GR1v vs. GRDII shootout

[odklizec]

Some (long) time ago I did a GR1v vs. GRDII shootout to see how good or bad performs the digital technology against the old good analog and vice versa. As many of you knows, I'm obsessed with film-like look of digital files So one part of this shootout was about editing the GRDII DNG files to make them appear as close (or better) to film as possible.

GR1v was loaded with Fuji Superia 400 ASA film so GRDII has been set to ISO400. All scenes were purposely chosen with difficult lightning conditions. Just to see how will both cameras handle the dynamic range, chromatic aberration and noise.

GR1v advantages:
- captured level of details - sorry, there is no contest for bayer mask sensors. Foveon seems to be the only contestant here.
- no color noise and very pleasant to view grain
- optical VF with status info - but it's like pin hole and often broken (see disadvantages)
- build like a tank - though larger than GRD

GR1v disadvantages:
- frequently reported broken top LCD or status info in LCD (seems to be a design/electronic problem). I experienced this problem too.
- you don't see the result immediately
- one roll of film = one ISO for entire film - pretty limiting!
- running costs (films, photo development)
- optical VF is way too small to be really usable

GRDII advantages:
- immediate preview
- WYSIWYG LCD
- possibility to change ISO without worry about previous/next photo (unlike film)
- "costless" operation - SD cards are soooo cheap in these days
- high quality wide or tele conversion lens
- external flash (it's a shame there is still no small TTL flash with bouncing head)
- small and compact size
- a lot of photographic modes and unusual (for film) features

GRDII disadvantages:
- color noise at higher ISO
- occasional banding
- almost useless JPEG
- build quality is not as high as in case of GR1v (flimsy flash and battery door, falling rubber grip, painting on screws wears off,...)

Here you can see some comparison photos (full res. files will be delivered later)...
GR1v:

GRDII DNG + Silkypix:

GRDII JPEG:


GR1v:

GRDII DNG + Silkypix:

GRDII JPEG:


GR1v:

GRDII DNG + Silkypix:

GRDII JPEG:


GR1v:

GRDII DNG + Silkypix:

GRDII JPEG:


GR1v: This photo is a perfect example of LCD/EVF advantage over the optical viewfinder. I framed this photo via GR1v built-in VF but I did not notice the camera strap at all.

GRDII DNG + Silkypix:

GRDII JPEG:

 

[mr.datsun]

Nice idea although it's hard to make any qualitative comparisons from the photographs.

There are things in your comparison lists that I might comment on.

1. An advantage of the GR1 that you don't mention is the focus speed. And it's a major advantage, even in low light. I'd like to know the actual speed difference. Count that against the GRD.

2. GR1 has very small number of carefully chosen controls

3. Much larger 'sensor' area than GRD.

Also your list of GR1 disadvantages could be seen the other way :-
- you don't see the result immediately
That can be seen as an advantage. The magic of belief, anticipation and surprise. See disadvantage of GRD below

- one roll of film = one ISO for entire film - pretty limiting!
Another advantage. Makes you think about each shot.

- running costs (films, photo development)
hard to argue with that.

- optical VF is way too small to be really usable
but it has one, doesn't add much bulk and it fits inside the case. It also doesn't fail quite as badly as the GRD in bright light does.

Disadvantage of GRD (and digital in general):
No magic.

But if I could get a true digital GR1, I would. No frills just speed, good design and quality.

 

[pketh]

Really great comparison odklizec, best I've seen by far!

I don't want to defend the GR1. It's certainly not perfect, not even nearly
but I gotta say, the viewfinder issue doesn't bother me at all - I prefer it to an lcd, just because it lets your hands be more steady and it feels more 'immersive' to shoot that way (lame word choice I know). I also have a film SLR (Olympus OM1) with a way way bigger VF, but the difference never really bothered me after a while. Personal preferences of course though, fortunately everyone is different.

To extend on to what mr.datsun was saying about the "small number of carefully chosen controls". That's what I really love about the GR1 as well - that because you only adjust aperture or set it on auto, it is essentially modeless. And because of that it's very fidget free. Maybe I'm just old fashioned (at age 25), but I like this UI methodology more than the modern common PASM type.

I did want to ask you, odklizec, I noticed for a few of these pictures that you set the exposure compensation manually for the GRD pics. Did you also change the compensation in the film ones as well?

Thanks, this is a cool forum too

 

[pketh]

Oh I forgot to add one other note to people,

Even though the GR1 has a dedicated dial for exposure compensation which makes it really easy to adjust the setting. I've found (on all 3 of the GR1s) I've used, that this dial is waaaay to stiff. On the plus side it means you won't accidently change it, but it really can be a pain in the ass.

Of course shooting film, I rarely ever change it from 0 anyways. But if you do, then on balance, I'd imagine that the GRD way is probably less stressful for that setting

 

[thelps]

This comparison is fantastic, and a big thank you to Pavel for his time and effort here. I am pleased that the imagery that the GRD can produce seems up to what the film GR can do. Neither camera is right or wrong IMHO, there are advantages and disadvantages with both and they are both just as capable IMHO.

I wish Ricoh still made or had stocks of the GR1v as I'd like to buy one at their price of the time. I regret not buying a film GR when they were available, I also regret not buying a GRD I when new. I will be keeping my GRD II even when the III and IV comes out - but will likely buy the new one as well.

I still have a Contax T3 while a different camera to the GR film, is my current film compact, it produces a remarkable number of keepers. I'm sure film GR users find the same. So use your camera tool of choice and enjoy the images.

 

[palec]

This is interesting comparison, face to face.
But the results from Superia do not show GR1's glory. I guess they were made by lab that processed the film, right?

I usually carry use both cameras, one in each pocket. They are wonderful portable combo - GR1v for b&w and GRDII for colour.
I don't have 1:1 comparison, but I think I'll find a pair to show.

Both have disadvantage: they are so small I usually forget I should hold them with both hands.

 

[odklizec]

Yes, this Superia has been processed in lab. So the results may not show the best GR1v can do. When I find some time, I will post the 1:1 crops from both GRDII and GR1v. These crops should show the true strength of GR1v. The GR1v ISO400 noise is much pleasant to look (no color noise at all) and sharpness is better too.

 

[DTD]

Nice idea for a test – one I've thought about, but never done.

I have the GR-1s and GRDII.

Although I use digital for most of my photography out of convenience, I enjoy using the film camera more. I still use it for a long=term project about the seaside (along with a Leica M6 – mainly so I have some shots with a 50mm lens).

The built in viewfinder of the GR-1s is the main plus for me. I have the detachable one for the GRDII, but as I then can't have the camera in my pocket it defeats the main point of having the camera.

One thing I do not like about the GRD-II is 'noise' at higher ISO settings, I usually use ISO 400 film with the GR-1, but the performance of the digital camera is, in my opinion not very good at these settings. Still overall I use the GRD-II as my carry everywhere camera, although I will be keeping an eye on micro-four thirds developments.