That is true. It just shows that GR lens is on par with other prime lenses. Just not as a star performer like some people believe. Still a good lens to be sure.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
GR III not as sharp as GR
- Thread starter sigala1
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ricoh gr iii
MrHollywood
Veteran Member
Again, my GRII could hang with my D850 and 28mm for relative sharpness. I see no practical difference in sharpness with the GRIII.
The quality of GR optics are not a limiting factor for taking good photos.
The rest is pixel peeping nonsense.
Rob
The quality of GR optics are not a limiting factor for taking good photos.
The rest is pixel peeping nonsense.
Rob
ogl
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,053
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,032
It's JPEG and it's sharp for JPEG. Easy to play with settings and make sharpness higher. I thnk that better apertures for 24 MP could be another - from f2.8 till 5.6. Anyway, it's 2.8 and it's rather sharp https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/sample_galleries/7380089310/7533209204.jpg I opened in Photome - contrast, sharpness and saturation are NORMAL. capture type - STANDART.I understand exactly what you mean. When I first saw the sample images here at dpreview.com I was immediately disappointed. I was missing this charachteristic GR Lens signature look with its tack sharp, rich appearance.
I also noticed visible color fringing in many of the gallery pictures.
For example take this picture of the motor cycle:
In detail:
I've never seen something like this on my GR II. The samples above are dng's but in the ooc jpeg it's still visible.
I wish I could agree with you. The mans face doesn't look all that sharp to me. In fact this photo was the first one that gave me concern for the GR3 lens quality since the mans face is almost dead center. Even some poor lenses are often sharp in the center, but this image looks a bit soft to my eye. However, I attributed the lack of sharpness to micro motion blur from shutter shock and/or perhaps a malfunctioning IBIS. To me the jury is still out as to the image quality of the GR3.
For me Dpreview samples are very sharp, even in the corners. I used an Affinity Photo to make the raw conversion.
--
Jon
I would never use a moving subject as reference for sharpness. Not even at 1/200.I wish I could agree with you. The mans face doesn't look all that sharp to me. In fact this photo was the first one that gave me concern for the GR3 lens quality since the mans face is almost dead center. Even some poor lenses are often sharp in the center, but this image looks a bit soft to my eye. However, I attributed the lack of sharpness to micro motion blur from shutter shock and/or perhaps a malfunctioning IBIS. To me the jury is still out as to the image quality of the GR3.
For me Dpreview samples are very sharp, even in the corners. I used an Affinity Photo to make the raw conversion.
I didn't get sharp pictures from the GR2 before I learned to hold it steady. Neither do I get tack sharp pictures from moving subjects. Not even at 1/200.
"The OP has somehow completely deluded himself about sharpness and got it 100% wrong. Maybe he is mistaking jaggies for sharpness, and smooth clean resolution for softness. That would be an understandable mistake, but one really should look properly before making a 100% wrong judgement call."
I'm not the OP, but looking at these DPReview test images (without any adjustments for GRIII's extra resolution), at the borders and corners GRII lens is performing better than GRIII, and I shall happily continue to use my GRII.
Well I should have known better, specially at my age. If I may correct myself, I've downloaded both RAW files from the DPR website, applied my normal GRII settings in Lightroom 6.14 to both files. The CA's on the co-eccentric circles on the GRIII file completely disappeared, and the sharpness is almost identical, not worth worrying about. When I view the GRII file at 100% and GRIII file at 82% (to make them size on the screen) they are identical for practical purposes. The GRII seems to have slightly crisper white to black transition. People who have shot Ektachrome E6 100 versus Fuji Velvia 50 in anger (e.g. bottle labels with type) would now what I'm talking about. Again, I'm seeing it because I'm looking for it
I shall wait for 6 months to see if any problems other than the ones mentioned surface, and if nothing major comes up, I'll purchase one.
If you're wondering why I'm so obsessed with edge & corner sharpness - I do lots of photography in art galleries, including installation shots, and with GRII, I don't have to lug around a Nikon 14-24 f2.8 + camera + a very heavy tripod.
MrHollywood
Veteran Member
I wish I could agree with you. The mans face doesn't look all that sharp to me. In fact this photo was the first one that gave me concern for the GR3 lens quality since the mans face is almost dead center. Even some poor lenses are often sharp in the center, but this image looks a bit soft to my eye. However, I attributed the lack of sharpness to micro motion blur from shutter shock and/or perhaps a malfunctioning IBIS. To me the jury is still out as to the image quality of the GR3.
For me Dpreview samples are very sharp, even in the corners. I used an Affinity Photo to make the raw conversion.
Good lord.
The subject is moving. 1/200 is not a fast enough shutter to completely freeze the action for a pixel peeper.
I mean....good lord. The jury needs some lessons in remedial photography.
There are no practical differences in sharpness between the two cameras.
Rob
--
"We need a bigger boat."
Alex Sarbu
Forum Pro
In any case, you don't evaluate a lens' sharpness by the worst samples - but by the best.Good lord.I wish I could agree with you. The mans face doesn't look all that sharp to me. In fact this photo was the first one that gave me concern for the GR3 lens quality since the mans face is almost dead center. Even some poor lenses are often sharp in the center, but this image looks a bit soft to my eye. However, I attributed the lack of sharpness to micro motion blur from shutter shock and/or perhaps a malfunctioning IBIS. To me the jury is still out as to the image quality of the GR3.
For me Dpreview samples are very sharp, even in the corners. I used an Affinity Photo to make the raw conversion.
The subject is moving. 1/200 is not a fast enough shutter to completely freeze the action for a pixel peeper.
I mean....good lord. The jury needs some lessons in remedial photography.
There are no practical differences in sharpness between the two cameras.
Rob
Ale
MrHollywood
Veteran Member
In any case, you don't evaluate a lens' sharpness by the worst samples - but by the best.Good lord.I wish I could agree with you. The mans face doesn't look all that sharp to me. In fact this photo was the first one that gave me concern for the GR3 lens quality since the mans face is almost dead center. Even some poor lenses are often sharp in the center, but this image looks a bit soft to my eye. However, I attributed the lack of sharpness to micro motion blur from shutter shock and/or perhaps a malfunctioning IBIS. To me the jury is still out as to the image quality of the GR3.
For me Dpreview samples are very sharp, even in the corners. I used an Affinity Photo to make the raw conversion.
The subject is moving. 1/200 is not a fast enough shutter to completely freeze the action for a pixel peeper.
I mean....good lord. The jury needs some lessons in remedial photography.
There are no practical differences in sharpness between the two cameras.
Rob
Ale
Unless you have a silly agenda to tear down a particular model.
Generally speaking and using the evidence at hand, it's cleat that the GRIII is a clearly superior camera to the GRII. For some shooters the differences will be minimal to none and they should stick with the GRII. But it's silly to take a poor example (which anyone can see what went wrong) and use it to defend a POV that's obviously wrong.
Rob
--
"We need a bigger boat."
Alain Boularan
Member
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 2
I'd love the camera, as a long time user of my now broken GRII (16mpx), but I'm so sad of the ergonomy and menu changes, loss of flash, overal color cast I already didn't like with the GR II (I have a Fuji X70 too, and easier to deal in post with color rendering and straight ou JPEG are nicer color wise).
Last, the good on the III is the larger sensor and IS, but lens also may have lost slight sharpness, which was chiseling whatever you took with the GR II... But it's sure good enough on the III I would think...
GR II Example 1:
Example 2:
Example 3:
Last, the good on the III is the larger sensor and IS, but lens also may have lost slight sharpness, which was chiseling whatever you took with the GR II... But it's sure good enough on the III I would think...
GR II Example 1:
Example 2:
Example 3:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum