A Ricoh GR II Thread

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Ricoh is obviously not a Leica but I'd beg the indulgence of the court since many members here use Leicas and the GR. A good discussion began in the "quiet alternatives" thread but I figured this might be the better place for it.

 

So...Scott, Walt, Mitch and anyone else interested in the GR II. Let's talk. I just got my test camera and wondered:

 

1. Which RAW development programs are people using and liking?

2. Which cards seem fastest with the camera, if they're a factor at all.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[johnastovall]

Guys, Keep this going as I'm looking hard at a GR-DII as a pocket camera for the street.

 

Low light is an issue with me as most of my shooting is in small town Texas cafes at night or very early in the morning.

 

I hope the Gods of Moderation will let this little thread have small home here.

[Advertisement]

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

[sean_reid]

Guys, Keep this going as I'm looking hard at a GR-DII as a pocket camera for the street.

 

Low light is an issue with me as most of my shooting is in small town Texas cafes at night or very early in the morning.

 

I hope the Gods of Moderation will let this little thread have small home here.

 

Mods, my apologies. I thought I was posting this in the general digital forum and made a mistake. Please move it.

 

Thanks,

 

Sean

[andym911]

Are GRD '1' users welcome too?

 

andy

[sean_reid]

Are GRD '1' users welcome too?

 

andy

 

Certainly...

 

And thank you mods for moving this.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest malland]

First, let me post two pictures that I think illustrate well the difference between the GX100 and the original GR-D, which could be a reference for looking at which of these two cameras the GRD II resembles. (I posted this on dpreview, but don't recall whether I did so in the other long thread here). The first picture is taken with the GRD and the second with the GX100. To me, the most striking difference is how the textures are rendered much better by the GRD — just look at the woman's blue jeans in the first pciture; there is nothing like that in the second, which is much "smoother".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—Mitch/Paris

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Second, I got my GRDII last night and here are the first four pictures that I have worked on. All of these pictures have extensive post-processing in LightZone, including selective burning and dodging. Generally, I find that the files requires much less work — if one is not obsessive — than GX100 files, and, at the higher ISOs, also less than GR-D files. I find the camera very good at ISO 400 and 800.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—MItch/Paris

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[Guest malland]

...Which RAW development programs are people using and liking?...

Sean:

 

I've tried ACR (Lightroom and Photoshop), SilkyPix, Raw Developer (Mac only) and LightZone. While I like SilkyPix a lot — very good for highlight recovery, and a lot of control in general — I think that Raw Developer has the best rendering, extremey good sharpening and noise removal, and superb B&W conversion. However, I use LightZone — although I'd probably be tempted to use SilkyPix or Raw Developer if I were doing colour instead of B&W — because it's so much simpler to do the RAW development and post-processing in one program. Also, LightZone work off the original DNG file and saves its "stack" of what you've done together with the new TIFF file. If I used RAW Developer or SilkyPix I'd have to keep the DNG file, the TIFF file put out by the raw developer as well as the TIFF file out put by LightZone: a minor inconvenience.

 

I like LightZone for three major reasons. First ,unlike Photoshop Curves, it allows you to manipulate specific ranges of tones ("zones") without affecting other tonal ranges; second, it has vector-based selection tools with which you can work directly on the screen on a WYSIWYG basis, changing the selections and feathering by puling and pushing the selection on the screen and seeing everything ratger than having to go into a different mode, as in Photoshop; third, you can save the whole "stack" of tools, that is, all the adjustments you made for one picture as a "style", which you can then call up and apply to use, or adjust further, for another picture: this is very useful for photos that have similar lighting and can speed up working on a batch of such photos — if the style contains semections, these can be adjust for the second picture.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[sean_reid]

Thanks for the reponses Mitch. I'm happy to read about whatever impressions you form as you work with the camera. I haven't tried Lightzone - I'll have to look into it. So far I'm converting in Photoshop. The problem, for me, with picking up new RAW converters is that it takes time to learn them and I'm in the midst of 12 articles. C1 4.0 is crashing with certain operations, alas, and 3.7.7 doesn't support the files.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[thomasl.se]

third, you can save the whole "stack" of tools, that is, all the adjustments you made for one picture as a "style", which you can then call up and apply to use, or adjust further, for another picture: this is very useful for photos that have similar lighting and can speed up working on a batch of such photos — if the style contains semections, these can be adjust for the second picture.

 

Is that quite similar to creating a preset in Ligthroom? Ultimate image quality and nothing else considered, what's your opinion specifically on ACR vs Lightzone?

 

I haven't used any other converter than ACR on GRD1 files; it's typically open and rough-hew the file in CS3, carv and grind in LR and back to finish it in CS3. This mini hopscotch is low hazzle, the work is a joy, which is important; I work LR with lights out 50% almost all the time, nice environment, easy on the eyes. Compared to other converters that I've only too briefly demo'd, getting into the groove with LR and its interface was instantaneous and intuitive, like an old honky tonk... with a couple of keys missing, such as dodge and burn.

 

Thomas (GRD1)

[Guest malland]

Is that quite similar to creating a preset in Ligthroom? Ultimate image quality and nothing else considered, what's your opinion specifically on ACR vs Lightzone?...

Thomas:

 

It is similar in concept to creating a preset in Lightroom, but much more ppwerful and flexible in practice.

 

I haven't made a specific comparison between ACR and LightZone as a raw developer: ACR in Lightroom opens the RAW file and applies a set of presets, while LightZone opens it with any preset. Thus I would have to create LightZone "Style" with the same type of presets to make the comparison, but all my LightZone Styles have a full set of adjustments, including B&W conversion

 

 

...Compared to other converters that I've only too briefly demo'd, getting into the groove with LR and its interface was instantaneous and intuitive, like an old honky tonk... with a couple of keys missing, such as dodge and burn...

The latter are a major thing that is missing from Lightroom. Selective burning and dodging are a joy in LoghZone because of the flexibility and ease of use of the fantastic selection tools. Also, for these Ricoh files, the saved TIFF, with the whole stack of "tools" saved with it — each of which can be adjusted each time you open the saved file — is only 50MB, unlike the huge Photoshop files saved with layers. I use Lightroom as a contact sheet or slidetray, because of its good file management and the facility for a contact sheet view that allows each picture to be vied much larger as well. That is how I select with pictures I will then process in LightZone.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[Guest Walt]

Sean-

 

I'll check in tomorrow when I have some time, and I also have some other thoughts now that I've had a few days with the cameras. In the meantime, ACR 4.2 and Kingston 4 GB Class 6 (about 3.5 seconds to clear the buffer).

 

Another quick impression: Mitch should not be concerned about Ricoh softening the image, they've just cleaned it up. At ISO 800 the noise is very defined.

 

Walt

[Guest malland]

...I haven't tried Lightzone - I'll have to look into it. So far I'm converting in Photoshop. The problem, for me, with picking up new RAW converters is that it takes time to learn them and I'm in the midst of 12 articles...

Sean, LightZone is quite easy to understand in terms of its paradigm. However, making tonal and contrast adjustment by pushing zones takes some getting used to: initially, I felt that I always had to go into Photoshop to finish up with a final Curve tweak, but now can do everything in LightZone. If you're in he middle of testing 12 cameras, you may want to stick with Photoshop.

 

The other issue with LightZone is that it's written in Java, which means it uses and needs a huge amount of your computer' resources, needs a huge amount of RAM and, at the end of a long edit with many tools stacked up, can slow to a crawl when refreshing the screen and saving files — even with my latest 17 inch MacBook Pro with 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo and 4GB of RAM, of which I allocate one-half to LightZone.

 

I look forward to your GRD II review, as I have to decide whether to sell my GX100 and my GRD. Although I have the 21mm converter for the GRD/GRD II and shall get the 40mm one my initial inclination is to keep the GX100 for the convenience of the stepped zoom and the ability to switch so easily between 24-28-35-50mm focal length — I hardly ever use 72mm. An important part of the decision will be when I get back to Bangkok next week and see whether GX100 files can hold up for the huge prints (40x52 inches or 100x133cm) that I have been able to make with the GRD, even at ISO 800.

 

As for the GRD, I'm toying with the idea of keeping to shoot at ISO 200 because that speed on the GRD II may be to "fine" — too exquisite — for me; but it's hard to go back to 14 second file save times after the GX, which takes 3-4 seconds, which is about the same as the GRD II, except that with the latter one can shoot two shoots, one immediately after the other, before the camera writes the two files. But as I've only had the GRD II for only one day it's premature to decide what to do with the GRD and the GX100.

 

It would be great if you could get the 40mm converter before you do your GRD II tests, because, if it is good, it allows the camera to be used for another type of shooting, even more than the way the 21mm converter does because 40mm-type shots are more different than 21mm ones compared to 28mm. I find the 21mm converter to be spectacular: I put it in the same class as the Leica-M 21mm ASPH, which I think is a fantastic lens.

 

In any case, with 12 cameras to test, don't run yourself ragged even with Christmas, and it's financial imperatives, coming up.

 

—MItch/Paris

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[Guest malland]

...Another quick impression: Mitch should not be concerned about Ricoh softening the image, they've just cleaned it up. At ISO 800 the noise is very defined...

Yes, Walt, that's what I'm finding as well, so far; but ISO 200 is very, very "smooth"...

 

—Mitch/Paris

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[sean_reid]

Hi Mitch,

 

Of the 12, three are cameras and nine are lenses. It's just way scheduling shook out - nothing to do with the holidays per se.

 

The "40 mm" adapter will be here in mid-December. I've spoken directly to Ricoh about it. I think I'll stick with Photoshop ACR for now, for simplicity, and because it's in wide use. The new camera is dramatically faster in RAW and I've done the stopwatch exposure timings already using my standard 1 GB Ultra II cards. (Walt, I'll try the card you recommend later on as well, thanks.)

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[andym911]

had the GRD for a few weeks now and I must say that the camera is impressive.

I think it is one of the best handling cameras I ever used..the User interface is exceptional..the size and weight perfect for casual shooting and, combined with the external finder a real joy to use.

 

The RAW times are long but I can live with them.Had some really impressive prints in BW so far from the files...this is a great value for money camera with a distinct rangefinder feel to it.

here an early shot at 2.8 and snap focus.

 

andy

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!

[scott kirkpatrick]

....

I think I'll stick with Photoshop ACR for now, for simplicity, and because it's in wide use. The new camera is dramatically faster in RAW and I've done the stopwatch exposure timings already using my standard 1 GB Ultra II cards. (Walt, I'll try the card you recommend later on as well, thanks.)

 

Sean, it makes sense to me to know what it takes to succeed with each camera in ACR/CS3 as a standard platform, using fairly default settings. This will characterize the b/w workflow. There may be weaknesses in that approach, however, if you want to understand the color signature of a new camera. ACR reads the full DNG spec, so it reads anything that is close to compliance, while other programs like C1 cheat and decode the minimum needed for specific cameras, like the M8. But ACR then accepts the color filter characterization supplied by the manufacturer, and does standard things with it. C1 shoots its own profiles and makes its own decision, which you can agree or disagree with, on where to place the colors. The result is that C1's support can lag ACR's by a month, or more for niche cameras.

 

The Ultra II is noticeably slower than the Extreme III in my experience, with the GR-D as well as with the M8. And the Extreme IV, currently available only in CF, is supposed to be even faster. For the modest expense, it might be worth putting one Extreme III in your bag. The sweet spot for price seems to be 2 GB.

 

I'm currently using the GR-D as a jpeg machine (with your old prescription of keeping the constrast as low as possible while shooting, fix it up later). So the GR-D II would have to produce significantly better images in its now-usable RAW mode to make me bother to change up.

 

good hunting,

 

scott

[scott kirkpatrick]

Just as a workaday example, here are party colors:

 

for food

 

and when appropriate, b/w

 

for the participants.

 

scott

[andym911]

here the color version.....which i prefer...

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: Interesting Leica gear

[sean_reid]

had the GRD for a few weeks now and I must say that the camera is impressive.

I think it is one of the best handling cameras I ever used..the User interface is exceptional..the size and weight perfect for casual shooting and, combined with the external finder a real joy to use.

 

The RAW times are long but I can live with them.Had some really impressive prints in BW so far from the files...this is a great value for money camera with a distinct rangefinder feel to it.

here an early shot at 2.8 and snap focus.

 

andy

 

Not to rush you to the next model but one of the best things about the GR II is that much faster in RAW than the GR. I enjoyed your picture.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean