M
Mitch Alland
Guest
I've made another comparison shot, this time between the GRD, GRD2 and GX100. The trouble is that I took these pictures yesterday before Sean pointed out the flaws in how I set up the shots — before he read me the "riot act", but of course he is right. Like the shots in the other thread, therefore, these pictures are taken with SNAP focus and automatic exposure metering; the aperture is f/5.0 for the GRD and GRD2 and f/4.8 for the GX100.
To me, the results between the two GRDs and the GX100 is like before: the latter camera has less contrast — a generally softer look — and I think less sharpness. I realize that the SNAP focus may be different between the cameras, as Sean pointed out in the other thread, but looking at various planes in the GX100 picture I think there may be enough evidence to conclude that the GX100 pictures are less sharp. The GX100 also shows substantially more barrel distortion.
The difference between the GRD and GRD2, however, I find more difficult to evaluate, apart from the obvious fact that the grain of the GRD2 at 200 is more like the GRD at 100. Someone on dpreview review wrote that the GRD has more "character" than the GRD2, but provided no substantiation; presumably he or she was talking about B&W and may have meant that to get the "grit" of the GRD at ISO200 you'd have to shoot the GRD2 at ISO400. The trouble is that, with the bright conditions in Thailand, particularly at mid-day, often I won't be able to shoot at ISO400. That means I either should keep the GRD to shoot it at ISO200, or start using Alien Skin Exposure.
In any case please let me know your view on the difference in "character" between the GRD and the GRD2, and also what you now think og the GRD2 vs the GX100 — from these files of from other evidence.
You can download the DNG files — I shot all three cameras at ISO200 and also shot another frame with the GRD at ISO100 — from the following link.
http://download.yousendit.com/32B4A7126132E2A5
Below are four small JPGs, in the following order:
1. GRD at ISO100
2. GRD at ISO200
3. GRD2 at ISO200
4. GX100 at ISO200
—Mitch/Huahin
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
To me, the results between the two GRDs and the GX100 is like before: the latter camera has less contrast — a generally softer look — and I think less sharpness. I realize that the SNAP focus may be different between the cameras, as Sean pointed out in the other thread, but looking at various planes in the GX100 picture I think there may be enough evidence to conclude that the GX100 pictures are less sharp. The GX100 also shows substantially more barrel distortion.
The difference between the GRD and GRD2, however, I find more difficult to evaluate, apart from the obvious fact that the grain of the GRD2 at 200 is more like the GRD at 100. Someone on dpreview review wrote that the GRD has more "character" than the GRD2, but provided no substantiation; presumably he or she was talking about B&W and may have meant that to get the "grit" of the GRD at ISO200 you'd have to shoot the GRD2 at ISO400. The trouble is that, with the bright conditions in Thailand, particularly at mid-day, often I won't be able to shoot at ISO400. That means I either should keep the GRD to shoot it at ISO200, or start using Alien Skin Exposure.
In any case please let me know your view on the difference in "character" between the GRD and the GRD2, and also what you now think og the GRD2 vs the GX100 — from these files of from other evidence.
You can download the DNG files — I shot all three cameras at ISO200 and also shot another frame with the GRD at ISO100 — from the following link.
http://download.yousendit.com/32B4A7126132E2A5
Below are four small JPGs, in the following order:
1. GRD at ISO100
2. GRD at ISO200
3. GRD2 at ISO200
4. GX100 at ISO200
—Mitch/Huahin
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
Last edited: