Ricoh GX100

[wbrandsma]

I know some of us use the Ricoh GX100 as well. So I thought it would be good to start a new thread for this cam here.
This cam has designfeatures of the GRD, but has a 24-72 mm zoomlens that you can use as a step zoom (24-28-35-50-72mm).

[cam]

you can have your own thread as long as you allow those of us that don't have one to lurk

speaking of which, i want new photos from you!

I tested that camera earlier this year and was very impressed with it.

Cheers,

Sean

[wbrandsma]

Of course you can lurk in this thread and like Sean Reid said: he was impressed and so am I. I'm also very impressed with the GRD and GRD2 though (still own an older GR1).
In the meantime another photo with the 24mm lens.

I would love to see some work from you as well
By the way Sean. I understood you are (going) to test the GRD2. I'm very interested in your outcome and findings and how the new GRD2 compares to the GX100/GRD.

Hi Wouter,

Yes, I started testing it last week. The increase in speed (RAW) is the most exciting difference. I'm also now in contact with Ricoh Japan, discussing these cameras.

Cheers,

Sean

[srw]

Well, ok first post
Hello

Got a GX100 about 2 months ago and really like it so far.
I'm still new to the digital realm (especially processing and editing) so looking forward to learning more about it here.

Here's a couple shots

[srw]

and a couple from today

[clay stewart]

Nice compositions there, srw.

[srw]

Originally Posted by clay stewart

Nice compositions there, srw.

Thanks Clay
I've seen your photos on dpreview, very very nice
It's good to see you here

[wbrandsma]

Excellent work srw. Good B&W images. I have my GX100 since June and it worked fine for me. Had some problems also. Only once the lens got stuck, but taking the battery out and in again did the trick. I also had darkspots on photos halfway August during my holiday. After my holiday I contacted Ricoh customerservice and the camera was sent to them. Within 3 weeks had my camera again and the replaced an lens assy. No problems since then.
I'm looking forward to your findings Sean. I was already excited to have a raw speed of 6 seconds with the GX100 (Sandisk Extreme III).

Impressive pictures, Wouter and srw! From the comparative shots I've made and from general experience with the GX100, it seems to me that it's a bit softer than the GRD/GRD2 cameras, but its RAW files take aggressive sharpening quite well. This raises the questions that perhaps Sean's tests will answer: at which point in terms of print size will the extra sharpness of the GRD2 make a compelling difference? You see, I like to print big and have made some 100x133cm (40x52 inch) prints with the GRD. I hope to make some large GX100 prints later this week, when I get back to Bangkok. Two GX100 pictures:









—Mitch/Huahin
http://www.flickr.com/photos/1026877...71576097/show/

[wbrandsma]

Hi Mitch, your work often blew me away. Very rich tonality. Would/could you share some of your post processing efforts in this thread: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=232
Many thanks in advance.

Thanks for the kind words, Wouter. I've posted in the other thread a description of how I post-process. Actually, I like the tonality that you get.

—Mitch/Huahin
http://www.flickr.com/photos/1026877...89594785/show/

[quote=Mitch Alland;2926] This raises the questions that perhaps Sean's tests will answer: at which point in terms of print size will the extra sharpness of the GRD2 make a compelling difference?
—Mitch/Huahin

And first we need to know how much of a resolution difference there really is between the two, at various apertures. Your comparison suggests that the GR2 has a higher contrast lens, which creates the illusion of higher resolution, but which also lessens effective DR but raising the noise floor. I have a hunch that GR 2 lens might tolerate smaller apertures better than the GX100 lens but I'll need to test to see. If I recall, you've been using the GX-100 a lot at F/5 - F/5.6 and its soft there because of diffraction. The GR 2 may be different.

I've requested the GX-100 test camera for comparison and will do the comparisons when Ricoh sends me the "40" add-on lens - maybe next week.

If a lens responds particularly well to sharpening, that suggests that resolution, but not necessarily contrast, is good. The increase in local contrast (sharpening) can make that resolution more apparent but, as we know, it can't actually ever add resolution.

Cheers,

Sean

Originally Posted by Sean_Reid

...If a lens responds particularly well to sharpening, that suggests that resolution, but not necessarily contrast, is good. The increase in local contrast (sharpening) can make that resolution more apparent but, as we know, it can't actually ever add resolution...

Sean:

Yes, a good example of that is the picture of the building above, in which I would have liked more texture in the (light) wall facing us, but it simply isn't there — and I think would have been there with the GR-D.

—Mitch/Huahin
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

Originally Posted by Mitch Alland

Sean:

Yes, a good example of that is the picture of the building above, in which I would have liked more texture in the (light) wall facing us, but it simply isn't there — and I think would have been there with the GR-D.

—Mitch/Huahin
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

Hi Mitch,

I'd have to see the original but it looks to me like that wall falls a bit outside of the DOF. The sign shows detail (but, of course, we'd need to look at full size JPEGs to know).

Cheers,

Sean

Yes, I should have thought about that, Sean; but the huge DOF of these lenses has me mesmerized.

—Mitch/Huahin
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

I know what you mean. One can forget that there even are depth of field limitations with these cameras but they're still there. And if one is really looking critically at resolution with a SSC, even a small focus shift will change everything.

Cheers,

Sean

[Will]

One i took in the summer

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/200/5...6dce4257_b.jpg

[Chris]

I am a newbie in the world of compact cameras with more possibilities of manual control. Before I bought a GX100 a few weeks ago, I just had a Canon Ixus. Obviously, one cannot compare these two cameras and it opens me a new world of possibilities. I can say that I am very satisfied with the Ricoh.
I mainly like to take street photographs. With the Ixus it was often impossible to take pictures because of the relative darkness in some small streets of Sevilla (at least at some hours of the day). The GX100 allows me to take pictures during much more time of the day. And I love the snap focus, the little delay of taking the picture after pressing the button and the wide angle.

The only problem I have had so far is that the camera gets stucked sometimes (but I am sure that this is just because I used a memory card that still had a picture of the other camera as with the other memory card this has not happened).


This is an example of a picture that would not have been possible with the other camera.



Best regards,
Chris
http://flickr.com/photos/21306283@N0...7603384457352/

[srw]

Before I bought the GX100 I looked at the GRD and have been following the news on the GRD II but having the zoom really comes in handy sometimes.
I think it's worth the compromise in quality (if there is one).

I still shoot mostly at 24mm but it's nice to have the option to zoom in

Like this-





Or this-

[srw]

Originally Posted by wbrandsma

Excellent work srw. Good B&W images. I have my GX100 since June and it worked fine for me. Had some problems also. Only once the lens got stuck, but taking the battery out and in again did the trick. I also had darkspots on photos halfway August during my holiday. After my holiday I contacted Ricoh customerservice and the camera was sent to them. Within 3 weeks had my camera again and the replaced an lens assy. No problems since then.
I'm looking forward to your findings Sean. I was already excited to have a raw speed of 6 seconds with the GX100 (Sandisk Extreme III).

Thanks Wouter and Mitch

I picked up an Extreme III recently and wow big difference, cut the write time in half compared to an older Ultra II

I must have a dud copy of the Extreme III. I'll need to try again.

Cheers,

Sean

[Maggie O]

Originally Posted by srw

Thanks Wouter and Mitch

I picked up an Extreme III recently and wow big difference, cut the write time in half compared to an older Ultra II

I just put an eXtreme III in my D-Lux 3 and it cut RAW write times down to around three seconds. RAW is actually usable now.

[asabet]

Using a 2GB Ultra II SD card, I get 6.1s for the GX100, compared with 4.4 seconds on a D-LUX2. I'm fine with waiting 6.1s.

[Chris]

I use a 2GB Extreme III SD card and I just took a picture (2.5; 1/8) and it took 10 "blinks" to save the RAW.

Originally Posted by Chris

Before I bought a GX100 a few weeks ago, I just had a Canon Ixus.

I should add, it was an Ixus 40.

Best regards,
Chris
http://www.flickr.com/photos/2130628...7603384457352/

If anyone is interested, a good way to test the shot to shot time in RAW is to photograph an on-line stopwatch.

Cheers,

Sean

[Bizy]

Hi everyone. If you can keep this forum going with loads of pics and less bitching, it'll be a treat.

Here's a shot from yesterday: GX100 - ISO 80 with noise added.

The fountain of Geneva.....

[asabet]

Great image Bizy!

[Bizy]

Thanks Amin

Its really the people on the DP Review Ricoh forum that tempted me to get a small sensor camera. So I'm only just beginning to discover what can be done with them.

The pictures posted here by Mitch, SRW, Ellemand (D-Lux-2) and many others are a true inspiration; some great images are being created with relatively modest equipment (price-wise) and proving the cliche - It isn't the camera, but the person operating it that matters.

Bizy

[wbrandsma]

You've clearly got it Bizy with that beautiful fountain image. Fantastic contrast between the fountain and the dark clouds.

[Bob Yanal]

I keep getting blown away by various posts in BW - especially Wouter's.

Here's one in color:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16445975@N05/2104118130/

Full disclosure. I'm trying to work on an article on the pluses and minuses of BW photography. Or to put it another way, what are the aesthetics of BW and color photography.

Most of the posts to this thread have been BW.

I'd be interested to hear your contrasts. And, please don't say: it's up to your taste. If you don't think there are pluses and minuses about BW photography - if you think it's merely a matter of taste - well, sign on, say hello, and ...

[Punchman]

Hi Everyone. I'm new, just joined the other day after following Mitch over here from Ricoh Talk forum. Love this new forum here!

My Intro: life long photography devotee - 4 decades using film cameras in all formats from Minox up to 4x5. Almost exclusively B&W in 35mm and later Medium Format (Rollei TLR's & Mamiya 7). Went digital in 2002.

Discovered the Ricoh phenomenon at that other site and was hooked looking at Mitch and other's work. Thanks Mitch! Bought my GX100 in early September for the 24mm & IS. Always loved candid informal available light in B&W. The GX100 has brought me back to my early years with nothing but a Nikkormat FTN and Tri-X or Plus-X. No time for flash. Lot's of fun!

Just finding my way back into available light b&w, different sharpening and sometimes noise reduction. Put two images in the gallery and I'll try to link them in this message. I tried using Mitch's sharpening technique (20,50,0) in the Hibachi Restaurant photo.

Thanks to everyone for this cyber place!

http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/file...iR13288_mk.jpg
http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/file...R13263_mk1.jpg

[wbrandsma]

Originally Posted by Bob Yanal

I keep getting blown away by various posts in BW - especially Wouter's.

Here's one in color:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16445975@N05/2104118130/

Full disclosure. I'm trying to work on an article on the pluses and minuses of BW photography. Or to put it another way, what are the aesthetics of BW and color photography.

Most of the posts to this thread have been BW.

I'd be interested to hear your contrasts. And, please don't say: it's up to your taste. If you don't think there are pluses and minuses about BW photography - if you think it's merely a matter of taste - well, sign on, say hello, and ...

It is not a matter of right or wrong. I prefer B&W because I can focus more on the subject I try to capture. Often when people look at color images they will make remarks about the colors instead of the subject. I think B&W images work better when there is a quite large dynamic lightrange and when there are patterns, shapes and textures you want to capture.
Have you wandered yourself why keep blown away by B&W images? I think you have raised an interesting question that could hold an entire thread. So maybe it is better you start a new thread about this topic in the Image Processing Forum.

[4season]

I need more practice before I'll be happy with my digital b&w, so for now, here's a fairly straight shot that I took yesterday:

[wbrandsma]

Excellent image 4season.
In the exif data is saw you set the camera to +0,3 EV. Overexposuring would be a normal thing to do in these circumstances, but most digital consumercameras already overexpose slightly to keep shadowdetail. In this case you probably could have keep it at 0 EV. That way there would be even more detail in the snow and the sky would be a little bit darker. Keep on posting more images

[4season]

Thanks for the kind words, Wouter!

I think I'd like for the snow to actually be a little brighter, but with greater local contrast to emphasize the crystalline texture and worry that if I make it much darker it will simply look leaden? I will experiment with LightZone in the near future.

Jeff

[Chris]

Fantastic pictures that all of you have posted here. I appreciate very much your sharing such beautiful pictures.



Best regards,
Chris
http://www.flickr.com/photos/2130628...7603384457352/

[cam]

woo hoo, Wouter! i love when i get to see your pictures big! you still make me sigh over your tones on every picture.

[wbrandsma]

Originally Posted by 4season

I think I'd like for the snow to actually be a little brighter, but with greater local contrast to emphasize the crystalline texture and worry that if I make it much darker it will simply look leaden? I will experiment with LightZone in the near future.

With a Zonemapper in Lightzone you can darken the little shadows on the snowsurface while the lighter snowparts remains untouched. Shooting raw helps here as well.

Cam, I can publish 1024 px width at max on flickr (no pro account ).

[srw]

For a more rugged case, I found the GX100 fits perfect in a Pelican 1030



Here with the EVF and a spare battery
In place of the EVF, the HA-2 adapter and a filter will fit also

[Jan Brittenson]

I like the GX100, and the 19mm attachment is surprisingly good. It has quite a bit of barrel distortion though. But on the whole, as a P&S goes it's a good camera and perfect when you always want something on hand for those unplanned opportunities.

[asabet]

Several folks in the GRD2 threads are posting shots from inside their cars. Here's one from mine today, taken as I was driving into Baltimore. GX100 at 24mm (equivalent) and about 70mph .

[asabet]

When folks discuss film-like noise, the GRD gets the most praise; but for high ISO (800 and 1600) in-camera JPEGs, the GX100 is the best around IMO. Here's a quick ISO 1600 snap of my son with my mother-in-law taken yesterday:



The full-size in-camera JPEG can be seen here. The only processing was a bit of contrast boost.

[Chris]

Excellent pictures, asabet!

I usually take pictures at very low ISO. But a few days ago, I tried at 400. I took them just as jpeg as I had little memory space left.




For the next one I used a preset-PP-method which probably added a bit grain.






Best regards,
Chris
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21306283@N05/

[gromitspapa]

I tried a few P&S cameras, looking for the best quality I could get. I've been really pleased with what the GX100 can put out. 1/5 sec, f/3.8, ISO 154, EV -0.7:






Same, except EV -1.3:






1/30 sec, f/2.5, ISO 336, EV -0.3, converted in Photoshop:

[srw]

A few days ago I dropped the GX100 from about 4 feet.(stupid me)
I watched in horror as it bounced a few times on the concrete (it was powered on too)
Everything seemed ok until I turned it off, the lens wouldn't retract
A little wiggle and shake and it was back to normal and a couple hundred photos later it appears there are no problems

Tough little camera

Here's some shots from today and yesterday

[wbrandsma]

That is a horrible scene you are describing Shawn, but I'm glad your GX took it so well. Excellent work by the way. I especially like the first one.
In the Netherlands we had a few colder days and the GX100 worked fine without any problems in freezing conditions. No problems with the battery either.

[Joel.Gottlieb]

Mitch

re: using LR as a light table (and presumeably a file Library) and LZ for editing

How do you get around the huge Tiff files (10x) created when you go from LR to LZ editing? My 250 gb disk is disappearing fast and file saving time is becoming unwieldy. Further complicated if one uses PS for some of its special tools.

There is an awkward workaround. Import into LZ. Save as JPG (includes RAW file). Import (drag) into LR. In LR, use JPG-LZ to return to LZ for editing. Re-sav edits as JPG-LZ. Apparently the JPG-LZ carries the edits but always points to the RAW file so no information is lost. If some one knew how to automate the intake process......

Joel

Joel:

I haven't experienced the 10x expansion that you refer to, as a DNG file from the GX100 is 14.4MB while the TIFF file that LightZone saves is usually about 50MB. All I do is to archive the TIFF files on DVDs.

—Mitch/Bangkok