The Quiet M8 Alternative

[Guest Walt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I allways use the GRD with -1/3 to not blow the highlights. I dont see why they would be underexposed. Am I the only one thinking this?

Tom and Mitch-

 

I was, in my comment, thinking of internal meter calibration between the two cameras, used without compensation, which is where I think Mitch's poster started. I needed to use the GRD routinely with + 1/3 stop to use the internal metering. The II is the oppposite for me. But I realize that Mitch's original poster was also talking about the sensitivity of the sensor (which we would assume the meter is properly calibrated for), and I'm not sure about that issue. And then he talks about noise at "two stops better," a third issue I think. So I'm not sure what he was talking about. I was talking about internal metering and the exposure results and also the *impression* that the GRD needed more light than the II. Let me put my impression of the II in another way: With properly exposed highlights, I find much more data in the shadows. Or, with the GRD I was exposing for the shadows, with the II I am exposing for the highlights, like the M8. The II is producing lower contrast, better exposed images with much less noisy shadows in high contrast scenes. I have not seen a blown highlight problem with either camera, compared to the M8. The highlights in the DNGs seem well within reach of the recovery slider in ACR with both cameras, excepting things you wouldn't expect to fall within dynamic range (spectrals, etc.).

 

In using the II last night in very dim light (ISO 800, F2.4, 1/3-1.0 seconds) the II gets quite noisy. The M8 is a *little* bit better at ISO 1250 (1600) in this situation, though both cameras are pretty ugly here. I have a hunch, untested, that in such very low lighting the II may actually be better in the JPEG (with NR turned off). The JPEG processing of this camera (with NR turned off, which still leaves some noise reduction for the JPEGs) is very good.

 

Walt

[Guest malland]

Thanks, Walt. There is still a lot to figure out about this camera. You might want to have a look at the second set of 100% crops by Amin in the following thread, which suggests that there might be some noise reduction in the GRD2 RAW files, which in the bane of the D-Lux-3 at ISO 1600. Any thoughts on this?

 

Crops from Pavel's GRD2 RAWs in C1 vs LZ vs LR (bandwidth warning - large image): Ricoh Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

—Mitch/Paris

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest Walt]

Mitch-

 

I'll look at that, but I haven't noticed it. The NR for JPEGS (NR turned on) is quite bad--smearing, etc. that makes them unusable. I imagine Ricoh will adjust the software on this because it is a mistake for those who want to use JPEGS.

 

The M8, incidentally, uses NR on the DNGs (on any shot below 1/30 I think), but it's pretty good.

 

Walt

[DaveSee]

Mitch-

The M8, incidentally, uses NR on the DNGs(on any shot below 1/30 I think), but it's pretty good.

Hi Walt,

 

What have you found that, in camera(F/W) the M8 "uses NR on the DNGs"? To me there is something amiss, and expensive wrt computation to alter DNG file writing regardless of shutter speed... the sensor records what's given it. Now if, and with Carl's openly presented work, you see the "blue-dot/G-aperture limit" expressed in your DNG files, are you referencing "A" mode shots? AWB? While perhaps true, your post is the first I've read that even suggests the M8 /has/ a NR F/W scheme for its DNG files.

 

Do tell... this is news!

 

rgds,

Dave

[Guest Walt]

Hi Walt,

 

What have you found that, in camera(F/W) the M8 "uses NR on the DNGs"? To me there is something amiss, and expensive wrt computation to alter DNG file writing regardless of shutter speed... the sensor records what's given it. Now if, and with Carl's openly presented work, you see the "blue-dot/G-aperture limit" expressed in your DNG files, are you referencing "A" mode shots? AWB? While perhaps true, your post is the first I've read that even suggests the M8 /has/ a NR F/W scheme for its DNG files.

 

Do tell... this is news!

 

rgds,

Dave

Dave-

 

I shoot only DNGs with no acccompanying JPEGS. Ofter at slow shutter speeds the camera slows down and often displays "Noise Reduction" (or something like that) on the screen) while it goes through a "black screen/subtraction" NR routine. So, I assumed that this is a NR routine applied to DNGs. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something here.

 

Walt

[tom0511]

One question. on dpreview was a thread suggesting the GRDII did not have as fast AF as the GRD, specially in low light ( I think because the GRD 1 has additional AF-sensors.

Can you experience this behaviour?

[Guest Walt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One question. on dpreview was a thread suggesting the GRDII did not have as fast AF as the GRD, specially in low light ( I think because the GRD 1 has additional AF-sensors.

Can you experience this behaviour?

Tom-

 

I'm not too familiar with autofocus in general, but this seems to work pretty well. I never used it on the original camera, which has an optical system as well as the CCD detection, so I can't compare. In very dim light the camera shines a green beam to focus on, rather bizarre looking.

 

Walt

[DaveSee]

Dave-

 

I shoot only DNGs with no acccompanying JPEGS. Ofter at slow shutter speeds the camera slows down and often displays "Noise Reduction" (or something like that) on the screen) while it goes through a "black screen/subtraction" NR routine. So, I assumed that this is a NR routine applied to DNGs. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something here.

 

Walt

Ah! You're correct... I had seen this once or twice awhile back when in "A" mode shooting an available darkness scene. Forgot about this until reading your post because I don't shoot "A" mode much, nor hand-held at 2 seconds or longer

 

I haven't seen this "Noise Reduction" screen with exposures down to a second(tripod), but I can "force" this at >= 2 secs... the noise reduced is targeted at "hot pixels", as I understand the black frame subtraction method, thus it will be recorded to the DNG data... back OT, the longer exposures do not diminish the "noise" of the shutter, just spread the release and reset sounds apart

 

rgds,

Dave

[Woody Campbell]

I've had my GRD II for little more than a day now, but my reaction to it is that the incremental imporvements over the GRD (near instant shot-to shot timing on the second raw shot and roughly five seconds for the buffer to clear thereafter, and 1-2 stops inprovement in high ISO perfromance) make it a complete winner. In terms of functionality it is close to a Contax G2 with the 28mm f2.8 Sonar (one of my all-time most used film cameras), but in a much smaller package and with digital flexibility. I've been waiting for this for years.

[Guest malland]

Sounds good, Woody. What I want to know is whether the GRD2 files are closer in look to GRD files or those of the GX100, which doesn't produce grain that is as attractive as the GRD. For example, the latter produces a beautiful look at ISO 200, with, for me, just the right amount of "bite". The first picture below is taken with the GRD and the second with the GX100. While I like the GX100 picture, that camera just doesn't give me the look that I get with the GRD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—Mitch/Paris

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[Guest Walt]

Woody and Mitch-

 

Day three for me with the II and about 400 frames-- I'm in heaven with the thing and, like Woody, I've been waiting years for this camera. It's such a relief after all the glitches and gotchas of the M8. Gosh, I wish Leica would seriously look at this camera.

 

Mitch, I'd say that the II, in general, is closer to the second shot you show, at ISO 200. It does not, however, have any of that "digital creamy" look that I so dislike about Canons--it's more like the M8 at 640, something in that range and just as good with a grayscale more similar to the older M lenses. The second shot you show looks more like a Canon with a lot of contrast to try to disguise it, but this single shot evaluation is hard to do. I have been shooting at 200 with a permanent -2/3 stop compensation. The shadow areas hold up a lot better than with the GRD I.

 

Incidentally, I bought a second II to use with the 40mm permanently mounted. The 40 is expected in the U.S. in December according to the very reliable Tony Rose. Both the cameras function flawlessly as nearly as I can tell. The M8 has made me very edgy in this regard.

 

Best,

Walt

 

P.S. Woody, I'm getting much faster recording times with Kingston 4GB SDHC Class 6 cards. Maybe three seconds to clear?

[Guest malland]

Walt:

 

As I said, I like the second shot but I can't get the GX100 to show textures the way the GRD does: look, for example, at the woman's blue jeans in the first shot. I'm concerned whether the GRD2 files will be able to do that; but if they're going to be more than like the GX100 then it wouldn't be of much interest to me, despite all the great handling characteristics because I already have them on the GX100.

 

The GRD2 will be here at a store in Paris on Friday, and I could buy it before I go back to Bangkok. Therefore, if you have any further results on these questions, please let me know tomorrow.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[Maggie_O]

Y'all are giving me G.A.S.!

 

I'm imagining a GRD II with my CV 28mm finder on top...

[scho]

Y'all are giving me G.A.S.!

 

I'm imagining a GRD II with my CV 28mm finder on top...

 

I use the CV mini 28/35 finder with my GRD and the 28 frameline is just right. I wonder if the 35 frameline in the mini would work well with the 40 adapter on the GRD.

[sean_reid]

 

I'm imagining a GRD II with my CV 28mm finder on top...

 

That would be a great combo. Also a 40 mm CV finder and the Ricoh accessory lens.

 

My test copy should be here by Friday. I'm curious.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest Walt]

Walt:

 

As I said, I like the second shot but I can't get the GX100 to show textures the way the GRD does: look, for example, at the woman's blue jeans in the first shot. I'm concerned whether the GRD2 files will be able to do that; but if they're going to be more than like the GX100 then it wouldn't be of much interest to me, despite all the great handling characteristics because I already have them on the GX100.

 

The GRD2 will be here at a store in Paris on Friday, and I could buy it before I go back to Bangkok. Therefore, if you have any further results on these questions, please let me know tomorrow.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

Mitch-

 

This is of course hard to call, but I would say that the II is capable of extremely fine detail and texture--more so, if anything, than the original camera. I had thought you were talking mostly about "noise." I can't compare it to the GX (never had one) and most of my digital experience is with the M8. At ISO 200, I would say it is like the M8 with regard to detail. You can taste the detail from this camera in my experience. In your second shot above, it look like someone else has already licked it.

 

Walt

[Guest Walt]

I use the CV mini 28/35 finder with my GRD and the 28 frameline is just right. I wonder if the 35 frameline in the mini would work well with the 40 adapter on the GRD.

Maggie- I also use the 28 (round, metal) CV finder and have ordered the 40. I also tried the Ricoh 28 mini finder and it is excellent too, but without *quite* the eyeglass relief of the CV. I love this camera with a finder because the finders are so good.

 

Walt

[Woody Campbell]

On buffer clear times Walt's three seconds may be closer than my five. In terms of how the files look since they are raw it depends a great deal on processing. Here are three images (walking around today between doing other things) all processed in LR. The files tolerate some sharpening (60-90 r=1.0 or so). A small amount of NR (about 1/4 of the luminance NR slider) on the ISO 1600. All shot at f2.8.

 

On the ISO 200 image the blown area is a reflection of the sun, not recoverable by any camera or software - it demonstrates the lens's flair resistance.

 

Should we start a new thread on the GRD II and just admit that we're wandering OT a bit here on this Leica forum?

 

ISO 200

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!

 

ISO 400

 

ISO 1600

[Guest malland]

...In your second shot above, it look like someone else has already it...

Sorry, Walt, I don't understand: what do you mean by this?

 

—Mitch/Paris

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest malland]

...In terms of how the files look since they are raw it depends a great deal on processing. Here are three images (walking around today between doing other things) all processed in LR. The files tolerate some sharpening (60-90 r=1.0 or so). A small amount of NR (about 1/4 of the luminance NR slider) on the ISO 1600. All shot at f2.8....

Walt:

 

Although it's hard to tell from these small JPGs, these pictures look softer to me than those of the GRD and more like those from the GX100, but I could be wrong...

 

—Mitch/Paris

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland