Previous news story    Next news story

Ricoh GR Preview extended with further details and more comparisons

By dpreview staff on Apr 22, 2013 at 22:13 GMT
Buy on GearShop

We've extended our Ricoh GR Preview with additional comparisons, studio shots, a larger gallery and more details on the camera's behavior. We've shot our standard test scene with both the Ricoh and Sigma's DP1 Merrill, and added the DP1M to the comparison using our forthcoming test scene. Furthermore we've shot the GR next to the Coolpix A in a real-world setting.

The preview now also contains an extra page detailing more about the camera's handling, including a look at its focus confirmation options and its behavior in movie mode. The GR has also been added as a comparison camera to the Nikon Coolpix A preview.

Note: The Sigma DP1 Merrill has only been added to our test scene in JPEG mode, since our standard converter does not support it.

248
I own it
133
I want it
22
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Ricoh GR

Comments

Total comments: 75
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Apr 25, 2013)

hey R. Butler how pocketable is this? comfortable? a tight squeeze? baggy pants required? not happnening?

0 upvotes
alfredo_tomato
By alfredo_tomato (Apr 24, 2013)

Is Ricoh taking a page out of the Sigma playbook? Instead of changing lenses, will we be be pulling another GR out of our pocket?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 24, 2013)

Ricoh has been making fixed, prime-lens cameras for a lot longer than Sigma. This is simply their first large sensor model.

1 upvote
VladimirV
By VladimirV (Apr 25, 2013)

Richard, this is not quite their first large sensor model, in more than one was the GXR with A12 28mm and GXr A12 50mm were large sensor fixed, prime-lens cameras quite a while ago.
Most people just focused in presenting the GXR as a system camera where it was more a collection of fixed lens cameras.

You are right in that Ricoh had the GRD and film GR1 cameras way before Sigma and this is just an evolution of these cameras.

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 25, 2013)

Vladimir - what I meant was it's the first large sensor compact in this range. I should have been more precise.

You raise an interesting point about the GXRs - should they be considered a system or a series of individual cameras? I know then well, having used the 55 equiv and 28 equiv a fair bit (though we've never had a chance to use the large sensor zoom), but I'd not really thought of them that way.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 24, 2013)

One issue with the Studio Scene Test is the Nikon Coolpix A image is underexposed. A images receive 1/3 EV less exposure than the GRD V, but images appear closer to 1/2 EV underexposed. Perhaps DPR was trying to protect the highlights, but normally Matrix Metering does a better job than these studio samples.

RAW files from both cameras look wonderful, much better than the E-PL5 I just picked up.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 24, 2013)

Are you talking about the current (old) test scene or the new test scene?

The shots from our existing scene are comfortably within a 1/6th of an EV of one another. We manually expose the test scene and middle-grey match, in JPEG, since that's the way ISO is assessed.

Matrix metering is not used, nor are we making any decisions about protecting highlights.

We'll look at any variance from expected ISO as part of our review (it's quite possible that one of the cameras is misreporting by 1/3EV, or both are out by 1/6th in opposite directions... Either way, our old test scene shouldn't be used to assess ISO accuracy).

1 upvote
Monochrome Guy
By Monochrome Guy (Apr 23, 2013)

I have ordered mine following a bit of consideration and comparison to Coolpix A. The 'A' definitely had my attention as a street shooter until this camera was announced. I look forward to availability of the OVF accessory.

I like the sharpness of the lens and even if the JPEG of the Nikon fares better, I am a Raw shooter so I'm good with that. I am a customization fan and have never owned a Ricoh, which should be quite an improvement over my Nex cameras.

My primary use for this camera will be black & white shooting.

3 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (Apr 23, 2013)

It's a little difference in practice, once some advanced NR applied

0 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (Apr 23, 2013)

The lens seems quite small for 18mm/f2.8 on an APS-C sensor. I assume that the sensor is as far as it can be from the first internal lens element. Haven't seen the studio shots but I expect no mind-blowing corner performance here.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 23, 2013)

NKNK
The corner performance seems quite good.
PS
Did I make it into your fan club? I love your posts :-)

2 upvotes
pictureAngst
By pictureAngst (Apr 23, 2013)

Pcmag have a review that includes impressive imatest results here: http://mobile.pcmag.com/?ref=310197&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcmag.com%2Farticle2%2F0%2C2817%2C2417599%2C00.asp

At f2.8 centre is 2105 lpp, corners 1927 lpp - pretty sharp! Corners become 2120 lpp by f4.

Also, using the 21mm adaptor gives pretty good results considering - 1906 lpp in the corners at f4.

Sounds like a great lightweight landscape tool.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Apr 23, 2013)

You bring up a very good point. One to which it is very difficult to find answers. I suspect that when using smaller apertures, in this lens, and the pancake lenses, they retain only a "crop", or the center section, of what would otherwise have been a much larger lens. This makes for less light going in, as the outer parts of the lens don't need to be focused through that same size hole: they're not there. It makes it easier to design a sharp lens, and lowers production costs.
I'd very much like to see lux numbers, of a pancake lens compared to a conventional one, with the same field of view. (angle)

1 upvote
rossdoyle
By rossdoyle (Apr 24, 2013)

"Haven't seen the studio shots but I expect no mind-blowing corner performance here." The studio shots are one click after the preview title page linked here -- why write this instead of looking for yourself?

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 23, 2013)

Would be interesting to see what the outcome of having the 35MM crop mode on and 21MM wide angle converter at the same time.

2 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 23, 2013)

What equivalent mm angle would the converter give you with the crop mode on?

0 upvotes
pictureAngst
By pictureAngst (Apr 24, 2013)

26.25mm

The converter is 0.75x so it'll be 0.75x35

1 upvote
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 25, 2013)

So almost the same as the 28mm. So you could go between 21 and 26.25 with just a custom button push without taking off the conversion lens?

0 upvotes
whtchocla7e
By whtchocla7e (Apr 23, 2013)

I remember reading something along the lines of this camera having a 35mm crop mode. Where is that available? Is there a button or a menu setting to turn it on? Is the framing adjusted on the screen?

To me that's as good a having both the 28mm and 35mm equivalents all in one camera. I prefer that to using a wide angle adapter on a 24mm lens ala Fuji. I hope it's true.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Apr 23, 2013)

may as well just get an x20 or rx100 at that, as it'll use only part of the sensor.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 23, 2013)

There's a sample image in the gallery in the 35mm Crop mode. It's mentioned on page 1 of the preview and is listed as one of the options that can be assigned to one of the Fn buttons.

1 upvote
pictureAngst
By pictureAngst (Apr 24, 2013)

Agree the 35mm crop will be useful.

Just bear in mind that the depth of field will be greater (say f4 equiv) than if using a lens that gives 35mm across the full sensor area.

0 upvotes
rondom
By rondom (Apr 23, 2013)

The first thing I check when comparing the ISO performance is the EXIF data to see if the ISO rating correspond to an actual advantage or not.
You can find them here:
http://imageshack.us/f/341/59375191.png/
The A seems to retain slightly higher shutter speeds, but before declaring the A the "winner" (a-la-dpreview crowd) check out the crops: the GR seems slightly brighter at every ISO (look at the white surfaces such as the typed paper) which may explain the shutter speed differences. Again to me they look very similar....
But I urge people to check the EXIF before starting high ISO wars: you may be surprised!
Also another nice finding of the EXIF: check out the shutter count. The GR has almost double count. This tells you why Ricoh is better: Makers of addictive cameras! :)
Also check the dates the pictures were taken. January 17 Coolpix, Jan 19 the Ricoh! Speaking of being tight lipped....I wonder why Ricoh waited that long.

7 upvotes
rondom
By rondom (Apr 23, 2013)

..or maybe DPR guys don't bother with setting up the dates of the test cameras they receive?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 23, 2013)

Darn I thought since it was a PNG file, it was an actual photo that I could look at.

The so named EXIF data is all well and good, but how about actual raw/dng files that I can extract? Have you seen any for download? That is any except the ones from DPReview of the test scene?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
rondom
By rondom (Apr 23, 2013)

@HowaboutRAW the test scene is ideal for this kind of comparison of high ISO as the lighting conditions and the camera settings are identical.
Although, granted, the high ISO is much better judged at real world conditions: in low lit environments...but if you want to compare the ISO ratings, shots like these are perfect.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 23, 2013)

rondom:

The ISO 3200 raws I shot with the Coolpix A sure seem to have less noise problems that that from the Ricoh, I'm awaiting more Ricoh GR raws samples.

Generally regarding the DPReview test scene: It is not good for making high ISO performance judgements, because there is only one deep shadowed area, and it is not full of subtle colour.

0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Apr 23, 2013)

i just think this thing looks great. sony claimed the rx100 was the greatest pocket camera of all time. maybe it was. but now to me this is. well well done

4 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Apr 23, 2013)

Show me a link to were Sony claimed the RX100 was the greatest pocket camera of all time.

0 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (Apr 23, 2013)

Try google instead of being confrontational. Sony quotes the WSJ in their marketing.

3 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Apr 23, 2013)

The New Your Times said that , not Sony.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 23, 2013)

Kodachrome200:

Like the Nikon CP A, this Ricoh's body is a good bit bigger than that of the Sony RX100. These bodies, not counting the lenses, are about the size of the Sony RX1.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 24, 2013)

Actually the Ricoh is about 1.5cm wider than the RX100 (head-on) but essentially identical in every other dimension.

Ultimately, though, the RX100 is a very different type of camera - its zoom lens gives it much broader appeal.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 24, 2013)

R Butler,

For a body this size 1.5cm wider is a good bit bitter, take say a Pentax K5 body and add 1.5cm to the width, even starting with a bigger body that's a lot.

0 upvotes
rondom
By rondom (Apr 23, 2013)

For a typical Ricoh shooter these tests are interesting, but also slightly irrelevant. If you want crisp paperclip details and legible bottle labels from a mile away you don't go with a pocketable camera with a medium size sensor. Therefore minute differences in IQ between Nikon and Ricoh is not that important. But a larger sensor is obviously welcome: more dynamic range and much better high ISO...
Camera responsiveness, user interface will be deciding factor here and Ricoh may have an edge on those points.

12 upvotes
LarryLatchkey
By LarryLatchkey (Apr 23, 2013)

Well said! The tiny differences in IQ here are so relative... As if people were walking around with a reference picture at 100% screen revolution...
Lense performance though is another question. Count this together with the handling and to me Ricoh has more than an edge.

1 upvote
DrugaRunda
By DrugaRunda (Apr 23, 2013)

There is actually a lot difference from those particular samples

Ricoh - nice and even, excellent corners
Nikon corners = mush
Sigma - head and sholuders above the other two in center while about par with Ricoh in corners, and no moire.

If IQ at low iso is a priority Sigma looks like a clear choice.

High ISO, GR has a bit more chroma noise than Coolpix, but also more acutance, it seems that Nikon may be using some NR in Raw, but in principle very similar performance.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 23, 2013)

In corners, the black and white checkerboards at the top of the frame (lower part of frame is a white background, and not useful),
the Nikon is sharper than the other 3 cameras by a wide margin.

Because you asserting that Nikon has "only a bit" less chroma noise than the GR, I'm guessing you're seeing what you want to see.

1 upvote
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (Apr 23, 2013)

Marcus, I'm not sure which picture you have looked at, but those chechered corners, at f2.8, Nikon looks depressingly awful. I'm not sure what it means to you, but in the real world it means GR has a better lens (if nothing else). In other specs, both cameras are almost like twin brothers.

8 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 23, 2013)

We are talking about the DPR Studio Scene RAW here:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/ricoh-gr/6

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 23, 2013)

@Zvonimir Tosic

You are looking at a different page. The above poster is talking about page 8 (Studio Comparison - RAW) not page 9 (A vs GRD comparison) where for some strange reason, DPR only showed f2.8. (They should add f8 to the crops to the comparison on page 9).

The Studio Test Scene was shot a f8, and here the Coolpix A shows better corners than the X100s, RX1 and GRD (Notice the checkerboard and words Kodak Grey Scale on top border. see link below).

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/ricoh-gr/8

DPR mentions that by 1 or 2 EV from wide open, images are sharp across the frame on both cameras, but the Studio Test scene shows the extent to which the Nikon lens is more even (center, borders, and corners). But all anybody here wants to talk about is f2.8.

f4-f8, the sweet spot, is where you want corners and edges of the frame to be close to the center sharpness. DOF is so shallow at f2.8 corners are just not a priority.

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 24, 2013)

The corners of our current (old) test scene are not in the focus plane and shouldn't be sharp. If they are, it suggests fairly pronounced curvature of field.

1 upvote
Johan Borg
By Johan Borg (Apr 23, 2013)

Note: The Sigma DP1 Merrill has only been added to our test scene in JPEG mode, since we're too lazy to fire up Sigma Photo Pro and press Save Image with default settings.

Sigma DP1 Merrill must be the single most meaningless camera to add to a JPEG only comparison, given how much that model benefits from RAW.

5 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Apr 23, 2013)

Agreed. Sigma owners know this and if I'm going to consider the Ricoh or Nikon, I should be able to compare them in RAW. Besides, the SD1M comparison image is present, somewhere. It's not very different and a comparison is still possible.

The Fuji X-trans RAW files are more questionable than the Sigmas.

0 upvotes
Matthew Miller
By Matthew Miller (Apr 23, 2013)

I disagree. The _value_ of the RAW image samples is that they're all converted with the same software in the same way. If you want to see samples converted using the manufacturer's individual algorithms, that's what the JPEG samples are for. (In camera vs. desktop software doesn't make much difference for this purpose; if that software happens to have different behavior that's interesting but not really relevant.)

0 upvotes
Johan Borg
By Johan Borg (Apr 23, 2013)

In camera vs desktop RAW conversion makes a huge difference in some cases and if the only value in the RAW samples was to compare identical conversion between two cameras, then it should be limited to DNG files only since all other formats will have different code paths, whether that is inside an Adobe product or across two applications.

1 upvote
Matthew Miller
By Matthew Miller (Apr 23, 2013)

@Johan: no, that's not the case. DNG is just a container format. Proprietary RAW formats are *also* just container formats. Once the container is decoded, the actual conversion path is identical regardless of input file type. Bits are bits.

0 upvotes
GeorgeZ
By GeorgeZ (Apr 23, 2013)

Yawn, every preview gets 3 news items now, IF it ever becomes a REview even a fourth one. There are articles on "review in progress". This is really ridiculous, what exactly has the amazon purchase done in terms of reviews? You even regularly mention the lack of review cameras when they are absolutely available from your parent company, what's up with that?

5 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Apr 23, 2013)

maybe all of their resources are being diverted to cameraphones ("connect").
maybe amazon execs just don't get it... they have stopped believing in DPR, thinking the smartphone will replace everything. time to replace ignorance at the help with someone with a more sober vision?

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
pomoville
By pomoville (Apr 23, 2013)

Photo sites should ban the word yawn. It seems to be the most frequently expressed sentiment, and, ironically, one of the most exhausting.

3 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Apr 23, 2013)

Most professional review sites get review samples directly from the manufacturers. That's how it usually works.

0 upvotes
GeorgeZ
By GeorgeZ (Apr 23, 2013)

@Revenant: That may be how it usually works, but when amazon acquired dpr good old Phil said that there will be more reiews thanks to more staff and stuff. I.e. that they have easier access to test cameras. Doesn't look that way.

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Apr 23, 2013)

The DPR guys have said many times that they receive their cameras from the manufacturers, so I guess Amazon hasn't been very helpful in that regard. Maybe someone from DPR reading this would like to explain why?

0 upvotes
JacquesBalthazar
By JacquesBalthazar (Apr 23, 2013)

One question from me, for the reviewer: what are the real life consequences of GR's 12-bit RAW processing vs the A's 14-bit ? I would have assumed there would be an impact on DR and maybe also on colour gradation. Or not?

1 upvote
oracle1
By oracle1 (Apr 23, 2013)

Virtually none. People have been discussing this for years now and you will most likely never see any benefit from 14bit, only possibly in some very extreme circumstances. There's some very informative threads about it elsewhere if you search for it.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 23, 2013)

Not true at all that it makes "virtually no" difference.

The Pentax K-30 being only 12-bit RAW cost the K-30 at least 1 EV of Dynamic Range vs the K-5 when DxOMark tested them.

From DxOMark:

K5 14.1 EV DR

K-30 13 EV DR

K-01 12.9 EV DR

All three cameras use the same Sony 16 mp Exmor sensor, but the K30 / K01 aren't able to fully take advantage of the huge DR performance that sensor provides.

If you shoot and edit RAW, or photograph scenes with wide DR, 14-bit lossless RAWs are preferable for maximum latitude.

Note: the D7000 and Coolpix A, two 14-bit RAW capable cameras, scored 13.9 EV and 13.8 EV for DR (dynamic range) respectively and they use the same Sony Exmor sensor found in the 3 Pentax cameras.

Date can be found here:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings

1 upvote
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Apr 23, 2013)

@marike6

Jaques very clearly asked about "real world" performance, and you quote DxO mark...

2 upvotes
JacquesBalthazar
By JacquesBalthazar (Apr 23, 2013)

@marike6: thanks for the reference. 1 EV DR difference can be meaningful, and something nice to have when one tries to salvage a pic marred by exposure error or excessive contrast. I am very impressed by the IQ I get with the A, shooting raw. I am pretty sure that in 90% of cases (or more), the GR will provide just as much quality. Cool cameras..... Wonder how the GR's 21mm adaptor performs....

0 upvotes
falconeyes
By falconeyes (Apr 23, 2013)

Mark, while you are right that a 14 Bit DAC can make a small difference at low ISO DR, you are wrong when asserting that the sensors are equal except for the DAC.

As the 12/14 Bit DACs are actually embedded on-chip with the Sony sensors, they are clearly different beasts.

The difference a 14Bit DAC makes is smaller than 1EV in DR and depends on the sensor resolution and Full Well Capacity.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 23, 2013)

@Richard Murdey

Dynamic Range is a "real world" consequence
and the DxOMark tests provide tangible evidence of the impact of 12-bit vs 14-bit RAW.

But if you want I'll revise my answer: for snapshots, you may not notice a big difference. Post processing RAWs in Lightroom, or shooting high contrast scenes, you may find the extra latitude of 14-bit RAWs significant. Happy?

@falconeyes

I only said that the above cameras all use the same exact same Sony 16 mp Exmor sensor. Re: Dynamic Range, DxOMark wrote about the K-30/K-01 being limited in DR compared to the K-5 / D7000 as a consequence of having 12-bit RAWs so you'll have to take it up with them.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
1 upvote
JohnyP
By JohnyP (Apr 23, 2013)

Another useless preview. In the last 30 days there have been 2 camera reviews! Most cameras are either announced or previewed. Those previewed ones are likely to end up just like Nikon D4 - previewed and forgotten.

3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 23, 2013)

One of those reviews and both previews published in that time were by the same writer. As a result, there are other writers close to finishing other reviews and they'll be published shortly.

Also, this is an extension of the preview to take both this and the Coolpix A closer to a final review. There are plenty of other sites that will call their preview a 'review' on day one and then add to it - are you really going to beat us with a stick for being more honest with our readers?

16 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Apr 23, 2013)

There is a lot of information in these previews. You just have to read it and think for yourself. You sound like most average people, who need to be spoon fed information, and need their conclusions drawn for them.

8 upvotes
JacquesBalthazar
By JacquesBalthazar (Apr 23, 2013)

@R Butler: what would be the downside in publishing a schedule of coming reviews? It is not like you would be disclosing strategic insight to your "competitors". Such a schedule would help potential buyers better time their own purchases. Those of them who trust your methodology and share your views anyway. The indirect advantage of publishing that schedule would be to force you guys to feel the healthy heat of a public deadline... ;-)

3 upvotes
GeorgeZ
By GeorgeZ (Apr 23, 2013)

Richard, since you're using the word "honest", you shouldn't really call the Sigma bit a preview but a "first look" or "beefed-up press release with some pics in it".

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Apr 23, 2013)

GeorgeZ, isn't "first look" exactly what a preview is supposed to be?

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 22, 2013)

The all important RAWs in the Studio Comparison, there seems to be little difference in terms of sharpness between the GRD and Coolpix A. Acutance looks virtually identical, except in the corners and borders which unlike at f2.8, the Nikon is sharper.

High ISO are a different story, as by ISO 800 the Nikon is showing significantly less Chroma noise.

Still, because of the price, and the great GRD ergonomics, I'll be buying a GRD. If I were a rich man, I'd buy the Coolpix A fully loaded with hood and VF.

1 upvote
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (Apr 23, 2013)

I agree with your assessment...

In RAW the Nikon A seems to pull ahead throughout the whole studio scene, and at the Higher RAW ISO's the Nikon really starts to pull ahead.

It's interesting the reviewer is waxing poetic for the Ricoh so early on in the pre review process with sentences like "The result is a camera that it will take a little while to get the best out of but, like a pair of good shoes, will start to conform to you if you persevere a little."

I understand that this is a great camera and look forward to the full review of this and the Nikon A without special coloring or prejudices from the reviewer.

3 upvotes
Prognathous
By Prognathous (Apr 23, 2013)

Bamboojled, this isn't a technical manual. It's a review. It's perfectly fine for the reviewer to show enthusiasm and voice his subjective opinions. It'll make for a very boring reading if the reviewer tries to write in a cold uninvolved language.

4 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (Apr 23, 2013)

Studio shots taken at closed apertures. No wonder, there's practically no difference (other than one caused by different focus points — dpreview isn't careful enough about them).
In my opinion advantages of GR are:
1) Better body with better UI and better control
2) Much better lens, which kills Nikon.
3) Price
The only advantage of A is 14bit RAW.

1 upvote
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (Apr 23, 2013)

@Prognathous
While I agree that this is not a technical manual, I expect reviews to be unbiased, and show products in equal light.

When a reviewer starts making comments like it "feels like an old pair of shoes" this is coloring the review against a like product, especially considering that the Nikon A has the same menu system as a Nikon DSLR (talk about feeling like an old pair of shoes if your a Nikon DSLR shooter).

Regardless, if the reviewer chooses to use that kind of language (feels like an old pair of shoes), I hope he shows all of that old shoe (holes and all).

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 24, 2013)

The key thing about that quote is that I don't say an old pair of shoes (which implies comfort). Instead I talk about a pair of shoes that start to conform if you persevere (which implies a period of some discomfort).

I lay my cards on the table - the Ricoh's interface is based on one we're regularly considered one of the best in compact cameras (albeit with a wearing-in period). The Nikon's is one from the company's entry-level DSLRs that requires a lot of button pushing. I have used both extensively on these cameras and others, and I believe the Ricoh interface is a better fit for the kinds of people likely to spend $800+ on a fixed 28mm equiv camera. That's not prejudice, it's reviewing.

There is more to both cameras than just their interfaces, though. As soon as I've had a chance to use and test both enough to draw an overall conclusion, we'll publish our review.

4 upvotes
Felix11
By Felix11 (Apr 22, 2013)

Excellent! Keep up the good work ... I Want to buy one of these puppies :-)

How does the build quality compare between the Nikon and the Ricoh?

0 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Apr 22, 2013)

Based on previous GR Digital models and the Coolpix A, I can say they "are cut from the same cloth". Both cameras are made to a very high standard.

1 upvote
photo perzon
By photo perzon (Apr 22, 2013)

Marike best buy store will sell it to you for $899 ask them to price match their feb 19 price listed in their computer. Get a $200 voigtlander ovf.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 75