In the last part we had a look at the low ISO b&w pictures from the 3 GRDs and as with the low ISO color comparison there was not that much difference between them.
Now it’s time to see how they compare at ISO 400, 800 and 1600. This should be more interesting and also more revealing since it will be more obvious how much luminance noise the cameras have.
Part 6 – Image Comparison GRDs – Part 4 (b&w: ISO 400, 800 and 1600)
As before, all cameras have been set to A-mode, EV -0.3, ISO 400, 800 and 1600 respectively, b&w image parameters with NR off (GRD II and III) and Contrast +2 and Sharpening at +1. The JPGs are unprocessed and the RAW files were batch processed with RAW Therapee 2.4 using the default profile and then just changed to b&w using the Faststone grayscale option. This test will be based more on the JPGs though.
The pictures have all been taken without a tripod.
Let’s start with the first JPG taken at ISO 400.
Looking at the face it is easy to see why the GRD I has been praised for it’s excellent b&w mode and great JPGs. While there is noise it is quite nice and not distracting while both the GRD II and GRD III show signs of NR and the image appears blotchy.
Let’s move on to the RAW file.
All cameras look cleaner now but I feel that the GRD I JPG looked again better than the RAW file. Both the GRD II and GRD III are clearly improved now and especially the GRD III shows a very clean image.
Now it’s time to move on to the next picture and see how another ISO 400 image compares, first in JPG.
As before at ISO 200 we can see the loss of details due to the NR smearing of the GRD II but also the GRD III is using more NR now than it did at ISO 200. Again, I prefer the noise in the GRD I image and also the contrast is better.
The RAW file should offer no surprises judging from he previous images.
And indeed it is not a big surprise to see that all cameras are a bit cleaner now but it is also clear that the other GRDs dont have any real advantage over the GRD I when it comes to noise or details at ISO 400 and RAW. The GRD III can get ahead by a small margin and shows less noise but not more details. All files could benefit from some sharpening but this is just the default RAW Therapee profile.
Let’s see now how this picture looks at ISO 800 in JPG and see if the NR gets even more aggressive.
Ok, this image shows clearly how much you lose in the GRD II and GRD III due to the NR being applied, the GRD I has quite a lot of noise but you can still read ‘CANS’ and ‘WATER’ whereas on the GRD II and GRD III this is just a smear. I have to say I rather have the noise, which does not look to bad either, than lose details. The result from the GRD II and GRD III in JPG is very disappointing considering that both cameras have newer sensors and more MP, yet none can match the GRD I for details at ISO 800.
No it’s time to see if the GRD II and GRD III can at least make it up when using RAW.
And indeed they can perform fine when used in RAW mode, this will get back the lost details. Yet the most surprising thing is how close the GRD I is when it comes to both visible noise and the details captured.
Moving on to the last picture at ISO 1600 in JPG.
Looking at this I don’t think I need to lose any words about the GRD II output, it’s simply unusable. The GRD I shows quite a lot of noise now and loses some details but easily outclasses the GRD II. The GRD III delivers a much cleaner image and while it shows signs of NR, it still captured a lot of details.
Let’s move on to the last picture of this comparison and see how this picture looks when using RAW on the GRD II and GRD III, the GRD I does not have RAW at this ISO so it should be at a disadvantage.
I don’t know what to say and will need to have Ricoh look at my GRD II, the performance is extremely poor and frankly unusable. The GRD I holds it’s own very well even when comparing the JPG with the RAW files from the GRD II and GRD III. The GRD III has the best quality here and with some sharpening and some extra work when converting the RAW it should beat the GRD I. Another positive side effect for the GRD III is that if the picture is slightly overexposed you can’t see the banding.
The high ISO b&w test is my favorite as I like shooting in b&w and this a lot of times in low light so the performance of the cameras at this is important. Looking at the results it is clear that the GRD II underperforms and is unusable at ISO 1600 in both RAW and JPG. As for the GRD III, it does a very good job but only if used in RAW mode and then it really shines.
Now, were I to choose a camera for b&w high ISO photography it would always end up being the GRD I because it performs extremely well and it does this using JPG so no further processing is required. Still, the GRD III with it’s faster lens will be a better choice for most people but you need to be aware of the banding issue and work around it.
As usual you can download all the files used in this comparison here.
The next part will be a brief comparison with the Epson RD1s, this is more out of curiosity and I don’t expect the small sensor GRDs to outperform the APS sensor in the RD1s.
Continue to part 7…
Ricoh GR-Diary 
Thank you for this comparison! I would be interested to find out if there is a problem with your GRD-II as the results are so striking. I have a GRD-I but was considering buying a II at a sell-out price – I would seriously reconsider this if your results are typical.
Thanks for your comment Gobi, glad the comparison was helpful.
I have asked Ricoh to test my GRD II and will try to reconfirm my findings with another GRD II.
Buying a GRD II at the sell-out prices could be good but in my opinion a GX200 would be a better complement to your GRD I.
Thanks for the tip but I bought a GX200 last year — I definitely have the Ricoh bug!
From your review it sounds like I should keep hold of my original GRD for my b&w work. I do like the look of the ‘grain’ when using higher ISOs.
Cris
Which do you think is a better complement for the GX100 – the GRD I or III?
The last thing I want to do is to get a camera with too much overlap (that would stop me from using one or the other). IMO, that would be a waste of money. :)
Gobi, keeping hold of the GRD I is probably the best and then wait till the GRD III goes down in price to have a bigger step up feature wise compared to the GRD II.
Mark, this is a difficult question. In some way both could complement your GX100 very well but it depends on your needs.
The GRD I will complement is very well for b&w high ISO shooting where the GRD III will complement it better for color and dynamic range at lower ISOs and in low light it will have the advantage of the faster lens and better AWB so it can complement it very well there.
The GX100 will always have the zoom and so would do a good job as a more versatile camera where the GRDs would be more specialized.
So the answer is probably either GRD can complement your GX100 well but it depends of the area you feel the GX100 could need to be improved (color and low ISO or b&w and high ISO).
Hmm, thanks for your response Cristian, which I was eagerly waiting for :)
I’ll have to give a good think as to where my priorities lie.
I can’t help but think that getting another colour, low ISO camera will stop me from using the GX100, which I don’t want to do, especially since I seem to favour 28mm when taking pictures.
B&W? Maybe interesting…
Hi Mark, I think if you don’t need another camera for color then the GRD I might be the better choice if you don’t intent to use RAW much.
Good luck with your choice, basically both cameras will be an excellent choice but your GX100 is also a great camera on it’s own.
The choice is not easy but I found that the GRD I complemented the GX200 very well for low light and b&w work. The Gx100 is better than the GX200 though when it comes to high ISO.
Let me know if you have any questions about the cameras which might help with your decision.
I’m reading your blog from the beginning (I’m up to Oct 2008 now) and found your experience with the GRD I and II very interesting.
Have you made any decision on whether you’ll keep shooting with the GRD III or return to the GRD I?
Hi Mark, glad you find my experience with the GRDs interesting.
I have not made a final decision but think the GRD III will replace my GRD II for color and low ISO shooting where the GRD I will still remain my choice for b&w and high ISO. I was hoping that the GRD III could finally replace the GRD I fully but the JPGs are just not as good as the GRD I and the banding at high ISO makes it less usable in low lght.
Thanks for your reply Cristian. Like so many things there isn’t a clear cut answer. I do like the idea of a stripped down fixed lens ‘night camera’, though.
I’ll experiment with B&W with my GX100 in the meantime. So far, I like the colour high ISO better, but I don’t know the camera very well at this point :)
Good luck with your experiments and with your decision Mark.
With the GX100 you have a fantastic camera and one I was tempted to recently as a Christmas present to myself ;).
Just a quick question Cris: is the “character” of the GRD I’s pictures is significantly different from those of the GX100?
Hi Mark!
Yes, the GRD character is unique and the only camera coming close is actually the GX8. The GX100 has nice images but if you look in the GX200 review here you’ll see that it’s not quite on GRD I level.
Hi guys,
I just bought a service manual for my Photocopier RICOH Aficio MP C4000 from: http://www.manualsparadise.com
They delivered in less than 20 minutes, the price was fair, and their service was really good compared to other sites where I have bought manuals in the past. And, they seem to have a huge collection of manuals!
Recommended.
You put together many good tips within ur article,
“Ricoh GRD III Review – Part 6 | Ricoh GR-Diary News”
Window Shades And Blinds . I’ll wind up coming to your web-site soon enough. With thanks ,Nila
Precisely what seriously stimulated u to create “Ricoh GRD III Review – Part 6 | Ricoh GR-Diary News” cherrymusic ?
I actuallyseriously loved the post! Thanks for your
effort ,Jamal
This would be a good sign, once we we had not likely to find greatly fine
gold within the stone. Scores of reefs are now lying idle in Queensland from where tremendous yields were obtained
near the surface, but which were abandoned for want of capital.
Much maudlin sentimentally, and much empty declaration, happen to be written
and spoken about crime, and up against the punishment of
criminals with death.
I do accept as true with all of the concepts you have
offered in your post. They’re very convincing and can certainly work. Nonetheless, the posts are too brief for beginners. May you please lengthen them a bit from subsequent time? Thank you for the post.
It is the best time to make a few plans for the future and it is
time to be happy. I have learn this put up and
if I could I wish to recommend you few fascinating issues or suggestions.
Perhaps you can write subsequent articles regarding this article.
I wish to learn even more things about it!
This is my first time pay a quick visit at here and i am really impressed to
read all at one place.