GR User Forum

The spot for all Ricoh GR camera users

Register for free, meet other Ricoh GR users, share your images, help others, have fun!

Tell your friends about us!

GRDII ISO tests

Here are the first GRD2 ISO comparisons (100% crops from the full res. photos).
All taken in Auto mode, image settings as follows:
Contrast = 0
Sharpness = -2
Color Depth = -2













Full resolution images can be downloaded here:
GRD2 RAW
R0011473_80.dng
R0011474_100.dng
R0011475_200.dng
R0011476_400.dng
R0011477_800.dng
R0011478_1600.dng

GRD2 JPEG NR OFF
R0011461_80.jpg
R0011462_100.jpg
R0011463_200.jpg
R0011464_400.jpg
R0011465_800.jpg
R0011466_1600.jpg

GRD2 JPEG NR ON
R0011467_80_nr.jpg
R0011468_100_nr.jpg
R0011469_200_nr.jpg
R0011470_400_nr.jpg
R0011471_800_nr.jpg
R0011472_1600_nr.jpg
 
Re: GRDII ISO test

Thank you for this hard work. I have not downloaded the RAW files yet but on first blush the RAW images do not look too
bad at ISO 400 or even 800 at 100% but I want to see the entire RAW file first. As I read in another post somewhere, it
does appear that NR is NOT turned all the way off on the .jpgs, and finally it does not look as if there is much smearing
with the NR on at the high ISO.
I cannot make a comparison with the GRD I, but so far, the GRD II is not too shabby to my eyes. I am really interested
to see what GRD I owners think.
 
Re: GRDII ISO test

Hello odklizec, I just signed up for this forum and wanted to say thanks for the test! I am a new GRD I owner (picked it up after the price drops with the announcement of the GRD II) and would love if you could possibly do the same test images with your GRD I (raw and jpeg at the same settings) so we can make a really good comparison? If so I would be very thankful! I wanted to keep the GRD I and buy another (I always like to shoot with 2 cams) but since a couple of features that I was counting on to be included in the updated firmware last week were left out I am contemplating going with the GRD II instead. The improved WB, RAW write speed and DOF scale in MF are what are pushing me to the edge. Thanks!
 
Re: GRDII ISO test

Oops, you made your last reply before I could finish typing my post. Thanks in advance!
 
Re: GRDII ISO test

First thing I found when PP the RAW ISO 800 and 1600 was that Noiseware Pro works better then Neat Image on the images. Cleaned them up pretty darn good. I have
been opening them up in LightRoom. I am quite impressed with the ISO 400 and below, it is very rare for me to ever shoot above ISO 400 even with my dSLRs. I will
try some of my other RAW converters on the images, but they sure did fine in Lightroom.
My computer downloaded the files as tiffs, I do not know why and it probably is not a big deal. The EXIF data and everything else is there.
Thanks again Pavel :)
 
For testing I should do everything with neutral settings, not minus 2 for sharpness and so on. It is in automode and neutral that you have to judge and compare a camera, not with manipulaed settings. Than we can compare in a neutral way. In automode and everything neutral we need to be able to capure a nearly perfec picture. With he rest we can play than later on as we wish. Also no postprocessing to judge pictures even not compressing a JPEG. As told before also, those pictures are in my opinion not that good to caompare. The darkness of the scene is nearly all over the same. I like to see more the real live = a scene with 50% highlights and 50% dark areas. Is this possible to do?
 
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree here lucridders. The reason why I used -2 is exactly what you want to achieve..completely neutral result both in RAW and JPEG. The only reason why the Contrast is 0 is that I partially forgot to turn it to -2 in this test and partially because it's my preferred setup. The -2 values are in fact very close to RAW output. 0 in other hand, represents "standard" amount of in-camera processing. In other words, sharpness 0 does not mean that there is no sharpening or color depth applied! It's rather a standard level of processing. Only the -2 values represent as close to RAW processing as possible. But I suspect that even with -2 is applied some level of processing ;)
 
Soory, but only settings to 0 are valuable. I am not interested in first order in post processing :). So, do your tests as you wish for me, but the way you do they are quite useless and made in such a way that you can not say what he real value of he camera will be. Making he settings already for doing tests is little bit silly. Should be the same as with a machine per example, you write a soft and you can not use the soift when everyhing is set to 0, no you have to put -X. Wouldn't it better than to make those values the 0??? Question of being a litle bit logical. The best results should be achieved in general conditions wihout any changed settings and without post processing in mind!!!
 
lucridders":2xiw4crx said:
Soory, but only settings to 0 are valuable. I am not interested in first order in post processing :).
Says who? :) I think it's a matter of taste of each user. And as I understand it, most of GRD users like to process their images. And this is also why GRD users asked so loudly for faster RAW. I personally like less in-camera processed images (which are easier to edit), you like more processed images. That's your choice and you have full right on it. But unfortunately, it's out of my possibilities to do tests for everyone's taste. So I will try to make the following tests more universal and you will have to accept the limits ;)
 
I understand your point of view, but I do not ask for in camear processing. I just ask to do neutral settings as this has to be the standard to start with. When somebody will reduce noise later on = ok, or sharpening less or more. But ask 1000 people hwo they should do a test = they will answer as I am asking I think. So, for me personally you can easely do your testings as you do know, but you have to understand that for free-minded people those tests are not relevant as you was setting certain settings to a taste from a certain group of people.
 
odklizec":1aza6vp3 said:
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree here lucridders. The reason why I used -2 is exactly what you want to achieve..completely neutral result both in RAW and JPEG.

Yes, i agree that is more appropriate. -2 setting is closer to ZERO sharpening in RAW. i have check both visually and the fourier spectrum. For those who prefer cooked images, one can always post process these not-sharpened images to compare (to your favorite algo.)

ask 1000 image researchers, i think they will do this too.
 
So, this is more than interesting. This shows again that when you shoot in Raw or Jpeg, you need to reset your cam to have the same results. Do we really become crazy or something like that??? Is really silly. I should make the software in such a way that when shooting Raw, I can use use the same settings as when shooting Jpeg. If not, I have to reset my cam all the time. It is not a question that -2 is more to ZERO in Raw = same as JPEG. I agree, you find here really die-hards who can not see reality. When I like to switch from Raw to Jpeg or opposite and I forget my settings = I do not have a good result. Isn't it much more simplier that Ricoh should make the sofware that they do this internally by using the software??? I know that nobody of you will agree, but this says enough than. We live in 2007 as you know = let software handle that when on 0, we have same resuls in JPEG and Raw and not changing settings all the time.
 
Back
Top