Over the last few years I've read quite a few GR owners complaining about dust in their units. If Ricoh has resolved that issue, that alone would make this a nice upgrade.
Interesting little camera and good to see IS added which helps in some situations. But sadly it doesn't have tilting LCD or EVF which makes it tough to use as a walkaround camera for people like me with older eyes. Like others I'm also starting to wonder how this compares to better smartphones that are even more portable (and possibly have better IQ in some conditions thanks to computational imaging). Is it really worth the ~ 1000 EUR? The frequent complaints about sensor dust or completely malfunctioning GR's make me afraid of buying a used GR(2), otherwise the older version at half the price would look attractive.
The first sample images on DPReview are not very convincing: strong aliasing in some images, lens doesn't look that great in the corners (but maybe that is only because the higher resolution sensor is less forgiving?) and even at 100ISO there is significant sky noise. Let's hope the final production version is improved but I doubt anything will change in the few weeks before they start selling.
On the other side, if enough GR owners upgrade to GR3 the price of used GR2 might decline enough to make it attractive for infrared modding. Let's see how the reviews and first users reports pan out
I've had a soft spot for Ricoh ever since I had a GXR. That opened my eyes to the world of rangefinder lenses. I may have to get a GRIII, but that sure is a lot of coin for a fixed lens APS-C camera.
sauravdg wrote:
Well David, I understand where are you coming from; ofcourse DOF equivalence is of a 28mm/f4 in 35mm terms (or 18mm/2.8 to be more precise), but light gathering per pixel is still at 2.8 (which is more important). Hence the equivalence is irrelevant here. Plus marketing aspect is there as well. Most gullible consumers feel that bigger the f-number, better the spec. This back bites when buying a medium format camera but again MF is not consumer oriented (yet). In ideal case though T-stops should be mentioned IMO.
Almost.
Light gatering per pixel is not really at f2.8 - it depends on the size of the pixel. Light gathering per *unit area* is the same as an f2.8 lens a sensor of any size of course (including phones and medium format). How important light gathering per area is is another matter (important when comparing sensors of the same size of course)
As for light gathering per pixel, this lens has one stop less light gathering per pixel as a 24MP full frame sensor (which has larger pixels) and about the same light gathering per pixel as a 48MP full frame sensor (holding fixed the sensors and pixels qaulities).
Of course there is a third measure - total light gathered over the surface of the sensor. That’s the one that interests me, as it’s the one that matters if you are comparing prints or displays of the same dimension.
DavidBM wrote:
Almost.
Light gatering per pixel is not really at f2.8 - it depends on the size of the pixel. Light gathering per *unit area* is the same as an f2.8 lens a sensor of any size of course (including phones and medium format). How important light gathering per area is is another matter (important when comparing sensors of the same size of course)
As for light gathering per pixel, this lens has one stop less light gathering per pixel as a 24MP full frame sensor (which has larger pixels) and about the same light gathering per pixel as a 48MP full frame sensor (holding fixed the sensors and pixels qaulities).
Of course there is a third measure - total light gathered over the surface of the sensor. That’s the one that interests me, as it’s the one that matters if you are comparing prints or displays of the same dimension. ...Show more →
Right.. sorry I should have been clearer and mentioned it. Yes, 18MP APSC vs 42MP FF.
Sauseschritt wrote:
Right now I think I'd rather get a Fujifilm XF10. Almost half the price, apparently very good ergonomics, very good image quality, and has all features I want, except for a flash hotshoe.
It has the same lens as the Fuji X70, and that lens is not even remotely as good as the one in the GR (II). I have both and I prefer the image quality from the GR by a huge margin. I'll probably sell the X70 just because of the crappy lens. What's the point with a large sensor if the lens is not up to the same standards?
Edit: I wonder why they redesigned the GR lens, since it was close to perfection.
Sauseschritt wrote:
Are you sure that wasnt just problems with the x-trans color matrix ?
I'm sure it's both. Stopped down to f/8 the lens is pretty sharp, but for any type of handheld photography without IBIS and a very lightweight camera, you often need to use f/2.8-4. The GR lens is dead sharp to the corners at f/2.8. Can't say that about the X70/XF10. The bokeh of the GR lens is also superior.
Makten wrote:
Edit: I wonder why they redesigned the GR lens, since it was close to perfection.
Might have something to do with IBIS needing more space. Another reason could be to get the focusing lens group weight down to enable faster AF, though from the initial launch day (p)reviews it seems like there might still be room for improvement in that department.
sikaheimo wrote:
Might have something to do with IBIS needing more space. Another reason could be to get the focusing lens group weight down to enable faster AF, though from the initial launch day (p)reviews it seems like there might still be room for improvement in that department.
Good points and I think the GR3 also focuses closer? Let's hope the extra headroom for the IBIS and other changes doesn't mean compromised corners like with many lens-based IS systems (which is decentering by definition ...). I agree with Makten that the GR2 lens seemed close to perfect, at least on its lower res sensor so any changes are risky; and with the relatively simple lens design I wonder what the trade-offs are in GR3 lens.
I really liked the Fuji X70 until I looked at the images; no doubt the GR2 lens is far superior in the borders/corners and when used near wide open. If you have a fixed lens with just one focal length setting, it better be very good quality.
Leaving Bangkok for Paris tomorrow and am thinking picking up the GRIII, which the dealer probably will have for me on Tuesday (closed Monday).
Bear with me on my long rationale on this. I’ve just put my What's in a Haiku book project to bed, so to speak — at least in terms of not shooting any more for it. In two weeks I'm meeting with the team for final edit and design of the book, including a designer/editor, a bookbinder and a lithographer. It’s a breakthrough in terms of getting the book published.
All this has started me thinking about the next project. As a first step, in order to formulate a “point of departure”, I’m going in two directions. One direction involves an exercise to simplify the frame by shooting for a while the way Ralph Gibson did for his Quadrants book: with a 50mm lens in bright sun light using a small aperture — and with the subject at one meter distance. I’ll where that takes me. (I'll be using a DR Summicron 50 and a Leica M10).
The other direction would be with the new GRIII, which facilitates a loose and fluid style of one-handed shooting: “no finder shots”, as Moriyama Daido calls them. In anticipation of that, last week I started shooting with the small-sensor GRDIV that I haven't used for some five years. Now I'll have to decide whether to stick with the GRDIV and it's greater depth of field or to go for the new GRIII with its APS-C sensor.
I just canceled my pre-order. Nothing to do with the GR; no question it's the perfect street camera, IMO. But I'm thinking over my personal direction and am not sure I'll continue with street work. We'll see if I can resist. The GRs has been my favorite cameras ever.
Makten wrote:
It has the same lens as the Fuji X70, and that lens is not even remotely as good as the one in the GR (II). I have both and I prefer the image quality from the GR by a huge margin. I'll probably sell the X70 just because of the crappy lens. What's the point with a large sensor if the lens is not up to the same standards?
Edit: I wonder why they redesigned the GR lens, since it was close to perfection.
I had the X70 as well as the GR and I agree the lens on the X70 wasn’t the best. Soft up close, much like the X100 lens at macro or close distance need to stop down to f/4 to f/5.6 to get decent results. The GR lens is much better.
If I remember reading correctly, they needed to redesign the GR lens (taking away one element) in order to fit it in the chassis because of the addition of the IBIS. I saw a cutout of the III and the inclusion of IBIS took away the space for the flash. By redesigning the lens they were able to keep the slim profile and conceivably speed up AF.
The picture profiles of the III look really decent, may not be as heralded as the Fuji film simulations, but really close.
fotografur wrote:
I don't have a 28mm lens so maybe I'll just get this instead
Go for it! I just bought the II because the III wouldn’t arrive for my trip out to Vegas. When I come back the III should be waiting on my doorstep ready to go.
