Ricoh The Ricoh GR III Image Thread (Showcase)

rayvonn

Hall of Famer
Jan 19, 2015
Really curious, why was it so difficult to get what you want with the GR III?
Because I expected it to render like the II and it didn't. The III's files are technically better with edge to edge blah blah, more megapickles and of course it has way more features but the files don't have that film like rendering, sharpness, contrast and bite of the II, specifically with the B&W images. That's what I wanted and couldn't get. The II has all that out of camera you don't have to work it out how to get there, it's just like that. By comparison, I find the III's files to be characterless and flat. Which shouldn't be the case as it apparently has the sensor of the Pentax KP, a fine camera. But not to worry, a bit of PP can iron that out one would think? No chance. I honestly think the II's files bear comparison with those of an Elmarit or Biogon whereas for me, the III renders files just like any other current modern camera and I don't feel it. That's why I found it difficult. I'm at the stage where maybe, just maybe, I've found a way to getting the III's files in camera someway how I like them. If only Ricoh kept the same lens on the III as with the II. Sorry for going on about it :laugh:
 
Last edited:

Ad Dieleman

Top Veteran
Oct 20, 2012
The Netherlands
Ad Dieleman
Because I expected it to render like the II and it didn't. The III's files are technically better with edge to edge blah blah, more megapickles and of course it has way more features but the files don't have that film like rendering, sharpness, contrast and bite of the II, specifically with the B&W images. That's what I wanted and couldn't get. The II has all that out of camera you don't have to work it out how to get there, it's just like that. By comparison, I find the III's files to be characterless and flat. Which shouldn't be the case as it apparently has the sensor of the Pentax KP, a fine camera. But not to worry, a bit PP can iron that out one would think? No chance. I honestly think the II's files bear comparison with those of an Elmarit or Biogon whereas for me, the III renders files just like any other current modern camera and I don't feel it. That's why I found it difficult. I'm at the stage where maybe, just maybe, I've found a way to getting the III's files in camera someway how I like them. If only Ricoh kept the same lens on the III as with the II. Sorry for going on about it :laugh:
I see. I take it you're shooting jpegs then?
 
Because I expected it to render like the II and it didn't. The III's files are technically better with edge to edge blah blah, more megapickles and of course it has way more features but the files don't have that film like rendering, sharpness, contrast and bite of the II, specifically with the B&W images. That's what I wanted and couldn't get. The II has all that out of camera you don't have to work it out how to get there, it's just like that. By comparison, I find the III's files to be characterless and flat. Which shouldn't be the case as it apparently has the sensor of the Pentax KP, a fine camera. But not to worry, a bit of PP can iron that out one would think? No chance. I honestly think the II's files bear comparison with those of an Elmarit or Biogon whereas for me, the III renders files just like any other current modern camera and I don't feel it. That's why I found it difficult. I'm at the stage where maybe, just maybe, I've found a way to getting the III's files in camera someway how I like them. If only Ricoh kept the same lens on the III as with the II. Sorry for going on about it :laugh:
Do you think part of what made you feel that way about the GR II files was the noise? My GR II put out very sharp but also pretty grainy files, and the lower MP count made the grainy noise bigger and more hard-edged. I suspect that contributed to making the files "bite" more. Grain can look sharper with the way it handles edge contrast and what not.

I find the GR III can have tons of character, including in the JPEGs, but it needs specifically tuned for that kind of output. So, for instance, my positive film style has some tweaking further away from the standard look: -2 hi/low key, +3 contrast, +3 highlights, -2 shadows, +2 sharpness, -1 vignette, +3 clarity. In another camera this much tweaking would look very unrealistic, but the GR III handles JPEG editing very gently.

Of course it's all personal taste, you've seen some of my posts here so only you can judge whether the JPEGs will do anything for you. But, again, I still think a lot of the filmic "bite" to the II came from the way it handles noise.
 

rayvonn

Hall of Famer
Jan 19, 2015
Do you think part of what made you feel that way about the GR II files was the noise? My GR II put out very sharp but also pretty grainy files, and the lower MP count made the grainy noise bigger and more hard-edged. I suspect that contributed to making the files "bite" more. Grain can look sharper with the way it handles edge contrast and what not.
Well the noise could certainly be fantastic in TAV mode, but I found the files to be remarkably clean in good light too yet still retaining that geogeous film like rendering.
I find the GR III can have tons of character, including in the JPEGs, but it needs specifically tuned for that kind of output. So, for instance, my positive film style has some tweaking further away from the standard look: -2 hi/low key, +3 contrast, +3 highlights, -2 shadows, +2 sharpness, -1 vignette, +3 clarity. In another camera this much tweaking would look very unrealistic, but the GR III handles JPEG editing very gently.
That’s interesting, thanks. Highlight weighted metering is the feature I’m hanging onto atm. I believe is in certain Sony Cameras too.
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom