The only thing I have to outdo the sharpness of my GRIIIx is my Nikon, and only with the S line lenses I have. The Ricoh looks flat better than any Fuji I've ever used.
I think the GRIIIx is actually the sharper between the two models, but the GRIII lens has a lot of contrast and really great color transmission, that might be what you are seeing, combined with greater depth of field. The IIIx lens is a little more neutral.
I found a workaround. I researched and researched and I found the best solution. It has to do with the de-mosaic used by raw converters such as Lightroom. The workaround is for sharpening purposes and reducing that mushiness I used to see on my fuji files. When you import your raw files you decrease sharpening and NR to zero (LR default = 40). Then you go to enhance and select super resolution (and raw details). From here you open the file in photoshop, duplicate the background layer and apply a sharpen filter of unsharpen layer to around 330-350%. Then you resize the image back to its original size. This way the difference is ABYSMAL. Night and day
I have the III and IIIX. I have noticed that photos of my kid are sharper than those taken with the Sony A7rV and ZVE1 and the Nikon Zf. I use the 35mm 2.8 lens with the Sony's and the 28mm 2.8 with the NIkon.
I recently was comparing various photos in my iphone and was shocked just how much sharper the Ricoh photos were.
The Ricoh cameras catch a fair amount of hate in forums but they are magical.
Well, if your primary concern is absolute image sharpness, I suppose it could be a problem. But there’s more to great photography than “sharpness.”
Fuji makes outstanding cameras and lenses that provide excellent image quality. If a more specialized camera outperforms on a particular metric, it doesn’t mean that Fuji gear is unusable.
I have seen no shortage of excellent images out of the xpro system. It's still very tempting, but expensive to get into, even just an 8 year old body and a pair of f2.0 wr lenses. I'll be in Japan next month and it occurred to me to just "get good" with my GR3 instead, despite the obvious limitations.
I found a workaround. I researched and researched and I found the best solution. It has to do with the de-mosaic used by raw converters such as Lightroom. The workaround is for sharpening purposes and reducing that mushiness I used to see on my fuji files. When you import your raw files you decrease sharpening and NR to zero (LR default = 40). Then you go to enhance and select super resolution (and raw details). From here you open the file in photoshop, duplicate the background layer and apply a sharpen filter of unsharpen layer to around 330-350%. Then you resize the image back to its original size. This way the difference is ABYSMAL. Night and day
Unless a test comparison is done in controlled settings any opinion of sharpness between the iii vs iiix is anecdotal at best.
Edit: just to add, sharpness will vary between different apertures for example, and then there might be variables influencing perceived sharpness based on the type of images shot (subject, lighting, etc), or depth of field & shutter speed choices affected by focal length differences.
My former Olympus EM1 Mii with 12-45 f4 or Pana Leica 25mm f1.4 are as sharp as my Ricoh GR iii.
I think the results are mostly influenced by the quality of the lens and in case of the Ricoh, the lens is brillant.
You can crop and zoom in till you see eyelashes, and the contrasts of the 18.3mm togheter with the sharpness stopped down to f4 or more, produces extreme crisp images, although you look at sooc jpegs.
I also owned a Nikon-System i never had this kind of quality.
Just so you know you can sharpen the raw files in post quite a bit. Ricoh engineers must have decided to have higher sharpening on their raw files right out of the box.
I may be wrong here but the GR III and IIIX have the same sensor and the the development of the of the sensor was optimized with the original GR III lens in mind. Which explains why the GR III images are shaper than the GR IIIX which to me was kind of an after thought and customer demands for a narrower field of view. Without changing the sensor they can only optimize the lens for the current sensor they have and tweak the sensor in minor ways to get a better image in comparison to a paired sensor and lens package.
The IIIx was released nearly 3 years after the III and is generally regarded as slightly superior lens wise so I'm not sure how it's an afterthought. The sensor would've been the same regardless (whatever Sony produces.)
The IIIx can have better glass, I've never used the IIIx, so I can't say if it does or does not. With the cameras at different focal lengths it's hard to do a direct comparison without using wide/tele converter to get a similar result. That being said, additional glass also affects the IQ and contrast.
Sensor optimization isn't a new thing and is common, you don't have to manufacture the sensor to optimize it for your glass. If what you said were true that the sensor would be the same regardless because it is produced by Sony, then the Sony A6000 would be just as good as the ricoh GR or any aps-c fuji camera.
yes I think that might be it, the lens might not be as sharp. I am really considering selling my xpro2 for the griii only thing stopping me is that I use it to scan negatives so without a macro lens that might be hard
The only thing I have to outdo the sharpness of my GRIIIx is my Nikon, and only with the S line lenses I have. The Ricoh looks flat better than any Fuji I've ever used.
agree 100%
I think the GRIIIx is actually the sharper between the two models, but the GRIII lens has a lot of contrast and really great color transmission, that might be what you are seeing, combined with greater depth of field. The IIIx lens is a little more neutral.
I have a couple of large sized prints from my GRIII. The sharpness rivals my XT-5 paired with my 33 f1.4.
I noticed the XT5 is similar
I blame Fuji x trans sensors. They often aren't as sharp as bayer sensors.
I found a workaround. I researched and researched and I found the best solution. It has to do with the de-mosaic used by raw converters such as Lightroom. The workaround is for sharpening purposes and reducing that mushiness I used to see on my fuji files. When you import your raw files you decrease sharpening and NR to zero (LR default = 40). Then you go to enhance and select super resolution (and raw details). From here you open the file in photoshop, duplicate the background layer and apply a sharpen filter of unsharpen layer to around 330-350%. Then you resize the image back to its original size. This way the difference is ABYSMAL. Night and day
Phenomenal lens matched directly to the sensor and no AA filter will do that…
GR3 files might be sharper than my Gmaster and L lens files. X-pro2 files won’t get as sharp but the x100v files are comparable
I have the III and IIIX. I have noticed that photos of my kid are sharper than those taken with the Sony A7rV and ZVE1 and the Nikon Zf. I use the 35mm 2.8 lens with the Sony's and the 28mm 2.8 with the NIkon. I recently was comparing various photos in my iphone and was shocked just how much sharper the Ricoh photos were. The Ricoh cameras catch a fair amount of hate in forums but they are magical.
I found GR3 and GR3X sharper than fuji sensors. The X-T5 40mp sensor is even softer than the 26mp of the X-T4
Yeah my ricoh files were always absurdly sharp
I was just shopping for an xpro 2 to compliment my gr3 with an interchangeable lens system with some character. This does not inspire confidence.
Well, if your primary concern is absolute image sharpness, I suppose it could be a problem. But there’s more to great photography than “sharpness.” Fuji makes outstanding cameras and lenses that provide excellent image quality. If a more specialized camera outperforms on a particular metric, it doesn’t mean that Fuji gear is unusable.
I have seen no shortage of excellent images out of the xpro system. It's still very tempting, but expensive to get into, even just an 8 year old body and a pair of f2.0 wr lenses. I'll be in Japan next month and it occurred to me to just "get good" with my GR3 instead, despite the obvious limitations.
I found a workaround. I researched and researched and I found the best solution. It has to do with the de-mosaic used by raw converters such as Lightroom. The workaround is for sharpening purposes and reducing that mushiness I used to see on my fuji files. When you import your raw files you decrease sharpening and NR to zero (LR default = 40). Then you go to enhance and select super resolution (and raw details). From here you open the file in photoshop, duplicate the background layer and apply a sharpen filter of unsharpen layer to around 330-350%. Then you resize the image back to its original size. This way the difference is ABYSMAL. Night and day
Unless a test comparison is done in controlled settings any opinion of sharpness between the iii vs iiix is anecdotal at best. Edit: just to add, sharpness will vary between different apertures for example, and then there might be variables influencing perceived sharpness based on the type of images shot (subject, lighting, etc), or depth of field & shutter speed choices affected by focal length differences.
Side by side image comparisons done give griiix the lead in sharpness and contrast. Maybe it’s your setting difference.
My former Olympus EM1 Mii with 12-45 f4 or Pana Leica 25mm f1.4 are as sharp as my Ricoh GR iii. I think the results are mostly influenced by the quality of the lens and in case of the Ricoh, the lens is brillant. You can crop and zoom in till you see eyelashes, and the contrasts of the 18.3mm togheter with the sharpness stopped down to f4 or more, produces extreme crisp images, although you look at sooc jpegs. I also owned a Nikon-System i never had this kind of quality.
Just so you know you can sharpen the raw files in post quite a bit. Ricoh engineers must have decided to have higher sharpening on their raw files right out of the box.
I may be wrong here but the GR III and IIIX have the same sensor and the the development of the of the sensor was optimized with the original GR III lens in mind. Which explains why the GR III images are shaper than the GR IIIX which to me was kind of an after thought and customer demands for a narrower field of view. Without changing the sensor they can only optimize the lens for the current sensor they have and tweak the sensor in minor ways to get a better image in comparison to a paired sensor and lens package.
The IIIx was released nearly 3 years after the III and is generally regarded as slightly superior lens wise so I'm not sure how it's an afterthought. The sensor would've been the same regardless (whatever Sony produces.)
IME the IIIX is just as sharp as the III. Both are sharper than my x100v.
The IIIx can have better glass, I've never used the IIIx, so I can't say if it does or does not. With the cameras at different focal lengths it's hard to do a direct comparison without using wide/tele converter to get a similar result. That being said, additional glass also affects the IQ and contrast. Sensor optimization isn't a new thing and is common, you don't have to manufacture the sensor to optimize it for your glass. If what you said were true that the sensor would be the same regardless because it is produced by Sony, then the Sony A6000 would be just as good as the ricoh GR or any aps-c fuji camera.
yes I think that might be it, the lens might not be as sharp. I am really considering selling my xpro2 for the griii only thing stopping me is that I use it to scan negatives so without a macro lens that might be hard
Oh this is exactly the boat im in! Kind of only holding on to my Fuji system for scanning
yes right? Dont know what to do!!! Need some scans to see if the griii can hold up
Fixed prime lenses will almost always outperform interchangeable lens systems.
i have the best lenses for the xpro2, the files look mushy compared to the griii
Whats lens btw?