Ricoh GR Review

When Ricoh designed the first GR1 film camera, they set out to make a camera that "brings a smile to one's face, just by holding it". Not only have they accomplished this but they have been constantly improving and evolving the subsequent GR film and GRD digital cameras.

With the new GR, Ricoh went back to basics with the naming but not with the ergonomics or controls. You still get a camera that will bring not only a smile to your face but will also inspire you to go out and take pictures. It accomplishes all this while staying out of your way thanks to the improved and highly customisable controls. The controls are all where you expect them to be and if not, chances are you can customise them to suit you.

The addition of the new AF switch and button is great and makes it very easy to leave the camera in Snap mode and just briefly switch to Spot AF when needed for one shot or to quickly lock focus and allow the exposure to be set at exposure time (or vice versa if you prefer).

The new effects button under the flash release is the only button you can't reach with one hand but I have mine set to the 35mm crop mode so this works well as it's not a setting I change often and the effects are set in the Adjust menu.

As always the Adjust menu is great and remains a very quick and efficient way to access settings you need without ever going into the menu.

For everything Ricoh improved, they have also inexplicably taken away the Auto-ISO option in Manual mode and the ability to confirm menu options by half pressing the shutter button. This might not be an issue for new users but for someone who is used to the older Ricoh GRDs or the GXR, this could be an annoyance.

All this would of course not matter much if the camera would not take good pictures or be too slow to capture the decisive moment but here the GR excels.

Thanks to the GR 28mm f2.8 lens and the 16MP APS sensor without anti-alias filter, you get very sharp and really detailed photos with a lot of dynamic range and a nice tonality. The sensor is so good that it does not need to hide behind the full frame Sony RX1 when it comes to details or dynamic range under normal circumstances.
The image quality is so good at any ISO that I don't have any problems with using ISO 25600 knowing that not only will I get less noise but also more details than the old 12MP sensor in the GXR.

The camera is also fast enough at powering on, focusing and writing to the card that you will never miss any moment. Where it really struggles is low light focusing and here you will miss the moment, unless you use the Snap focus mode or have a very stationary subject. The strange thing about low light focusing is that at times it's very fast and accurate, other tines it's slow but accurate and in rare cases it's both slow and misses the focus completely. This is so bad that i reminds me of the first firmware for the GXR A12 50mm so I have hopes Ricoh can and will fix this a they have done with the GXR A12 modules, which incidentally are both actually faster in low light focusing. The good news is that once the camera has achieved focus or if you have prefocussed there is zero shutter lag.
The display refresh could also be better given how snappy the camera performs otherwise and especially in low light it struggles to keep up with you if you pan around. This is again something that Ricoh needs to fox as it stands out like a sore thump on such an otherwise very responsive camera.

A huge bonus of the GR compared to similar cameras is the available 21mm adapter, this adds a bit of bulk to the camera but gives you the ability to shoot at 21mm and f2.8 without any perceivable loss of image quality. The corners are a bit softer than you would get with a 21mm lens or you get with the GXR A12-M and the Heliar 12mm and 15mm lenses but either of them not only cost more than double of what the adapter will set you back but are also some of the best wideangle lenses you can find and are not a simple adapter mounted in front of a lens.
The adapter works very well and extends the abilities of the GR quite a lot, unfortunately Ricoh has taken away the ability for the camera to automatically detect the adapter so you have to remember to set it manually in the menu if you want the EXIF information to be updated. This is a huge issue for people who might switch between 28mm and 21mm a lot and is an unnecessary step back. Sure, it's only for the EXIF information and does not actually affect the shooting but this was not necessary and if the GRD I could automatically detect the 22mm and 40mm lenses then I simply expect more from a camera which is essentially the GRD V.

Overall the GR is not only the most refined Ricoh camera and the best GR camera you can buy but it's the best serious compact camera out there. This is thanks to the fantastic handling, great image quality, speedy operation and small size. There are some small problems with the low light AF for example but most can easily be fixed with a firmware update and given Ricoh's track record of updating the firmware of the GRD cameras, this will most likely happen sooner rather than later.

Some people will look at it and miss a built in EVF or VF and/or flip screen but to those I say tht this is the wrong camera for this. The GR line was always about being as compact as possible, in other words fit in a jeans pocket, while delivering the bes image quality possible. Fitting a OVF/EVF or flip screen inside would make it bigger and it is already as big as it can possible get before it's too big. Once it passes that threshold and does not fit in a jeans pocket anymore so you have to carry it in a bag (like the Fuji X100s for example) then it becomes too big and you would demand interchangeable lenses (I know I would). This would make it a different class of camera altogether.

For travel, especially if you want to travel light, there is nothing better than the GR period. For me this is the bes camera out there at the moment, followed by the GXR A12-M.

I know, this is not the big in-depth review I promised and I still owe you the comparison pictures but rather than wait for me to get around on my travels to write and post this just go out, buy the GR and have fun with it. You can't go wrong with the GR, it's that good.

NOTE: I will try to post the comparisons when I can but before that I will provide the images to download for everyone to do have a look at this. It will also serve as a sample pictures gallery.

Holding On

The weather has been fairly nice again so I decided to head out and take some comparison pictures for my GR review. I packed the GRD I, GRD IV, GR and the GXR A12 28mm and did a few real life shots around Greenwich.

There will be more extensive comparisons in my full review but for now a quick teaser to how the cameras perform.
The GR and GXR A12 28mm are obviously the most detailed and have the highest dynamic range, there is not really much difference between them in most cases so both are very capable although the GR retains more details. The GRDs are fairly well matched and the biggest difference is that the GRD I has more noise but it also looks more crisp and more 'film like'.

The below are out of camera JPGs taken in b&w mode at ISO 400 and f2.8, the image names shows the camera but top left is GR, top right GRD , bottom left GRD IV and bottom right GXR A12 28mm.
To see the below crops at 100% open the image in a new tab and change the URL to say /s1920/ instead of /s1600/, e.g. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zeQ05gj5LDc/Uctmnsb3vfI/AAAAAAAAcd4/FfSgrgqdRq8/s1920/26-06-2013_02.JPG

Below are the DNG files processed with RAW Therapee wit the Neutral and the BW1 profile respectively.

Ricoh GXR A12-M and Sony NEX-5N Comparison

This is not my own comparison but one written by photographer Sam Waldron and it marks the first guest post on my blog. I am thinking of having more guest posts on my blog in the future.

I really liked the comparison and wanted to share it with people who do not read the forums it was posted on. So thanks to Sam for allowing me to post this here.

You can see his great work on his website here:

Sam Waldron Photography

Now without further ado, let's get to his comparison.

Introduction

I've been using the NEX-5N with M mount lenses for about 6 weeks now – I've been happy with the set up and i'm getting better results than with my D7000 and lenses but my interest was piqued when I heard the rumour the GXR M mount could be shipping with the Sony 16MP chip in the new year.

Autofocus isn't something i've ever really needed or wanted – this is the type of thing I like to shoot.

Beyond - Sam Waldron Photography

My target output is prints, up to 16” x 24” (or Panoramas which are stitched to any size).

To my surprise, a local company had the GXM M module for rent and i've been using it the past three days. Unfortunately the weather has been terrible here so I only had a limited amount of time to do some decent shooting out and about.

I'm using it with my lenses (all very good but not without quirks) – Voigtlander 15mm M mount, Leica 35mm 2.8 Summaron, Voigtlander Nokton 40mm F1.4 and Leica 90mm F4 Elmar-C.

My general thoughts at how the cameras compare purely as a M lens platform are as follows.

What a Difference a Lens Makes

Top: Voigtlander Nokton f1.4 35mm (JPG) / Bottom: Leica Sumicron f2.8 50mm (JPG)

This post is based on a discussion I had recently with Tom about lenses and the different characters they produce. While this is no scientific comparison, it shows quite well how different lenses produce a different and unique character even when used on the same camera. In other words it shows that the lens is more important to the look and character you get than the camera or sensor behind it, then again this will come to no surprise to most people. 

Just as a note, this comparison is just for the character of the lenses and the exposure is not exactly the same, nor is the field of view due to the different focal length. The character however remains the same and is visible irrespective of these differences.

Both top images are straight out of camera JPGs while the bottom pictures are RAW files developed with RAW Therapee and the 'Natural 1' setting and using the Auto WB.

Were I to choose between the pictures I would go for the Leica Sumicron JPG since it has a more dreamy an warm look out of the box without any PP. This does not apply for all situations though where the Leica look can be quite distracting at times.

 Top: Voigtlander Nokton f1.4 35mm (RAW) / Bottom: Leica Sumicron f2.8 50mm (RAW)

High-ISO Comparison - Teaser

Ok, this is the last technical post for the next week where it's more about cameras than the pictures. I've planned to do this for a while but never got round to, so last week at a concert I finally managed to get this started.
The high-ISO comparison this time is only a teaser, this is due to the very slow shutter speeds and moving subjects which make it difficult to compare the cameras properly. All pictures were taken at ISO 1600, f2.5 and a shutter speed of 1/15 so this will account for loss of sharpness or motion blur in some pictures. Anyway, I thought it good to do a quick comparison and see how bothe GRDs perform. I ran Noise Ninja on the GRD I JPG and the GRD II RAW file with the same settings. The in-camera JPG settings were set to Contrast +2, Sharpness +1 and Color Depth -2 on both GRDs.
Hopefully I can do a better comparison soon. This is therefore not a final comparison and the results might be different for the final comparison. Noise Ninja also turned the GRD II file slightly blue so I need to work on that profile.
You can download the files here so you can have a look for yourself.

Color Comparison - Part 2

We finally had a nice day where I had time to go out and get some pictures for the 2nd part of my color comparison.
While I did this yesterday, I found the burning bus more interesting for a post.

All cameras were set to ISO 100, A-priority f5 and f4.8 on the GX100 respectively. I shot JPG only at the highest quality. The JPG settings for the Ricohs were all Contrast -2, Sharpness +1 and Color Depth +1, the LC1 had everything set to normal apart from Contrast to low. While I prefer my images to be quite contrasty, I use a low contrast setting in-camera to preserve highlights.

Lets start with the pictures and I will comment on each:



The GRD I has the correct red in this image but a slight blueish cast in the greens, the LC1 managed to get the most detail in the leaves while the GX100 has the highest noise in the shadows but more details in the phone booth.



You can see the blueish cast the GRD I produces best in this picture. It is easy to get around the problem by just selecting daylight or shade WB but I left it on Auto since I wanted to show this. The blueish cast is probably also the reason why the GRD I produces the best 'Ricoh Blue'.



This is a difficult one, the LC1 produced the warmest colors but they are not really a representation of the real colors. The GRD I produces the overall best image with low noise n the shadows and very good colors. The GRD II has indeed the best colors but also the highest smearing in the leaves. Finally the GX100 has the highest detail and sharpest image but the noise is very visible and it looks like a grey cast over the image, setting the Contrast higher will take care in part of it but will blow highlights easier.



This is interesting in so far as the LC1 i the only camera that got the correct color of the flowers. All Ricoh cameras rendered them with too much blue and the GRD I just turned the purple flowers to blue flowers. This seems to be something with the GRDs as both have more blue in them then the GX100. Ricoh mentioned trying to get the blue color of the sky very accurate in the GRD processing so this could be responsible here.



This is a very interesting picture and the only one shot at ISO 400. I was quite surprised by the result. The LC1 has quite a lot color noise in there, while the GRD II smeared away all the noise and detail and the GX100 shows again the most noise. The GRD I is very good and shows hardly and noise while it preserved most details. The GRDs also preserved the highlights best and you can see some of the sky in there while both the GX100 and LC1 have blown the highlights completely.



This is a normal shot on the street but shows as before that the GX100 has the lowest dynamic range so needs EV -0.3 constantly dialed in (something I did not do on purpose for this test). The GRD I again has the best colors and nicest blue in the sky. The smearing of the GRD II is actually not too bad in this image and it does not stand out much.






I will leave it up to you to evaluate the individual images but it is the same as before. The GRD I offers best overall image, the LC1 has metered it differently but has a high dynamic range but some splotchy noise in the shadows, the GRD II has the worst smearing and least detail, the GX100 offers the sharpest and most detailed image but at the cost of high noise in the shadows although it is mostly luminance noise.

The conclusion is more difficult this time. Overall the big surprise was the GX100 that managed to have very sharp and detailed pictures but suffers from high noise and low dynamic range. The GRD I while it produces occasionally a blueish cast had in almost all pictures the most true to life colors. Not surprisingly the LC1 had the highest dynamic range and most details when it comes to leaves but has quite a lot of color noise in the shadows. The GRD II is as expected very capable but only when used in RAW since the JPGs are overall very disappointing and did not stand out at all other than due to the smearing of details.

Color Comparison - Part 1

Today it's another pure comparison post without picture for the day. The last b&w comparison is the most popular post on my blog so I thought a follow up would be a good idea.

This time I wanted to compare the GRD I, GRD II, GX and GX100 JPGs when it comes to color images. Unfortunately the weather was still not very nice and it even rained during my testing so I had to keep it short and will have to do a more thorough comparison soon.
All cameras were used at f4 (both GRDs), f4.3 (GX100) or f4.7 (GX) respectively and at ISO 100 in A mode again. The jpg settings were on both GRDs set to 'Contrast -2, Sharpness +1 and Color Depth +1', the GX100 'Contrast -2, Sharpness +1 and Color Depth +2' and the GX was left to standard since it does not offer these options. I use the cameras this way so this is why I do not set the parameters to normal since it would not be a real life test for me. The metering and focus on the GX are not working properly so I had to use infinity or macro focus instead of spot, also the camera underexposed most shots so I had to meter the scenes differently. Due to this I will use the LC1 next time for 'Part 2' and also to give and impression of what a larger sensor with less MP brings.

Anyway, enough talking, now to the actual pictures.






Ok, I will leave my final verdict till the next time but will say this for now:

- The GX100 has the lowest dynamic range when it comes to JPGs, although the GX is also struggling with it.
- The GRD I has the most natural colors and is the only camera to get the correct color for the purple flowers in the first picture or the red stop sign.
- The GRD II has as expected the highest dynamic range and shows almost no chromatic aberrations.

This is it for today, weather permitting I will have the 2nd part up on Sunday. The 3rd part will feature a low light comparison between these cameras (the GX might be substituted for the LC1).

RE

GRD, f5, 1/1000, ISO 64, JPG b&w

After the post today I will post again a picture for the day but also as mentioned in yesterday's post the new RAW conversions.
Took this picture today after work with the GRD I, it is unprocessed and straight out of the camera.

Black and White Comparison

After mentioning it quite often on my blog and in forums, I thought it time to really see how the GRDs compare for black and white images. There is a lot of talk about the special quality of the GRD I when used in b&w mode, some even bought the camera only to use it in b&w. While I believe the b&w jpgs the GRD I produces are the best and was disappointed by the poor jpgs the GRD II produces, I think it is time to do a test and see how good they really are. Can I get the same quality out of the GRD II when using RAW and what about the LC1 jpgs?
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.

C.I.B. - Cameras In Black

GRD II, f2.4, 1/55, ISO 100, RAW, 21mm

Ok, a geek post today and another boring camera picture. A friend got his Epson R-D1s yesterday so it was a good opportunity to do a quick comparison.
As you can see, the R-D1s is a bit taller than the LC1 and a lot taller than the GRD, it is however slightly thinner and the lens is smaller than the one on the LC1. On the other hand to get anywhere near the speed and versatility of the LC1 lens you would need around 3 lenses for the R-D1s and then it would take up more space.
All three cameras feel heavy and very solid. It is impressive how close the GRD is to the build and feel of the R-D1s. Both have the same metal, with the same texture, the hand grip is the same soft rubber (again with the same texture) and both feel literally like a brick (in a very positive way). The LC1 is on the same level although the metal is smooth and the hand grip is hard rubber that does not feel quite as nice to hold. Overall they all have a great build and if you hold either you know why they cost as much as they do and you can feel what you pay for. I haven't held many better built cameras and especially not digital cameras.

A quick image comparison revealed that the R-D1s has (unsurprisingly) the highest dynamic range and the GRD I and II the lowest, the LC1 has the higher noise and due to the 5MP captures the least details. The GRDs can hold their own very well with the R-D1s and capture the same amount of details but have more noise. The depth of field is the highest on the GRDs and even at f4 the lowest on the R-D1s.

As a summary I can say that if I would not know that Epson (with help of Cosina/Voigtlaender) made the R-D1s, I would think it's a Ricoh ;).

Ladywell Fields

GRD II, f5.6, 8 sec., ISO 80, RAW+JPG

We had great weather today and it being a Sunday I spent it mostly chilling in Regent's Park. Took some shots with the LC1 but this being the Ricoh GR-Diary I will post GRD or GR1 pictures.
This is an example of how the jpg engine in the GRD II ruins completely any long exposure. This is 8 seconds but it only gets worse from here so RAW is the only option. Don't think I need to point out which side is RAW and which JPG ;).
First time I took a long exposure I thought the camera misfocused or I chose the wrong focus since it looked completely blurry and washed out. After re-taking it 4 times I just switched camera and realized it's only the jpgs that look like this.

EDIT: Fixed the compression artifacts and uploaded the original image but can not link to it directly since it's on Picasa and I can only link to a resized version. When you click on it it will prompt you to download it though so you can get the original image to evaluate.

GRD I vs GRD II - Teaser no. 1

Ok, I've been writing a lot about the differences of the two GRDs and have been promissing a comparisson for a while now. While I have to admit I am still not done with it due to me changing the format or content around very often I decided to finally post some pictures to compare both cameras.
Find below the 100% crops. The top crops are from the GRD II and the bottom crops from the GRD I, the last is left GRD II and right GRD I.






The shots are taken with the same settings on both cameras and are straight jpgs out of the cameras, the crops are done using Faststone image compare so no up- or downsizing has been done.
I will leave it at only that so you can make up your own mind and give you my impressions tomorrow.

Today I bought a Panasonic LC1 that I should recieve by the end of next week so after an initial test I will try to do a comparisson with all cameras. I hear you say that I should finish my initial comparisson first? Yes, I should really do it but I plan a change in the format so this should hopefully let me get everything done pretty soon. Can't wait to get it and take it for a spin :).