Leica M8 and Ricoh GR-D

[SimonW]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have both a GRD and I have recently trialled an M8. I have just bought a 28 2,8 and should pick up a body next week. Firstly, I think that the GRD is outstanding as a travel camera and capable of some fantastic results. The Lens is exceptional and the AF and Metering excellent. However, a comparison of files shows dramatically different qualities in terms of detail and tone. The GR produces files which are sharp, but the colour is not as accurate, it blows highlights very easily and it suffers from the usual 'digital' flatness. The small add on viewfinder does help, but is not great. The GR produces files that will hold their own with anything up to 4/3 format. The M8 metering is amazingly good when you understand that it is not a multi matrix setup and use it more as a spot metering. The m8 files have more depth and shadow detail on them than any other digital files I have seen (although the 5D is pretty good). The m8 viewfinder is a joy to use and manual focusing with it seems to get more hits than my Eos 30D. Mostly, it is so simple to use. Chose your apperture, focus, shoot. I was using my Eos recently and suddenly couldn't work out which metering mode I was in and wondering why the white balance had gone awol and the focus hunting....... DSLR's offer way too many functions. My GRD is the best camera I have bought under £1000 and is a stayer, but it does not match a M8 except in better portability.

[hankg]

Well, just to put things in perspective after this long discussion, I'm pretty happy with the M8 and use it all the time.

 

I agree.

 

I think looking at future development (as all cameras involve choosing your compromises), the ultimate image quality camera and the ultimate reportage camera have two different sets of priorities. I think the M line can encompass both but perhaps not in the same camera. It's a bit premature to talk about 2 varieties of M but down the road who knows?

[Advertisement]

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

[sean_reid]

Engineers want objective, repeatable and scientific yardsticks. They are very uncomfortable with subjective evaluations. Unfortunately photographers don't shoot resolution targets and don't sell MTF graphs. What makes a lens perform better in resolving a test target may make it worse for making photographs.

 

I should add the test targets that are used are skewed to favor higher contrast lenses. It would be possible to add a grey scale with fine detail that would penalize a lens with to much contrast. They are as Walt said still solving a problem from the 70's.

 

The charts are also normally photographed at a set distance - usually fairly close to the camera. Lenses, of course, can show slightly different resolution at different distances.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[squarenegs]

Walter:

 

While new to the forum I am old hand at photography and own both an M8 and the Ricoh GRD Though both are fine cameras, they really can't be compared. The Ricoh is a camera from the P & S camp that an old school type like me can live with. The M8 is much similar to a traditional film RF. While M8 RAW files, to me, are easily the equal of 35mm film, those from the Ricoh are not. That said, it is great fun and passes in a crowd as just another P & S The quality of the image files and those slow write times keep it in a lesser league than the M8

 

Regards,

 

S.F.

[Guest malland]

Don't agree with your assessment, Sam. While I have never used an M7 form Sean Reid's review I understand that it's files can be basically compared to scanned medium format film. The results from GR-D on the other hand is more like 35mm film; and it's misleading to call it a P&S camera: better to call it a small-sensor camera.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[harrisfoto]

How does the Leica D-Lux 3 compare to the GR-D?

It seems that given the price range and size that would be a more interesting comparison.

Go here:

Welcome to the Stephen Harris archive.

to see a portrait taken with the D-Lux 3.

I used a studio lighting set up, and the flash on the D-Lux 3 to trigger the slaves on the studio lights.

Steve Harris

[Guest Walt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sam-

 

My original post was about what Leica might have learned from the thoughtful design of this camera but didn't. Most operational features of the GR-D are superior to those on the M8, one being the all-important shutter release. We actually have some suggestions on the current firmware update controversy suggesting that people are getting misexposures because they're pushing the release too quickly and should learn to slow down. Let's not even talk about the inconsistently rough feel of the M8 release.

 

I would also add that the GR-D has none of the software operational bugs of the M8 and that, when Ricoh did make firmware updates, they quickly made the addition of several features requested by photographers. I think I am correct that Leica has not yet implemented a single "laundry list" request from this forum.

 

On image quality, the GR-D at ISO 200-400 is very much in the ball park with scanned 35mm Tri-X. That's my standard, and I'm not interested in the M8's ability to "do medium format." All the film Leicas were point and shoot cameras, that's what they were known for and good at, and that's what I want from the M8 too. When I originally made the post, some, including Sean Reid, felt I was suggesting that the M8 shouldn't be used for "medium format" style work. That wasn't my point at all. It was that if the M8 was going to sacrifice the alacrity of the film M's to accomplish this new capability, then it was simply not an "M" for me. I like the files enough and I am familiar enough with Leicas that I use the M8. But it is only marginally an M camera in the traditional sense. It just looks like one.

 

Walt

Walt Odets Photography Home

[Guest stnami]

All the film Leicas were point and shoot cameras, that's what they were known for and good at, and that's what I want from the M8 too.

........... no market for high end easy to use cameras. I would love to own a small digital with DOF from 1m to infinity in all f stops and able to shoot 1600iso and have robust files but I doubt if it will ever happen..........the GRD2 may go up a peg but I doubt that probably cram some more pixels and that's it

[sean_reid]

Sam-

 

My original post was about what Leica might have learned from the thoughtful design of this camera but didn't. Most operational features of the GR-D are superior to those on the M8, one being the all-important shutter release. Walt

Walt Odets Photography Home

 

Hi Walt,

 

That is a matter where there may be some differences in perspective. I very much like the GRD but functionally, I find it much slower and more alkward to use than the M8. The three most important controls I use are shutter speed, aperture and focus. On the M8 these are all readily visible and accessible in a way that they never can be on an LCD-control based camera. For my purposes, in fact, the M8 controls are, on the whole, vastly better than those of any small sensor camera I've used. ISO and EV comp. access should be better on the M8 and I've given Leica concrete ideas about how to improve those aspects. I understand that they are going to be implemented, but I don't know when.

 

I've never been bothered, at all, by the feel of the shutter release on the M8 although I realize some certainly are. I very much appreciate the GRD and GX100 and they are, indeed, among the most ergonomic small-sensor cameras. To the extent that an menu/LCD based system can work well, the Ricoh design is excellent. But, still, I'll take an aperture ring, focus ring and shutter speed dial over the other any day. I feel that the M8 is very much an M camera in function, not only in appearance.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest Walt]

Sean-

 

I completely understand you on the aperture-shutter-focus approach as that's what I'm also used to. With a film M camera and limited depth of field and no meter, these were *the* controls. But the Ricoh doesn't much need these controls because of the depth of field, because the automatic metering is so much more accurate than that in the M8 and because of the superb implementation of EV compensation. So, I don't at all miss them in a traditional form. I also think it is not the aperture and shutter controls that are awkward on the Ricoh--the two wheels work really well--but that the results have to be seen on the LCD and therefore the camera must be moved from the eye. If the results were shown in a viewfinder, as might be done in the M8, these controls would be superb. Focusing is largely unnecessary on the Ricoh with its 6mm lens. And if it is necessary, the auto focus works quite well and certainly as quickly as manually focusing an M.

 

As for the shutter release on the M8, I am completely baffled by it. For me, it is the worst I have ever experienced on a camera of any type or cost. Not only is it rough, binding and "catchy," it is inconsistently so. This has been true with five cameras I've used. I must be very careful how I use it (keeping it always at the last detent before firing unless I want to remeter) and it is still awkward.

 

Listen, the M8 and GRD are different kinds of cameras and I wouldn't think of doing your kind of professional work with the GR-D. Your personal work is a different matter. But my central point in this entire thread has not been to pitch the two cameras against each other, but that Leica could have learned a lot by spending a day with the Ricoh. My guess is that they think they have nothing to learn from anyone about cameras, and they're wrong. If they are going to implement your suggestions on ISO and exposure compensation, hurrah. I'd be thrilled and I hope I'm still alive. Would you also ask them to send me some grease for my shutter releases?

 

Incidentally, I've heard from a birdie that a shortly to be released new GR-D will have a real RAW buffer. I don't believe everything I hear from birds, but I think this is a smart one. Let's hope they don't make it even noisier with more unnecessary pixels.

 

Walt

[preston]

Count me with those who think the small sensor cameras establish a valuable new format.

 

I don't have an M8 yet (possibly will soon) but spent many years with an M6 and Tri-X. I find the results from today's higher end p/s cameras (I have owned a GRD and a D-Lux3) can easily match this image quality with modern postprocessing software, though not that of the slower transparency films. And the cameras are really tiny and silent. (But rapid they are not, until someone finally gives us a RAW buffer.)

 

DOF being so great, and diffraction limiting coming in as early as f4, the aperture/shutter controls don't seem as important as on the larger formats; the only primary control becomes exposure, via meter lock or compensation. This changes the way one photographs and it gives a distinctive look.

 

The M8, OTOH, is designed for what was medium-format image quality. It may be small and quiet compared to an EOS, but it's big and loud compared to a small sensor camera. I carry a small camera 100% of the time, which I couldn't comfortably do with an M8. As has been said before, if you don't have it with you, it doesn't matter how sharp your camera is.

 

Nothing wrong with having both...

[scott kirkpatrick]

I would also add that the GR-D has none of the software operational bugs of the M8 and that, when Ricoh did make firmware updates, they quickly made the addition of several features requested by photographers. I think I am correct that Leica has not yet implemented a single "laundry list" request from this forum.

 

 

Walt, I'm with you on the pleasant user interface of the GR-D and GX-100 (but their AF is not perfect -- nobody's is). However, Leica did respond to user concerns in the process of sorting out the initial hardware and software bugs, with an emphasis on bugs. That's from release 1.06 to 1.102. During that time they took over a greater share (maybe all) of the firmware workload from an outside contractor, and wrote de-vignetting code for all their lenses (which you see in the lens detection "ON+UV/IR" mode) that is a better balanced approach to the problem than the first pass code (still seen in "ON" mode) which was inconsistent in its effect from one lens to the next, over correcting the 50mm's for example. Those upgrades matched pretty closely Guy's first laundry list.

 

Birdies have told several of us that they are now working on the second laundry list, but that this 1.1.07 release is mainly intended to solve problems in manufacturing test and problem debugging. And maybe to fix a few bugs along the way (several have reported that playback is smoother). But I think they meant what they said (in German, at least) and that the improvements in AWB and SDHC support that have been promised are still to come.

 

I like both the way the Ricoh sensor (and it's GR-D lens at least, as I don't know the GX-100's lens very well yet) draw and the way the camera handles, but they are very different from the M8, which I also enjoy for its richness.

 

regards,

 

scott

[hankg]

It would be nice if Leica did more in the future in the way of small sensor camera's then just rebage Panasonic point and shoots. Leica could do a one off of the existing Panasonic DMC-FX 10 or 12 MP w/ stabilization P&S's (the D-lux cameras).

 

Put a fixed 2.8 lens and fixed optical finder and some well thought out analog controls on it. One normal and one wide model (40 equivalent prime and one 28 or 21 prime). Skew the ISO performance for faster ISO without heavy noise reduction and have a workable raw buffer. That would be something that would always be in my pocket.

[Guest stnami]

................... sounds like what ricoh are doing:D

[hankg]

................... sounds like what ricoh are doing:D

 

Yes and it's what you would expect Leica to be doing as this is the type of photography it's known for, as has been pointed out by Walt. As I said before I'm very happy with having a medium format digital RF. But I would love a small simple reportage camera to go with it.

 

The only 35mm camera I owned for several years was the little Ricoh (along with a pile of MF gear). I figured what's the point of 35mm if your 35mm camera is the size of a Hasselblad. The only drawback for me was the 28mm lens -to wide for me.

 

Ricoh has come closest but there is still a lot of room for improvement and innovation in the small sensor segment -with only one creditable option so far among 100's of compact digitals. It would not require anything new in technology just different thinking in terms of interface. There is a lot Leica could do with small sensor compacts as well as future M mount cameras.

[squarenegs]

Walter:

 

I think we do really agree on a lot of points. However,I think that the camera and label that would have been a better model for Leica to examine in regard to M8 design would have been the EPSON R D1 ...Not a film 'M' but still a better shutter feel and sound than the M8. It's more like what the M8 should have been than the GRD.

 

...More info. and control available without looking at an LCD. I've shot all day with the display turned in as if I was using film... yes that disappearing display too. The M8 needs one of those!..... and an external shutter speed dial. Oh, and the 'film advance' thingy. It sure saves on nasty, motorized shutter cocking sounds. I don't laugh at it anymore now that I have to listen to an M8 shutter.

 

Sam

[preston]

Put a fixed 2.8 lens and fixed optical finder and some well thought out analog controls on it.

After testing I found to my great surprise that at ISO 200 the D-Lux 3's f2.8 zoom used at f4 could deliver sharper prints than my Nikon F2/55mm macro did with medium speed color neg film (this is NOT true with, say, Kodachrome).

 

The grain in the negative scans prevented much sharpening. But the D-Lux 3 RAW file was pretty clean and could be noticeably improved with subtle sharpening and Photoshop's chromatic aberration corrector. The power of careful postprocessing really can do a lot for small sensor images.

 

As for the optical finder, I agree that a good one would be wonderful to have. I have a 1976 vintage Rollei 35S, which is the last small camera I remember seeing with a decent viewfinder on it. Demographic note: I bought 2 of them new.

[Guest stnami]

With digital... maybe at the moment technology can't do what the CLs, XAs, Rollei's, GRs,small point and shoots up to SLR standard, with reasonably fast top rate lenses,

[Guest Walt]

Charles, Scott, Hank and Sam--

 

Your posts have been suddenly and inexplicably clarifying for me. I am belatedly realizing that I have been simply expecting the M8 to be a digital M4/Tri-X camera. It is simply not that, nor apparently is it inteded to be--it is, I guess, intended as a rangefinder substitute for a Canon DSLR. That kind of capability doesn't interest me at all and it seems to be an objective that is compromising the M8 as a "street camera." Compared to an M4 with a little, old-style 35 Summicron, the M8 is a clunker in my experience. I mentioned all this in a previous post about "What is the M8 For," where I questioned the metering pattern of the camera, but I haven't put it all together--the forum interest in color, 3/4 pound lenses, ISO 160, back focus, pushing the shutter release slowly so the camera has time to meter, etc.

 

So, perhaps Ricoh will come out with a raw buffer and rescue me. Or perhaps Leica will decide to make a digital Leica, in the old sense of the idea.

 

Really, I've been confused about this camera.

 

Walt

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest malland]

Yes, Walt, this is the reason that I have moved to small-sensor cameras — because I like the "35mm aesthetic": some years ago a friend shot the same scene on 400 ISO B&W film with a Leica-M and and good 6x7 camera; we both liked the 35mm pictures better because of their "bite", the heighten grain and the rougher gradation. SInce I got my GR-D a year ago I haven't shot ay film but have not been attracted by the M8 because I would have to shoot at ISO1250 and 2500 for the look that I want. Here's a couple of GR-D shots:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, since this is a Leica forum, here's a D-Lux 3 shot:

 

 

 

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD