GRD users RAW or JPG and why?

[nightfly]

Noticed a lot of GRD users tend to prefer JPGs from the camera rather than RAW. Just wondering why. I know with the older GRDs RAW write time was atrocious but the 3 and I assume 4 don't seem to lag too much. So I figure it's more of an aesthetic issue rather than a purely technical one.

Trying to work out my own GRD workflow and just wanted to know what the thinking was.

 

[__--]

As you state, the first GRD version had very slow DNG write times, and some users thought that the noise of the JPGs, say, at ISO 800 was very film like. There may be another factor, when the GRD first came out — was it 2005 or 2006? — many users didn't know how to process raw files and may not have had have owned Photoshop, which was still the main software for image edition, and was expensive. In any case, the original GRD developed a cult status with, in my view, an element of myth of the filmfike qualitiy of the JPGs that still persists today among some people.

When I got the GRD in mid-2006, I started using JPG for I didn't know what raw files were; but that didn't last more than 50 frames and I moved on to DNGs, which have the advantages that I am sure you know (despite the long write time on the original GRD). These days I only shoot JPGs witht the GRD4 when using the high-contrast mode, which is availbale only in JPGS.

In going to from the GRD to the GRD2 and GRD3, image qquality of the DNGs improved about one stop in each version, and the improvement in the GRD4 ovr the GRD3 is still 1/2–3/4 stop. My advice would be to get the GRD4 if you are serious about this camera. Also, the 21mm EFOV wide-converter is excellent, as it preserves the f/1.9 maximum aperture and the image quality. Where else can you get an f/1.9 21mm lens at about US$150?

I should mention, however, that when I went from the GRD to the GRD2 I was initially disappointed that the grain and some of roughness "was lost" ± under I learnt how to "destroy" or rough up files. After that, I appreciated the improvement of image quality of each version of the camera because it gave me more scope for processing. The first picture below is a favorite of mine, but has not been popular on flickr. The second on the oother hand has had more views, comments and favorites of any of my shots but of which I am not that fond. The third one I like but it's not popular.




Ricoh GRD3 | 21mm wide-converter | ISO 400 | f/1/9

Bangkok




Ricoh GRD2

Paris




Ricog GRD3

Bangkok



—Mitch/Bangkok
Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

 

[schaki]

I bought a GRDII first, in 2006 or 2007, thinking it was the way to go but for me it was not.
The slow af without Phase detection sensors which the first GRD had irritated me. Nr Off is definitely not real Nr Off with any of the last three GRDS as them keep smudge detail in jpeg and it have only become worse for each model so far.
After having let the GRDII go I finally bought a used GRDI. I had a slow start with it I've got quite a lot of pictures with it which I like.
Raw-writing is slow as already mentioned and not buffered. But by using a card which works well with the camera it is possible to get down to just about 9 secs or marginally faster. There has been a Raw-writing test for the GRD over at Ricohforum. http://ricohforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3&start=0
It was still not buffered Raw with GRDII if I remember it correctly. But at least it is fast enough to be useful in many situations. Around 3 secs as fastest. http://ricohforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=459&start=0
As I use jpegs and dislike smudging noise reduction, I've simply chosen not to buy an of the last three GRDs. We'll see if Ricoh can get it right again with the upcoming GRDV or not.
I like the GRDI and also some of the other old Ricoh Caplios like the 500SE which is based on the GX8, Caplio R3 which is an old small super-zoom compact and of course also the Caplio 400G Wide which can be very silent in use as long as it is a good unit. It is a shockproof and to some minor extent a waterproof model, based on the Caplio G4 Wide which was of Ricoh's entry-level compacts, though with a zoom which overall is good if it is a good lensunit which not suffer bad from misalignment.
All of them uses relatively little Nr.