Ricoh Surprise! Ricoh GRIIIx (Showcase)

[agentlossing]

I wonder if perhaps Ricoh decided to slap the newly developed 40mm equivalent on (nearly) the same body to squeeze out as many sales as possible before moving on to a 28mm equivalent GR IV with tilting screen, then later the 40mm equivalent GR IVx also with tilting screen.

I'm in agreement here, Ricoh talks about their design philosophy with the GR and they admit that they're slow to embrace change with the design of the body. It would be uncharacteristic for them to release a different focal length with a completely different design and features. My guess is whatever changes are being planned for the GR IV are being sketched out and considered very slowly right now in some part of Ricoh design team.

 

[drd1135]

I can't say whether I would take to carrying 2 GRs. At first blush it sounds a little silly to me, but I don't know why - I've carried two cameras with different lenses before. I think it's because, deep down, I realize that I would mix them up. I mean, they look identical! Was that the best choice, Ricoh? I guess I can use different color rings... until I lose them...

Spray paint.

 

[agentlossing]

USA rollout is very slow! I'd like to get a preorder in.

 

[mike3996]

You've got two pockets so two GRs make sense

 

[mpeterson]

I’ve never pre-ordered a camera before (and I’ve owned far too many cameras for my own good)…but I’ll pre-order one of these as soon as it’s possible in the US. I’ve been interested in the GR cameras for years, but have only not owned one because 28 just isn’t my jam. But with a 40mm equivalent lens I may never put it down.

 

[agentlossing]

We all agree to be nice people and let each other know when US preorders open up, right?

 

[TraamisVOS]

I have an honest question - why the Ricoh GR series?

The Ricoh GR compacts look interesting and I quite like the snap focus function which would help with spontaneous street photography.

But everytime I start to look into them, I stop and remind myself that I already own the Panasonic LX10. When I weigh it up, the LX10 seems to be a more versatile camera with excellent IQ and additional functions.

 

[rayvonn]

I have an honest question - why the Ricoh GR series?

The size and apsc sensor they manage to get into something so small, not so much pocketable as definitely fits in your pocket. The haptics. The snap focus you refer to which is practically way better and effective than the pre focusing technique used with any other camera. With the GR II, the files rendered amazingly, especially the mono files which could not be replicated in PP (not so much with the GR III's files though). It's really meant for the sort of person that wants a camera with them at all times every day with the capability to instantly take images good enough to print and display on a wall, in that regard this is the best there is.

 

[TraamisVOS]

The size and apsc sensor they manage to get into something so small, not so much pocketable as definitely fits in your pocket. The haptics. The snap focus you refer to which is practically way better and effective than the pre focusing technique used with any other camera. With the GR II, the files rendered amazingly, especially the mono files which could not be replicated in PP (not so much with the GR III's files though). It's really meant for the sort of person that wants a camera with them at all times every day with the capability to instantly take images good enough to print and display on a wall, in that regard this is the best there is.

More honest questions (honestly, I'm not trying to start an argument, I am genuinely wanting to discuss this) - the LX10 or LX100 can also produce print-worthy images too don't they? Both cameras are legitimate everyday-carrys.

I accept that the Ricoh has a great APS-C sensor while the LX sensors are smaller. But that is balanced by the much faster lenses in the LX cameras, compared to the Ricohs. This also factors into low light options with the fast lenses in the LXs, and some loose equivalency with depth of field (ie. Ricoh having an APS-C lens but slower lens, vs LX having a smaller lens but much faster lenses, all of which affects the depth of field and low light options).

I know most of us don't care about the video function but the LX cameras can produce some amazing video quality, not so the Ricohs as I understand it.

Neither cameras properly fit into anyone's jeans pocket unless you're Ronald McDonald wearing clown pants with clown-sized pockets.

It boils down to the IQ and the character of the images that each camera produces then, is it not? And the snap focus function, although the LX10 is no slouch when it comes to fast focusing too.

 

[rayvonn]

Hope the below responses help:

More honest questions (honestly, I'm not trying to start an argument, I am genuinely wanting to discuss this) - the LX10 or LX100 can also produce print-worthy images too don't they? Both cameras are legitimate everyday-carrys.

All cameras and indeed phones do (it's all about the light, etc). Never heard of an illegitimate one. Everyone has their favourites which they should stick to if it works for them regardless of the latest and greatest.

I accept that the Ricoh has a great APS-C sensor while the LX sensors are smaller. But that is balanced by the much faster lenses in the LX cameras, compared to the Ricohs. This also factors into low light options with the fast lenses in the LXs, and some loose equivalency with depth of field (ie. Ricoh having an APS-C lens but slower lens, vs LX having a smaller lens but much faster lenses, all of which affects the depth of field and low light options).

You mean F1.7 vs F2.8? Judging by my past use of m43 cameras, the GR’s sensor as well as its stabilisation, iso capabilities and macro mode more than take care of that in every day use.

I know most of us don't care about the video function but the LX cameras can produce some amazing video quality, not so the Ricohs as I understand it.

No idea, and I think you’re right in that I’ve never heard of anyone using a Ricoh GR for video. If that’s an issue for anyone then yes, that would be important.

Neither cameras properly fit into anyone's jeans pocket unless you're Ronald McDonald wearing clown pants with clown-sized pockets.

Well it fits into my pocket. I am over 6 foot tall but don’t wear clown pants and the GR says in my pocket every day, but even if I wasn’t this tall, it would still fit in the pocket, it really is that small.

It boils down to the IQ and the character of the images that each camera produces then, is it not?

No not really, the fact this 24mp camera stays in my pocket every day is a big factor. I’d be taking my old D800E out with me every day if it solely boiled down to IQ of the images which definitely wouldn’t fit in my pocket.

And the snap focus function, although the LX10 is no slouch when it comes to fast focusing too.

I reiterate my reference to the haptics. The GR is fast in operation, is useable one handed, there’s practically no fiddling about with settings/ pre settings and I think that’s part it’s appeal, the ability for it to operate so fast at a moment’s notice so simple people like me don’t have to think about it yet still be able to produce DSLR like images.

I remember wondering what the point of the GR (II) was at the time I had my m43 gear and it soon became apparent when I used one. More recently, I also considered a GX800/880 + Pany 14mm combination as an alternative but it was no match against a GR which was better in use and better in IQ. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a 100% fanboy of the GR3, I actually prefer the II in lots of ways and this new model is not for me. But hopefully this goes some way to explaining “why the GR series?”.

 

[TraamisVOS]

You mean F1.7 vs F2.8? Judging by my past use of m43 cameras, the GR’s sensor as well as its stabilisation, iso capabilities and macro mode more than take care of that in every day use.

The LX10 has all that too.

No idea, and I think you’re right in that I’ve never heard of anyone using a Ricoh GR for video. If that’s an issue for anyone then yes, that would be important.

Nah this is the one thing I know for sure, the GR has very mediocre video.

Well it fits into my pocket. I am over 6 foot tall but don’t wear clown pants and the GR says in my pocket every day, but even if I wasn’t this tall, it would still fit in the pocket, it really is that small.

Now I'm curious to see a comparison because the LX10 is pretty small too.



Another question - why the GR over the Fujifilm X100V then? I don't own either one but they're both APS-C, I've seen some fantastic IQ from the X100 too, both their video functions suck. The X100 is bigger though.

 

[mumu]

I have an honest question - why the Ricoh GR series?

The Ricoh GR compacts look interesting and I quite like the snap focus function which would help with spontaneous street photography.

But everytime I start to look into them, I stop and remind myself that I already own the Panasonic LX10. When I weigh it up, the LX10 seems to be a more versatile camera with excellent IQ and additional functions.

In terms of general versatility, I agree that the LX10 is the better camera, at least for me it is. Better video, a variety of focal lengths, and even a built-in flash! But there are areas where the GR III is the better choice so for those people, it makes more sense.

Another question - why the GR over the Fujifilm X100V then? I don't own either one but they're both APS-C, I've seen some fantastic IQ from the X100 too, both their video functions suck. The X100 is bigger though.

I spent a lot of time comparing the GR III and X100V. In the end, I chose the X100V but it wasn't a slam dunk. I was looking for a street photography camera and the GR III's killer feature was its Snap Focus option. I also liked its very small size and light weight. And as someone who often times shoots on the streets at night, image stabilization was a nice feature to have. In some ways, I also liked the 28mm field of view. It's especially useful for shooting candids of people when you're quite close to them because you can include them in the frame without them realizing it.

In the end, I chose the X100V because of these features:

• Electronic viewfinder. I need reading glasses so having an EVF allowed me to skip the rear screen for those times when I needed to see image details. It also allowed me to easily frame the scene in bright light.
• Tilting rear screen. Being a cowardly street photographer, this feature is invaluable for framing my shots without being noticed (usually).
• 35-equiv FoV. Despite the aforementioned benefit of the 28 FoV, I decided that 35 is more versatile for my street photography.

After using it for almost a year, I know I made the right choice. I also like the fact that the Fuji's battery lasts me a long time. I've never come close to needing to swap batteries after a day of street photography. Also, I managed to approximate the Snap Focus feature by using the focus-limiter option on the Fuji: I limit the AF so it can only ever focus from 3m to 3m which effectively forces it to focus at 3m. The only downside is that it takes one button press and one dial turn to go to/from that mode. With the Ricoh, switching between Snap Focus and AF is dictated simply by how you press the shutter release, so it's much faster to do. Despite that, I'd say that 80-90% of my street photos are taken using zone focusing (3m).

Additionally, Fuji doesn't have custom presets that let you save operational settings the way most camera brands do (eg: Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, etc) and I find that annoying. I'd love to be able to quickly switch between 3 modes:

• Street 1: 3m fixed focus, f/8, 1/400s min. shutter speed
• Street 2: AF, f/5.6, 1/250s min. shutter speed
• General use: AF, f/4, 1/60s min. shutter speed

The lack of stabilization in the Fuji hasn't been a big deal since it is basically my street camera. BUT if it had stabilization, it would really increase the camera's usefulness to me because then I would use it for video as well.

Oh, the other thing that made me choose the Fuji is that I read several complaints on the Ricoh forum about dust on the sensor. I didn't see as many issues with the X100 series AND the X100V is weather sealed (yes, I use a filter on the lens to complete the sealing) so perhaps even less of a chance of dust on the sensor. Speaking of which, I didn't really care if my street camera was weather sealed or not but after shooting in the rain several times with the Fuji, I now see the value of it. I've been carrying the camera in my hand at all times when on a photo walk since that gives me the best chance of capturing the shot (vs. carrying it on a neck strap) so being able to do this even when it is pouring rain is great. I just keep the lens pointed down so it doesn't collect water drops.

In summary, I think the main reasons to choose the GR III over the X100V are:

1. Smaller size
2. Snap Focus

(I also think the Ricoh colours are a bit better but I'm a raw shooter and their film sims are only available in-camera where as I can apply Fuji's film sims to my raw files when I process them with Lightroom. )

 

[agentlossing]

The LX10 has all that too.



Nah this is the one thing I know for sure, the GR has very mediocre video.




Now I'm curious to see a comparison because the LX10 is pretty small too.



Another question - why the GR over the Fujifilm X100V then? I don't own either one but they're both APS-C, I've seen some fantastic IQ from the X100 too, both their video functions suck. The X100 is bigger though.

I don't think the GR series would suit you, based on the values in a camera which you've been communicating. So, I don't know that anyone will "convince" you that the GR is "better."

GRs are a study in limitation. I was going to say a study in minimalism, but that's a totally different thing. For one, minimalism is often aesthetic only when it comes to product design. Also, the minimalist lifestyle is about doing all you can with less. The GR is more about doing less, but focusing your attention like a laser beam on what you can do with it. It's also about studying how to make a limited feature-set as good as it can possibly be.

I've used the LX100II, and it's a fairly full-featured camera. It's quite nice. but its lens isn't as good as I wished it to be. Haven't used the LX10 but I assume that, between the smaller sensor and the compact zoom, it's also going to be on a similar quality level (if not slightly less). They don't compare to the GR/GRII/GRIII at all. That 28mm-equiv lens is only one focal length, but it's razor sharp. It's one of the best optics in its range that you can find anywhere on any system. It also has character. It's not designed to be clinical. Take for example the heavy vignetting that both iterations of the APS-C lenses produce. The designers obviously weren't against vignette, or they might have seen this as a crucial flaw. In fact, the GR/GRII spins this as a classic or vintage effect: if you find the setting that controls whether the lens vignette is corrected in camera (don't use this, it's bad and can create a mess in later editing), the setting "original" (meaning no correction) is described as providing an atmosphere similar to the original film GR. That's an interesting spin on a lens that vignettes.

So, the lens is a boutique design. The body is also a study in making a camera as easy to use quickly and intuitively as possible. It's made to be used one-handed. It has a full set of controls. The grip fits the hand better than a tiny bar-of-soap camera ought to. Notice how I said tiny. You kind of have to carry and shoot with the GR in order to realize just how compact it is. Side-by-side measurements don't do it justice. The Fuji X100 series, for example, is miles apart. Even though the total dimensions aren't that different, the GR and X100 fall on opposite ends of a dividing line: can it not only fit in a pocket, but can it do so comfortably.

Having a 28mm camera that is sharp enough and with enough dynamic range to get pretty much anything you see rendered in exquisite detail, small enough to go with you everywhere, means that you naturally explore the limits of what the package can accomplish. It forces you to, or cajoles you to, or seduces you to. The results you get, with Ricoh's extraordinary processing and JPEG profiles, reward you as you go.

All this is well and good, but if what the GR offers doesn't suit your shooting style, then it won't appeal to you, and the first thing I say now to people who think they want a GR is to either satisfy yourself with shooting the way the camera is designed, or don't get it. It won't morph into the camera you want it to be. It won't adapt to the adaptations you try to impose on it. Simple as that.

 

[Lightmancer]

My ten penn'rth.

I have used a GR almost continuously since the GR1 film camera. 28mm is not my favourite focal length (35-50 is my sweet spot, and 40 is a favourite, again since film days) I have also had multple GXRs - I am just about to sell the current one to part fund the GRIIIx)

I have also owned every Fuji 100 from the original up to the IV, and usually at the same time as a GR of some sort. I dabbled for about a year with the Sony RX100 (mk4) but ultimately could not get on with it. I have used small cameras for all my photographic life, including Leica (CL and Minilux) Minox (GT and ML) Contax T2 (a real favourite) and many others.

Today I have a GRIII and I am champing at the bit to get the GRIIIx (hence the sell-offs)

Why?

Haptics - as previously mentioned.
Build quality - I drove over one once - in a Mercedes. The only thing broken was the rear screen and that was fixed by Ricoh for sixty quid.
HiBW mode - I have never been able to replicate it in post
Simplicity - I could just set it once (including custom modes) and never have to menu-dive again, which is more than I can say for the Sony.
USB charging - not unique, but just less to carry
The glass - Ricoh make 'em good, and old-school. Minimal reliance on in-camera corrections
Compact size - it truly does fit in a pocket, which is where it wins out over the Fuji X100 form factor
Discretion - it looks like nothing. People just ignore it - or smile.
In-camera raw development - yes, I know this is not unique to the GR, but it works better in the little Ricoh than in either the Sony or the Fuji (by the way, the mobile app is far better than either too, although Fuji is catching up)
User pleasure - this is impossible to quantify, but it is a thing. Some cameras just make you smile when you use them; a Leica IID. An M2. A Nikon F90x. A Contax RX. A Fuji XProIII - and a GR, of any vintage, film or digital.

I'm not out to convert anyone, just explain why I am spending the thick end of a grand on a camera that really only varies from the one I already have in focal length

 

[MoonMind]

Well, I haven't anything major to add - just the fact that I took mine out again today and can testify to everything mentioned above, personal niggles aside.

I'm looking at the images and loving what I see. If you don't expect things from it it's not made for, a GR, any GR, will enchant you. And you'll get images from it you won't get from any other camera. It's a camera that, once you focus on the positive aspects, is worth every penny twice over.

That said, I'm not (yet) planning on getting the GR IIIx - simply because I'm afraid I might end up with another camera that is decidedly niche and, thus, not one I carry often; certainly worth owning - but not something I'd use often enough to really justify its acquisition. We'll see, though - the 40mm version is something I used to dream of in the past, and just because I currently own a camera that does more or less exactly fill that niche (the Nikon Z fc with 28mm f/2.8 SE), the GR IIIx is ... a GR.

M.

 

[Lightmancer]

Let's face it. You can't say photoGRaphy without GR...

 

[agentlossing]

２つのGRと僕 （あらいた） | GR official | リコー公式コミュニティサイト

www.grblog.jp

Japanese article, and Google doesn't do a great job translating, but these are really good examples of the 40mm lens in use, probably much in the same kind of way that I would use it. Some good photos in the article.

 

[CraigC]

From the Euro price I'm guessing it'll be $1K here in the US, a $100 premium over the GRIII. Still, I might preorder (only other time I've done so was for the GRIII) to get it in my hands as quickly as possible and make a decision. I'll have to sell something if I get it.

“ Ricoh USA has confirmed that the pricing for the GR IIIx will be $1,000 and it will be available in early October.”

Ricoh Quietly Launches the GR IIIx with New 40mm Equivalent Lens

Designed to provide a different perspective than the original GR III.

petapixel.com

 

[TraamisVOS]

I have an honest question - why the Ricoh GR series?


In terms of general versatility, I agree that the LX10 is the better camera, at least for me it is. Better video, a variety of focal lengths, and even a built-in flash! But there are areas where the GR III is the better choice so for those people, it makes more sense.



I spent a lot of time comparing the GR III and X100V. In the end, I chose the X100V but it wasn't a slam dunk. I was looking for a street photography camera and the GR III's killer feature was its Snap Focus option. I also liked its very small size and light weight. And as someone who often times shoots on the streets at night, image stabilization was a nice feature to have. In some ways, I also liked the 28mm field of view. It's especially useful for shooting candids of people when you're quite close to them because you can include them in the frame without them realizing it.

In the end, I chose the X100V because of these features:

• Electronic viewfinder. I need reading glasses so having an EVF allowed me to skip the rear screen for those times when I needed to see image details. It also allowed me to easily frame the scene in bright light.
• Tilting rear screen. Being a cowardly street photographer, this feature is invaluable for framing my shots without being noticed (usually).
• 35-equiv FoV. Despite the aforementioned benefit of the 28 FoV, I decided that 35 is more versatile for my street photography.

After using it for almost a year, I know I made the right choice. I also like the fact that the Fuji's battery lasts me a long time. I've never come close to needing to swap batteries after a day of street photography. Also, I managed to approximate the Snap Focus feature by using the focus-limiter option on the Fuji: I limit the AF so it can only ever focus from 3m to 3m which effectively forces it to focus at 3m. The only downside is that it takes one button press and one dial turn to go to/from that mode. With the Ricoh, switching between Snap Focus and AF is dictated simply by how you press the shutter release, so it's much faster to do. Despite that, I'd say that 80-90% of my street photos are taken using zone focusing (3m).

Additionally, Fuji doesn't have custom presets that let you save operational settings the way most camera brands do (eg: Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, etc) and I find that annoying. I'd love to be able to quickly switch between 3 modes:

• Street 1: 3m fixed focus, f/8, 1/400s min. shutter speed
• Street 2: AF, f/5.6, 1/250s min. shutter speed
• General use: AF, f/4, 1/60s min. shutter speed

The lack of stabilization in the Fuji hasn't been a big deal since it is basically my street camera. BUT if it had stabilization, it would really increase the camera's usefulness to me because then I would use it for video as well.

Oh, the other thing that made me choose the Fuji is that I read several complaints on the Ricoh forum about dust on the sensor. I didn't see as many issues with the X100 series AND the X100V is weather sealed (yes, I use a filter on the lens to complete the sealing) so perhaps even less of a chance of dust on the sensor. Speaking of which, I didn't really care if my street camera was weather sealed or not but after shooting in the rain several times with the Fuji, I now see the value of it. I've been carrying the camera in my hand at all times when on a photo walk since that gives me the best chance of capturing the shot (vs. carrying it on a neck strap) so being able to do this even when it is pouring rain is great. I just keep the lens pointed down so it doesn't collect water drops.

In summary, I think the main reasons to choose the GR III over the X100V are:

1. Smaller size
2. Snap Focus

(I also think the Ricoh colours are a bit better but I'm a raw shooter and their film sims are only available in-camera where as I can apply Fuji's film sims to my raw files when I process them with Lightroom. )

Thanks for that, a very interesting read. I particularly appreciate breakdowns like this when the person writing it understands the technical aspects of the decision-making as well as the personal preferences that come out of it. I often read the technical features of cameras and they look fine on paper but it's often a whole different story when you get the camera in your hands and actually use it.

A couple of years ago I visited Japan and spent hours, days, in all types of camera shops big and small, all over Tokyo. It was the first time I was able to see and hold the actual cameras I've been reading about over the years and they all looked the same and felt different in person.

By the way, I had no idea the X100 is now weather sealed. I remember before it was released, weather sealed was one of the things I would've liked in the new X100V.

 

[TraamisVOS]

I don't think the GR series would suit you, based on the values in a camera which you've been communicating. So, I don't know that anyone will "convince" you that the GR is "better."

GRs are a study in limitation. I was going to say a study in minimalism, but that's a totally different thing. For one, minimalism is often aesthetic only when it comes to product design. Also, the minimalist lifestyle is about doing all you can with less. The GR is more about doing less, but focusing your attention like a laser beam on what you can do with it. It's also about studying how to make a limited feature-set as good as it can possibly be.

I've used the LX100II, and it's a fairly full-featured camera. It's quite nice. but its lens isn't as good as I wished it to be. Haven't used the LX10 but I assume that, between the smaller sensor and the compact zoom, it's also going to be on a similar quality level (if not slightly less). They don't compare to the GR/GRII/GRIII at all. That 28mm-equiv lens is only one focal length, but it's razor sharp. It's one of the best optics in its range that you can find anywhere on any system. It also has character. It's not designed to be clinical. Take for example the heavy vignetting that both iterations of the APS-C lenses produce. The designers obviously weren't against vignette, or they might have seen this as a crucial flaw. In fact, the GR/GRII spins this as a classic or vintage effect: if you find the setting that controls whether the lens vignette is corrected in camera (don't use this, it's bad and can create a mess in later editing), the setting "original" (meaning no correction) is described as providing an atmosphere similar to the original film GR. That's an interesting spin on a lens that vignettes.

So, the lens is a boutique design. The body is also a study in making a camera as easy to use quickly and intuitively as possible. It's made to be used one-handed. It has a full set of controls. The grip fits the hand better than a tiny bar-of-soap camera ought to. Notice how I said tiny. You kind of have to carry and shoot with the GR in order to realize just how compact it is. Side-by-side measurements don't do it justice. The Fuji X100 series, for example, is miles apart. Even though the total dimensions aren't that different, the GR and X100 fall on opposite ends of a dividing line: can it not only fit in a pocket, but can it do so comfortably.

Having a 28mm camera that is sharp enough and with enough dynamic range to get pretty much anything you see rendered in exquisite detail, small enough to go with you everywhere, means that you naturally explore the limits of what the package can accomplish. It forces you to, or cajoles you to, or seduces you to. The results you get, with Ricoh's extraordinary processing and JPEG profiles, reward you as you go.

All this is well and good, but if what the GR offers doesn't suit your shooting style, then it won't appeal to you, and the first thing I say now to people who think they want a GR is to either satisfy yourself with shooting the way the camera is designed, or don't get it. It won't morph into the camera you want it to be. It won't adapt to the adaptations you try to impose on it. Simple as that.

I wasn't asking to be convinced to like the GR, in fact quite the opposite. I'm trying to convince myself why I should be happy with my LX10 instead of developing mild GAS for the GR every single time they release another model in the series.

But the other reason I wanted to engage in this discussion is also because I am genuinely curious to hear from everyone else how they see it from their perspective - why the GR over the LX cameras or the X100 or some of the other top compacts? I remember GAS-ing for the old Sigma DP compacts (not the weird-looking later ones) in spite of all their limitations when it comes to speed in function and speed in f/stop. Their Foveon sensor seemed very interesting to play with too. But I never got around to buying one and it would be fantastic to hear from people who owned it and used it.

I am seeing a lot of character in the GR - the way it physically looks, and it seems to me the character in the photos from it too. With my LX10, I feel that this is a more clinical camera in more ways than one.

And I do understand the shooting style that comes with a camera like the GR. Hell, my main cameras are Leicas which I've been using for the better part of the decade. They certainly require their own photography process. But even with the Leicas, my own shooting style has changed over the years.