Ricoh Forum

Lens Flare test

When Ricoh introduced GRDIII with new lens design, I was curious if there will be improved also the anti-flare coating of the lens elements. I'm happy to report that the GRDIII lens flaring is greatly improved. Here you can see the difference between the GRDII and GRDIII lens flaring...


As you can see, the flare is almost non-existent in GRDIII photos, even in shots with strong light sources. Lens flare damaged several of my GRDII photos, so I'm happy to see such great improvement in this area.

Barrel Distortion test

As you can see in this test, there is only a minimum difference between all three cameras in JPEG, and between GRDIII and GRDII RAW. Both GRDIII and GRDII performs exceptionally well in this test, with only a minimum barrel distortion. As expected (and confirmed by other reviews), LX3 shows significant amount of barrel distortion in RAW, which is automatically corrected in JPEG and in some RAW editors (Silkypix). Neither GRDIII nor GRDII does any kind of barrel distortion fix in JPEG.




Below you can see difference between JPEG/RAW from individual cameras. The small differences you may see in GRDIII and GRDII files are caused by slightly more vertical/horizontal pixels saved in RAW. LX3 stores even more pixels in RAW, just to have enough space for barrel distortion fix.

Thank you Pavel. That's really good. I was worried about the Grd2vs3. And seems ok. Each time I see the LX3 RAW files I get furious. And a Leica name on that lens...

Thank you for lots of useful information (as always). You are doing great job!

rondo wrote:Thank you Pavel. That's really good. I was worried about the Grd2vs3. And seems ok. Each time I see the LX3 RAW files I get furious. And a Leica name on that lens...

It's not Leica or Panasonic's fault (maybe Panasonic's fault for trying to cover it up, imho nothing to be ashamed of). They opt for smaller lens size while still retaining the wide aperture, otherwise it'll end up with bigger lens size or smaller aperture. I think lx3 lens design is ingenious.

reim1o, comparing GRD with LX3 is probably not fair, because of zoom vs. prime lens construction. However, the LX3 lens is reportedly much worse in terms of barrel distortion and chromatic aberration. GX200 lens easily beats LX3 lens in terms of sharpness and distortions. GX200 lens is even a bit longer (72mm vs. 60mm) and it does not make the GX200 bigger? In fact, GX200 body is less thick than LX3.

In my opinion, the problem of the LX3 lens is, that Panasonic/Leica tried to make this lens too wide and fast at any cost. GX200 lens is maybe not that fast as LX3 lens, but its barrel distortion and chromatic aberration is very well controlled without any SW tricks. See this comparison...

viewtopic.php?p=7364#p7364

Why is software barrel distortion correction considered a bad thing? Sure, the lens is not "as good", but if they can produce the same result with a cheaper lens, then they are IMHO better!

I'm not comparing GRD's lens with LX3's lens, just stating that it's very hard to create 24-60mm f/2-2.8 with no distortion in that size.
Sure GX200 lens is longer and smaller, but it's also only f/2.5 at 24mm to f/4.4 at 72mm.
Yes, Panasonic/Leica decided for biggest aperture and they 'cheated' by using software correction. But that very thing makes it the king of compact atm.
In fact, Ricoh followed panasonic's path by making GRDIII lens much faster. They did better job because it's easier to optimize prime lens.

Im still using my IR modded GX100 and been waiting for a worthy upgrade (GX300 maybe).
Decided not to buy GRDIII because I can't live without 24mm. And didn't buy LX3 because it's not Ricoh

Well, I have an LX3. In fact, it's my "carrying" camera until (a) my GRDI is fixed or (b) purchase of a GRDIII happens.

The problem with the barrel distortion on the LX3 is it does show up in jpegs with different software. Fairly visible in Picassa.

The lens also has some flare issues. Found out the hard way during our last trip.

There are certain aspects of the camera I love. However, that is sorely offset by the cameras many failings. (Can't say how many shots I've missed because the mode dial has been moved by accident.)

tommy wrote:Why is software barrel distortion correction considered a bad thing? Sure, the lens is not "as good", but if they can produce the same result with a cheaper lens, then they are IMHO better!

Where do you draw the line? If they can apply sharpening and different auto corrections through software to make it look "Better" is it really the picture you took? One of the reasons I switched from print to slides years ago was because I often got the best picture the printing machine could give me, almost never the picture I wanted to shoot. I never developed the skills to get a good color print, though I did for B&W. That's why I shoot RAW. There are times I want to go back to the original version and work from there. I want the best lens I can find for every camera I use. Yes zooms are harder to get right, but not impossible. Nikon did it years ago with the 80-200, other folks have done it too. A great zoom might add $100 to the cost but I wonder how many folks would beat a path to the camera. Ricoh has proven that they will for the GRD series so much that you now see an offering from Leica, the X1. I bet Canon and Nikon will follow, but I'm still going for the GRD III.

B2 (;->