Leica M8 and Ricoh GR-D

[Guest Walt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For those of you using your M8's, as I am, for photojournalistic-style work, you should have a look at the Ricoh GR-Digital. It is a really useful tool and a remarkable accomplishment, and I can't thank Sean Reid and Tony Rose enough for calling this camera to my attention. Unfortunately, the Ricoh also puts the M8 (as well as most professional-quality digital cameras) into some unflattering perspective. If the Leica people had only looked carefully at the Ricoh, they could have improved the M8 immensely. The GRD is a camera that, in many ways, is more in the functional Leica tradition than the M8 is. (Incidentally, if you're a super-smooth, low-ISO, large format or "expensive-equipment-experience" type of M8 user, you should move on to another post.)

 

The M8 has some significant functional advantages over the GRD. In my impression they are interchangable lenses, lower image noise and much faster DNG recording. The GRD somewhat offsets these issues with a fixed, photojournalistically-useful 28mm perspective (using the excellent Voigtlander 28mm viewfinder); tight, grain-like noise; and excellent JPEGS, including very appealing in-camera BW JPEG conversions. I find the GRD JPEGS excellent at ISO 200, comparable to the M8 DNGS at 640 for prints up to 16 x 20 inches. At ISO 400 the GRD JPEGS are excellent with a little Neat Image noise reduction, perhaps 30% with a GRD profile. Sean has an excellent review of this camera and very usefully discusses these image issues. (Incidentally, contrary to Sean's experience, I find GRD DNG recording to be about 6-7 seconds with a Kingston 120X 2GB card. This is usable for a lot of work, while Sean's 15 second figures are not. I don't know if this is a change in the camera since he reviewed it or the card.)

 

On the other side of the equation, the GRD has so many advantages over the M8 that I will only mention them. Much more accurate and versatile metering, even in true automatic operation; immensely more responsive controls; immensely more useful controls; an operational experience that is even simpler than the M8 despite the much greater versatility of the GRD; an excellent, lower (than Leica ASPH) contrast lens that puts the functional dynamic range of the GRD in M8 DNG territory; and excellent quality of construction, probably comparable to the M8, with a much more intelligent use of materials (no brass, for one). The GRD is an excellent shooting experience that makes the M8 feel inexcusably primitive, slow and clumsy. As a Leica M user since 1967, I find the GRD one of the best "rangefinder" experiences I've ever had and a hugely more elegant experience than working with the M8. The GRD is like a super fast III-F or M4. If you do the kind of work I'm describing, try it.

 

I've included a quote below from the Ricoh web site describing the shutter release on the GRD. Sure, it's got the sound of hype, but, in fact, the entire camera does seem to genuinely express this kind of attention. Would the Leica engineer responsible for the M8 shutter release please read this!?

 

Another example of the GR legend is seen at the operation of the shutter button. “We wanted the user to feel the fun to take pictures using the camera,” says Mr. Yokoyama. For that, the touch of the shutter button is quite important. “Some say they like light touch but the others say they prefer heavier touch”. Therefore, we have studied the various factors to decide the release touch, including the spring force and the shutter stroke, etc. We have collected the advice from the professional photographers and the users, also have checked the shutter release touch of the various cameras available, to define the best,” he says. By the way, the shutter release touch can be fine tuned at the service facility to meet the various users’ feeling of the touch of the shutter release.

[gareth_c]

The GRD is an excellent shooting experience that makes the M8 feel inexcusably primitive, slow and clumsy. As a Leica M user since 1967, I find the GRD one of the best "rangefinder" experiences I've ever had and a hugely more elegant experience than working with the M8.

 

I'm not really trying to refute your claims, in fact i'm a fan of the Ricoh. But, being a new owner of an M8 (who probably hasn't seen all its weaknesses yet), in what way is the M8 primitive, slow and clumsy?

 

Also, in what way do you mean the Ricoh provides a "rangefinder" experience?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Paul Hart]

The GR-D is my 'carry-everywhere' camera and well deserves the applause you give it. It's worth getting the auxilliary viewfinder, and the 21mm lens is no slouch. Here's one taken by the 28mm...

 

 

And one with the 21mm 'add-on' lens:

 

[sean_reid]

Hi Walt,

 

I'm glad that the GR review was useful to you. With a RAW file write time difference that pronounced, there's probably been a quiet change in the GR Digital since I reviewed it last year. It's funny that you mention the GR now because I've just started reviewing the Ricoh GX-100. So far, it seems to me to be much like the GR digital but with the important advantage of a stepped zoom lens. The camera can be set to zoom the lens specifically to (in effective fields of view) 24, 28, 35, 50 or 72 mm. Since the camera also has a hot shoe, one can use external finders to match these settings. This is something small-sensor cameras have long needed - a simply and logical way to match lens focal lengths to external optical finder fields of view.

 

Scott Kirkpatrick and Mitch Alland, both of this forum, both also appreciate the GR. So far, I prefer the new Ricoh simply because it doesn't force me to work at 28 or wider. That said, I vastly prefer the M8 to either of the Ricohs but I can clearly see why some photographers have been so happy with the latter. Knowing your work a bit, I can also see how a GR could work well for you.

 

I'm looking forward to putting the new Ricoh through its paces. Small-sensor cameras are an entirely different format from that of the M8, DMR, etc. and that format has its own excellences and weaknesses.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[gareth_c]

Sean, I (and i'm sure lots of others) are looking forward to your review. I had a brief demo with it a week or so ago and it seemed to be a nice step up.

 

Don't make the review too good though, I have only just spent my money on an M8 Oh, and all within one calendar year of being introduced to RF's, buying an R-D1 and too much glass!

[sean_reid]

Sean, I (and i'm sure lots of others) are looking forward to your review. I had a brief demo with it a week or so ago and it seemed to be a nice step up.

 

Don't make the review too good though, I have only just spent my money on an M8 Oh, and all within one calendar year of being introduced to RF's, buying an R-D1 and too much glass!

 

Hi Gareth,

 

I try to never make them positive or negative. I just try to describe the thing itself as well as I can. Sometimes that's expensive for the reader and sometimes it saves him or her money.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The GRD files are not as robust as the M8, despite that it does produce damn great results.............................

.

.

 

.,http://www.artouko.com./easterbrunch/ ...is GRD

[gareth_c]

Sean, don't worry...there was nothing being implied! Don't think I have caught up yet with the ones that could save me money though.

Imants, great image that shows the Ricoh's quality I think.

[sean_reid]

Sean, don't worry...there was nothing being implied! Don't think I have caught up yet with the ones that could save me money though.

Imants, great image that shows the Ricoh's quality I think.

 

Oh...I realize that entirely. Discovering wonderful cameras and lenses can be expensive for me too.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

The GRD files are not as robust as the M8, despite that it does produce damn great results.........

 

Yes, naturally that's true for the files from any small sensor camera - at least any that I've ever tested. Again, those two cameras really are of two different formats, each format with its owns strengths and weaknesses. The Digilux 2 is another camera that produces beautiful files, albeit ones that cannot be pushed too hard without breaking down.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest stnami]

Pushing colours on a GRD file can produce interesting results, traditional style of landscape shots are not a strong area though. The GRD is well suited for graphics style of colour image, as with the M8 the colour can be a bit erraric at times. The M8 is just a bigger playground to play in......

 

 

 

[trs]

Yes, GRD is great little camera. My wife got one just before my M8. She likes it a lot. Now, when we go out, she has GRD and I have M8 (with 28 Elmarit). It is great fun to shoot and compare how we see the world differently since both camera have aproximately same focual length lens. Noise wise, they are very visible from 400 and on with GRD when shooting JPG. After we got these two cameras, our dSLRs have not been out much at all.

 

Bottom line with GRD is that it is a camera that you can always have at your disposal without sacrafising quality. But, for general consumer, it is hard to explain the cost of it since there are many better looking cameras with fraction of cost (quality not included ).

[Guest Walt]

In reply to Sean and others, if I had to choose between the M8 and GRD, I'd choose the M8 too, largely because of the more robust files and the changable lenses. And I agree with Sean that the sensor size makes these in some way different kinds of cameras. But there is also a lot of overlap of use and function, and in that overlap the Leica fares rather poorly. My real point is that Leica could have learned so much from the GRD and still had an M8 with the capabilities that are different from those of the GRD.

 

And so to Gareth's question about what's "clunky" on the M8, which is to the point of what I think Leica could have learned from the GRD. Compare the following operations on the two cameras: shutter release, shot review, formating an SD card, exposure compensation, ISO change, physical controls, etc. (And all the "bugs" in the Leica, which the GRD seems completely free off.) The Leica looks very sluggish, awkward and buggy by comparison. I am leaving out the issues that are intrinsic to camera types: shutter noise level, auto focus, multiple metering patterns (or just a thoughtful pattern for the M8), etc. The point is that the M8 is a good and useful camera, but is totally lacking the originality and brilliance of the GRD.

 

One thing Sean could help me on: How do I get a 28 mm (37 FOV) lens with image quality like that on the GRD to fit the M8? I'll bet you know the answer. I'm not as tactful as you are and I find the new 28/2.8 ASPH pretty awful (and the 28/2.0 better but too heavy).

 

Walt

 

P.S. Oh, and on the question about how the GRD is a "rangefinder" experience, this camera at maximum aperture (F2.4) and hyperfocal distance (selectable with two fast wheel spins) has DOF of something like four feet to infinity. Thus using an auxilliary finder (I am using the Voigtlander 28mm) is very much a rangefinder-like experience. Where focusing has to be more accurate, the spot autofocus is excellent and the Voigtlander finder can be used without removing the eye from it.

[sean_reid]

One thing Sean could help me on: How do I get a 28 mm (37 FOV) lens with image quality like that on the GRD to fit the M8? I'll bet you know the answer. I'm not as tactful as you are and I find the new 28/2.8 ASPH pretty awful (and the 28/2.0 better but too heavy).

 

Walt

 

Hi Walt,

 

I probably do have some ideas that could help you. Tell me what you want from the lens, what you find to be awful about the other, etc. Also, what apertures might you tend to use with this 28?

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest Walt]

Sean, thanks. I have a feeling that I'm asking for a four inch box that fits inside a three inch box, but here goes.

 

I find the 28/2.8 ASPH hard, hard, hard, like trying to print all the time on a grade 4--and it's not particularly sharp. The 28/2.0 I like a lot--much more detailed and tonally nuanced. But it's too big and heavy to lug around daily. My favorite of the 28's for image is the Elmarit preceeding the current ASPH--very nuanced and delicate. But it's as big as the 2.0. So, the four inch box I want is the size of the ASPH, usable from 2.8 to 11 (the Elmarit ASPH is actually good at 11, its only strong point for me) and looking like the Summicron or older Elmarit. On the GRD, I'd say that the 6mm lens nearly fits the bill, though it's not quite as good as the old Elmarit or Summicron. To further elucidate, I like the older 35 Summicrons, though they flared and wern't too sharp wide open. I also find the GRD lens to be remarkably resistant to flare, and I'd like that too. (I don't think flare is the only way a lens has a delicate tonal scale although things I read sometimes suggest that.) This is starting to sound like a comedy skit of somone taking 10 minutes to order fried eggs at a diner.

 

Best,

Walt

[sean_reid]

Sean, thanks. I have a feeling that I'm asking for a four inch box that fits inside a three inch box, but here goes.

 

I find the 28/2.8 ASPH hard, hard, hard, like trying to print all the time on a grade 4--and it's not particularly sharp. The 28/2.0 I like a lot--much more detailed and tonally nuanced. But it's too big and heavy to lug around daily. My favorite of the 28's for image is the Elmarit preceeding the current ASPH--very nuanced and delicate. But it's as big as the 2.0. So, the four inch box I want is the size of the ASPH, usable from 2.8 to 11 (the Elmarit ASPH is actually good at 11, its only strong point for me) and looking like the Summicron or older Elmarit. On the GRD, I'd say that the 6mm lens nearly fits the bill, though it's not quite as good as the old Elmarit or Summicron. To further elucidate, I like the older 35 Summicrons, though they flared and wern't too sharp wide open. I also find the GRD lens to be remarkably resistant to flare, and I'd like that too. (I don't think flare is the only way a lens has a delicate tonal scale although things I read sometimes suggest that.) This is starting to sound like a comedy skit of somone taking 10 minutes to order fried eggs at a diner.

 

Best,

Walt

 

Hi Walt,

 

The challenge then is in finding a very compact 28 that draws the way you like. You'd probably like the 28 Ultron but it's not a small lens either. Several other good 28s have the same restriction.

 

You might as well try the little CV 28/3.5 Skopar (a very under-appreciated lens). It's more contrasty than some older lenses but less contrasty than the Elmarit Asph. So long as its holding enough of the shadows and highlights to suit you, it will be a small matter to pull back the contrast in RAW conversion. A good copy of that lens is oh so sharp. Take a look at the res. sample tables in the 28s review and note how that little Skopar bites in even at F/3.5. It's out of production so the supply will eventually dry up. Given its low cost, I'd just try it. You may love it and if not, you can sell it with little loss. I wouldn't ever sell mine though. The 28 Skopar doesn't vignette that much on the M8 but you can pull the slight vignetting by coding a Milich LT-M8 adapter.

 

I know exactly what you mean about "Grade 4" lenses. I get e-mails from people who still aren't quite sure of why I keep arguing that not all lenses need to be high contrast. If you get a chance, read the contrast section in the new 35s article, I tried to spell things out more clearly than ever before (this lens contrast thing).

 

Among the tiny 28s, I'm also fond of the Canon 28/2.8. It's very much an old-style lens but you might want to look at the 28s review again to see how it draws.

 

It's also easy to forget sometimes that part of what seems like outstanding sharpness from certain small sensor cameras is largely related to the enormous DOF of their lenses. We know this, of course, but I think its easy to forget what kind of effect profoundly deep DOF has on one's sense of the overall resolution in a picture. As I've written before, the deep DOF of a small sensor camera and the limitless DOF of a viewfinder window in an RF camera are well matched.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[hankg]

 

I know exactly what you mean about "Grade 4" lenses. I get e-mails from people who still aren't quite sure of why I keep arguing that not all lenses need to be high contrast. If you get a chance, read the contrast section in the new 35s article, I tried to spell things out more clearly than ever before (this lens contrast thing).

 

It's difficult to find lenses that are razor sharp corner to corner with moderate contrast. The Zeiss lenses are perfect, sharp corner to corner with a soft smooth OOF rendering but ruined for digital by excessive contrast. Actually that kind of high contrast would only be an advantage with color negative film and shooting resolution targets.

 

On the GRD- it's a camera more like the original Leica's which were not used for their image quality but for a sort of reportage not possible with other cameras. Not that I'm complaining about the combination of medium format quality in such a small package as I was using a medium format RF with film.

[Guest malland]

...So far, I prefer the new Ricoh simply because it doesn't force me to work at 28 or wider...

Sean, it wil be interesting how you find the lens quality compared to the GR-D; also, how the RAW files compare.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

[Guest malland]

Walt:

 

I like Sean's idea that the GR-D, as a small-sensor camera, represents a completely different format from larger sensor cameras: in this sense it is not a susbtiture but a completely different choise from an M8. On the other hand I've always felt that the GR-D is a camera that Leica should have produces if it had been an innovative company.

 

As a concept, the GR-D is very different from a typical P&S camera and Ricoh deserves credit for the choices it made: no built-in (low quality) optical viewfinder, prime 28mm lens with excellent 21mm add-on lens, control wheels.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest Walt]

Thanks Sean. I will try the Skopar and the Milich (?) adapter (though I find I usually need a very small amount of density vignetting to hold an image together). I don't know why people don't understand the contrast issue with regard to digital cameras because it's fairly obvious in the seeing. A decade or two ago, we were still always fighting for more contrast in the camera end of the process, or at least I was. I think this was because of the latitude of negative film and because lens flare and flat light were so often a problem--and we didn't have PS with its huge array of controls to raise contrast selectively (but not so easily lower it). Simply increasing a paper grade or two solved the overall contrast problem but introduced new local problems that were very difficult to handle without the highly selective tools we have now. Today lens contrast (but not flare control) is mostly a liability. On this issue, too, Leica is way behind the times and they have an entire line of otherwise good lenses that is borderline unsuitable for digital photography. It's as if they are still trying to excel in solving a 1980 issue. And, yes, you are right, I do confuse DOF with sharpness and I forget that I am doing that. Thanks for the reminder.

 

On Mitch's comment about innovation, this was really the point of my original post, though you made it much more succintly. Leica was, at one time, an innovator and I guess I was expecting that of the M8. Your post made me realize that Leica didn't at all go into the M8 project to make an innovative "Leica class" digital camera. They went into it to try to squeeze out a little more viability and salability from the M camera -- heavy, soft brass top and bottom plates and all. It's as if they were dragged kicking and screaming into a digital camera by technological and market forces they could no longer resist. If they had come from a creative position instead of a reactive one, they might have made a camera like the GR-D but three times the size and with a rangefinder, M mount and some other innovations that I can't even imagine, but they as camera designers should be thinking about. And wouldn't that have been an amazing, amazing beast? They would have set the Japanese and their DSLRs on their ears.

 

And, for Hank's comments, maybe what I need for my work is a digital IIIF. Let's see, would that be a GR-D? Or maybe the new camera Sean is testing? Or the new GR-D that Ricoh must have been working on since before they released the current one?

 

Good night,

Walt