[ericzwerft]

Good afternoon! My name is Eric and I live in the Netherlands. Just registered here! NewBee Ricoh GR owner and so far I don't like it. (Again)
Last year I bought one but got frustrated because of the results. Sold it after having it a couple of weeks. Now bought one again because of the reviews and beautiful pics I've seen from other owners.
For now...same frustration :-)
Can't outclass my mobile phone with the Ricoh.
Colours don't look good, so I only try black and white.
Clean shot seems impossable even at 100 iso.
Only thing I can do is make the pics smaller, crop a lot and use heavy contrasts to hide the poor quality of the pics.
I see others shoot pics that look bright and clear and sharp!!
Even in colour, with beautiful colours!! Can hardly believe they use the same camera :-(
I don't know if they are using very heavy post processing with expensive noise removing software.

Anyway...I decided to try one more time to see if I could come home with a pic that with post processing looks better than a pic taken with my phone.
If not, I will sell it again and never buy a Ricoh again :-D
I will starting to follow fora this time and try to learn and practice...

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 03-25-2017 at 06:07 AM. Reason: Vulgarity

[BigMackCam]

Hello, Eric, and welcome to the forums.

I guarantee you can get excellent results with the GR - just as you've seen others can produce. However, it's a rather more enthusiast-level camera than your typical point-and-shoot compact, and certainly more so than any camera phone. The GR requires some degree of skill to use effectively. Once you apply that, you'll get fantastic results - way better than any camera phone could ever produce.

It would help immensely if you could take two photos, one with your phone and one with the GR, to show us the difficulty you're having. It would also be good if you could let us know the settings you used on the GR when taking the photograph. We can then figure out where you're going wrong.

With regard to camera phones... the JPEG processing engine in most phones tends to over-saturate colours and over-sharpen images. This results in very punchy images that can look quite impressive when viewed at small sizes. The photos may even look quite good on a laptop screen. But, this heavy internal processing leads to quite unnatural images with poor detail and many processing artefacts which are readily visible at larger viewing sizes.

You can post-process the photos from your GR to look punchy and sharp, just like those from your phone (except with far better detail and very few processing artefacts). The software doesn't have to be expensive - in fact, there are some great freeware packages around, such as RawTherapee (just one example of many). Of course, as with the camera itself, post-processing software has a learning curve associated with it, and requires some skill to achieve good results.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves Let's start by examining a side-by-side comparison from your phone and GR, then we can figure out what's happening

EDIT: Just to reassure you, see attached screenshot from DPR's image quality comparison tool. Here, I've compared the image quality from the GRII with three popular cameras from Pentax, Nikon and Canon. You can see that the colour reproduction is very similar for all four cameras, as is the noise performance at ISO 100 (and these are RAW files, so they show the image potentially at its worst, before any post-processing to optimise things)...

[Bewatek]

Attached are some of the first test shots with my GR when it was new.

I set the date, put it in P mode and thats about it. Not really great pictures but thats not the cameras fault. Very true to reality though, especially the indoor shot.
Made some 33x48cm / 13"x19" test prints and they look great qualitywise.

Did you buy it used? If so perform a factory reset, just put it in P, change nothing else and make some test shots. There are tons of options that can affect your images.

Edit: Your descriptions sound like you bought a GR digital

[ericzwerft]

Thanx for the quick replies!
Side by side I didn't do but I already can tell about some problems.
First of all, EV.
I used to have an DSLR and exposure was always correct.
When I open a DNG file on the pc, it is most of the time 2 EV to dark!!
When I correct this, I see lots of noise and the picture doensn't look sharp anymore.
When I decide to over expose 2 EV while shooting, much area's are over exposed.
I use the camera in Av mode like I used to do on my DSLR.
I never use auto iso. Always try to start at 100 iso and if shutter is below 1/60, I use 200 iso etc...
Exposure set on center weighted. I never use matrix because in my opinion, with matrix nothing is exposed right.
I use pinpoint focus. Seems to me it's the safest option to get the thing you really want to be in focus actually in focus.
I don't use the dynamic range tool, because it raises the basic iso to 320 iso and makes the camera a little slower.
I don't use JPG because the JPG engine also slows down the camera a lot.
But I did some testshots in JPG and especially skintones didn't look right. This was tested inhouse with normal daylight and whitebalance set on AUTO.
When I use flash (set on auto), the camera is again way off and pictures look ugly.

I know I am spoiled bij Nikon's metering and flash accuracy but I have compacts 10 years old which much better exposure metering than the Ricoh.
Can not trust the metering, cannot trust the auto flashpower.
Have to make every indoor shot at least 2 or 3 times by different manually chosen flash settings.
I know this is not just a point and shoot but if you cannot even trust the metering, where to start?

[BigMackCam]

When I open a DNG file on the pc, it is most of the time 2 EV to dark!!
When I correct this, I see lots of noise and the picture doensn't look sharp anymore.
When I decide to over expose 2 EV while shooting, much area's are over exposed.

If you adjust exposure by +2 EV and your highlights are all blown, what's that telling you? That the photo isn't two stops under-exposed. Maybe it's more like one stop? That should bring the darker areas up considerably, without blowing your highlights.

If you significantly push the exposure of an under-exposed photo, you will see a lot of noise - that's not at all surprising. So getting the exposure close to being right is important. I don't use the GR, but I know we have plenty of members here who manage to get well-exposed shots, so I'm hoping some of them will step in to help you.

Exposure set on center weighted. I never use matrix because in my opinion, with matrix nothing is exposed right.

The metering mode you select will depend on the scene you're capturing, and what your creative priorities are. Matrix metering is usually a fairly reliable way of metering a well-balanced frame, and the camera will normally do its best to ensure that highlights aren't blown (Pentax DSLRs also tend to expose for the highlights, to ensure they're not blown). Hence, a high contrast scene can often appear under-exposed. Centre-weighted metering will (obviously) prioritise the area at and around the centre of the frame whilst still taking into account the rest of it. However, the subject area at the centre of your frame may then throw other areas of the frame into over or under-exposure depending on whether it is particularly bright or dark.

But I did some testshots in JPG and especially skintones didn't look right. This was tested inhouse with normal daylight and whitebalance set on AUTO.
When I use flash (set on auto), the camera is again way off and pictures look ugly.

We really need to see some examples, with EXIF data, before we can offer any further insight. It could be that normal daylight white balance wasn't the right setting, and that auto white balance didn't guess the correct setting. This really depends on the scene you're capturing and the elements within it.

I know I am spoiled bij Nikon's metering and flash accuracy but I have compacts 10 years old which much better exposure metering than the Ricoh.
Can not trust the metering, cannot trust the auto flashpower.
Have to make every indoor shot at least 2 or 3 times by different manually chosen flash settings.
I know this is not just a point and shoot but if you cannot even trust the metering, where to start?

Honestly, unless there is a fault with your camera (and considering this is the second one you've owned, I doubt that), it's unlikely that those ten-year-old compacts have better metering than your GR - it's just that the metering is different. It's not a case of being unable to trust the camera's metering or flash - rather, you don't yet fully understand how the GR works... it's simply different to what you've been used to.

Just keep reminding yourself that plenty of GR owners take superb photographs. On that basis, there's no reason why you can't too - it's just a matter of becoming familiarised with the tool

[ericzwerft]

I tried to post an example but my messages don't show up anymore :-)
Try one last time while I'm cooking dinner.
This was shot in normal daylight, Av mode F8, iso 100 center weighted exposure and +0,3EV
Looks to dark to me!

[ericzwerft]

And here's a picture when I opened the DNG file.
As you can see, my exposure is +0,3EV but the histogram shows an exposure that is mostly on the left side.
Most of the images are coming out this way.

Attached Images

 

[BigMackCam]

I tried to post an example but my messages don't show up anymore :-)
Try one last time while I'm cooking dinner.
This was shot in normal daylight, Av mode F8, iso 100 center weighted exposure and +0,3EV
Looks to dark to me!

Yes, that does look a bit underexposed, although I see no dark areas crushed to black. I tried importing your JPEG file into Lightroom, and by increasing the exposure by about +0.7, it looks much better. Given you had already dialed in +0.3EV, it would seem it's roughly -1.0EV under-exposed, or thereabouts. Assuming you were using centre-weighted metering, I think the reason for the under-exposure may be that the centre area of the frame is made up of bright reflections on the water, and some bright cloud. If you look at those reflections in the water, they're around the middle of the brightness range (50-60% R, G, B) - so I can see how the camera came up with the exposure level.

Not sure what white balance settings you were using... it looks a little cold to me, but not too bad. If I use Lightroom's white balance dropper on the white window surround of the house just above the large boat's bridge, it gives almost exactly the same balance, so I can see how the camera might have come up with that.

Although it's difficult to tell with this re-sized image, I don't see the noise you were talking about at ISO 100 - or were you only getting that when you pushed the photos by +2.0EV?

[ericzwerft]

Hmm...now I took a closer look at the pics, I came up with an explanation myself...
The white clouds maybe in the center according to the camera.
Maybe, it will protect against highlight clipping to much.

---------- Post added 03-25-17 at 11:18 AM ----------

Yes, that does look a bit underexposed, although I see no dark areas crushed to black. I tried importing your JPEG file into Lightroom, and by increasing the exposure by about +0.7, it looks much better. Given you had already dialed in +0.3EV, it would seem it's roughly -1.0EV under-exposed, or thereabouts. Assuming you were using centre-weighted metering, I think the reason for the under-exposure may be that the centre area of the frame is made up of bright reflections on the water, and some bright cloud. If you look at those reflections in the water, they're around the middle of the brightness range (50-60% R, G, B) - so I can see how the camera came up with the exposure level.

Not sure what white balance settings you were using... it looks a little cold to me, but not too bad. If I use Lightroom's white balance dropper on the white window surround of the house just above the large boat's bridge, it gives almost exactly the same balance, so I can see how the camera might have come up with that.

Although it's difficult to tell with this re-sized image, I don't see the noise you were talking about at ISO 100 - or were you only getting that when you pushed the photos by +2.0EV?

This one doesn't have much noise. But if it's very cloudy, it's shows more often when I adjust the exposure.
I cannot talk anymore today, I'm sorry.
Have to give the children some attention :-)
I will do some other tests tomorrow!

[BigMackCam]

And here's a picture when I opened the DNG file.
As you can see, my exposure is +0,3EV but the histogram shows an exposure that is mostly on the left side.
Most of the images are coming out this way.

OK, but let's not get confused here I agree, the photo is under-exposed. See my suggested reason above for that.

The balance of the histogram is merely showing you the tonality of your image, and - no surprise - most of the tones in the image are darker. You'd therefore expect to see the histogram weighted to the left of centre. Maybe not as *far* to the left, but that's just the exposure issue.

For what it's worth, with this type of scene I would have gone with matrix metering. It's a high contrast scene and I think the camera might have done a better job.

[Bewatek]

Mmh i too cant really understand why you used center weighted exposure on this complex lighted example (Amsterdam?). I always use multi / matrix exposure and can not remember any exposure problem apart from very slight adjustment in post just for personal taste..

My suggestion would be: Forget anything you learned from your DSLR and from the Nikon world because the GR is neither of those. Its not inferior but just different. Try to rely more on auto-whatever because it works absolutely well in my opinion. At least that works for my style of using the GR as a small, light and FAST travel camera - compose, snap, perfect.
Fiddling with ISO and spot metering is reserved for my DSLR (Which i would hate to use on a city trip).

Edit: Unfortunately i have zero experience with flash on the GR but this might be a thing that really isnt too great if i remember correctly.

[caliscouser]

I don't have the GR, but this sounds like its not really a camera issue.

Get it off center weighted metering.
Reset the camera to factory defaults, put it in Auto or P mode and start there.
Understand you are shooting a scene with a lot of dynamic range, use in-camera shadow adjustment/highlight adjustment for a scene like that if you want to shoot JPEG.
Fine tune your preferences for contrast, color, sharpening as you shoot more.

We all know what the GR and its sensor are capable of. Let the camera take a bit more control to start with.

[ericzwerft]

We all know what the GR and its sensor are capable of. Let the camera take a bit more control to start with.

I will try that :-)
For the record, here's a pic shot with my Samsung S7, in 8 bit jpeg and then converted it to B/W by just desaturation and add some contrast on my pc.
I think it looks pretty good for a converted 8 bit phone jpeg.

[BigMackCam]

I will try that :-)
For the record, here's a pic shot with my Samsung S7, in 8 bit jpeg and then converted it to B/W by just desaturation and add some contrast on my pc.
I think it looks pretty good for a converted 8 bit phone jpeg.

That looks great for a phone pic However, it's a much easier scene to meter. Firstly, the camera will (I'm guessing) be using matrix metering for the whole frame. Secondly, most of the frame (with the exception of that window with natural light blasting through, and the dark area above the furnace) has fairly consistent lighting. The phone camera has, quite rightly, metered for the majority of the frame and done a pretty good job. But notice how the window, the hanging lamp, and the light hitting the floor, bottom right, coming from a window, are all seriously over-exposed. That would more-than-likely happen with the GRII also (especially with centre-weighted metering which would ignore the window), but I suspect it may try to protect the highlights to a greater extent and probably underexpose a bit as a result...

[wissink]

Don't forget center weighted on those clouds will cause the rest to darken. In post try raising shadows, or blacks, or add a graduated filter or two to increase the exposure of the buildigns and water.