Ricoh Spot the difference and tell me why...

[Lightmancer]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Yes, it's our old friend the Angel of Lens Testing once again, but this time things are a little different...

I have deliberately obfuscated the EXIF data, which would have given the game away. What I would like you to do is play "Spot the Difference" with a twist.


Tell me if you can why the images are different. The fact that one is slightly darker than the other is a trick of the ever changing light that I have not bothered to balance out in post, so you can disregard that. All the camera settings were identical, and I did not change position at all.

Shot with Ricoh, of course, or I wouldn't have posted it here.

Your thoughts? I'll let this run for a bit before revealing the answer!

 

[bartjeej]

It's fairly subtle, but lining up the tombstones behind the Angel of Lens Testing (maybe they're of lenses that didn't meet expectations?), it's fairly easy to see the bottom image shows fewer tombstones.

The angel is ever so slightly larger too (wingtips equally high, difference in width is almost impossible to spot, but the top image shows more of the robe flaring out).

Since you took both images from the same spot, the bottom image is either a crop or a longer focal length lens (which would mean GR IIIx). The difference in depth of field, at least when viewed on my phone, is too small to be able to judge which of these two explanations is correct.

 

[Richard]

I think the expression of the angel is subtlety different between the two images. In the first picture the angel is deciding whether to run you through with the sword, or whether to rip your heart out with its free hand. In the second picture the angel has made its decision and is now waiting for you to blink.

-R

 

[Andrewmap]

"Don't blink!" Sorry, could not resist the quote

 

[Lightmancer]

Bump!

 

[WhidbeyLVR]

Here are the 2 images cycling. The differences in color and effective focal length were roughly matched. Clearly, the point of view of the 2nd image is lower and at a slightly different angle to the angel. So if the camera is in the exact same position, then I would guess one or both of the lenses may have a tilt/shift feature and one of them has a slightly different or variable focal length.

 

[agentlossing]

Image two is from a lower angle, as Lyle aptly demonstrated with the GIF after I spent a lot of time looking at the two images and scrolled down! Other than that, I think the bottom image has slightly smoother transitions in the out-of-focus elements, i.e. the (slim) level of bokeh.

 

[drd1135]

View attachment 311881

Here are the 2 images cycling. The differences in color and effective focal length were roughly matched. Clearly, the point of view of the 2nd image is lower and at a slightly different angle to the angel. So if the camera is in the exact same position, then I would guess one or both of the lenses may have a tilt/shift feature and one of them has a slightly different or variable focal length.

You should set this to music.

 

[Grinsaround]

You should set this to music.

 

[Lightmancer]

Okay, a couple more hints then I shall give the game away... Any difference in the height of the images is purely accidental - I was handholding not tripodding so perhaps I slouched

The images were taken with two different cameras...

 

[drd1135]

That works so well.

 

[drd1135]

Crop of the GRiii vs the GRiiix?

 

[agentlossing]

I think the 18mm lens is different enough in rendering from the 26mm lens that the two would be more distinct... I'm guessing one is the IIIx with the teleconverter, one without.

 

[Lightmancer]

Ok, let me put this to bed.

The first (top) image is shot with the GRIII. The bottom image is shot with the GRIIIx. Both are SOOC, with no cropping in post. The GRIII shot was at its "native" 28mm setting; the GRIIIx shot was at its "native 40mm setting PLUS the wide angle converter designed to fit the GRIII. It converts the 40mm focal length to 30mm - only a hair narrower than 28mm.

So this is where economics comes in. The GRIII at current UK prices is five times the price of the GW-3. That's a hell of a lot of money for just 2mm.

"Ah yes..." I hear some of you say. "...but the GW-3 on the GRIII gives you an effective 21mm."

It do, but I am by nature a tele-tubby not a wide-boy; on the vanishingly rare occasions I want to go really wide, it's quicker and easier just to whip out my portable telephone.

This little experiment has made my own mind up. My GRIII will be off to a new home shortly...

 

[drd1135]

I’m not much of a wide-guy myself. I was never really happy with all those dedicated 28 mm compacts. I tried the Coolpix A and the Fuji X70. The GRIIIx has been wonderful, however. The 40 is just the right focal length for me.

 

[RobD]

The top image was shot with a slightly wider lens?
OH just read the posts above! Should have read all first.

 

[drd1135]

The top image was shot with a slightly wider lens?
OH just read the posts above! Should have read all first.

You weren't wrong.