Ricoh Unscientific focal length and file size comparison, GRIII and GRIIIx

[Lightmancer]

So I had time to have a little play today with the two cameras and the "Angel of Lens Testing" - this is a memorial statue in the Holy Trinity churchyard in Guildford. Both cameras were set identically - aperture priority at f2.8, Vivid, with focus on the face of the statue. I focused and recomposed, to give an idea of OOF areas and bokeh. Everything is SOOC, with no post processing either in or out of camera. The filename gives you focal length, camera and jpg filesize.

So: from wide to "tele" it is:


GRIII 28mm:

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

GRIII 35mm:

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

GRIIIx 40mm:

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

GRIII 50mm:

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

GRIIIx 50mm:

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

GRIIIx 70mm:

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

File sizes are (kb):
28mm 11802 (III)
35mm 7393 (III)
40mm 10270 (IIIx)
50mm 3174 (III)
50mm 6499 (IIIx)
70mm 3062 (IIIx)

I don't think there are any surprises here. The crop at both 50mm for the III and 70mm for the IIIx is pretty savage but the files are usable. The 50mm point, at which the two are directly comparable in terms of focal length shows clearly that at that point the 40mm has the edge - twice the file size, in focus areas are sharper and bokeh is more pronounced.

As I said, there is nothing scientific in any of this, but it is interesting, n'est c'e pas? For me, the takeaway is that having and carrying both makes sense. The III weighs 257g, the IIIx 262g; that gives me 4-6 usable focal lengths in 519g. By comparison my Fuji X-Pro3 is 497g - plus lens.

 

[Richard]

I'd be able to concentrate on the pictures better if I didn't keep thinking that the angel is moving between shots. Been watching too much Doctor Who ...

-R

 

[Lightmancer]

If you look closely you will note that this particular Angel wields a sword

 

[kyteflyer]

At least she isnt weeping

 

[drd1135]

That spider web on the wing was remarkably clear through nearly all the images.

 

[agentlossing]

Studying the bokeh, I'm even more impressed with the GRIII's lens. It has a smoothness to it that isn't QUITE to the same level in the GRIIIx. Or maybe I'm imagining things. The white windowpanes in the buildings are a torture test for these lenses, they both look good, but does anyone else feel like the edge goes to the GRIII?

As I suspected the GRIIIx is no bokeh monster, certainly at further focusing distances like this (which is a really common distance the users are likely to shoot at a lot).

 

[Lightmancer]

Studying the bokeh, I'm even more impressed with the GRIII's lens. It has a smoothness to it that isn't QUITE to the same level in the GRIIIx. Or maybe I'm imagining things. The white windowpanes in the buildings are a torture test for these lenses, they both look good, but does anyone else feel like the edge goes to the GRIII?

As I suspected the GRIIIx is no bokeh monster, certainly at further focusing distances like this (which is a really common distance the users are likely to shoot at a lot).

I can't really call it one way or the other from these images alone, but the overall impression I'm forming is that there is more microcontrast exhibited by the 40mm on the IIIx. If you look at the angel's face on the 28mm from the III and the 40mm from the IIIx - their "native" focal lengths at which they are making the most of the same sensor - I see more contrast in the output from the IIIx, which I have to say pleases me. I have usually used the III with the exposure dialled back by a third of a stop, but I'm finding I don't do that with the IIIx

 

[drd1135]

Nice lens. Check.

 

[agentlossing]

the overall impression I'm forming is that there is more microcontrast exhibited by the 40mm on the IIIx. If you look at the angel's face on the 28mm from the III and the 40mm from the IIIx - their "native" focal lengths at which they are making the most of the same sensor - I see more contrast in the output from the IIIx, which I have to say pleases me.

I think you're right, that's the subtle difference in out of focus areas that I've been trying to determine.

 

[tilman]

To me it looks like the IIIx is more flare resistant than the III...
That area of sky above the angel's head seems to reduce the contrast in its surrounding areas (tree, angel,...) in the III's images (but much less so for the IIIx)

 

[Lightmancer]

To me it looks like the IIIx is more flare resistant than the III...
That area of sky above the angel's head seems to reduce the contrast in its surrounding areas (tree, angel,...) in the III's images (but much less so for the IIIx)

That's a good assessment. It was an overcast day; well lit but not bright. I lock exposure and focus points together, and I focused (on the face) and recomposed each time, using the rule of thirds grid as a guide to put the face in the same place each time and therefore give a useful view of the background. Interestingly the adaptor for the wideangle attachment for the GRII came with a dedicated hood but the one for the III (GA-1 for the III and GA-2 for the IIIx from memory) does not. TBH I use the adaptor regularly, both to improve handling (I rest my left hand under it like a lens) and to protect against knocks in crowds, but I seldom if ever used the lens hood with the II, which made the whole thing look like an automated sink plunger...

 

[Lightmancer]

Nice lens. Check.

I'll tell you how good it is... I only recently upgraded over the summer to the Fuji 27mm Mk II. I loved the first iteration of that lens, but for some reason the new version hasn't really found a place in my heart. I suspect it is because I have a number of the F2 primes these days so it sits awkwardly between 35 and 50 in my ownership.

The lens on the GRIIIx is SO good I'm seriously thinking about selling on the Fuji lens... I can't see an occasion where I would either go out with just the 27 and the XPro3 or more heavily loaded with the XPro3 and a brace of lenses and not drop the Ricoh into a corner of the camera bag - it's that good...

 

[drd1135]

I'll tell you how good it is... I only recently upgraded over the summer to the Fuji 27mm Mk II. I loved the first iteration of that lens, but for some reason the new version hasn't really found a place in my heart. I suspect it is because I have a number of the F2 primes these days so it sits awkwardly between 35 and 50 in my ownership.

The lens on the GRIIIx is SO good I'm seriously thinking about selling on the Fuji lens... I can't see an occasion where I would either go out with just the 27 and the XPro3 or more heavily loaded with the XPro3 and a brace of lenses and not drop the Ricoh into a corner of the camera bag - it's that good...

I had this thought the other day. I went through the 80’s and 90’s with a Pentax MV1 and the M40 2.8 pancake. My favorite lens on the *ist D was my old 20-35 mm zoom. For mu43, there was always the Lumix 20. Now there’s the Fuji 27 mm and the Sigma 45 FE. I clearly gravitate toward this focal length. I think it’s where my personal “compromise” lies for a walking-around lens.