Ricoh GR Digital III - Test Shots

Ricoh GR Digital III - Test Shots - ISO Performance

Over the next few pages we show a range of test shots. On this page the full size image at the minimum and maximum ISO settings have been reduced to let you see the full image, and a series of full resolution crops have taken from original images at a range of ISO settings to show the overall image quality. These pictures were taken indoors using reflected natural light.

----

This is the full frame at 64 ISO. Compare the GR Digital III's results with the Panasonic LX3 and Canon G10.

----

Flawless image quality at the minimum ISO setting.

----

100 ISO and still nice and clean.

----

No problems to report at 200 ISO.

----

Some noise is visible at 400 ISO, but the overall image quality is still very good.

----

At 800 ISO the red gradient is now very blotchy and there is a lot of noise in the grey area.

----

The maximum 1600 ISO is pretty terrible.

----

This is the full frame at 1600 ISO.

----

Comments

Please wait while we process your request

Please wait while we retrieve the user's information

Bio

Your bio is currently empty. Now is a great time to fill in your profile.

This profile is private.

This profile is only shared with friends.

This profile is under review.

We were unable to request friendship with this user.

We were unable to request friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

Your friendship request has been sent to this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

You are no longer friends with this user.

We were unable to ignore this user.

We were unable to ignore this user. Are you logged in?

This user is now ignored.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user. Are you logged in?

This user is no longer ignored.

pluck_user_mp-abuse_too_long_err

15 comments

Sort:

Name withheld

Dark of Day

7:22 PM on 15 September, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Dark of Day. Show Details Hide Details

Nice looking camera, but yes, way to expensive.

On which note; any likelihood of Leica sending you an M9 to play with and tell us about?

Score:

joose

8:23 PM on 15 September, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore joose. Show Details Hide Details

It's the daddy ;)

My GRDigital is back from being repaired soon. Cost £120. It's my first camera. I broke it after using it about 3 times. I've now spent the money (including buying it) that I could of afforded the LX3 yet I'm still happy I went with it. Cliff is right, the lack of zoom I think improves your photography (Although I never get a photo showed on the comp each month lol).

Stewart

10:08 PM on 15 September, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Stewart. Show Details Hide Details

Wonderful camera.

Been a fan of the GR series since film days and continue to be so with the GR Digital. They've always had a fantastic lens and a combination of quality & features with its simplicity works fantastically.

The fixed lens does discipline you into thinking more about your composures and the improvement in results offsets the loss of some photo oportunities due to the lack of zoom.

Brilliant little camera (if a little expensive compared to it's peers).

Get over the price and you'll fall in love with it (irrationally? given the existence of the LX3 and promise of the G11 and S90.)

Note for ed - Page 2 and Page 3 of the review are identical.

jopey

11:38 PM on 15 September, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore jopey. Show Details Hide Details

I don't understand how this gets 10/10 for image quality, 1600 looks terrible, the corners aren't sharp. Can you explain please Cliff? And 2.4 seconds per RAW shot is terrible.

CliffSmith

3:00 AM on 16 September, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore CliffSmith. Show Details Hide Details

jopey - This is going to sound odd, but 10/10 does not in fact mean perfect; within a scale of only 1-10 it only means its better overall than 90 percent of comparable cameras, in this case high-end compacts. As always I urge you not to get hung up on scores, and to read the text of the review instead.

Stewart - Yes, I spotted that. Not sure what happened, it's never happened before. I'll get it fixed tomorrow.

PeterB666

3:30 AM on 16 September, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore PeterB666. Show Details Hide Details

I have to agree with the odd 10/10 for image quality, particularly in respect of noise. ISO800 is not good and ISO1600 is crap. I have had issues with the point rating system before and I think a far more objective method of assessment is required or the point scores should be dropped all together. Such insonsistent scores makes comparative assessments impossible. Based on recent reviews, this camera is at best an 8/10 on IQ.

Ed

8:46 AM on 16 September, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Ed. Show Details Hide Details

@PeterB666: As well as Cliff's points, it's also important to consider how this camera will be used. Yes, the ISO 800/1600 results are poor but with an f1.9 lens the need for such high ISO settings is going to be minimal. I seldom shoot above ISO 400 on either my compact or SLR and neither has lenses anywhere near as fast.

miha

9:15 AM on 16 September, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore miha. Show Details Hide Details

Both landscapes that can be opened in original size suffer terrible focus problems with only the closest few cabins or pebbles being sharp. Other areas lose on sharpness and detail with distance a great deal and are really blotchy and two-dimensional, tho there isn't any visible sensor noise. Is this due to poor metering, any other camera problems, or were those two shots taken so intentionally? I'm really interested in this cam (would mainly find its use in portrait photography in poor lighting conditions where such fast fixed lens should prove its worth) and would appreciate your reply. Thanks!

smc8788

10:38 AM on 16 September, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore smc8788. Show Details Hide Details

I find it funny how people think that ISO performance is the ultimate factor in judging image quality (it's not), particularly as I'm in the same boat as Ed in not using anything above ISO 400 (though it's hard to say whether I would if the ISO performance was better, most D90 users will tell you that's the case).

If you're solely comparing cameras using the scores on this site then you're doing them an injustice and aren't likely to make the right decision (i.e. an informed one). Read the review and look at the test shots yourself to compare, then make a decision. I always take the x/10 ratings with a pinch of salt and use it as a general guide as to whether the product in question was any good or not, compared to what else is available.

purephase

1:14 PM on 16 September, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore purephase. Show Details Hide Details

wise words smc8788 - I always ignore the iso performance on sites like this when assessing a camera. It's like not buying a 50" plasma TV because when you stand 2" it looks pixelated and fuzzy.

This camera will give you great photos if it's anything like it's predecessor, and as joose suggested - it may well make you a better photographer.

Please wait while we file your abuse report.

We're sorry. We were unable to report abuse at this time.

We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try resubmitting your abuse report again later.

Comment is too long. Enter 500 characters or less.