Ricoh. GRD or GRD II

Beside all the improvements in operation, is actual image quality the same,

better or not so good with the GRD-2 ?

 

I have searched for some answers but only found one, and that was in favour of

the earlier camera. Ricoh says B&W capture is improved with the new one.

 

Your experiences please.

 

Adrian.

I shouldn't be duly concerned about noise and image quality. If you do any post-processing using photoshop and shoot in raw, the differences would be irrelevant. When I was deciding which one at the camera shop, one test shooting two RAW pictures in sequence, the delay writing files on the GRD-1 just put me off. Secondly, RAW files on the Ricoh are not as efficient as others like the Leica M8. Each file is more than 13,100kB compared to 10,000kB on the M8. Believe me, you'll want a 4-Gig SDHC memory card, and the GRD-1 won't allow SDHC.

 

On image quality, I still have the Canon S60, a 5Megapixel compact camera which shoots raw, and with post-processing, still makes me happy with final quality. If you think I don't care about quality, I am using the Leica M8 as my primary camera.

Thank you Ismail. I see. So the improvements in operation and capability are more important than I was reckoning.

 

I really like the look of what it produces. I wonder how it is in JPEG for small files. For digital, I presently use a Panasonic TZ1, which I like the pictures from much better than the LX3 which is much too smooth for my taste, RAW and manual controls not withstanding.

 

I've ordered a GRD ex-demonstrator, from a good company, for an attractive price. For the kind of landscape shooting I do it should be quite adequate in speed of use and capacity. And my little VC 28 finder should work nicely on it.

 

Thanks again.

I've thought about picking one up, but I'd like to try one out first. It strikes me that changing focal lengths with this machine might be a bit clunky and the camera loses some of its streamlined feel when you put the focal length adapters on. Also, if one does not choose to use the LCD, changing auxillary viewfinders will also be on the clumsy side, the very reason I bought a Bessa R4. Still, for the reasons outlined, the GR should be an option for anyone who likes rangefinder style photography and is looking for a more capable point and shoot alternative - especially in the wide-angle zone.

 

I bought my mom a C-Lux2 for Christmas and she loves it. I took it out myself for a spin and I love it. The quality of pictures this little p&s can put out is outstanding. 28 to 100 zoom, 3 fps burst mode, 5 different focus modes, on and on. Leica and Panasonic have whole lines of feature-packed point and shoots that can stretch traditional "rangefinder style photography".

 

Someone on this forum, I can't remember who, made the somewhat provocative statement that if HCB were shooting today, he might well be shooting with a phone camera.

I own the GRD first version. Besides noise being an issue, especially above 200 ISO, the RAW

writing time is simply too long (about 10-12 seconds) and the camera freezes during that

time. Model II has a much faster writing time. Don't overlook the Gx-100, it is not a RF, but

has some nice features, besides being cheaper!

Is anyone able to comment on the quality of the 21mm converter? What is image quality like and how much does it take off the f2.4 lens speed?

This is a question to all of you who own the GRD: Does it have significant shutter lag? That is

an absolute deal-killer with a lot of the smaller digicams. The Panasonic LX-2 that I got last

year for the non-photographers in my family makes me crazy with the push the button, and

let me think about it' performance of the shutter.

Next to no shutter lag when using 'Snap mode' because it is then pre-focused. (Most of the lag you describe is to do with AF time)

A lot of cameras (especially Canon Powershot A and G series P&S cameras) can be self-programmed (to a customisable mode setting) to do 'snap mode' or 'shoot mode' or anything else the user wants to permanently program into a spare mode setting. Just need to know a bit about calculating suitable DOF and hyperfocal distance to get an ideal focus distance and aperture set manually.

 

The Ricoh GR Digital saves all this time (and reading instructions and actually doing something) by having snap focus mode built in as an option.

I think on the LX-2 you need to shoot in 'sports' mode under SCN or use manual focus to preset a distance.

 

I cannot be certain as I chose the GR Digital instead of the LX-2 when I chose from the two. It is configured more like a proper camera and takes filters and has an optical VF and a 21mm convertor.

For some of my GR DigitaL photos you can go to my biography page...

 

http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=2398104

 

Click on the link I have listed on my biography for my Personal homepage then click on 'tags' and then click on 'grdigital'.

I just like those gritty GR pictures.

Trevor; I wrote that before seeing your link to your shots - which I am about to enjoy.

Like others, I remain intreagued by the Ricoh cameras. Great pictures Trevor.

In addition to Trevor's fine shots, you might want to have a look <a href=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=53b951f4e5892370f446b534397563c6&f=32>at the "GetDPI" site</a>, where a bunch of the Ricoh enthusiasts are posting. Some of them have, or have used, both the GR-D and the new GR-D II, and a couple of whom I suspect have the full Ricoh 'belt and suspenders' outfit, which I'd define as those two cameras plus the GX100, which has an optical zoom lens of 24 - 72mm (equiv).<p>

 

I just wish there were somewhere around here (metro DC area) where I could <i>actually see</i> the cameras. In the US there are only two dealers, Popflash in California and Adorama in NY. Both sell Ricoh cameras that carry Ricoh US warranties.<p>

 

Knowing that Adrian, Trevor, and others are not in the US, I post this because the cameras have attracted interest on this side of the pond as well.

Should've typed: <p>

 

" .... and a couple of <b>them</b> have the full Ricoh 'belt and suspenders' outfit ... "

Adrian,

 

I cannot compare the two models as I only have the GRD 1.

As mentioned above the RAW writing times are slow but it does not bother me at all.The

B&W stuff I am getting is really good, and some of the prints show really nice tonal range.It

is a very special camera that, for me, has the best user interface and controls of almost

any camera I have used and is so portable that it is a pleasure to pick up and take with

you.

Here a recent shot in RAW and then converted in Lightroom.

 

regards

andy<div></div>

Trevor, nice shots. Flickr makes for a great showcase! It is also nice to see that the GR works well for IR captures! f

From comparisons I've seen online the GRD2 handles noise better.

the beauty of the grd is the quality of noise, the grdII has a different sensor with a different noise profile that is filtered with a reduction program that can't be shut off completely.

Andy. Thank you. I think the original GRD is right for me, too.

 

Thanks to everyone here I'm aware of a lot of stuff on this camera I didn't find myself - some good forums and, especially, the PICTURES like Trevor's.

 

I'm allowing myself to anticipate a lot of great fun with this little thing. I have the GR1, by the way.

Yes, the noise - the noise ! That's it. I made the mistake of buying the Pana. LX3 with that smeary noise suppression.

I'm waiting for Dpreview to do a test on the GRDII, the results on the first version was real bad at higher iso. I cannot see spending that much on a digicam unless it has good high iso performance. My Fuji digicam cost me $200 and its quite good at high iso. IMHO a fixed lens digicam has to have some advantage over compact dslr like Nikon D40 or the 4/3 system compacts. Besides, a new APC sensor DRF may come out soon I hope the PMA will have something new.

<i>IMHO a fixed lens digicam has to have some advantage over compact dslr like Nikon D40 or the 4/3 system compacts.</i>

<p>Yes, the digicam fits in a jeans pocket. Everything else about it is a compromise. However, many photographers (real photographers, not equipment owners) have risen to the occasion and made the compact cameras work for them. Thomas Dworzak of Magnum is such a photographer, and <a href="http://www.elpais.com/articulo/ocio/llevas/camaras/grandes/miran/manera/elpeputec/20070426elpciboci_5/Tes" target="_blank">in this interview</a> he speaks of using the GRD in his work.</p>

Noise in this case is grain and B&W needs grain. I read somewhere in their blurb that improvements have been made in its B&W tonality. I suspect this is to compensate for the loss of noise/grain. But one particular photographer uses 200 ISO on the GRD and 400 ISO on the GRD II to the same effect, and he seems happy with that.