security. They may even have camaraderie that they share common destiny. Reviewers may say this or that. But what they say may be only partial truth. It seems to be increasingly difficult to find out the whole truth in this complex world.

-- hide signature --

You really want you a pound of flesh, don't you?
-- Mallory to Miller in the movie 'The Guns of Navarone'

James Bligh Senior Member • Posts: 2,354
Re: GR lll Review

Tungsten Nordstein wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

illd3fined wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

For the record GR3 received DPREVIEW SILVER AWARD when GR had got DPREVIEW GOLD AWARD.

in 2013 the GR was a groundbreaking concept. what would even the GRII get today

It is strange the review does not say a word about QC issues of GR3. And it does not mention the presence and role of preprocessor though it says ‘noise reduction applied to the Raw at all ISO values 200 and up.’

By giving SILVER AWARD the reviewers may have wanted to say something not told in text?

Isn't pointing out the use of baked-NR already implying the use of an imaging pre-processor? Maybe they felt like it was obvious and not that unusual itself.

They didn't use the term 'baked RAW' didn't even mention the word 'baked' or 'cooked'. Saying it explicitly and implying something are two very different things.

Anyway, no one bothers to talk about baked-in NR or imaging pre-processing in the GRII.

You mean GR3? There is no baked RAW in GR2.

-- hide signature --

You really want you a pound of flesh, don't you?
-- Mallory to Miller in the movie 'The Guns of Navarone'

thelps
thelps Regular Member • Posts: 476
Re: GR lll Review

Alex Sarbu wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

illd3fined wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

For the record GR3 received DPREVIEW SILVER AWARD when GR had got DPREVIEW GOLD AWARD.

in 2013 the GR was a groundbreaking concept. what would even the GRII get today

It is strange the review does not say a word about QC issues of GR3.

Issues affecting a limited number of cameras and subsequently fixed at no cost to the user? Hardly a reason to bash the camera for it.

I don't think it affects a limited number of cameras; the evidence rather suggests it affects most of cameras. Not to bash the camera but to document the facts.

Of course it's bashing; you decided you don't like the camera and you're quite vocal about it.

An example of broken buttons isn't the same as "most of the cameras".

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62662804

And it does not mention the presence and role of preprocessor though it says ‘noise reduction applied to the Raw at all ISO values 200 and up.’

The preprocessor (accelerator unit) whose presence is a plus and which doesn't merely do noise reduction. We discussed this to death in the Pentax forum, with people trying to show loss of detail with test charts <rolling eyes>

Ale

That's what I want to know in detail, it may be decided it is a plus or not after we know facts.

The accelerator unit was used for years, until we've got the K-1 to K-1 II upgrade (same camera, mainboard changed with the new one including the accelerator unit). Only then people started "seeing" problems. There is no "pure" RAW... but the accelerator-processed one is supposedly less "pure".

Look at real life images.

Alex

And I see dull (and incorrect) colors which even the dpreview reviewers who seem to not dare to offend Ricoh have admitted in pictures taken with GR3.

You see "dull" colors because of the choice made for the standard profile. With a camera so customizable, it's silly to complain about such a thing.

But of course, there's a conspiracy and reviewers are trembling under Ricoh's foot <rolling eyes>

Alex

I think the "dull" colors due to an inadequate monitor. I see the detail and subtle differences now. I am amazed at the subtle differences in all these cameras if you have a good screen.

 thelps's gear list:thelps's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Ricoh GR
Tungsten Nordstein
Tungsten Nordstein Senior Member • Posts: 1,752
Re: GR lll Review

James Bligh wrote:

Tungsten Nordstein wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

illd3fined wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

For the record GR3 received DPREVIEW SILVER AWARD when GR had got DPREVIEW GOLD AWARD.

in 2013 the GR was a groundbreaking concept. what would even the GRII get today

It is strange the review does not say a word about QC issues of GR3. And it does not mention the presence and role of preprocessor though it says ‘noise reduction applied to the Raw at all ISO values 200 and up.’

By giving SILVER AWARD the reviewers may have wanted to say something not told in text?

Isn't pointing out the use of baked-NR already implying the use of an imaging pre-processor? Maybe they felt like it was obvious and not that unusual itself.

They didn't use the term 'baked RAW' didn't even mention the word 'baked' or 'cooked'. Saying it explicitly and implying something are two very different things.

Anyway, no one bothers to talk about baked-in NR or imaging pre-processing in the GRII.

You mean GR3? There is no baked RAW in GR2.

I mean the GR2. How do you know there's no baked-in RAW image pre-processing? My eyes tell me otherwise.

-- hide signature --

'I don't take photographs, I delete them.'
Tungsten Nordstein, 2909

 Tungsten Nordstein's gear list:Tungsten Nordstein's gear list
Ricoh Caplio GX100 Ricoh GR Digital Ricoh GR Digital IV Sigma dp2 Quattro Ricoh GR II +6 more
Olifaunt Contributing Member • Posts: 756
Re: GR lll Review
1

James Bligh wrote:

And I see dull (and incorrect) colors which even the dpreview reviewers who seem to not dare to offend Ricoh have admitted in pictures taken with GR3.

To be fair, don't you think this is maybe just software? The color profiles of different effects on the GR3 are after all different, e.g., positive film (check the hover-over example in the review that shows a bunch of the different effects on the same scene). The standard color profile is a dull in the GR2 also, but almost never saturation-clips, which is probably why standard profiles are chosen that way. Vivid or Positive Film will often saturation clip intense colors and give you blobs on things like flowers or clothing.

Even the GR3 standard colors is to my eyes hugely better than the colors in the Leica Q2 sample gallery on this site, for example. I'm bringing that up as an example of how truly awful things could be.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads