Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Ricoh GR Review

By dpreview staff on Jun 20, 2013 at 15:01 GMT

Just Posted: Our review of the Ricoh GR, compared with the Nikon Coolpix A. We've already reviewed the conceptually similar Nikon Coolpix A and seen it out-gunned by the Ricoh GR, so what does that mean for the GR? We've delved into the Ricoh's menus to get to grips with what it's capable of and explored a range of its interesting features. Read our comparative review to see how it performs.

247
I own it
132
I want it
21
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 214
12
splendic
By splendic (10 months ago)

New GR seems to be a true photo winner, ahead of the pack.

BUT...

Video has become more important to me, and the complete lack of manual video control is a real turnoff.

Think it's missing to save cost on fleshing out the software???

1 upvote
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (10 months ago)

can there not be some camera just for photographers?

4 upvotes
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

@Kodachrome200 - yes, there can be some cameras "just for photographers." But I think splendic's post is quite revealing in that there are a lot of photographers who no longer consider themselves to be exclusively takers of "still" photos. There are a lot of image creators these days who find "still" images and "video" images to be equally valuable and important.

And in light of your name, lets also consider the mistake that Kodak made. They wanted to stay in a world focused on "cameras just for [film] photographers", ignoring the fact that digital photography was becoming increasingly important. So the point is that it really helps if a company doesn't paint themselves too much into an isolated corner, whether it be regarding film vs digital, or still photography vs video.

0 upvotes
splendic
By splendic (10 months ago)

Kodachrome, I can appreciate your sentiment, but all the pieces are here for some great video capture, which I occasionally feel inspired to do as I'm shooting stills.

Fleshing out the video feature wouldn't have made this any worse a photographer's tool, but would have added value for users like me.

Like I said, maybe it was a cost or deadline issue, but it's a weird one to be ignored these days.

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (10 months ago)

Btw DPR staff... who's idea was it for the GR to be on top of the Coolpix A like the winner of the wrestling match? I wonder if anyone else caught that or not. ;)

C

3 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (10 months ago)

I noticed too and I like it! A winner gets the top spot...

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

I noticed it and thought it was tacky but I guess they wanted to make a point.

It would have been better to have at least one Ricoh GR image with the wow factor of the Nikon A samples. That would have been a more effective way to support their conclusion than using two expensive cameras like window props.

2 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (10 months ago)

@marike6
That test shot at f/2.8 demonstrating corner sharpness does it.
But leave DPR to have fun; this is by no mean hideous fun, only an enticement to Nikon to try harder and make different compromises next time.

3 upvotes
KonstantinosK
By KonstantinosK (10 months ago)

...Or charge 400$ less...

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (10 months ago)

All of the GR's have my personal Gold Award. Always the best of this niche imho. Nice to see the highest award on it here though.

5 upvotes
Kater Karlo
By Kater Karlo (10 months ago)

First of all, I want to say hello to the community, since this is my first post! So hello to all of you and the DPR team!

Second I want to say something about the GR, which I own for some time now:
Coming from the GRD IV, I thought this would be more or less the same camera, just with much better image quality. But its not! Although I am really used to most of the customization options of the GRD IV I have a hard time figuring out all the dependencies of the GR. Example: I suddenly could not select iso 100 anymore. Iso just reset to iso 200 all the time. After quite some time experimenting, I found out that the dynamic rage settings influence the selectable iso. Other example: For very fast street shooting, I had my GRD IV always set to auto mode, when in its pocket. When I saw something interesting, I just had to pull it out and decide whether I use the multi point autofocus in auto mode or with a more near subject the macro mode focus which is always a spot focus. Does not work...

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Kater Karlo
By Kater Karlo (10 months ago)

anymore, because full auto mode locks the macro button and instead uses "auto macro mode" which does not work for me, because it uses the same multi point autofocus and not the spot. Fast spotting of people or dogs does not work anymore (for me) bacause now, the background is sharp, while the objekt is blurred.

There is also no IS anymore and you have to go up with the iso to get sharp shots. (the useful iso range is of course much bigger, thanks to the big sensor).
Autofocus is hunting more than on the GRD IV and to make the snap distance thing working, you have to push the trigger FAST (which blurs my fotos because of the momentum and no IS...)
This just as a warning for people coming from the GRD IV: you have to learn new!
Besides all that it is a very nice little camera, capable of beautiful pictures onec you mastered its very own characteristic...
Cheers

Kater Karlo

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (10 months ago)

Ricoh has also made some special edition GRs, with different finishes, and presented them during the April 2013 Tokyo launch.
No ostrich leather though, and not much advertising about it — just for the occasion of the launch event.
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/596/344/051.jpg

1 upvote
vFunct
By vFunct (10 months ago)

So what's the story with Wi-Fi connection for this camera?

Part of the purpose of these cameras is to easily post photos from it while in the field, without having to go back home, download the files onto your computer, etc..

The Nikon A has the WU-1a wireless transmitter available to post pictures from your phone. Does Ricoh have the equivalent?

0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (10 months ago)

It's EyeFi aware. During the launch of the GR in Tokyo in April this year, the GR was wirelessly hooked with iPad.
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/596/344/049.jpg

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Constant
By Constant (10 months ago)

That would seem to be a necessity for journalists for for any one else why the rush to post your images? And where? Facebook, Twitter? Myself, I prefer to go home, download and then edit my photos with Lightroom or DxO so that they are exactly what I want. I think the Wi-Fi factor is a created need and not necessary unless, as I say, one is a journalist or locations scout or some sort of professional that requires this for the job

3 upvotes
vFunct
By vFunct (10 months ago)

Why would anyone waste their time to wait for downloading the pictures onto their computers then post from home?

That's an unprofessional process.

Professionalism is about posting pictures quickly.

0 upvotes
abi170845
By abi170845 (10 months ago)

I really want to like this camera. The probelm is that it is hard to find Ricoh Accessories in my city. Extra batteries, Ricoh Flash, etc is almost non existent. I like the Nikon A and the wide variety of accessories from Nikon. But still waiting for the successor to the Canon M.

0 upvotes
Constant
By Constant (10 months ago)

Can you not obtain these items from camera stores online?

2 upvotes
VladimirV
By VladimirV (10 months ago)

Just buy any DB-65 batteries on ebay and the Ricoh flash is not really anything special and any Sigma flash will do the same.

For all other accessories, there surely are online shops with a return policy.

2 upvotes
Marvol
By Marvol (10 months ago)

Completely off-topic, but from the top of my head I seem to recognise the bit of text in the centre of the studio shot (used for the moiré test on page 7) as being from Flatland. Am I right?

:)

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Kater Karlo
By Kater Karlo (10 months ago)

Yes, you are :-)

0 upvotes
sarkozy
By sarkozy (10 months ago)

shutter 1/4000 is to bad
a shutter 1/8000 or 1/16000 (electronically) could have induced me to buy this camera

1 upvote
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (10 months ago)

Very good DSLRs have 1/8000 sec shutter speed. But they don't have ND filter built in. The GR has a 1/2000 and 1/4000 shutter speeds and an ND filter to kick in when needed.
The result is same. But if you really, really need such shutter speeds all the time, then you are shooting very specialised imaging devices for very limited needs and are in the market for no conventional camera.
Also, the electronic shutter was omitted in this new GR by design; not good enough for the purpose of the camera.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
Paul_B Midlands UK
By Paul_B Midlands UK (10 months ago)

'TO BAD', to bad for what. 4000th a sec is more than good enough for 90%+ of photo shots I'd of thought. For the majority of users, and for those in Britain where the skies are grey and sun doesnt shine (or Singapore) then ule be lucky to get past 1/1000th sec. Great camera, my old GX100 I loved a lot so I'm drawn to the GR like a magnet. I just need a rational reason to buy it since I have NEX5N. I'm tempted though ...

3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

I'm a DSLR shooter, and I don't remember the last time I used 1/8000. Probably never, LOL. As for 1/16000...come on, seriously?

1 upvote
Frensoa
By Frensoa (10 months ago)

I don't even see the kind of situations where you'd need such a speed. (I mean, other than highly specific artistic shooting)

1 upvote
Jefftan
By Jefftan (10 months ago)

if your NEX-5N is with kit lens you have a reason to buy
GR lens is much better

0 upvotes
CaseyComo
By CaseyComo (10 months ago)

Look, if you don't have 1/16,000, how are you going to be able to shoot ISO 1600 at F 0.9 in full sunlight? LOL.

0 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (10 months ago)

A great little camera!

1 upvote
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (10 months ago)

Anyone else stop to wonder how it was done?

I mean, GRD i, ii, iii, iv ...all 1/1.7" sensors. Then suddenly out of the blue, both Ricoh and Nikon offer APS-C in retractable lens compacts.

Is there a dirty little secret with respect to hardwired in-camera corrections? A pact with the Devil? Something to do with the sensor pixel depth or microlenses? I find it hard to believe that what could not be solved optically until 2013 was solved optically now...

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (10 months ago)

If you end up with proof let us know, till then, its here now.

0 upvotes
Gozgah
By Gozgah (8 months ago)

From what I understand: the larger the sensor, the longer the barrel of the lens has to be for an undistorted image. The major problem with keeping things compact is that there's a bit of fish-eye'ing going on.

What most companies are doing now is correcting this information in software, which is why corner details are almost never as good as the central part of the image.

I think the major reason why most companies have avoided it is simply because the "gearheads" would complain about degraded image quality (and they'd be right). The companies are finally starting to ignore these people and market for the masses -- most are okay with some loss of detail.

0 upvotes
BG_CX3_DPREVIEW
By BG_CX3_DPREVIEW (10 months ago)

Jefftan,

yes Vivid, or user defined settings punch the colors, thsat is simply standard on all Ricohs

The GR is made for enthousiasts of perfect pictures, so i'm pleased to see that DPR made the ffrot of including lots of optical graphs in their review, this is pixel peeping at its best to find that last bit of detail.

0 upvotes
Jefftan
By Jefftan (10 months ago)

Thanks for the reply
I think muted color is not a big problem if white balance is accurate
GR white balance OK? Thanks

0 upvotes
VladimirV
By VladimirV (10 months ago)

Tha GR WB seems spot on to me in most cases but as with the custom colour setings where you can adjust everything you ca alo customize the WB settings although I find the Multi-pattern WB to work just fine.

No comparison to the really poor AWB on my Panasonic GF1.

0 upvotes
Jefftan
By Jefftan (10 months ago)

Is there an easy way to deal with the muted color
Increase saturation of jpeg in camera?
or use vivid color mode?

0 upvotes
photo perzon
By photo perzon (10 months ago)

The GR has over 300 posts in the Ricoh forum as to how to correct its red, blues, and greens. All sorts of complex machinations in Lightroom and so on. The Nikon A in contrast is always "dead on" in the colors.

2 upvotes
VladimirV
By VladimirV (10 months ago)

The posts are on how to make the GR colours look like the Nikon colours so this would be the same with a Canon, Fuji or Sony if you want to emulate the Nikon A output.
As for accurate colours, the GR seems fine if you expose correctly and use the right profile in ACR or LR. It is mofe natural rather than punchy colours but you can adjust this easy.

4 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (10 months ago)

the posts were about using it before adobe added support for the GR. Because it is a DNG camera it did not require adobe to support it for it to work in lightroom. the coolpix didnt work perfect before it had adobe support it didnt work at all. adobe added support for the ricoh in the first update after the launch of the camera

2 upvotes
maxola67
By maxola67 (10 months ago)

There are Nikon lovers but I am ... no so much like a Nikon hater but once again what i can see looking at Nikon A? It's more like a fashionable gadget than a serious fotographer tool. IQ and hadling are things which matter. And GR is in this domain.

3 upvotes
Cal22
By Cal22 (10 months ago)

Lens tests shouldn't ignore the issue of flare! How does the lens react to brigtht lights in the frame or just out of it?
And how does the wide-angle adapter perform in terms of IQ?
The GR might be versatile and customizable and deliver high image quality. But it lacks the option for an EVF (as does the Coolpix)! It's a device that makes the difference between a toy and a tool. And the EVF should be articulated allowing you to shoot from ground level.

Yes, a compact with a good zoom or with interchangeable lenses makes more sense. The RX100 for instance seems to be a better bargain, if you don't need an EVF.

Back to the GR: This camera should be given a sibling - a camera with all the handling and features of the GR and with a slight tele lens of about 70 mm (ff equiv.). You could master quite a lot of photographic challenges with such two cameras (and EVF of course)!

0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (10 months ago)

plenty of examples of shooting into a backlight in my GR gallery. handles it beautifully
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kodachromewolf/sets/72157634119481540/

I have to disagree i dont think the RX100 is that great a camera at all. its fiddly and gadgety to use only works well up to about iso 800 and has virtually no ability to show visible difference in DOF

7 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (10 months ago)

My dad has Sony RX1 and it blows RX100 out of water. Much better overall with fixed prime lens. Even Sony RX1 high iso threw A99 out of the windows as well. A99 noise is increased due to lost of light by 1/3 due to translucent mirror and camera had to compensate by 1/3 so it increases noise. RX1 has no mirror/no translucent mirror, much better result in iso. I rather have old shutter mirror than translucent mirror then it would be a lot better result. So far I liked that GR review much improvement over older Ricoh.

0 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (10 months ago)

The debate on which is the better camera, the Nikon A or the GR, goes on. Probably, the difficulty lies in both cameras having the same type of lens and sensor size. However, beyond that there are quite a number of differences which are highlighted by DPR.

The most notable ones are:

1) The Nikon perform better if you shoot colour especially in jpec. The colours are more vibrant especially the "red". Micro-contrast seems to be better.

2) The GR performs better if you like to shoot or convert to B&W often. Its midtones seems to be better.

3) The GR focuses faster in bright light, slowing down in low light. The Nikon has a more even focusing speed which is not that fast.

4) The GR is more user friendly - its shape, simpler control, built-in ND filter etc and more fimware updates to improvd the camera over time.

For those who need additional information can go to:

blog.mingthein.com

He is an Oxford graduate at 16 in Theoritical Physics, financial consultant and a pro photographer

0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (10 months ago)

The GR focuses faster in every light according to everyone i know who has used both including myself with the exception of Ming thein

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

In this Low-Light AF Comparison, neither camera seems to be Nikon 1 fast, but the GR seems be a fractionally faster with the AF Illuminator ON, but slower with accuracy issues with the AF Illuminator set to OFF.

Ricoh GR vs Nikon A Autofocus Shootout

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JlIAdjjE5o

Both seem more than usable for this type of camera.

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (10 months ago)

We all know people prefer more saturated color. Realistic or unrealistic does not matter. Have a look at the wildly successful Stuck In Customs website--more is always better. But given the ease of increasing color saturation I'm not sure people will pay more just to have it in-camera instead of adjusted afterwards.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

I don;t understand why would you prefer $1100 Nikon A or $800 Ricoh GR over, say, $200 GX1+$170 14/2.5 (you are getting the same IQ plus faster focusing plus touchscreen plus optional EVF plus ability to change lenses when needed plus ability to keep this 14mm for your next body vs just throwing out everything), or E-PL5+14mm (even better IQ, stabilization, tilting screen in addition to what GX1 gets you) or $600 RX100 (zoom, stabilization). Must be some irrational weirdo thing with getting less for more, like with Leicas.

5 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (10 months ago)

The same argument faced iPad when it was compared to laptops.

1 upvote
Gary Martin
By Gary Martin (10 months ago)

GX1 is the "same" IQ? E-PL5 is "even better" IQ? Sorry, try again.

1 upvote
white shadow
By white shadow (10 months ago)

The two main reasons are:

1) larger sensor size - APS-C is about 2X larger than micro4/3
thus, better dynamic range and more detail

2) pocketability - the Ricoh is very slim wherelse the GX1 with the 14/2.5 lens is much bigger.

I use a variety of cameras from Canon 5D MkII to micro4/3 but sometimes a real slim compact APS-C camera like the GR is a convenient carry-anywhere camera. I am planning to use this with the Olympus E-P5 fitted with a 45mm f/1.8 or a 75mm f/1.8. A great combo if you are travelling light especially backpacking or just some street photography. The GR covers the wide angle while the E-P5 goes for the street portraits. Experience photographers will agree that in most situation there is no time to change lens.
Always have a second camera in case one fails.

9 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (10 months ago)

first of the camera and lens you mention would cost about $600 not what you listed
the GR is about half the size and the sensor and lens are much better. by any measure that is more than enough to justify the price

0 upvotes
StephanSchmidt
By StephanSchmidt (10 months ago)

@white shadow:

I'm sure the Ricoh is an excellent camera.

Some remarks though:

1. As shown by Canon using an old APSC sensor for the 700d, sensor size is relative to the benefit of image quality. The E-M5 has better image quality than the 700d (low and high iso).

2. Not sure where you did get the 2X larger sensor, it's 1.64x for Nikon and 1.46x for Canon. Quite a difference to 2x.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

Cameras like the GR and Coolpix A will give you around 3 EV more DR and color depth with better high ISO ability than the GX1. So OOC images will look better, and RAW files will be more maleable in post.

And their collapsible lenses make them far more pocketable camera than even the smallest 14 2.5 on a GX1.

GX1 - GR - Coolpix A DxOMark Comparison (copy paste the link below)

http://tinyurl.com/ma8pg78

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

"GX1 is the "same" IQ? E-PL5 is "even better" IQ? Sorry, try again."

Why would I try again? E-PL5 and GR have the same DxOMark ISO score, but Pana 14/2.5 is 1/3 stops faster, so for the same DoF and shutter speed, ISO on E-PL5 will be 1/3 stops lower every time, giving lower noise, wider DR and better colors (and don't forget extra sharpness provided by IBIS which GR does not have).

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

"larger sensor size - APS-C is about 2X larger than micro4/3
thus, better dynamic range and more detail"

It is not 2x.
Base ISO DR is somewhat better (1EV over E-PM2 and RX100), but if you take full advantage of it (5-6 EV compression before you hit 7EV range of the paper), your image turns into HDR painting, even on E-PM2 and RX100:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/874%7C0/(brand)/Ricoh/(appareil2)/840%7C0/(brand2)/Olympus/(appareil3)/812%7C0/(brand3)/Sony

As light falls, the difference is on E-PM's/E-PL's side because of the the faster lens and IBIS.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

"pocketability - the Ricoh is very slim wherelse the GX1 with the 14/2.5 lens is much bigger."
GX1+14 is also jacket-pocketable ("much" is a huge exaggeration), and GR will also look wrong in the tight jeans pocket (especially if your mobile phone is also there). Well, if THAT is more important than the whole lot of advantages, then there is RX100 in my list. Still $200 less, and even smaller, and zoom for better framing every time.

0 upvotes
Murat Sahan
By Murat Sahan (10 months ago)

Coz the GR or the A is actually pocketable. The GX1 + lens is thicker which makes it to big for my shirtpocket. I have the Olympus XZ-1 now and will upgrade to either the GR or the A.

For me it is important to be able to have it in my pocket.

0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (10 months ago)

the idea that you need zoom to fram well is laughable. god gave you feat for a reason.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/874|0/%28brand%29/Ricoh/%28appareil2%29/839|0/%28brand2%29/Olympus/%28appareil3%29/754|0/%28brand3%29/Panasonic

the gr outscores the GX1 convincingly. the Gx1 and lens cost way more than you said they did. The one third stop improvement in f-stop will not make up for the difference in sensor performance. also the 14mm lens is just not as sharp as the GR. The E-pl5 plus the lens is not cheaper. it is also a fiddly thing if ever there was one. I sold mine because I ended up concluding it was meant to be a point and shoot camera and trying to use it as a serious tool wasnt worth the effort. touch screen for placing focal points is nice though. also I hate the 4:3 aspect ratio witch alway put me in the position of cropping the image smaller. also it idiotically had a 16 x9 display 4:3 sensor

0 upvotes
StephanSchmidt
By StephanSchmidt (10 months ago)

Not sure what everyone has with this GX1, a two generations behind camera.

0 upvotes
TitusXIII
By TitusXIII (10 months ago)

Oh, yeah.
Time lapse, 300 sec maximum shutter speed, a decently fast 28mm (Equiv) lens plus the snap-focus really tips the balance in its favor. Can't wait to get back home from Mexico to get it and use it.

1 upvote
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (10 months ago)

This is subjective, opinionated review?
Well, compare this 18 page review full of graphs, numbers and test shots with Ken Rockwell's review of the GR.
http://kenrockwell.com/ricoh/gr.htm

3 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (10 months ago)

No, no, you can't make me! It's cruel to even suggest.

6 upvotes
leventhan
By leventhan (10 months ago)

"If I want a small take-everywhere camera, I prefer my iPhone 5, which has colors and tonal range superior to any DSLR or compact digital camera I've ever used at their default settings." -Ken Rockwell

3 upvotes
Marvol
By Marvol (10 months ago)

So Ken glows about the Nikon Coolpix A, then actually doesn't review the Ricoh GR because "he doesn't see the point of the camera".

Kinda hard to take all of that seriously isn't it?

0 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (10 months ago)

"what a smart camera!", "perfect camera for street photography", "one of the rare cameras which have been designed for the use of photographers", "Nice little APS-C camera for The Photographer. Not for everyone..."

What is this, an alternate reality, or has DPR Connect finally taken over? The damn thing has neither a viewfinder nor an articulating LCD, so I suppose "The Photographer" would be the one walking around with his hands extended in front of him, squinting at the screen. Have phone cameras really done so much damage?

3 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (10 months ago)

A VF, even an EVF, would limit the true capability of a photographer using the GR. And do you know why? Because when you blinker your eyes with VF, your mind shuts off peripheral vision and its awareness, and with that excludes all new possibilities to capture something coming from there. In days of film a VF was the only way to 'see' what film will capture, but with digital LCDs, photographer may claim peripheral vision back and change mind in an instant.
And (E)VF, creatively speaking, limits you a great deal.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (10 months ago)

Long before Connect, or the ubiquity of phones with cameras, millions of people were managing to take pictures using cameras without vfs. They didn't feel the need to hold them at arm's length, and most had displays smaller and dimmer than this one. Let's not exaggerate the difficulty of taking pictures with such cameras.

2 upvotes
TitusXIII
By TitusXIII (10 months ago)

I plan on getting a 28mm viewfinder at the same time I'll be buying this little jewel of a cam.
Problem solved (besides, it would make less digital, more conspicuous for street photography).

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

Uhm, the Ricoh GR has two VFs - the GV-1 and GV-2, both are excellent quality OVFs. So no, you do not have to compose and shoot with your arms stretched out in front of you squinting at the LCD.

That said, many GR street photographers are quite adept at shooting from the hip with the GRD cameras sans VF, framing an image quickly and accurately with the LCD. But to say the Ricoh GR has no VF is simply not true.

The Ricoh GR series was created with photographers in mind long before DPR Connect existed and long before camera phones ever became ubiquitous with snap shooters.

5 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (10 months ago)

"many GR street photographers are quite adept at shooting from the hip with the GRD cameras sans VF"

No problem with that, I prefer it that way as well, but with APS-C it really helps to see where your focus point is (unless you are shooting hyperfocal all the time), and helps you frame, and for that articulated LCD is really handy. Alas, it doesn't have it either.

0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (10 months ago)

Three last reviews of Pentax Ricoh cameras by DPR, and three golds.
Undeserved?
Or maybe Pentax Ricoh are sweating really hard, beating the odds in fighting much larger competitors to make amazing products for real photography enthusiasts? And all that at remarkably accessible and modest asking prices.

4 upvotes
chlamchowder
By chlamchowder (10 months ago)

Actually, maybe they are.
The GXR equals the Nikon in most areas, but comes with a better lens, built in ND filter, slightly better battery life, and a better rear screen. For still photography, I'd find it hard to recommend the Coolpix A over the GXR.

Same for the Pentax K-30, or K-50. With weather sealing, dual control dials, faster framerate, and a pentaprism OVF, it just seems better than Nikon's D5200. The only thing holding Pentax back in the DSLR area is the lack of a full frame option and a small lens lineup.

Pentax is trying pretty hard. They deserve credit.

7 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (10 months ago)

Well, the GR is going to go down as a classic, hands down. No one should need dpreview to tell them that.

The K-5/ii/s, 30/50 are all very, very good at what they do. And yes, their strengths do play to dpreview core values.

I don't think there are any odds to beat, Pentax is just as capable of making a great cameras as Canon or Nikon.

1 upvote
Marvol
By Marvol (10 months ago)

@chlamchowder "The only thing holding Pentax back in the DSLR area is the lack of a full frame option and a small lens lineup"

I think it's rather the lack of a multi-million dollar marketing and advertising budget :$.

3 upvotes
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (10 months ago)

@DPR team
By now you've most certainly figured that we, readers, are nasty bitches! On one hand we want subjective, unbiased and -in the end- reviews that lack any personal opinion and on the other hand we hate it when that happens!
Lucky you, you can never get bored at us!

5 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (10 months ago)

This is a bit better than the GXR series which is totally weird.

.

1 upvote
VladimirV
By VladimirV (10 months ago)

What's weird about the GXR?
The GXR is essentially 2 compact APS cameras with fixed 28mm f2.5 and 50mm f2.5 lenses, a compact superzoom 28-300mm and a 24-72mm compact camera and a M mount camera providing the only alternative to the Leica M cameras for using M lenses.

The only 'unusual' thing (if you want to call it that) is that you can use all of these cameras with only one back so it saves you from having to use multiple SD cards or batteries but you could just superglue each module to a back and have the same as with any other fixed lens camera.

1 upvote
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (10 months ago)

i think the OP meant that GR has better IQ than the GXR witch is a higher end product. i think the answer is that the GR is newer

0 upvotes
SETI
By SETI (10 months ago)

Not bad but I see better IQ from Olympus E-PL5 + Panny 14mm f/2.5

0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (10 months ago)

firmly disagree. there close but the nod goes to the ricoh

2 upvotes
Najinsky
By Najinsky (10 months ago)

@SETI.

The Ricoh has about 40% more resolution, and about 9% (average) better DR, Colour Depth and ISO performance.

E-PL5 + the 14/2.5 is excellent and you'd be hard pushed to see most differences (except the resolution), but the metrics are quite conclusive in giving it to the Ricoh.

The Ricoh is much slimmer and has a much better twin dial control interface. The resolution advantage also means you can use the 35mm equivalent crop and still match the E-PL5 + 17/1.8 for resolution without a lens change.

But the E-PL5 + 14/2.5 is excellent too, and has the advantage of interchangeable lenses.

I have the 14/2.5 with my OMD and was contemplating getting the E-PL5 for a more compact option with the 14/2.5. But the Ricoh is now a much better option for me. I've had several Ricoh's and the shooting experience is second to none (for compacts). E-PL5 is much more fiddly by comparison.

2 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (10 months ago)

hey just sold an e-pl5 to buy the Ricoh. not looking back. the difference in dynamic range is quite noticable

0 upvotes
SETI
By SETI (10 months ago)

I still disagree... OMD with Leica 25mm beats Ricoh in sharpness. Sad I can't do tests for both Ricoh and Oly

0 upvotes
Najinsky
By Najinsky (10 months ago)

Without being disrespectful, I don't really care if you disagree. DXO metrics are based on research from the international standards organisation (ISO), experts in human vision and imaging experts from the European Space Agency, incorporating imaging research from NASA.

I have 9 cameras and about 20 lenses, and all combinations that DXO have tested give results that I agree with from my own shooting experience and pixel peeping. It's a metric I now trust.

The excellent PanLeica 25/1.4 (Which I Own) scores 9-10p-MP on a 16MP M.4/3 sensor. The Ricoh GR scores 13p-MP.

The highest scoring M.4/3 lens is the Olympus 75/1.8 (WIO) which scores 11p-MP.

The 14/2.5 (WIO) is a very fine lens (for it's size and cost) which hasn't been tested by DXO, but based on MTF comparisons (and my own pixel peeping) it's at most a 9p-MP.

Some people here have strange opinions. They post 1MP downsized images to 'prove' resolution arguments, and out of focus images to show how good their CDAF camera is.

1 upvote
anthony mazzeri
By anthony mazzeri (10 months ago)

Don't forget Ricoh also has a history of continually offering new features and improvements in firmware updates for the whole life of the camera, or even beyond by back-adding features from a newer model.

Which is in stark contrast with Nikon who update only once or mostly never, and usually then for no more than a bug fix or new lens compatibility.

So the differences between these two cameras should actually increase over time.

2 upvotes
VladimirV
By VladimirV (10 months ago)

Excellent review and I like tht you went into detail of how great and photographer focused the controls actually are.

All the people obsessiong over tiny differences in noise, DR or any other numbers between this and the Nikon A or any other camera miss the point.
If you pick any of the GR cameras up it will put a smile to your face and you will want to go out and take pictures. This is how good the camera feels in your hand, it will inspire you and by having al controlls easily accessible you will experiment (and by this learn) more. People forget that the handling and feel of a camera is way more important than numbers.

17 upvotes
sphexx
By sphexx (10 months ago)

I believe "...will put a smile on your face" should have "(c) Ricoh" attached to it 😉

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
1 upvote
VladimirV
By VladimirV (10 months ago)

I know, it's from them and they said it very well but it's exactly how I felt the first time I picked up the GRD I. :)

1 upvote
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (10 months ago)

I bought one. I have been loving the hell out of it. I did try a coolpix and i found the autfofocus and user interface to be just unusable. I found this to not only be the best pocket size camera ever but so good it is hard to believe it is as good as it is

much has been made about the 1/3 stop iso advantage of the coolpix a so for everyones edification iso 6400 well handled in raw http://www.flickr.com/photos/kodachromewolf/9036967643/in/set-72157634119481540

also if youd like to see some more Ricoh samples i upload pretty high res to flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/kodachromewolf/sets/72157634119481540/

11 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

Ricoh GR vs Nikon Coolpix A Autofocus Comparison

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JlIAdjjE5o

0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (10 months ago)

I used one for an afternoon. in my hands. In real world use its just untenable

2 upvotes
Bx100
By Bx100 (10 months ago)

are those flickr photos raw or jpeg? they look awesome !!!

1 upvote
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (10 months ago)

I always shoot RAW once you have a good workflow RAW is easier to deal with than jpeg so your crazy to shoot jpeg these days

2 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (10 months ago)

also thanx ^.^

0 upvotes
TJGKG
By TJGKG (10 months ago)

Really fabulous pictures! They make me want to go out and get the GR! I just wish you had the exposure information on each picture. Pictures are very sharp. Actually the black and whites look even better than the colour shots. I'd like to use this camera for travel. My shoulders can't support carrying around a big DSLR and gear any more.

1 upvote
Model Mike
By Model Mike (10 months ago)

Why different ISO's between your Flickr and DPR streams? ;-) Great photos BTW!

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (10 months ago)

I dont think i ever posted anything about the iso on dpr

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (10 months ago)

Put a red dot on it and suddenly it's a sublime camera for sheikhs ;)
Make a Lunar edition wood handle and fender dials and charge 5K

1 upvote
DDWD10
By DDWD10 (10 months ago)

Solid, no-nonsense camera with one of the best APS-C sensors in the business.

1 upvote
Scott Greiff
By Scott Greiff (10 months ago)

But you have still to review any of the Sigma DP Merrill cameras...

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

And it's unlikely we will, to be honest.

I will be writing about my experiences of using it and discussing the advantages and disadvantages of it, compared to the Ricoh and Nikon.

7 upvotes
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (10 months ago)

@ Richard Butler,

Well that's a disappointment, but we're getting use to it now. Maybe we the public expect too much from you, DPR? We all like reviews, they give us insight and have the power to influence a buying decision. If I'm interested in learning about a camera, I will come here hoping to find a balanced, unbiased opinion. If I find nothing here, I move on knowing there are other websites that will help me in my quest.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

We would like to review everything and would like to be able to cover the DP series in more depth, but there are always too many cameras. That's exactly why I'm hoping to write an article about the DP1 Merrill.

7 upvotes
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (10 months ago)

So how do you determine what to review and what not to review? Is any of that criteria based on popularity, inclination, commitment etc?

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

Popularity? For 1100 fixed FL fixed lens compact? And another, just $800? Unlikely. Especially when some cameras which often go at #1 seller on Amazon in their category (like Pana G5), or total breakthroughs in their category (like TG-1), or top of the lines for biggest camera makers which will stay that way for 4 years from release (1D X, D4) go unreviewed for a year (and I guess forever by now).
Does not look like there is some business reason behind the review decisions, guys just have fun (except the obligatory Rebels and Dblablablabla), and its OK. :)

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (10 months ago)

An article is fine. With the reviews, after I finish clicking enough times to get to the review, I go straight to the conclusion and I'll bet I'm not alone. Even then, if it's high-end Nikon, Canon, Sony it gets a gold award; stuff that's fine but not groundbreaking gets silver; stuff with quirks, like Sigma Merrill gets bronze.

0 upvotes
AngryCorgi
By AngryCorgi (10 months ago)

Cue the handful of Coolpix A owners that actually care about the "gold award" of this camera and are affended by it.

(luckily, most of the owners don't care and are too busy enjoying their camera to be concerned, but there are a few "camera collectors" in here that don't use this site to help make decisions or to learn about new tech and instead use it as a measuring stick for the greatness of what they bought)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (10 months ago)

See a guy with this camera and he's a photo enthusiaste. Guy with a G Star Raw edition Leica is a poser.

3 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (10 months ago)

Worrying about what peopele think when they see you with a cameea makes you a poser. If someone gave me a g star leica id make good use of it

Never would i ever buy one lx7s go on sale for 299 all the time

4 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (10 months ago)

Who the heck is going to give your sorry ass a G star raw Leica? And nobody is worrying.
Nobody is asking you to buy an LX7.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (10 months ago)

By ignoring my point an obsessing on the inessentials and hypothetical you have proven yourself to be a moron

0 upvotes
Thoughts
By Thoughts (10 months ago)

perfect camera for street photography

3 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (10 months ago)

good camera - unfortunately ugly - I do not buy

0 upvotes
Logan3-1639
By Logan3-1639 (10 months ago)

Your loss. Beauty in a commodity, for me, is determined by how effectively an item fulfills its intended purpose, and this is one of the most beautiful cameras I've ever owned.

6 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

The GR is not ugly at all, IMHO. On the contrary, it's quite beautiful both aesthetically and from a utilitarian, industrial design perspective.

And tricked out with the GV-1 VF and 21mm converter, it looks positively bad-as...

http://www.highsnobiety.com/files/2013/04/pentax-ricoh-gr-compact-camera-02.jpg

8 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (10 months ago)

Ugly? Don't see it. A simple, utilitarian shape rendered in basic black. It will never go out of style. If you need retro fripperies this may be ugly, but the old cameras retro cameras emulate were designed to be functional. Just like this is.

2 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (10 months ago)

Hope you do not throw all ugly things you have, away. This includes yourself. Now, all is a question of taste. Make just like you do with other things you have, keep it inside your pants and only take it out whan you intend to use it, that helps.

2 upvotes
Dianoda
By Dianoda (10 months ago)

Can we get some IQ tests of the camera with the wide angle adapter in place? Because a 21mm (35mm equivalent FOV) wide angle in this small of a package sounds pretty awesome...

2 upvotes
David25
By David25 (10 months ago)

Using the comparison tool, the GR doesn't show the thin black lines on the blue watch face (the little hour markers).

Some compacts do manage this, although I cannot argue about its amazing sharpness from corner to corner.

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (10 months ago)

btw, where's the samsung galaxy NX newspost?? Soon? It's a rather interesting product!

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

We thought we'd wait for the embargo to pass.

7 upvotes
WASBA
By WASBA (10 months ago)

Good balanced camera. it is only for a photography. For home video and multiple purpose, still like sony nex series but only for snap and best 28mm is this one. APS-C type sensor is huge upgrade from a former gr serieses absolutely. Thank you GR! You are the winner of crop sensor-pocketable size cameras. :)

2 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (10 months ago)

Nice little APS-C camera for The Photographer. Not for everyone...

11 upvotes
zakaria
By zakaria (10 months ago)

what a smart camera!
I like the concept ,the ergonomics,the trusty sensor and THE PRICE.

3 upvotes
Cailean Gallimore
By Cailean Gallimore (10 months ago)

Enough of all this arguing about whether this camera is better than the Nikon or not. Get on your knees and worship the mighty 'G-Star RAW' D-Lux 6. Kiss the dot and you may be pardoned.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
xpanded
By xpanded (10 months ago)

Well deserved honours.

8 upvotes
Cailean Gallimore
By Cailean Gallimore (10 months ago)

It's nice to see one of the rare cameras which have been designed for the use of photographers, rather than some stupid, hypothetical consumer.

6 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (10 months ago)

this is a great point my frustration at milc and lower end DSLRs is huge. there all made like you would never use M mode and being able to control the autofocus isnt important. it feels like you have to buy a camera that is both large and over 1000 to get something that was designed for photographers and its sad because a nikon d3200 is one hell of camera if it wasnt so stupid to use

0 upvotes
ChicagoRob
By ChicagoRob (10 months ago)

The first thing I do is check out the sky colors. On my calibrated monitor, they are absolutely dead-on. Love those Ricoh blues. I don't know what the deal is with the so-called" subdued" color-rendering. To me, the colors look perfect. Not garish, or cartoon-like, but natural.

Rob

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (10 months ago)

Man, I want this with a 40mm (equiv.) f2.0 lens.

X100s is close enough, but I want a real compact where the lens folds flat. X100 is kind of a brick you wouldn't put in your pocket.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

That would be an interesting combination.

2 upvotes
photo perzon
By photo perzon (10 months ago)

Yes I want the Leica X1 lens in these compacts.

0 upvotes
alfredo_tomato
By alfredo_tomato (10 months ago)

The way I feel, if the camera is in your pocket, you aren't using it.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
JackM
By JackM (10 months ago)

I do put my X100S in my pocket. Carried it all around Disney that way, and felt bad for all the folks lugging around their DSLR.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (10 months ago)

A matching, 40mm Ricoh would be sweet and probably cheaper. If they could pull off a digital GR21, that would be impressive.

1 upvote
Ybor
By Ybor (10 months ago)

By photo perzon (1 hour ago)

"Yes I want the Leica X1 lens in these compacts"
--------------------

Leica just rolled out the perfect camera for you.

0 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (10 months ago)

40/2.0 would be great. Sure - it would be inevitably bigger, but I would still go for that body-layout. Mine GRDIII feels really good in hand. For me the 28 is just a bit too wide ...

0 upvotes
ginsbu
By ginsbu (10 months ago)

A retracting 35mm or 40mm equivalent f/2 would be great!

I'll note that the EOS M + 22mm f/2 is a good bit smaller than the X100, under $500, and will be getting faster AF with new firmware due shortly. Not as compact as a collapsing lens design, but perhaps worth considering.

0 upvotes
sdribetahi
By sdribetahi (10 months ago)

Jackm, how big are your pockets? That can't be a good look.

0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (10 months ago)

I just dont think it could be pocketable

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

"I want this with a 40mm (equiv.) f2.0 lens."

Sounds a lot like GX1+20/1.7.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

GR RAW files are noisier than Coolpix A files, both in the RAW Comparison tool and on DxOMark sensor ratings scores (GR's 972 ISO vs Coolpix A's 1164 ISO), while colors from the DNG files aren't as good by DPR's own admission (see Con #2) and in the sample images. Yet DPR has RAW IQ between the GR and Coolpix A as the same?

It's can't be lens difference as both lenses scored identically on DxOMark Lens Test (see DxOMark front page for GR lens test).

It's seems fairly obvious that the GR has better ergonomics along with the superb GR menu system. But the A has the class leading Sony Exmor sensor, and seems to produce a better looking files / images (See review samples).

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (10 months ago)

You realize they use the same sensor, right? Any difference is in processing.

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (10 months ago)

You do realize ISO 972 and ISO 1164 are not even 1/3 a stop apart, right?

7 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

@viking79

They are not the same sensor.

"While Ricoh, which owns Pentax, says the sensor is not the same highly-rated Sony sensor that is in the Pentax KII DSLR and several other cameras, my informal image quality tests show it is in the same league."

Source:

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0014207/article/Product-Review-Ricoh-GR

@tkbslc

ISO 972 is one of the worst high ISO scores for a modern APS-C camera. It's curious that no mention is made of the better high ISO abilities of the A, that's all. DPR uses DxOMark for the lens data, but ignores the DxOMark sensor scores.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

@marike6 - We've already been thought this.

Without knowing who from Ricoh spoke to Adorama, I don't have any faith in that quote (There will be lots of reps, spokespeople and product managers speaking about these things, not everything they say will be correct).

The DxO data is so close to being identical that it's much more likely that it is the same sensor than not. The difference in the graphs (linked to from our review, so hardly ignored) looks a lot like experimental error and is, according to them, less than 1/3EV difference anyway.

The DNG has a built-in colour profile that's not very good, but you don't have to use it. The Nikon doesn't have a colour profile in its Raw files - should we mark it down for that?

The Raw IQ is effectively same, perceptually and measurably - that trumps an unattributed quote, for me.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
16 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

@ R Butler

RAW IQ is not the same in high ISO ability (See your own studio comparison) and on DxOMark sensor ratings (sorry but 193 ISO vs the Coolpix A's score of 1165 ISO is not within the margin for error).

Note, there has never been an Sony Exmor camera with such a low Low-Light ISO (Sports) score as 972 ISO on DxOMark. Consider that the D7000 / Pentax K5 score around 1165 to 1200 ISO with the Sony Exmor

So what you consider an "unattributed quote" coupled with your RAW Studio test (high ISO and color differences) makes it fairly obvious that the sensor is not the 16 mp Exmor but is likely the same one that's in the GXR.

And if it the Sony Exmor, which is doubtful, the dull colors from the sample image gallery certainly don't speak well for Ricoh's processing.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (10 months ago)

Adorama is an impeccable source of inside information. The manufacturers don't make a move without telling Adorama first.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

@AbrasiveReducer

Adorama and B&H are the two largest, most successful camera stores in the USA. Of course they are in direct communication with vendors. If the GR sensor is a Sony Exmor, you can be sure that Ricoh would be putting that info out there in every single interview about the camera. But they are not...

0 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (10 months ago)

@ marike6
log (972/1165)/log 2 = -0.26, that is the f/stop difference. That is minimal. Also, the newer NEX 5R and 6 don't test as well as older sensor. If in fact it is a different sensor, it performs basically as well based on sample images and DXOMark data. The DXO data trace so close that I imagine it is sample or maybe image processing pipeline variation.

1 upvote
ogl
By ogl (10 months ago)

There are marked ISO and real ISO -
DXO is not the Bible. There is measurement inaccuracy. First of all. The second - do you really think that we could see the noise difference between 972 and 1164.:) ?

Your argument is not weighty.

Go to measurements - and we will see that ISO of Nikon and Ricoh = 99% identical. If you pay attention at SNR18% - we can see that maximal difference in noise 1 dB at ISO6400 in favor of Nikon. But the diffrence at ISO100-3200 is from 0.3 tiil 0.6 dB.

A difference in low-light ISO of 25% represents 1/3 EV and is only slightly noticeable. The difference between 1164 and 972 is 1/4 EV.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

@ogl
DxOMark is not the bible, but do note that DPR uses them for their testing data.

All you need to do is look at the RAW Comparison Tool. The A is cleaner at every ISO including base. By 1600 and 3200, the A has considerably less Chroma Noise.

I wouldn't even point this out, if the reviewer didn't make it a point to say "the GR is a bit better in every way". Every way but the most important way: IQ.

RAW Comparison Tool
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ricoh-gr/16

0 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (10 months ago)

Checking them both using your link and I hardly see a difference, the GR tends more towards green and the A towards pink, my guess is the difference is mostly in the RAW settings in the converter program.

0 upvotes
Ybor
By Ybor (10 months ago)

The answer is own both or chose the one that you would be satisfied with.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

@viking79

The green tint of the GR RAWs is not typical of any Sony Exmor camera I've ever owned. Certainly the K-30, K-5, D7000, or NEX-5N RAW files don't show a similar green color cast.

RE: high ISO - differences in high ISO are seen easiest by changing to ISO 3200 and finding a continuous tone region like the Kodak Gray Scale card near the globe or the Martini bottle.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

@marike6 - Please point out where I've said "the GR is a bit better in every way" or take it out of quote marks. You can't omit the word 'almost' and still present it as a quote. It's dishonest.

We refer to DxO's data in addition to our own testing data and real-world tests - all of which support the idea that the sensors are essentially indistinguishable.

The green tinge in the comparison tool is a result of Adobe's profiling - not the sensor's output. It certainly doesn't support the idea that this isn't a Sony sensor.

It's been explained to you why most manufacturers don't announce whose sensors they use, which means all you have is an un-named rep's quote to Adorama. If it's between that and the extensive testing data that shows the two to be within 1/3EV of one another (and very plausibly within experimental error of one another), then your argument looks extremely weak.

4 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (10 months ago)

My K-5IIs has green color cast when I use DXO Optics :)

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

@R Butler

Richard, I'm really not trying to be confrontational, just trying to analyse your review, that's all. But yes, I forgot the word "almost" in your quote. It wasn't intentional and I do apologize.

Ricoh didn't announce what sensor the GR uses, they only claimed it's not the Exmor. But most manufacturers will eventually announce the vendor of the sensor (i.e. OM-D announced it was using a Sony sensor, Nikon and Pentax use of Sony sensors is well documented). But the fact that Ricoh specifically claims it is NOT the Sony Exmor makes it likely to be true. Not sure what issue you have with the Mason Resnick article at Adorama (See link above) but when a vendor goes out of it's way to make a claim, it's usually true.

That and the fact that it doesn't test like any other Sony Exmor on DxOMark. Note that the K-5 / D7000 DxOMark scores are more similar to the Coolpix A low-light ISO (sports) score of 1165 ISO.

Thanks.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

My issue isn't with Adorama or the writer - it's that there are a lot of reps, product managers and spokespeople briefing about products - it's not particularly uncommon that some of the information some of them give is inaccurate or contradictory.

"when a vendor goes out of it's way to make a claim, it's usually true" - that hasn't been my experience.

One last time: look at the graphs for any of the tests of the GR vs Coolpix the likelihood of them matching so well but being totally different sensors is MUCH lower than the likelihood that they're essentially the same and that all you're seeing is the margin of error in the testing.

2 upvotes
StephanSchmidt
By StephanSchmidt (10 months ago)

Why is everyone always feeding the Marike troll?

0 upvotes
Armin1
By Armin1 (10 months ago)

This camera is ugly, a big chunk of plastic. No matter how good it can be, I won't buy it. it's kind of eyesore.

2 upvotes
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (10 months ago)

1st comment since signing-up to DPR and it's a poor attempt at trolling. Shame on you.

12 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (10 months ago)

If you read the review you would see it has a magnesium alloy body, not plastic.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
11 upvotes
Jack Simpson
By Jack Simpson (10 months ago)

perhaps, English is not the first language of Armin and we should give the lad a wee bit of slack? But, considering his only words on DPR have had negative connotations .... maybe not ;)

0 upvotes
alfredo_tomato
By alfredo_tomato (10 months ago)

I'm more interested in the look of the images than the look of the camera.

2 upvotes
Der Steppenwolf
By Der Steppenwolf (10 months ago)

Cameras are meant to be used for photography not as a fashion statement Arman...

3 upvotes
Ybor
By Ybor (10 months ago)

For people who value looks over substance there are plenty of pimped up cameras out there. Plus they make great fashion accessories. For people for fit in the group the camera is targeted for, it represents the pinnacle of evolution for the Ricoh GR line. It's not for everybody which makes it even more valuable to those who covet its ergonomics, feature set and image output capabilities in a fairly stealthy package.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (10 months ago)

the camera is beautifully and robustly constructed out of magnesium alloy. The entire camera is textured as to not be slippery a la rx100 and has a lovely rubber grip. it is bar none the most comfortable small camera i have ever shot.

utility over beauty

also i think it is striking in its own way

2 upvotes
EssexAsh
By EssexAsh (10 months ago)

in that case, Leica would be your best bet. Great looking camera for non photographers.

1 upvote
maxola67
By maxola67 (10 months ago)

It looks like a text copied from somewhere))

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (10 months ago)

I find this review interesting...

I dont think that I have ever read a review on DPReview that has such strong wording... "we've already reviewed the Coolpix A and seen it outgunned by the Ricoh GR".

The writer speaks of "long loved line of Ricoh cameras"
The review seems to be written by someone who is a Ricoh shooter or has been one.

If this is the case, it seems to me that bias is very strong in this review, especially when every other review has basically said that both cameras are dead even and that pricing is the only real determining factor.

I read the Canon T5i review and even though the Nikon D5200 beats it in almost every category in the comparometer I did not see such strong wording or vehemence that I saw in this review for the Ricoh over the Nikon.

I have never cried foul in any of the reviews in the past, I have never partaken in the conspiracy theories that abound after reviews, but this review really comes across as a Ricoh user or someone rooting for this camera.

2 upvotes
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (10 months ago)

maybe the reviewer, who has been reviewing cameras here since 2007, just really liked it?

13 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (10 months ago)

Or maybe he just, you know, actually felt it was better than the Coolpix A?

7 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

We don't really tend to review cameras so directly head-to-head, so reviews don't tend to make such direct reference to other cameras. Here the models were so similar, it made sense to.

A review is supposed to include an opinion and, after spending several months shooting with both the Nikon and the Ricoh, I found the Ricoh to be more enjoyable to use. And, consistent with the Nikon review, we point out that the Ricoh is a little bit better in almost every respect (in which case 'outgunned' seems fair - it doesn't mean it's /much/ better, but it is better).

The only bias you're seeing is bias towards better cameras.

I don't and have never owned a Ricoh.

23 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (10 months ago)

Thanks for the great review. I agree; it naturally lends itself well to a comparison style review since both the A and the GR were launched at the same time: everyone is asking the question, which one do I buy? Nice to see the GR does very well.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

Richard wrote: "we point out that the Ricoh is a little bit better in almost every respect".

The only problem is IQ is NOT better from the GR, in fact it seems worse. The RAW Comparison Tool shows a fairly substantial high ISO advantage for the A (not mentioned) and the Coolpix A samples images look much, much better than the dull, lifeless GR sample images.

I've been a GR user since the GRD III and I love the series, but fair is fair. And I've never read a comparison where the reviewer went so far out of his way to prove his case to the point that even when the Nikon was better at something (the reviewer minimized it i.e. 14-bit RAW or high ISO).

And frankly the images the reviewer took with each camera belie his conclusion.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Ybor
By Ybor (10 months ago)

I actually enjoyed two things about the review that go beyond the normal enjoyable and in-depth analysis by DPR. It was favorable to a camera I now have and, better yet, it trumps the Coolpix A by a few points, not one, and that, to my way of thinking, emphasizes the gap between the two as total packages.
Let's make it clear; I like both cameras, just like the GR for all it has done to get where it's at now, sitting on top of Nikon.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

@Ybor

I haven't used either camera, but I have a GRD III. So it's easy to see why the reviewer like the GR: the grip alone makes the GR about the nicest compact every made to shoot with.

That said, I found the GR bias heavy handed in that virtually all of the Coolpix A advantages (better sensor and processing, MF ring, 14-bit RAW, low-light ISO performance, brighter exposures, better metering) were downplayed.

And so far, IQ from the GR is not as convincing as IQ from the Coolpix A which truly seems to perform like a mini D7000 producing bright, punchy files with spot-on Matrix metering.

If I had to guess which was the better camera based on the two Sample Galleries, I would have picked the A instantly. And I've been searching for that Wow GR image, similar to the Doug Menuez Coolpix A samples, and I have yet to find one. But since the GR is not widely shipping yet, samples are scarce.

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

@marike6

"Coolpix A advantages (better sensor and processing, MF ring, 14-bit RAW, low-light ISO performance, brighter exposures, better metering) were downplayed."

The better metering and JPEG processing was given credit in both reviews. The 14-bit Raw, 'better sensor,' and low-light ISO performance are arguably the same thing and account for LESS THAN 1/3EV DIFFERENCE - perceptually and measurably (if they exist at all). How much emphasis could it possibly be worth?

We get it, you prefer the Coolpix A's pictures, but the rest of your straw-clutching is getting embarrassing.

5 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (10 months ago)

"We've already reviewed the conceptually similar Nikon Coolpix A and seen it out-gunned by the Ricoh GR"

Posted the conclusion before the review: have never seen that before, also painting the review for the reader before they can look at samples and high ISO tests.

DXO which was used in part for this review says this...
"the GR comes in third, behind the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 (full-frame) and the Nikon Coolpix A (APS-C) and ahead of the venerable Fujifilm FinePix X100"
I the DXO review the Nikon Lens also performed slightly better..

"But it's important to give credit to Ricoh as the only manufacturer to have a continued history of building compact cameras with prime lenses"
Does DPReview wax poetically when they review Canon DSLR's Or Nikon DSLR's for their long history over the competition? Again painting the camera for the reader against the competition?

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

We've already published our Nikon Coolpix A review that compared it to the GR, so it was already public that we'd found the GR a little better in most respects.

I'm not going to comment on DxO's reviews or anyone else's. Their data shows the Coolpix A and GR to be within 1/3EV of each other and the graphs make it look like it could be experimental error (the inherent inaccuracy of the methodology - I'm not suggesting anyone got anything wrong).

We share DxO's lens data - I'm not sure how you'd interpret it as coming out in Nikon's favour.

We have regularly been accused of being biased in our use of language towards both Canon and Nikon. If my acknowledgement of Ricoh having a history of making these cameras is too florid for you and totally undermines all the samples and examples I've provided, then I'm sure you can find a review that states things in a drier fashion somewhere on the web.

3 upvotes
sounder71
By sounder71 (10 months ago)

I wouldn't trust anything DPR "reviews"!

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

@R Butler

"We get it, you prefer the Coolpix A's pictures, but the rest of your straw-clutching is getting embarrassing."

Why, do you prefer your Ricoh GR gallery over your Coolpix A Gallery?

As far as embarrassing myself, it wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last, but I guess you're not used to users who want to dig a bit deeper into one of your reviews. Sorry. Next time I will show utter and complete deference and praise your review unconditionally. I wasn't aware that it's wrong to ask questions, but now I know.

As far as lens data, the two lenses had virtually identical scores on DxOMark.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Ricoh-GR-Lens-review-High-imaging-performance-at-a-more-accessible-price/Ricoh-GR-Lens-Versus-Nikon-Coolpix-A-Lens

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

I wouldn't have lasted very long in this job if I expected deference.

However, your argument comes down to a preference for one samples gallery and one piece of anecdotal information that appears to be undermined by the available test data.

Note I didn't say the Ricoh lens is better (though it is at close distances), just that DxO's test data doesn't support the idea that the Nikon is better:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-widget-fullscreen?compare=true&lensId=ricoh18p32p8&cameraId=ricohgr&fl=18&av=2.8&view=mtf-ca&lensId2=nikon18p52p8&cameraId2=nikoncpa&fl2=18&av2=2.8

3 upvotes
Eric Hensel
By Eric Hensel (10 months ago)

Marike, this response is pathetic; your overly combative posts have been responded to with a grace you don't posess, and a patience you can't see...the only thing that's missing is Butler doesn't agree with you, and you can't comprehend that it won't happen. Give it a rest, there is a big difference between digging deep, and obsessiveness.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

@Eric Hensel

I'm not being combative or impolite. Perhaps I don't always express myself gracefully as you suggest, but as long as I'm polite, what is it to you? Who are you to say anything at all about it at all?

I'm not here to tip-toe around issues and camera differences but am here to find out which camera will meet my needs. If I offended Richard, my apologies to him. If you have some issue you want to bring up about the camera, feel free.

It's plain to see that there are IQ differences between these two cameras and some might want to dig deeper than "nice review". Richard is more than capable of explaining why he thinks the two cameras are scored the same for IQ in spite of some pretty obvious differences. I'm quite sure he doesn't need a forum body guard or moderator.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

Eric, there is a difference between "obsessiveness" and fanboyism, if you watch these forums, you would know that marike6 is a fan of all things Nikon. Calling RAW IQ of one camera better... when both use the same 3 y/o Sony sensor... is just funny. Writing 2 extra bits of noise just does not help, as was demonstrated in the review - visually, no theories required.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 214
12