The 35mm Ricoh GR

[thelps]

For some years many people have asked Ricoh to make a 35mm equivalent GR Digital. Others have wanted a 50mm and even longer versions with some suggesting a pure 21mm equivalent compact. I found little on the net to explain the GR 35mm technical dimensions so am posting some boring numerical findings here for reference.

I felt it most appropriate to study the 35mm mode using the camera in 3:2 mode. This is closer to 35mm film in ratio than 4:3 mode. Most users I suspect would come from this ratio. Perhaps those using 6 x 4.5 medium format or 8x10 film would find the 4:3 closer. Fair enough too.

Some numbers for 28mm & 35mm crop mode --

4:3 Ratio
28mm 4:3 ratio the RAW image is 4368 x 3280 pixels
35mm 4:3 ratio the RAW image is 3504 x 2624 pixels

3:2 Ratio
28mm 3:2 ratio the RAW image is 4944 x 3280 pixels
35mm 3:2 ratio the RAW image is 3952 x 2624 pixels

1:1 Ratio (square)
28mm 1:1 ratio the RAW image is 3280 x 3280 pixels
35mm 1:1 ratio the RAW image is 2624 x 2624 pixels

Note: Looking at the EXIF info the in camera generated jpeg files are all about 16 pixels smaller than the RAW sizes quoted above. It would be interesting to know why?

For additional reference the 28mm GRD IV sizes are as follows --
4:3 ratio the RAW image is 3648 x 2736
3:2 ratio the RAW image is 3648 x 2432
1:1 ratio the RAW image is 2736 x 2736

What we can see here is the resolution for 35mm mode on the GR is only slightly less than the GRD IV 28mm camera.

Angles of view for 35mm film - generally the diagonal is quoted
28mm is 75 degrees
35mm is 63 degrees

A 35mm 3:2 mode image. Jpeg from camera. No PP, re-sized only


A 35mm 4:3 mode image. Jpeg from camera. No PP, re-sized only


A 35mm 1:1 mode image. Jpeg from camera. No PP, re-sized only


Ricoh’s description of 35mm Crop mode is here - http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/gr/feature/03.html

The question arises should you just crop a 28mm image to 35mm in post process? Well IMO some people like to "see" in 35mm while making the image so while cropping is an option I think the addition of the mode in camera is very valid. If 35mm is your thing you have the option to put it on 35mm and leave it there or set it as a MY option.

The GR shows the actual full "35mm image" while in 35mm mode on its LCD so it does become a 35mm camera. Using a 35mm OVF on the hot shoe is another possibility.

The Ricoh GR a 28mm camera at its core, that is the mode mine will be used in. Can the GR act as a 35mm camera? IMHO I believe yes and with a level of IQ that still exceeds some competitors. On another note there are only a few other compact cameras that can start up in 35mm equivalent angle of view like the GR can. The IQ loss in sensor size is not that great as the GR sensor is quite large to start with.

Is it for you? Try it and let us know. For me the GR remains a 28mm camera but I am pleased that the Ricoh engineers included a way of getting 35mm.

 

[odklizec]

Hi Tim,

Thanks for a great research and explanation of the 35mm mode!

As for why RAW shows some more pixels than JPEG, I think it could be either a bug in JPEG/DNG processing as well as a feature! Even 28mm RAW files often contain more pixels than JPEG. These extra pixels in RAW should be hidden for user, but many RAW editors can still display them. I can only guess these extra pixels are some kind of "safe" pixels for in-camera lens correction action.

As for the usability of 35mm mode, I'm personally very curious about this GR feature. True, it's just a pure crop, so one can always take 28mm files and only later on decide to crop them to whatever he wants. But you are right about with the statement than many people prefer to see in 35mm while framing the shot. It's the same why Ricoh implemented 1:1 mode and many people like to use it, even though they can do the same, and very easily, in any image editor.

The main downside of 35mm mode I see in the fact that DoF (and bokeh) will be the same as in 28mm shots. In case of real 35mm lens, the DoF (and so bokeh) is supposed to be different .The question is, how "dramatic" the difference would be. On the other hand, higher DoF of cropped 35mm mode could be also an advantage, because it means one can use shorter times/lower ISO than with a real 35mm lens.

For example, an old rule says that 1/focal length = safe (handholdable) shutter speed. In other words, for 28mm lens, the minimum used focal length should be 1/28. Which means for 35mm you should use 1/35. But in case of GR cropped 35mm mode, it's still 1/28, because it's still the 28mm lens! Not much of a difference but sometimes it helps?

 

[thelps]

Thank you Pavel. I put this together over a few weeks as I looked about the Internet and didn't find much on the 35mm mode.
I've seen some Flickr 35mm GR images about. The mode seems to get some use.

I took sample pics on blank paper with focal length and ratio noted in the image, as well as the real world samples above. I then checked and re-checked the EXIF.
One thing I noticed is the EXIF does not seem to record the ratio that the image was taken with. It does of course show the x-y pixels but I can't see where the camera setting ratio is recorded.
If anyone finds it let us know.

For example, an old rule says that 1/focal length = safe (handholdable) shutter speed. In other words, for 28mm lens, the minimum used focal length should be 1/28. Which means for 35mm you should use 1/35. But in case of GR cropped 35mm mode, it's still 1/28, because it's still the 28mm lens! Not much of a difference but sometimes it helps?

Its amazing the realizations which come out when you discuss these ideas. You make a valid point both on the Bokeh and the shutter speed.
I managed a bit of Bokeh on the statue image but I was quite close to it.
I am very keen for you to receive your GR as I always enjoy your findings.

One issue that I checked and re-checked is that maximum resolution for the GR is in 3:2 mode at 4944 x 3280 pixels and its cropped to get 4:3 ratio whereas the GRD IV sensor gets maximum size at 4:3 ratio at 3648 x 2736.
This would suggest that the GR sensor is a native 3:2 sensor and that the GRD IV sensor is a 4:3 sensor.
Please someone check me on this and if I am right, I can only suggest all you GR users switch to 3:2 mode if you want maximum pixels. Then crop later - or not as you please!

I intend to print some 35mm crop images, just as a look to check what they are like. I guess the final output is what counts.

 

[odklizec]

One thing I noticed is the EXIF does not seem to record the ratio that the image was taken with. It does of course show the x-y pixels but I can't see where the camera setting ratio is recorded.
If anyone finds it let us know.

Some (long) time ago, I did a research of hidden EXIF records. Some of them contains some really interesting things. But right now I don't remember if there is also aspect ratio recorded in these "hidden" entries. I will check my notes about the hidden EXIF entries when I return home.

Its amazing the realizations which come out when you discuss these ideas. You make a valid point both on the Bokeh and the shutter speed.
I managed a bit of Bokeh on the statue image but I was quite close to it.
I am very keen for you to receive your GR as I always enjoy your findings.

There were some problems with delivering my GR sample, but just yesterday I was told that I should get one soon. So I hope to be a bit more active in next weeks

One issue that I checked and re-checked is that maximum resolution for the GR is in 3:2 mode at 4944 x 3280 pixels and its cropped to get 4:3 ratio whereas the GRD IV sensor gets maximum size at 4:3 ratio at 3648 x 2736.
This would suggest that the GR sensor is a native 3:2 sensor and that the GRD IV sensor is a 4:3 sensor.

Yes, the GR native aspect ratio is 3:2 as is the aspect ratio of (I believe) all ASPC sensors, including those in GXR A and M modules. Only "tiny" sensors (below 1/1.7") and from larger sensors only Oly/Pana four-thirds uses native 4:3 ratio?

 

[Blow-in]

I think Ricoh has been wise to offer the '35mm' mode on the GR and to make it available at start-up. I've banged on a lot about digitial zoom on the GRD4 (with auto resize) which gives the same effect but must be selected after start-up. Like Tim, I like the possibility to 'frame' at 35mm rather than take a 28mm shot then crop it. Also if you use the GV-2 on the GRD4, what you see is pretty close to what you get using the first step in the digital zoom (with auto resize!).

On the aspect ration thing I think you are right too and I use 3:2 on the GRX A12 as being 'native'.

Richard

 

[JohnWolf]

Hi Tim,

Thanks for a great research and explanation of the 35mm mode!

As for why RAW shows some more pixels than JPEG, I think it could be either a bug in JPEG/DNG processing as well as a feature! Even 28mm RAW files often contain more pixels than JPEG. These extra pixels in RAW should be hidden for user, but many RAW editors can still display them. I can only guess these extra pixels are some kind of "safe" pixels for in-camera lens correction action.

As for the usability of 35mm mode, I'm personally very curious about this GR feature. True, it's just a pure crop, so one can always take 28mm files and only later on decide to crop them to whatever he wants. But you are right about with the statement than many people prefer to see in 35mm while framing the shot. It's the same why Ricoh implemented 1:1 mode and many people like to use it, even though they can do the same, and very easily, in any image editor.

The main downside of 35mm mode I see in the fact that DoF (and bokeh) will be the same as in 28mm shots. In case of real 35mm lens, the DoF (and so bokeh) is supposed to be different .The question is, how "dramatic" the difference would be. On the other hand, higher DoF of cropped 35mm mode could be also an advantage, because it means one can use shorter times/lower ISO than with a real 35mm lens.

For example, an old rule says that 1/focal length = safe (handholdable) shutter speed. In other words, for 28mm lens, the minimum used focal length should be 1/28. Which means for 35mm you should use 1/35. But in case of GR cropped 35mm mode, it's still 1/28, because it's still the 28mm lens! Not much of a difference but sometimes it helps?

Good points, and ones I had not considered. We're still using a 28mm lens, so wide angle perspective, hyperfocal distances, and the handholding guideline remain those for a 28mm lens. Given all that and the loss of pixels, I prefer 28 and moving closer, if necessary and possible. But I undestand why some might want to frame in 35mm.

John

 

[Tom Caldwell]

I will defer to those with a better knowledge of optics should they advise me that this is incorrect.

My take is that if the original lens is 28mm then the characteristics of a 35mm crop capture are more likely to be as of the same lens merely cropped. I am not so sure that they will behave like a 35mm lens. Dof and other characteristics should be as of the original lens.

Where it might differ is that a 28mm image will be framed as a 28mm image an a centre crop will have a slightly different angle of view to that of a framed as 35mm image, but so small as to be imperceptable (I would argue). However a cropped out 35mm (or square) image off centre frame might have a quite different angle of view from an image captured in that ratio in the first place. Therefore cropping would give a bigger insurance policy unless precise angle of view is paramount.

The issue is interesting and really a matter of choice by the user and should be mixed and matched both to circumstance and preferences. Only one thing is certain is that it is good to have a choice and that there is no dogmatically applied "best way".

Tom

 

[paulyrichard]

Given all that and the loss of pixels, I prefer 28 and moving closer, if necessary and possible. But I undestand why some might want to frame in 35mm.

John

Ditto! A negligible few steps with some shoe leather zooming...

 

[odklizec]

As for me, I personally would love to see a 40mm version of GR. From a previous experience with GRDII+GT1, I found the 40mm focal length perfect for keeping a reasonable (unobtrusive) distance from the photographed subject yet to be still usable in small rooms where is often hard to make few steps back This is where I often found A12 50mm too long. I also think that 40mm offers better differentiation from 28mm focal length (better than 35mm from 28mm)? But I still applaud Ricoh for adding 35mm mode to GR.

 

[streetshooter]

Given all that and the loss of pixels, I prefer 28 and moving closer, if necessary and possible. But I undestand why some might want to frame in 35mm.

John

Ditto! A negligible few steps with some shoe leather zooming...

You can move as long as the change in perspective is not an issue.

 

[jsrockit]

So, the GR in 35mm crop mode is using sensor real estate that is very close to a 10mp m4/3 (since it is close to the focal length times two for 35mm equiv)?

 

[streetshooter]

So, the GR in 35mm crop mode is using sensor real estate that is very close to a 10mp m4/3 (since it is close to the focal length times two for 35mm equiv)?

That's an interesting way to look at things...bringing the m43 into it.
Mathmatically it sounds correct but I will pass to Tim as he is more eloquent than I.

I will say that I used the camera last week and for about 50 frames, had the 35 crop on. I never realized I was using the 35.
In Lightroom 5, the files look very very good.

 

[Blow-in]

So, the GR in 35mm crop mode is using sensor real estate that is very close to a 10mp m4/3 (since it is close to the focal length times two for 35mm equiv)?

I think you are right. According to page 50 of the manual if you chose the 35 mm crop the largest jpeg you can save is M which is 10M 3:2.

Richard

 

[jsrockit]

Obviously not the same aspect ratio, but similar sensor real estate. I don't feel as bad using this option when I think of it this way.

 

[Blow-in]

Obviously not the same aspect ratio, but similar sensor real estate. I don't feel as bad using this option when I think of it this way.

Nothing to feel bad about in any case. It's the photo that counts not the camera spec - and the pleasure you get taking it.

Richard

 

[Tom Caldwell]

As for me, I personally would love to see a 40mm version of GR. From a previous experience with GRDII+GT1, I found the 40mm focal length perfect for keeping a reasonable (unobtrusive) distance from the photographed subject yet to be still usable in small rooms where is often hard to make few steps back This is where I often found A12 50mm too long. I also think that 40mm offers better differentiation from 28mm focal length (better than 35mm from 28mm)? But I still applaud Ricoh for adding 35mm mode to GR.

Pavel,

I cut my teeth in portraiture with a Canon 85mm f1.2. This gives head and shoulders with good oof bokeh. Later I graduated to the "portrait from across the room" in a crowd where the 135mm f2.0 is king.

Street shooting needs wider angle as it happens in a moment and fixed focus gives the opportunity to snap. But when you are with a crowd and they know you are there then you have more time to focus and from a distance you get them more relaxed and unaware. But you get close up by virtue of the lens. No need to stick the camera in anyones face.

This has nothing to do with the undoubted benefits of 40mm focal length. I merely try to show that there will never be enough prime focal lengths to satisfy everyone. While we are at it, how anout a nice "200" as well?

Tom