Ricoh The Ricoh GR III Image Thread (Showcase)

rayvonn

Hall of Famer
Jan 19, 2015
Not at all my typical shooting, but we went for a walk through some nice gardens a month or so ago and I wanted to test out the GR3's macro/closeup abilities. You can also tell by my photo titles, I am definitely not an expert in flowers or foliage lol o_O

View attachment 206162
Leaf vein by Craig, on Flickr

View attachment 206163
Leaf stripe by Craig, on Flickr

View attachment 206164
Yellow by Craig, on Flickr

View attachment 206165
Pink by Craig, on Flickr
The Macro on the GR III seems to have a lot of issues focusing I find.
 

rayvonn

Hall of Famer
Jan 19, 2015
I struggle a bit to make this little camera sing, to be honest.
I know what you mean. I think it's a better "machine" than it's predecessor for sure, but the GRII had greater simplicity and wonderful (especially B&W) tones right out of the box. In my opinion. My last one broke though over-use and I miss it.
 

MoonMind

Hall of Famer
Dec 29, 2013
Switzerland
Matt
I know what you mean. I think it's a better "machine" than it's predecessor for sure, but the GRII had greater simplicity and wonderful (especially B&W) tones right out of the box. In my opinion. My last one broke though over-use and I miss it.
For a camera that at first glance feels so familiar, the differences concerning the results are somewhat puzzling - most things are objectively better, but for me, still somewhat hard to predict; highlight recovery is limited (even in RAW), but shadow recovery is a lot better, so protecting the highlights is key, but not always easy if you like your screen uncluttered (as I do). Colours are very nice and respond well to slight adjustments (I never do heavy ones) - most of the time, working from RAW seems unnecessary, but then again, sometimes it seems the only way to get at the full potential of the files. And sometimes, the JPEGs aren't a good basis for editing ... It's kind of irritating to have to swap tools in mid-workflow. But basically, that's just me being too lazy to work from RAW *all* the time.

From JPEG (using Polarr):


From RAW (using darktable 3.0.0) - apart from the very obvious difference in WB, the RAW just has a lot more to offer, but basic JPEG quality is still high:


It's like learning a language you feel you should be already familiar with (like listening to Dutch, in my case). It seems to work - until it doesn't.

The GR III is a chameleon - in good light, it just works; this is from JPEG, with just a little work in Polarr:



Again, shadows look a bit crushed, but colour reproduction and overall IQ are just fine ...

M.
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom