GR III not as sharp as GR

[sigala1]

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/7380089310/ricoh-gr-iii-sample-images/0798799711

No way are those pictures as sharp as my original GR. Not even close.

I think that image quality was compromised in order to make the lens focus faster.

 

[vallhall]

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/7380089310/ricoh-gr-iii-sample-images/0798799711

No way are those pictures as sharp as my original GR. Not even close.

I think that image quality was compromised in order to make the lens focus faster.

Have you compared them side by side?

 

[Model Mike]

No way are those pictures as sharp as my original GR. Not even close.

I think that image quality was compromised in order to make the lens focus faster.

I would completely disagree. The GR III images in the gallery are beautifully formed, and perfect for further sharpening in post after resizing for final media.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm

And before you ask, yes I have a GR II to compare.

 

[Andrewteee]

First, by GR, do you mean a film GR? BTW my GR III is, as the saying goes, tack sharp. It is sharper than any other digital GR I've had. While that's not my first priority, it's nice to have the capability.

Second, is sharpness all there is to good photographs? I just received two photobooks from Editions Xavier Barral in France today, and one of them has several "unsharp" photos, but they are absolutely beautiful. I also appreciate impressionist photography from the 1800s/1900s, so maybe I'm biased.

 

[snapshark]

First, by GR, do you mean a film GR? BTW my GR III is, as the saying goes, tack sharp. It is sharper than any other digital GR I've had. While that's not my first priority, it's nice to have the capability.

Second, is sharpness all there is to good photographs? I just received two photobooks from Editions Xavier Barral in France today, and one of them has several "unsharp" photos, but they are absolutely beautiful. I also appreciate impressionist photography from the 1800s/1900s, so maybe I'm biased.

Yup. Agree. Also this GR3 is sharp as ****. I have a GFX 50S and the GF63 and this GR3 is no less sharp to my eye. As some have said of the GF63, it may be *too* sharp.

Jeez the complaining on this camera is mind boggling.

 

[julius_emanuel]

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/7380089310/ricoh-gr-iii-sample-images/0798799711

No way are those pictures as sharp as my original GR. Not even close.

I think that image quality was compromised in order to make the lens focus faster.

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:

Loading…

3.img-dpreview.com

In detail:


purple fringing


green fringing

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.

By comparing each lens formula of the GR I/II and the GR III you will see a slight difference. Both seem to be a classical double gauss construction. But in the GRII are two single lens elements behind the front lens (2nd and 3d lens), whereas the new GRIII seems to combine those two elements to one single glas element.

GR I/II Lens formula

GR III Lens formula

Maybe it's a genius way in construction to save costs , but maybe this is the explanation for the different behaviour in terms of above described lateral chromatic abberations and the so negatively influenced sharpness.

Hope my GR II will never break. Cheers!

 

[sigala1]

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/7380089310/ricoh-gr-iii-sample-images/0798799711

No way are those pictures as sharp as my original GR. Not even close.

I think that image quality was compromised in order to make the lens focus faster.

There are generally two sorts of replies.

1. Sharpness isn't the most important thing about a camera.

I agree! That's why I didn't use the Ricoh GR that much despite it being so sharp. But that really has nothing to do with my original post, except to imply that you agree with me, so feel the need to make excuses for the GR III being less sharp.

2. Where's the proof?

Anyone who has owned a GR (and presumably the GR II which has the same lens) should know the look of utter sharpness when viewing the image at 100% (or even 200%) that I have not seen on any other camera or lens. The downside is that all edges have false color artifacts caused by the combination of a supremely sharp lens and no AA filter.

I don't see that look in the GR III photos at all.

Believe me, that's not what I wanted to find. I was excited when I learned the the GR III seemed to have a lot of improvements over the GR/GRII, but then was so disappointed when I looked at the sample images.

So why did Ricoh change such a great lens? Obviously, because the older GR focused by moving a heavy group of lens elements, and in order to make a lens that auto-focuses fast, you need a single light element that moves.

(Although I also note that the III has 6 elements in 4 groups, while the I/II have 7 elements in 5 groups. Did Ricoh maybe just remove one element to save money? If so, shame on them!)

 

[Tungsten Nordstein]

First, by GR, do you mean a film GR? BTW my GR III is, as the saying goes, tack sharp. It is sharper than any other digital GR I've had. While that's not my first priority, it's nice to have the capability.

Second, is sharpness all there is to good photographs? I just received two photobooks from Editions Xavier Barral in France today, and one of them has several "unsharp" photos, but they are absolutely beautiful. I also appreciate impressionist photography from the 1800s/1900s, so maybe I'm biased.

Nothing to do with the thread really, but which books did you buy? Was one the Mizutani?

 

[illd3fined]

So why did Ricoh change such a great lens? Obviously, because the older GR focused by moving a heavy group of lens elements, and in order to make a lens that auto-focuses fast, you need a single light element that moves.

(Although I also note that the III has 6 elements in 4 groups, while the I/II have 7 elements in 5 groups. Did Ricoh maybe just remove one element to save money? If so, shame on them!)

it’s been published that ricoh took a lot of time to redesign the lens to make room for the SR system, while also making the body smaller and af faster

 

[Harold66]

Jeez the complaining on this camera is mind boggling.

and why is that ?

if you like the camera, does it matter that others do not ?

IMO, the sharpness difference in the two models is not the major issue

for me there are several changes in the user interface which makes the new product user handling in many ways , especially for those who use manual mode , and ONE change which makes it USELESS for me ( and seems like I am the only one since no one since to be bothered by it)

But when one knows what is important for you , the reviews on other points do not seem to matter as much

Harold

 

[Andrewteee]

First, by GR, do you mean a film GR? BTW my GR III is, as the saying goes, tack sharp. It is sharper than any other digital GR I've had. While that's not my first priority, it's nice to have the capability.

Second, is sharpness all there is to good photographs? I just received two photobooks from Editions Xavier Barral in France today, and one of them has several "unsharp" photos, but they are absolutely beautiful. I also appreciate impressionist photography from the 1800s/1900s, so maybe I'm biased.

Nothing to do with the thread really, but which books did you buy? Was one the Mizutani?

Des Oiseaux by Pentti Sammallahti and Des Oiseaux by Bernard Plossu - that’s the one with beautiful unsharp pictures. The B&W printing is absolutely beautiful!

It’s a series of books the publisher is doing on birds by photographers. There are 2 more, I believe.

BTW I ordered them direct from France from the publisher for less money. They were hard to find in the US and sometimes expensive. They arrived within days. I love getting photobooks from overseas for some reason.

 

[Andrewteee]

One other point I’d add is that I’m not a pixel peeper, so perfect sharpness is not what I’m digging into. For me, the B&W print is the outcome I’m looking for. I’m also drawn more towards smaller prints rather than large ones. A 4x6 is perfectly fine. It’s just how I see photographs, I guess.

In that case, absolute sharpness may not be my most vital requirement. Or maybe it is; maybe smaller prints require sharper images. I don’t know. But you sure can’t pixel peep a small print (except with a loop of course).

In any event, I’d rather reflect on a beautiful B&W print than pixel peep a digital image. I’ve framed only a handful of my own pictures and almost half of those are Fuji instant film prints made with an old Polaroid.

 

[pierre1]

Currently 1.2K GR III photos in this Flickr group so far, a few more than DPreview quantity and diversity-wise. I seek out the best ones and if I'm quite impressed with those then that plays a major major part in my buying decision!

https://www.flickr.com/groups/3111870@N24/pool/with/47771886451/

pierred
"Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"

 

[Harold66]

Currently 1.2K GR III photos in this Flickr group so far, a few more than DPreview quantity and diversity-wise. I seek out the best ones and if I'm quite impressed with those then that plays a major major part in my buying decision!

https://www.flickr.com/groups/3111870@N24/pool/with/47771886451/

pierred
"Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"

Question for you : do you think you could tell apart the images from the three Ricoh GR with APS sensors . I am pretty sure nobody could

I think the fact that the GR delivers great image quality overall is a known fact

I think it would be smarter to decide between the GrII and the III based on the budget , the user interface , the handling of the body and so on..

Harold

 

[PrebenR]

Anyone who has owned a GR (and presumably the GR II which has the same lens) should know the look of utter sharpness when viewing the image at 100% (or even 200%) that I have not seen on any other camera or lens.

Then, surely you have not looked at Sigma cameras.

 

[illd3fined]

Question for you : do you think you could tell apart the images from the three Ricoh GR with APS sensors . I am pretty sure nobody could

of any high-contrast scene or ISO above 800, yes most likely. especially if the resolution is at 6000 x 4000

 

[PrebenR]

If you want to compare .... (for whatever odd reason)

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

 

[Tungsten Nordstein]

Thank-you for the recommendations. I noticed the bird theme. I'm also thinking about one of the Rinko Kawauchi.

 

[illd3fined]

If you want to compare .... (for whatever odd reason)

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...=1&x=0.7293005158810643&y=-0.5917162509744578

ha yes surely unmatched..as long as you don’t touch that ISO...

 

[PrebenR]

I think it would be smarter to decide between the GrII and the III based on the budget , the user interface , the handling of the body and so on..

Yes, and to some GR IIIs features are more important and to others GR IIs are more important.

Choose the one for you and be content