Originally posted by officiousbystander Many thanks for that link. It makes any decision sooooo much clearer
It reinforced many of the attributes of the original GR, but it's the RAW files that I'm especially interested. A problem I'd have if I bought the GR iii, is what to do with the GR i. This video hinted at an option.
---------- Post added 10-19-20 at 08:55 AM ----------
Originally posted by awscreo I had a GRII and now have a GRIII. Imo GRIII had much nicer raws overall. Noise creeps in at higher iso than with the GRII, dynamic range feels larger too. Plus more pegapixels. But both are very capable, it's just GRIII has a newer sensor.
Your comment, albeit subjective, is along the lines of what I was expecting to hear. Thank you.
---------- Post added 10-19-20 at 08:58 AM ----------
Originally posted by clackers I have a GR II, Barry, and I think the sensor is the same as the GR, it's older than the golden 16Mp sensor in the K-5, IIRC, and doesn't handle noise particularly well.
You're getting a 50 percent increase in the number of pixels with the III, it's got the noise reduction chip, and perhaps more importantly - do you ever shoot handheld? - you're getting Pentax IBIS.
Yes, the hand held feature would be useful. I often use my GR i on a carbon monopod, to obtain a little slower speeds, so IBIS would be helpful. I suspected the sensor was old, but not older than the K5. The noise does come into play with landscapes, especially. Gritty street images are no problem, obviously ... Thanks.
---------- Post added 10-19-20 at 09:00 AM ----------
Originally posted by AgentL I find the 14-bit DNGs way better, a real selling point for the camera and one of the reasons why I got the GR III. Where you really get a benefit is in shadows, highlights to a lesser degree but still better than the previous one.
Also, don't underestimate the highlight weighted metering. It's a feature that should be in every camera. Lets you easily keep the highlights within dynamic range and then do what you want with shadows afterwards. Though one of the standout aspects of Ricoh's processing in my estimation is the richness of the shadows, the way they gently roll off into deep shade but still have discernable details - if you like that look, the GR III gives it to you in spades.
That helps with my 14-bit thoughts. Thanks.
The new metering mode does appeal too.
---------- Post added 10-19-20 at 09:02 AM ----------
Originally posted by gbl What the others said, plus:
The dynamic range is greatly improved in the shadows compared to the GR/II. The high ISOs are cleaner especially between 1600 and 3200. Although I find the internet reports about the high ISO performance a bit too enthusiastic. I find the Fuji sensors, for example, have better high ISO performance. The real advantage compared to the GR/II is the stabilizer.
A lot better - compared to the GR/II - is how colors are rendered with high ISOs over ISO1600. I found the older GR RAWs hard to correct color-wise with ISOs over 800 and I switched a lot to B/W. That is a lot better now.
A real advantage for me is how the new lens and sensor render landscapes. I found that the GR/II had a bit of a "clinical" look at infinity while it was spectacular at close and mid range distances. I found the GR/II lens sharper at mid distances. The new lens is a lot better at infinity. The better sensor resolution helps with this impression as well.
I bit of a downfall on the GRIII is the rather high vignetting in the RAWs with the new lens, which can lead to higher noise in the corners when corrected. I'd rather add vignette if I want than take it out.
But overall, yes, I think there is significant improvement in the RAW files in post. The GR/II was a fantastic street shooter, the GRIII is a much more flexible camera now.
Hope that helps!
That help. Thanks. The all round aspect/ flexibility is where I'm beginning to appreciate the GR iii's benefits.