New Ricoh GR Digital III

As a current owner of a GRD II, I would be willing to give this a try IF the changes they're making do, in fact, improve the high ISO ( I found ISO400 was about the "top out" point on the GRD II ) and, maybe, the dynamic range. The addition of a faster lens (but not much faster I guess) will also benefit the high ISO if the statement regarding resolution is true.

I'm looking forward to this and yes, it's A LOT more pocketable than the PEN/EP-1 - even if the EP-1 has the 17mm on it.

Cheers,
Dave
 
@aizan I.S. on a wide angle lens is not as necessary as it is on a telephoto; nor is it as required on smaller sensors - it's quite easy to handhold as low as 1/10 or even lower with these tiny sensor cams.

Putting I.S. on a fixed wide lens would only add bulk to the camera imho.

Cheers,
Dave
 
I just noted that they have added a "second" function button (Fn2) where the "trash can" (i.e. delete) is located. It's good to see that they have not changed the ergonomics in any significant manner as this was one of the strongest points for the GRD series imho.

Dave
 
I love the GRD. Sure, it's got a small sensor, with all the problems that entails, but I've had some excellent results from mine.
The best thing about it is that you can take it anywhere. It fits in your trouser pocket without wearing a hole in it or pulling your trousers down at one side. The leather case has a belt loop, so you can carry it like that too.
It's not flashy looking and it feels nicely solid and not flimsy or plasticky.

This sounds like a nice upgrade. Maybe once it's been out for a while and the street prices have subsided, it'll be worth the change.
 
Absolutely looking forward to this one, have a GRD II and it´s my everyday/bring everywhere camera. The upgrade from GRD was worth it, better screen , less noise on 200 iso and better handling/speed. So new sensor/engine, 1.9 lens and a sharper screen looks tempting, looking forward to see how the real life usage of the GRD III would be compared to the II. The GRD series have always been a bit pricey, but the portability and the image quality gives lots of nice photos that I would not have had with a bigger camera. The better camera is the one you have with you, and my D300 with 45mm P does not fit in my jacket side pocket, the GRD II does :)

vha
 
The GRDs are great cameras. And comparing them to these micro 4/3 cameras is silly. Those cameras are small, but they aren't nearly as small as GR-D. You can't jam that digital pen in your pocket. Even the LX3 and the G10 are much bigger in comparison.
 
The E-P1 is a lot bigger and heavier than you think from looking at pictures. The GRD series is much, much smaller. And you will find that at base ISO, there is far less of a difference in image quality than you think.
 
Obviously a 4/3rds sensor will provide technically better results than the small unit in the GRD. But there is something about the results that a very small, but good sensor produces. These images have a certain look that is quite pleasing.
 
Last edited:
Some say b&w in jpg, shot with the GRD I, was special. Any comments about that and any speculation or hard evidence that the GRD III will shine in that role?
 
I had a GRD, one that I bought specifically for the black and white images that everyone raved about. I like grain. I shoot Tri-X in Rodinal at 1:25 and overdevelop it to get more grain, however, I wasn't too impressed with the GRD's output. To me the noise looked like noise, not grain and I ended up selling it. Eventually got a film GR 1 and use it all the time.

I'd still like the GR D to be a great camera, I just felt like the dynamic range was pretty limited and the noise was excessive. The slow RAW I could care less about and though the ergonomics were good the image quality was lacking. There are tons of smaller, cheaper, digitals which have mediocre image quality that don't cost $800. Maybe they'll nail it with this one, but I can't see spending more than $400 for a small sensor digital. Honestly I had an old Canon A series that produced better images for 1/2 the price and the programmable function buttons let me do the equivalent of "Snap" mode.
 
Originally Posted by historicist
I had a GRD and hated it. It was a good camera body and lens with a mediocre sensor, and the GRDII and III don't seem to be any different.

It seemed barely worth taking a picture, even when I got a good one it always looked as if it would have been better with a large sensor camera.
Click to expand...


I don't know, I have seen an awful lot of good pictures that have been taken with all versions of the GRD, both from a technical and artistic standpoint.

A bigger sensor is not going to make you suddenly take better pictures.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure, at least speaking for myself. I find that I take much better pictures with medium format cameras, on both a technical and artistic level, than with 35mm. I can't explain why, because the same photographer is behind the camera, but the difference is clear to me.

I've seen plenty of good photos from the GRD from an artistic point of view, but felt that they were all compromised by the image quality. I always think, great photo, but if only it had been taken with a different camera it would have been even better...

It was a very frustrating camera to own for precisely that reason, whereas with the film GR1 series I never had the feeling that the image was deficient compared to larger cameras.

The GRD must work well for a lot of people, but it didn't for me.
 
Grain vs. Noise

Grain vs. Noise

It seems to me:

Grain follows the contours inherent in the image.
Noise is a pattern inherent to the sensor, and the connection to the image is based on exposure, rather than contours in the image itself.

Does that seem right?
 
The GR-D I/II works fine with the normal Mac software.

They're lovely, usable cameras - the interface was designed by someone who actually likes photographers, which is more than I can say for most pocketable camera's I've dealt with.

I find that I take much better pictures with medium format cameras, on both a technical and artistic level, than with 35mm.
Click to expand...

The GR-D series might not be for you: medium format it's not.



The image quality is good enough in the II for the sort of thing I end up using it for.
 
willie_901 said:
And, there is no software supplied for Mac users.
Click to expand...


I've recently been using RAW Developer for both the GRD2 and M8.2 RAW files on my mac. Noisy GRD2 files I usually put through Alien Skin. 85% of the images in this project were shot with the GRD2, the other 15% were Sigma DP1, Leica M8.2 and Leica MP.

As for making big prints some of these images shot with the GRD2 and DP1 were used banners for a recent Pixies Launch Party in London

24_Minotaur_Launch_Party.jpg


27_Minotaur_Launch_Party.jpg


If the GRD3 really is a big improvement over the GRD2 I'll be certainly giving it a try - a F1.9 would be a very useful feature.
 
I own the GRDII, and it is one of the best street shooters I have ever used. If the new camera has better dynamic range and produces cleaner files at higher ISO's, then I am definately interested in the new camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom