Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Ricoh GR Digital  (Read 4399 times)
drm
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


WWW
« on: December 22, 2005, 04:45:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi -

Has anybody got any hands on experience of the Ricoh GR Digital yet ? I picked one up yesterday, and it positively screamed "buy me". Beautiful construction, smooth operation - just like the GR1, which for me was extremely significant in showing me how much differnce quality gear can make.  I've seen some images from the GR D on the web, and they look ok to excellent (yes, it is a pity that it doesn't have an APS sensor, but I guess there are design & cost constraints too).  It also got a pretty good review in Reponses Photo - Jean Christophe Bechet, who knows what he's taliking about, and is a big GR1 fan, described as not his dream compact, but the closest so far.

The various pixel peeper sites & fora have some information, but not really on the photographic level (contrast Michael's review of the Lumix Lx-1 with all the noise-obsessed stuff found elsewhere as a parallel example).

Thanks
David
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
francois
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6453


« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2005, 06:16:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi -

Has anybody got any hands on experience of the Ricoh GR Digital yet ? I picked one up yesterday, and it positively screamed "buy me". Beautiful construction, smooth operation - just like the GR1, which for me was extremely significant in showing me how much differnce quality gear can make.  I've seen some images from the GR D on the web, and they look ok to excellent (yes, it is a pity that it doesn't have an APS sensor, but I guess there are design & cost constraints too).  It also got a pretty good review in Reponses Photo - Jean Christophe Bechet, who knows what he's taliking about, and is a big GR1 fan, described as not his dream compact, but the closest so far.

The various pixel peeper sites & fora have some information, but not really on the photographic level (contrast Michael's review of the Lumix Lx-1 with all the noise-obsessed stuff found elsewhere as a parallel example).

Thanks
David
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I just picked up a copy of Chasseur d'Image and the review is very positive. My local photo store is so crowded that I won't have the opportunity to see it before the silly season is over.
Logged

Francois
Frere Jacques
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2005, 04:33:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I just picked up a copy of Chasseur d'Image and the review is very positive. My local photo store is so crowded that I won't have the opportunity to see it before the silly season is over.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54116\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The same in 'Le Photographe' -- very positive. They did mention that the optional viewfinder is a must & a bit expensive -- 200.
Logged
Let Biogons be Biogons
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 160


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2005, 08:28:12 AM »
ReplyReply

From several GR digital images posted on the web, it is quite clear that my GR1s film camera -- even with 400 speed film provides better image quality than the GR Digital.  Many of us were waiting for this camera that was supposed to be the digital equivalent of the GR1.  The GR1 film camera could produce images of equal or better quality than professional SLR's in a nice, compact, pocketable package.  The GR Digital does not stand up to this standard.  It is far from as good as ANY DSLR available (even the cheapest ones out there) and costs as much as a DSLR -- more when you include the "optional" but virtually essential accessories.  Ricoh's mis-step was putting in such a small sensor.  It is extremely noisy, and it isn't handled well either.   They might have designed a decent lens, but they neglected the other image quality producing aspects of the camera.  This camera, with a bigger sensor (even if the camera had to be made bigger -- there is alot of room to make it bigger, right now it is smaller than the Gr1) could have been a winner.  An APS-c sensor would have been ideal.  As is stands, it is just an odd digi-cam with limited appeal (GR1 fans willing to accept anything claimed to be the GR1 successor). It is a big disappointment.

Scanned film from my GR1s is noticably better than the output of the GR Digital (and "pixle-peeping" isn't necessary to see the difference).  So I'm sticking with the my old GR1s and saving several hundred dollars.  Maybe the next time they try, Ricoh will get it right and produce a true digital successor to the GR1.
Logged
SphericalAberation
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2005, 11:15:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Scanned film from my GR1s is noticably better than the output of the GR Digital (and "pixle-peeping" isn't necessary to see the difference).  So I'm sticking with the my old GR1s and saving several hundred dollars.  Maybe the next time they try, Ricoh will get it right and produce a true digital successor to the GR1.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54506\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I also have a GR1s and a new GRD.

After a month of use, I must also conclude that the convenience of digital is only advantage the GRD has to offer over the GR1. Even using RAW ( and suffering those 15s write times ), dynamic range, noise and sharpness limit the GRD's usefulness under critical judgement to 8"x10" output.

A good negative on 400 ISO Fuji NPH scanned at 4000 dpi is so sharp with almost limitless dynamic range: it makes the GRD output look video like. With a light touch up of sky area grain with noise ninja and NPH is the winner in all areas.

The GRD, even at ISO 64, only wins on ease of output and X-ray damage fears.  

However I'm not convinced that a 6 to 8 Megapixel DSLR with a 28 mm ( equiv. ) lens would do that much better, and would obviously be a lot larger.
Logged
drm
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2005, 08:51:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Seems to be quite a lot of polarised views on this.  I've seen some images on the web, and I have to say I don't see a big issue with noise.

However, since the main advantage of digital is the ability to switch sensitivity, I guess if performance at ISO 400 is way below film, then I should stick with my GR1v.

Finally, selecting the best slides / negs and then scanning them is no bigger a deal than going through stacks of RAW files, especially if they've all got to through Noise Ninja or whatever.
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad