Since it was Sunday and the weather nice, I decided to go out and find out. I set all cameras to A-mode and f5.6 at ISO 100 with EV -0.3. The GRD I and II jpgs were processed in camera with Contrast +2 and sharpness +1 since this is how I use it. The GRD II jpgs are foe me unusable so I ignore them completely but decided to post them anyway. To make the test more interesting I use the LC1 in-camera jpgs that are created with the RAW files but are higher compressed then the best quality jpgs. I tried whenever possible to get exact the same scene (this is why I haven't used any of the street shots I took at Greenwich market) and used the same focus options. This is not a test of the pure quality of the cameras so I won't pixel peep and look at 100% crops but more at full size images or larger crops.
A few interesting things I noticed that have nothing to do with this test:
- The GRD I seems least sensitive and constantly chose the slowest shutter speed,
- The GRD II underexposed a few shots without any apparent reason,
- The LC1 seems most sensitive and chose the fastest shutter speed,
- The lens of the GRD II seems to capture slightly more then the GRD I or LC1 at 28mm.
I hear you say, all nice and well but what about the pictures? Here are the pictures, all except the GRD II RAWs unprocessed and out of the camera jpgs.
My conclusion for now is that:
1. I still prefer the GRD I jpgs and can always point them out straight away.
2. I messed up the RAW conversions and instead of going for the GRD I look I went for higher tonality so will re-do this and re post the images.
3. The GRD II RAW files have the highest dynamic range together with the LC1, that is still a bit better.
So this said and done I will re-do the RAW tests tomorrow and work more for the GRD I look. If you want to have a go at the files yourself and compare the output yourself download the files here.
Cristian,
ReplyDeleteThis is the most helpful comparison I've seen yet. Thank you!
I now finally understand what everyone is talking about with the GRD1 JPEGs. They were clearly identifiable in each case - in particular, in image #3 the higher contrast look is very apparent.
I suspect you could get the GRD2 RAW files to look pretty close to the GRD1 JPEGs with more contrast in post-processing. I look forward to your next test to see if this is true.
I can't believe how poor the GRD2 JPEGs are. I agree that they totally unusable.
Thanks again for a great comparison!
Thanks for the comparison! Except the one in the last set, the GRD jpg's are obviously more outstanding. They look like stills from those gorgeous European black and white movies from 1950s and 1960s. Lovely.
ReplyDeleteI found the the GRD and GRDII jpg's of the last set look nearly the same whilst the GRD RAW and LC1 jpg's looks similar. What happened?
Looking forward to another test. It's very interesting. See if pp can turn a GRDII RAW file into a GRD-b/w-jpg-looking jpg.
Thanks for your comments, glad this was usefull.
ReplyDeleteI just posted my 2nd result after re-processing the RAW files and it is more difficult now.
Mike, I am not sure what happened with the last set but this is how the pictures looked like. Either the characteristics of the scene or something else but the jpgs look identical from both GRDs and the GRD II RAw looks the way I processed it exactly like the LC1 jpg. Very strange as the only real difference between the pictures is evident when looking at the pavement but even there it's not much.
Let me know if you have any suggestions or wishes for a next comparison.
brilliant comparison! the old adage of a picture speaks a thousand words is definitely true.
ReplyDeletei loved my GRD and miss using it as i typically grab the GRDII for speed... now that i seem to have developed dust on the II, off to service it goes. your blog reminded me of my first love and i look forward to taking it out again. it truly is distinctive.
thank you!
Thanks Cam. I, too, find that a picture shows a difference better than any talk about it could.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to replace my GRD I with the II but just can't leave it at home, the images it produces are very distinctive and have unique feel about them. I am sure you'll enjoy using it and might even end up using it more even when your GRD II is back.
As for the dust, sorry to hear about that. But sometimes knocking the camera around a bit gets rid of it, it did on mine.
oh wow what a great comparison, now i KNOW i need a GRD I ... thanks so much for that
ReplyDeleteThanks Elaine, you are most welcome. You won't be disapointed by the GRD I.
ReplyDeleteCristi,
ReplyDeleteI am still trying to decide between a GRD and GRDII. What isn't clear to me yet is whether it's possible to achieve the GRD B&W look with the GRDII RAW files by processing them in a certain way.
What would really help me to determine this if you would send me a GRD B&W JPEG and GRDII RAW file of the same image from your comparison. In particular, if you could send me the files for image #3 in this comparison I would be very grateful.
Sorry to bug you about this again, but I would really like to do this test before I make a decision.
Thanks again,
Chris
Hi Chris,
ReplyDeleteI have tried but to get the same result it would require too much time post processing or maybe I am not that good with it.
You can get the files here: http://www.mediafire.com/?n4izt2xyfpa
This way you can make your own tests and compare all files.
Good luck and let me know how you get on.
Best,
Cristian
Cristi,
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for posting those files.
Here's what I've noticed so far. The GRD2 files are underexposed by one-half stop when compared to the GRD. I think I remember you (or someone) mentioning that this is typical. Unfortunately it makes a comparison difficult, because when I increase the exposure of the GRD2 file to match the GRD file, the noise increases which of course affects the way fine detail is displayed.
If the GRD and GRD2 files both had the same exposure, my plan was to increase the sharpening and add a little local contrast to the GRD2 RAW file to see if I could make it look like the GRD JPEG. However, when I try that now the sharpness of the GRD2 file does increase and begin to look more like the GRD file, but because I increased the exposure by one-half stop the extra noise makes it difficult to determine what's happening.
In any event, there's no doubt that straight out of the camera the GRD JPEG files are very, very good. What I didn't realize is that the GRD RAW files are also excellent - I preferred them to the GRD2 RAW files. The color/white balance seems more natural and they are a bit sharper too.
If you ever feel motivated to try this again and perhaps add +0.5 EV exposure compensation on the GRD2, I think we could do an even more accurate comparison.
Thanks again Cristi.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your findings. I believe for some reason the GRD II does underexpose and this is the real reason for the faster shutterspeed. It seems to push the exposure back for the JPGs though.
Need to test this a bit more but you can recover highlights much better with the GRD II so if it underexposes it would explain.
I had all cameras set to EV 0 or EV -0.3 and on A mode so the camera metering figured the exposure. When I will do my next color comparison I will also take a few shots in b&w using the same settings and also with EV +0.5 on the GRD II and provide a link to download the files.
Weather permitting I will have this all up on Sunday.
You are welcome.
Cristian
Sounds good, Cristi.
ReplyDeleteI spent more time trying to get the GRD2 RAW files to look like the unprocessed GRD1 JPEGs, and I got pretty close. However, it took quite a bit of fiddling around.
Also, as soon as I did a little bit of processing with the GRD1 JPEGs, they looked better than the processed GRD2 RAW files.
I have not been able to match the sharpness of the GRD1 JPEGs with the GRD2 RAW from within Lightroom. I am able to do so in Photoshop, but the point of this comparison for me was to find out whether I could match the GRD2 RAW with the GRD1 JPEG with a reasonable amount of processing in Lightroom. I don't want to have to open each image in Photoshop.
So far, it looks like that answer is "no". But perhaps that will change with evenly exposed files.
Chris, thanks for the update. Your findings seem to reflect mine hat it does take quite some work to get the GRD II RAW files to match the GRD I jpgs. You can also push the jpgs from the GRD I very far.
ReplyDeleteI will provide evenly exposed files as soon as I get round to it. Interesting to see what you get out of them.
Hi Cristi, your comparison is very usefull for me because I intend to change my lx-2 to much appropriate digital compact for black and white. Sorry, but I think the best shots are from lc-1 and GRD II. Pictures from GRD I are more attractive due to more contrast but at the same time has less dynamic range. Look at the first shot from the park. There is no datails in the middle tree as well as the highlights looks like spots out of terrestrial. Similarly, the pictures from bazaar - there is almost no details in the stall due to high contrast. High contrast is ok but in pair with dynamic range. Best regards, Andrew.
ReplyDeleteYou are right taht the GRD I pictures appear to have less dynamic range and surely compared to the GRD II and LC1 the GRD I has slightly less dynamic range but you would not see this if I would've dialed in EV-0.3 on all cameras. I prefer the high contrast look and do not mind losing some details in the highlights and shadows, I am more concerned of the overall look and effect of the pictures.
ReplyDeleteI am gladthat the comparison was usefull for you.
Here is an example of the tonality you can get from the GRD I if you expose for it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cristiansorega/1498907241/