The Quiet M8 Alternative

[Guest Walt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On the GR-D as a quiet alternative: After the brief discussion of midtone compression as a problem with the original GR-D, I've just gone over yesterday's shooting with the II and there is a very substantial change in the image quality and tonal scale from the old camera. They've done something very significant here. The grayscale is open, elegant and surprising reminiscent of Leica film stuff with the older generation of Leica lenses (or the current 35 Summilux on the M8). If this holds up over different shooting conditions, I will be very impressed, astonished really. As Mitch earlier commented about the GX-100 (which I never tried), these DNG files seem soft (perhaps less so than the original GR-D) but they take sharpening extremely well. I used PS Smart Sharpening on this at about 100%, along with the ACR masked sharpening (a wonderful addition) at 60. And yes, Hank, BW is an entirely different set of concerns, and I don't at all understand those for color.

 

Lighting was sunny with broken clouds, ISO 200, F 5.6, DNG file. I don't know why, but I've had to compress this particular image to a JPEG 4 to keep it under the forum limit of 244K. I've just upgraded PS CS3 and they may have changed the JPEG compression in some way.

 

Walt

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Maggie_O]

Actually, I like the café shots better than the ones that follow, as there is more truth in them.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

 

I'll second that.

 

My M8 alternative is, as most of you probably know already, the D-Lux 3.

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest stnami]

Actually, I like the café shots better than the ones that follow, as there is more truth in the

....... What truth?

.

.

Walt the image still looks heavy, almost mottled in tone .........flat?........ a trait of ricoh?

[Guest malland]

Very interesting, Walt. On the GR-D, I always preferred ISO 200 to ISO 100 because of the grain with which it printed. How does the GR-D2 compare in this respect?

 

So, you mean that the GR-D2 is also softer than the GR-D? With the latter I did very little sharpening, only using Unsharp Mask at 20/50/0, but that is to increase mid-tone contrast. I understand what you say about the GRD2 taking sharpening well, as I found with the GX100, but I don't understand why this should be the case, why it isn't sharp to start with like the GR-D.

 

—MItch/Paris

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[Guest Walt]

stnami and Mitch-

 

I am sitting here with the 13 x 19 print and the monitor, the general purpose monitor I use for Internet (not the calibrated photo monitor). There is very little resemblance between the two, unfortunately. The print shows a beautiful, delicate, slightly crisp grayscale with very open midtones--the 35 Summilux on the M8 being the most obvious comparison, or the old 35 Summicron on well-exposed Tri-X. This is nothing like the GR-D, a major change in the image character and quality. The tonal scale starts to flatten out much lower down than on the first camera, well below the quarter tone. I'm sorry I don't know how to convey that in a highly compressed JPEG on screen, though I think a slight touch of what I'm talking about comes through. Don't forget that I have done a RAW conversion with a depressed Tri-X like toe (which is probably what stnami is seeing), as well as a very slight curve adjustment in PS. The file itself provides the kind of range and opportunity that I can only describe as being like the 35 Summilux--very open, delicate, clean and smooth. In the print, this camera is so far doing a terrific job, a truly major improvement over the first camera for the kind of tonal scale I like.

 

On the sharpness, I meant to say that the II file seems a bit sharper that the original GR-D. I say "soft" because I am comparing it to the sharpness of the M8 raw files, which are unusually sharp. The Ricoh is, in my memory, probably about like Canon files I've worked with, though the Canon stuff never sharpened up as well. The amount of sharpening in PS will have a lot to do with what is applied in RAW conversion, and I am not doing a lot there because of the masking I am using (the detail and masking controls, low and high respectively). The ISO 200 noise on this camera is lower than with the old camera. Mitch, you might have to go to 400. This sharpened ISO 200 file is starting to look like--I hate to use the term--medium format in this regard. Definitely not Tri-X.

 

This is a camera people should look at. I would like to see Sean's take on it because he is more detailed and articulate on these things than I am.

 

Walt

[Guest malland]

...The ISO 200 noise on this camera is lower than with the old camera. Mitch, you might have to go to 400. This sharpened ISO 200 file is starting to look like--I hate to use the term--medium format in this regard. Definitely not Tri-X...

If you confirm this initial judgment it looks like I'll keep the original GR-D because I really like it's quality at ISO 200, and because ISO 400 is sometimes too fast in the bright conditions I often shoot under in Bangkok. However, the GR-D2 will be of interest to me possibly for ISO 800 and 1600, depending on how those files look.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[Guest Walt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you confirm this initial judgment it looks like I'll keep the original GR-D because I really like it's quality at ISO 200, and because ISO 400 is sometimes too fast in the bright conditions I often shoot under in Bangkok. However, the GR-D2 will be of interest to me possibly for ISO 800 and 1600, depending on how those files look.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

Well don't do anything right away. I've been using the camera for two days. On the midtone tonal scale "improvement" I've been talking about, this might not be of interest to you because of the amount of contrast you use in images. You're squeezing this area down anyway. On the image posted above, in smooth areas I detect only fine, smooth noise. The Internet is a terrible way to share images.

 

I understand that in the new camera (and the old?) that in auto exposure mode only, which includes aperture priority (I think), a neutral density filter swings into place above F7.1 to bring it down to 11.0. On the M8, incidentally, I use ISO 640 all the time, never slower unless on occassion I have a very particular reason.

 

Walt

[kweide]

I will never leave my GR-D. It is so fast, so quiet and so goo according to image quality and sharpness. The GR-D is my perfect companion for every day beside my SLR.

 

Street snappies wth GR-D

 

Picasa Web Albums - Klaus

[robertwright]

Great thread. I went to the ricoh website and read their product literature and feel the camera might definitely be a backup to the M8. Is there any way someone could upload to yousendit a dng and post a link for us to download some samples? Or put it on an webserver?

 

You look at the thought that has gone into this product, for example, the ability to use AAA batteries as a backup, the custom settings on the top dial, the Fn button, all of these little things help to clear away the technology from the process of making pictures.

 

I guess my biggest question having not ever used a GRD is how easy to use is the manual focus option, and do you really need it, or does the autofocus seem to get it right most of the time?

[kweide]

I never use manuel focus setting but prefer SNAP Mode for als objects within a distance up to 3 Meters or my most prefered setting: INFINiTY Mode which is a hyperfocal setting.. WOW, you will love this. See my snaps in the above answer, all done in INFINTY Mode !

[Guest malland]

...I guess my biggest question having not ever used a GRD is how easy to use is the manual focus option, and do you really need it, or does the autofocus seem to get it right most of the time?

With the huge DOF field of the lens I've never used manual focus: most of the time I use the "snap" focus setting, which focuses at 2.5m, and does not introduce any shutter lag from auto focusing.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Mitch Alland's slideshow on Flickr

[robertwright]

With the huge DOF field of the lens I've never used manual focus: most of the time I use the "snap" focus setting, which focuses at 2.5m, and does not introduce any shutter lag from auto focusing.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Mitch Alland's slideshow on Flickr

 

is it kind of like the CV15mm, where there really are only two focus settings, 2m and infinity or thereabouts? In other words, for things very very close to mid distance, 2.5M snap setting (which seems far out to me, but then this is a different format I know) and infinity for mid distance objects and further out to the horizon?

 

So for example, you are in the pub:p and making a picture across the table, does the 2.5 m snap setting apply there, or is the subject too close. Just an example....

[Guest Walt]

I do use the manual focus setting some, because the Snap setting does not focus very far from the camera at wide apertures. I had not thought of the infinity setting as a hyperfocal setting, so I will look at this. The new camera also has a depth of field scale on the focus scale (a green stripe), which is very useful, if it is fairly accurate. Even wide open, the DOF is great enough that approximations on the focus scale are good enough. On the new camera there is another wonderful feature. You autofocus (by depressing the shutter button and then releasing it) and then hit the FN button and that setting is locked and the camera is placed in manual focus. It's like an electronic range finder and seems to work fine.

 

In Robert's pub scenario, I would use the electronic range finder, though an approximation on the focus scale would probably be just as good.

 

Walt

[Guest malland]

No, there's manual, and automatic, focusing throughout the whole focusing range. Because of the huge DOF, the SNAP focusing setting works well with objects much closer and much farther away than the 2.5m.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Mitch Alland's slideshow on Flickr

[sean_reid]

In these discussions of "soft" files it will be very helpful to refer to what apertures people are working at. With the GX-100, for example, resolution peaks at about F/3 - F/4 (depending on the focal length) and then drops noticeably (from diffraction) with smaller apertures. As a rule, most small sensor camera lenses will be softer at F/5.6 - F/8 than they are at F/2 - F/4. It really does make a difference. Those who read RR, see the GX-100 review for examples.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest malland]

Yes, Sean, I generally try not to go smaller than f/4 or f/5.6 with these cameras.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Mitch Alland's slideshow on Flickr

[sean_reid]

Yes, Sean, I generally try not to go smaller than f/4 or f/5.6 with these cameras.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Mitch Alland's slideshow on Flickr

 

Hi Mitch,

 

With the GX, F/5.6 itself will soften things quite a bit. I imagine its tough though, with all that sunshine. <G>

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

I agree on the midtone (especially lower midtone) compression with the GR-D. I don't generally use as much contrast as Mitch and have a more difficult time dealing with it. In a recent exchange with Sean we were talking about the Ricoh as often looking like a thin (underexposed) Tri-X negative. I am slowly learning to print it though, and it requires a particularl approach.

 

I used a G9 for a day, but I felt the interface was very problematic. It was, to the extent that I could understand the camera, essentially impossible to actually use with manual focus. As I remember, every time you touched the shutter button (or fired a shot?), the manual focus setting would return to infinity. These kinds of issues are, of course, the great strength of the GR-D, even more so the new one which is further refined.

 

On the other cameras, what are a D2, 8080 and R1? Are these cameras worth looking at and are they in current production?

 

Walt

 

Hi Walt,

 

Leica Digilux 2

Olympus C-8080

Sony R1

 

I haven't ever tested the Oly but I don't think either of the other two will be the silver bullet for you.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[thomasl.se]

As a rule, most small sensor camera lenses will be softer at F/5.6 - F/8 than they are at F/2 - F/4. It really does make a difference.

I keep my GRD at F5.6 or below; F5.0 and below with the EFOV 21mm converter.

 

On the topic of small sensors, wide angle and huge DOF; in the montages below, is it scuffs and scratches shifting into focus at high F-values, or merely a diffraction related issue, regardless of dust, scuffs and scratches?

 

First pic: GRD 28mm; no scrathces on front element (not sure if it might benefit from cleaning, but no fingerprints or anything on it; looks "mint"). No optional hood.

Second pic: GRD 21mm; severeal small and a few larger scrathes on the coating. The hood is always on.

 

Thomas

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest stnami]

more stuff

http://ricohforum.com/viewforum.php?f=39