You REALLY don't need the Ricoh GR III HDF. Here's why. (No jibber jabber)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 เม.ย. 2024
- The Ricoh GR III/x HDF are an egregious cash grab, trying to sell 5 year old hardware at a mark up because other premium compacts are succeeding. Losing the ND filter is also bad for leaf shutters at high shutter speeds.
They deserve criticism, and not the endless praise of camera TH-camrs. Here's how to easily add the same look in post.
LINKS TO SUPPORT:
🔴 linktr.ee/lighthunter.d
that update makes zero sense to me. why would you choose that over an nd filter. if they released nothing at least then they wouldnt be catching flak and the demand for a gr iv would just be climbing.
Releasing it as an option on the new model would’ve been infinitely better
Very good job. I will try this out. Thank you for doing this.
Thanks for watching!
I'm genuinely curious as a videographer who understands the importance of ND in video, but doesn't fully understand it's importance in photography. What would I be missing out on other than slow shutter shots in bright light? What's the issue of a leaf shutter combined with a fast shutter and how does it affect bokeh?
I have a IIIx HDF on preorder and love the idea of real diffusion SOOC without having to edit anything, but I'm curious if I'm missing something with the lack of ND other than the ability to use slow shutters in bright light.
Basically, trying to crank the shutter speed on a leaf shutter camera to compensate for bright light, will distort and make your bokeh look busy/motion blurred even. Not sure of all the mechanical details, but this is specific to leaf shutter cameras.
Without the ND, you would have to do this even more in bright light at wide apertures. The ND basically prevents the cranked shutter speed problem. Of course, you can always stop down too, but might be a limit on what you’re going for/capable of at any given time.
@@LIGHTHUNTER.D That's really interesting and something I wasn't aware of at all. Definitely a pro for the ND filter. I'm still thinking I'd personally use the HDF filter in more cases than wanting to shoot wide open in bright conditions, but that info is really useful. Thank you!
@@danfoleybmx no problem! Glad to help
Thanks dude I am considering the Richo GR for an upcoming trip and was looking at the xHDF model I have a PS subscription and therefore already paying for this feature! this is really efficient advice. Thanks mate
No prob!
I have a diffusion filter permanently on my GRIII. Although the filter holder makes it "bulky" it has done a great job of keeping dust out (which "killed" my original GR until cleaned).
Smart choice honestly
Great! I agree. Thank you!
Thanks for watching!
your video got recommended to me after I watched Samuel Streetlife's video on the camera and you're totally right. BTW "No jibber jabber" = 🦍☀i knew i recognized your face bro. Subbed 👍
🦍☀️🦍☀️🦍☀️
Damn I can’t believe I never knew about this! Got me to subscribe
Glad to help! Appreciate you subscribing 🙏
Losing nd filter for extra bucks seems crazy to me. Appreciate you for keeping it real
Appreciate you watching!
Thank you!
You're welcome!
Dude good job, I don’t know PS but this looks easy
Thanks! Hope it helps newer people too
Great video.
Thank you!
I think it's a great work around. I've seen some lightroom presets that use a diffuse bloom and they do alright for $2. I feel that replacing the nd with hdf was a bad move... having both is ideal. once combined into an action it would work well enough for a large set of photos. Great job.
Yeah I think the ND is crucial for a leaf shutter camera’s bokeh. Not that bokeh is everything. Not sure if it’s possible to fit both, but that would be killer on a GRIV. Heck, make it a bit bigger and give the flash back + both filters.
Subbed.
Appreciate it!
If you are the type photographer that wants to spend your time editing photos, HDF may not be for you. But for people of want to spend more time shooting than editing then the HDF might be a good option.
Expensive for that feature alone
@@LIGHTHUNTER.D all depends how you value your time.
@@LIGHTHUNTER.D It's a $50 difference between the GRiii and the GRiii HDF, and most diffusion filters go for at least $75. The feature itself is not that expensive all in all, but at the cost of losing the built-in ND filter (which can still be purchased separately) it's definitely a trade-off
@@LIGHTHUNTER.D and Photoshop is not expensive? I'd get it because I don't have a GRiii and have been wanting one for awhile.
@@rynesantos5944 I hate Adobe as much (probably way more) than the next guy. But if you live in the US and want to edit, you’re probably already paying the Adobe tax.
Ordering the 3x non HDF
Very good choice
I bet GIMP could do this.
If they just would have kept the internal ND-Filter and added a filter thread to the front lens element …
My reason for buying a camera like this would be so that I don't have to photoshop my images and to get good looking filmic photos directly out of cameras. So the filter is actually a main plus for me.
That said, it seems like the Gr2 would almost be a better choice. Any input in the comments here?
The ND is the better filter to have. You can make creative looks in camera that don’t require blooming to look good, or you can add a filter over the lens if that’s really what you want. Built in flash of the II is nice, Reflx Lab fixes that on newer models. That’s my more thought out opinion.
I don't like editing RAW files. This is even more annoying. So I guess I need the HDF or a Black Mist filter 🤷♂
Would recommend the regular version with the filter adapter. Far more versatile
Nono. The HDF filter is not just a mist filter. It’s similar with the Hasselblad solution. Maybe it is reproducible with PS, but it is not just a cheap mist filter built in.
Apart from this, I don’t have any opinion about the value of this upgrade. 😬
The other question is, does it hurt to not have the ND filter because of it? I say yes.
Ah, you LOSE the ND filter! I had missed that in the news. Obviously, having a built-in ND filter with a screw on mist/diffusion filter is way more flexible. Thing is - diffusion adds a character to the shots, but having or lacking an ND filter can make or break your ability to take the shot at all. Honestly for this price hike you ought to get both.
Not sure if they can both fit, although I’d love to see them bring it back to the size of the II for the built in flash. Releasing the upgraded version with either option at the same price would’ve been infinitely better IMO.
Ricoh is pushing people to buy the same camera with a different filter.
Period.
How can you choose between ND and the NDF??
I use the ND filter often actually.
Not that it’s a bokeh monster, but not having ND can affect it at high shutter speeds too.
Surprised by the critical comments (but I probably shouldn’t be - it’s the internet, after all).
Anyways I’m grateful I came across this video! I love learning new ways to edit photos!
I share your frustration with Ricoh. I love my GRiii but let’s hope this is the final iteration of this model.
Hey I try to keep it honest haha. I love Ricoh, but selling almost the same (potentially worse) hardware at this point for a markup deserves a lot of criticism. Glad the editing helped!
Or you can just buy the camera and take the picture...
ND is more useful for a leaf shutter camera, but your call.
Adobe tax 😆
😂👏👏
🫡🫡
"why do it in camera when I can do it in post" is an argument thats been made forever. Eh.
Tell me, do you edit RAW images?
@@LIGHTHUNTER.D Not unless I botch my exposure on the first go around, or if its a particularly difficult dynamic range. Otherwise I have my Fuji set for the a few styles I usually like and do minimal edits on my JPG. Just a matter of where you like to spend your time, if you like editing RAW then go for it, but its not the only worthwhile direction.
1. I am not paid by anyone - this is my opinion. I have shot with GR cameras for about a decade now.
2. The ND filter is mostly useless on the GRIII as opposed to the GRIIIx, as the 18mm focal length at f2.8 is not really providing any meaningful subject to background separation and bokeh. In more than ten years of shooting GR cameras with the 18mm lens, I have never struggled with too fast of a shutter speed in any situation. Having available something like the built in HDF filter instead of the ND filter is not removing anything essential from the GRIII. This may be a different story on the GRIIIx with its longer 26mm focal length and its 40mm field of view.
3. Physical diffusion filters have a market. There is a demand for them, because there is a need for them. So, arguing that the HDF version of the camera is redundant because the effect can be achieved in post-processing completely ignores the fact that physical diffusion filters are fairly successful as a filter accessory by themselves. If the effect can be achieved in software, then why do people buy diffusion filters? There is a need, hence there is demand, hence there is supply.
4. Different diffusion filters have different characteristics and render differently and uniquely. Simulating this in Photoshop will not provide an accurate replacement for a good diffusion filter.
5. I understand the disappointment about a "special edition" release of a camera that is five years old when people want a new version of the camera. However, demand for the GRIII series is still higher than Ricoh's ability to match supply. There simply is no pressing business need to reduce its price - or release a successor. And that is not due to Ricoh, this is entirely the doing of the demand side of the market, the consumers. If enough people are lining up to buy the GRIII HDF at the price Ricoh is asking for, it's not a money grab because enough consumers are valuing that product at the asking price. It's as simple as that.
6. We have entered a new phase in the photographic industry. Rapid technological advancements driving more image quality are not happening anymore - and that is due to the fact that most camera types have reached their capabilities limitations. Image quality for most camera types has plateaued ten years ago or further back. 24MP in an APSC camera pretty much maxes out the usable resolution of that format without running into issues with diffraction in the most often used aperture range. Adding more pixels to small sensors (35mm format, APSC, Micro Four Thirds, anything smaller) is being eaten up by diffraction now and a deep DoF comes at the expense of image resolution due to diffraction - or you have to start focus stacking basically everything. My Canon 5DsR with its ~51MP sensor suffers from the effects of diffraction at f11 and higher. The newest 60MP 35mm format cameras are impacted by diffraction at around f7.1 to f8 already - the full sensor resolution is only available at lower apertures - at the expense of depth of field, so image details get lost to shallow focus instead. What's the point of all of that resolution then?! The new Fuji APSC 40MP sensor is a joke on consumers, there hardly is any difference in detail resolution to the older 26MP sensor using the same lenses. Consumers end up with bloated files that hold little to no additional details. Image sensors today are basically night vision devices in how sensitive they are in their capability to amplify the signal of low light without introducing massive amounts of noise. If you are facing a situation with so little available light that your image with a modern camera turns out too noisy, no hypothetical camera with better low light capabilities would have given you a better image - because a good image needs good light and clearly you didn't have good light. In other words: there is no real functional requirement to upgrade the GRIII series with a newer model, it wouldn't improve image quality or usability substantially, justifying the replacement of a well selling product with one that needs R&D and manufacturing CAPEX and OPEX investments.
This is one long case for justifying paying more for 5 year old hardware. Entirely wrong mindset. You should be asking for more from them, or at the very least better prices on old hardware. Whatever technical limitations be damned lol
@@LIGHTHUNTER.D Yep, you don't get it. That's OK. Not everyone understands how markets and product development and marketing works. ;)
@@thedarkslide no I understand economy, and you want to cope for austerity 😂
Thanks for the honesty… sad some TH-camrs sell their audience bad advice.
Will always try to be real on here
Many of us know you can do this stuff in post. But many don't or don't want to go to all that trouble every time. I know how to do everything you've demonstrated but I'll still be buying a new GR III HDR as soon as I can get one. Why? Because I can and I want to. Just like I can only drive one car at a time and I have three. So what? Just because it's possible to do one thing doesn't mean you have to do that thing all the time. Live a little.
Hey if you got the cash then go full send. Knowing about the easy post option might save some other people though
This is a very reductive comment which misses the point of the video. Of course if you can and you want you should - we all know this.
I’m personally in the market for a IIIX and this helped put it in perspective a little, particularly the point about the ND filter being removed.
@@yusrabrock glad to help!
Let's be honest, the methods you've shown are not much close to real hdf filter and will not work properly in all situations, but yes Ricoh should add hdf as a second filter not replace nd
Feel free to go through my instagram and tell me which are real Black Pro Mist or not 🫡
@@LIGHTHUNTER.D Probably you are using a more complex method than you've shown on TH-cam 😏
@kotaperkot1791 nice cope 😂
Couldn’t agree less, you completely miss the point of Ricoh gr111. I don’t post edit to make a fake image
We always see in film colors, makes sense
Lots of work and the result is inferior to the Ricoh GR hdf
😂
@@LIGHTHUNTER.D you haven’t even tested the camera……
@@willgreig8912 you caught me. I just own the Ricoh GRIIIx, which I stated in the video. All the same hardware/software besides the HDF. Just…no way I could understand it lmfao
You are completely missing the point - LOTS of people don’t want to buy Photoshop or spend time editing images. They want stuff “straight out of the camera” and that’s exactly what this camera is designed to do
Creative looks possible in all models are more than enough. And you can still add diffusion in front of the lens.
Just have to pay for photo shop and edit every photo, SO EASY… just kidding not really. This really didnt make sense to me. The process you were posing as an easy alternative seems expensive (pay for PS) and time consuming
Ah yes, because no photographers are paying for Lightroom and Photoshop already 😂
I’d get it so i don’t have edit. sooc
More power to you, but that’s quite the price hike for that ability alone
@@LIGHTHUNTER.D the issue i have with mist filters is the ghosting. having it built in to the lens makes it worth it for me