Ricoh GR Hands-on Preview: Digital Photography Review

Someone explain to me the attraction of a camera with a fixed lens....I personally couldn't live with it, especially when it costs nearly USD1,000.

0 upvotes

I am curious to know if there is a technical reason that image stabilization is incorporated into the design of neither the Ricoh GR nor the Nikon Coolpix A.

0 upvotes

Is the review coming up soon?

1 upvote

Within the next week.

0 upvotes

I've been waiting for such a camera for a long time now.
For me, it will be the camera of choice for street photography.
I would prefer it even over my X100.
And yes, I will use a shoe mounted VF just for framing, setting all exposure parameters before hand.

0 upvotes

I find it very interesting that Sony is holding back the RX10 till Nikon and Ricoh release their cameras.

0 upvotes

The RX10 is just a rumour.

2 upvotes

Does this camera support PictBridge? I know it's not an often asked question. I tried googling this against the GR and Coolpix A and came up with nothing.

0 upvotes

When is the full review coming?

0 upvotes

Very soon - I think I'm withing a week of finishing both this and the Coolpix A review.

2 upvotes

Great news thank you.

0 upvotes

1 Quick question here. When shooting with high ISO, is dark area in your picture turns green?

0 upvotes

when is it coming out? :(

0 upvotes

May 18th in the country, available a week later

1 upvote

you lied :(

1 upvote

no he didn't, got mine yesterday

0 upvotes

I highly doubt tht.. bh and adorama still has it on pre oder

0 upvotes

If this or the Coolpix A had an f1.8ish lens, I would already own one. Hoping Sony or Canon will come out with an APS-C sensor pocketable camera with a faster lens before Christmas. (Rumor has it, Canon may announce one in June?) That RX10 would be nice to see.

Until such time though, my pocket camera remains the RX100. Yes, the sensor is three stops smaller, but the lens is 1.3 stops faster, and it's a zoom lens = not enough of an advantage for the Ricoh GR / Nikon Coolpix A to upgrade. Especially not at the Nikon's list price...

Anybody disagrees? Am i doing the math on this right?

1 upvote

Can you post more new images? Did you investigate why is the left side sharper than the right one? Thankx.

0 upvotes

Can you check various OVFs accuracy with this camera?

There are many options - 2 VFs from Ricoh, Sigma, various Voitlangers, Nikon.

0 upvotes

and now a firmware update for the gxr and or the a12 28mm please :)

0 upvotes

So when exactly it appears on the market? Can't wait...and not so silly to buy Nikon A...

0 upvotes

Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but I don't see any shutter speed or f-stop adjustments. How is that possible?

0 upvotes

The dial on the front of the camera adjust either shutter speed or aperture if you're in S or A mode. In M you can choose which parameter goes on the front dial and which goes on the ADJ lever on the back.

+/- buttons on the rear shoulder control exposure comp.

3 upvotes

Will Ricoh be using the body/sensor for a line of fixed lens cameras like we see with Sigma?

0 upvotes

I don't think so. Their stated intention is the GR will have a 2 year product cycle with new features to be added via firmware updates.

All digital GRs have been 28mm.

2 upvotes

It looks like a nice camera. I have an x100 with the wide angle adapter, so I don't need this focal length. I'm still waiting for a 50mm equiv fixed lens camera. 28 and 35 are a little wide for me.

1 upvote

At this focal length (wide) with a sensible and pedestrian F2.8 I'm sure an OVF will do just great.
Nice camera, I hope it becomes common enough to see some second-hand sales next year. yumm.

1 upvote

That has to be a contradiction of terms. Popular but the new owners can't wait to sell at a discount to buy something else?
The GRII would only be 2 years away and a makeover model, the next big thing from the GR would be the GRIII - in 4 years time - happy waiting. BTW I still have my original GRD and I am not selling that either.

0 upvotes

I still use my GR-1. Not often, but it's very small, sharp, light and full frame.

0 upvotes

So you didn't put Sigma raw's because you cannot use it in your converter? Why you din't use sigma converter? JEEEZUS So you shouldn't use sigma at all. You just killed best advantage of sigma which are absolutely suberb raw files.

2 upvotes

We show files in a standardised way, based on the industry-standard software. To show one camera with a specialist converter (and one that presents major challenges to any practical workflow), without any way of flagging that up to readers would be completely misleading.

We're trying to work out a way of representing the DP1 M more comprehensively, but totally bending the rules for one camera isn't exactly even-handed.

2 upvotes

If you using universal converter for every camera, you will NEVER able to bring independent and real results, how good is camera.
You suppose to use original converter from manufacturer. And set up to default setting.

0 upvotes

Some bundled software produces the same results at the JPEGs, some produces results worse than the JPEGs and much of the software supplied with cameras is not terribly good (sometimes to the point of being effectively unusable).

It it much more 'real' to use the most-used Raw converter and certainly more independent.

1 upvote

My hat's off to Mr. Butler for another fine review. I am uniformly impressed with DPReview articles--you guys really set the bar high. However, I'm also one of the many who are disappointed at how mediocre the DP1M photo looks in this review. While using different software to process the photos may not be the most objective, it's perhaps even more problematic to seriously undercut a camera's primary advantage for the sake of maintaining consistency. That's hardly fair to the manufacturer or the readers. Why not just add the Sigma converted photo, and then just explain the problem in the article? We'd still like to see a review of the Sigma DPxM cameras, by the way.

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting

1 upvote

E_Nielsen.
Fully agree. The potential of DP1 was idle.
And agree again. We should see DPxM review with notice of using converter by manufacturer. And everything would be clear a nice.

This same method should be used for Fuji cameras also.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

The converter supplied with the X-Trans Fujis tends to do a worse job than the JPEGs or the current versions of Adobe Camera Raw - certainly at default settings.

We may well 'sandbox' some DP1 M SPP files so that they're only accessible from within the Ricoh GR and Nikon Coolpix A reviews (so that we can ensure a note about the different converter always appears next to them), the way we did for the SD1 M. However, that's not easy, so I'm not sure whether it'll be possible in time for these reviews.

I'd like to include some further coverage of the DP1 M in these comparison reviews but it's unlikely we'll have time to do a full DP1 M review.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Thanks, mumintroll. The consistency of dpreview testing methods is unquestionably a strength and should be defended. But that shouldn't mean that exceptions can't be added to the articles as extra information. I am sure readers want a real-world glimpse of what to expect if they were to purchase any of these cameras, but if the "standard" software used in testing (which in this case can't even read Sigma RAW files) produces a substandard result, couldn't it be argued that the article is biased towards the other manufacturers?

I hope dpreview will give this some more thought. It's a difficult problem but shouldn't be ignored.

Good point about the Fujis, too. They are terrific cameras that may also deserve some special handling.

0 upvotes

It is something we thought long and hard about when we reviewed the SD1 Merrill.

I think it'd be wrong to characterise Adobe Camera Raw's output as substandard. It does a better job than most bundled software and is a more realistic (and more widely-used) workflow tool than any bundled software. Thirty plus years of software development for Bayer sensors does give it an advantage, but that's an advantage that will be felt by anyone using a Bayer-based camera so, to an extent, it's fair to factor that in, to a degree. The alternative is that you then have to give much greater weight to the quality of the supplied software (especially for a camera such as the DP1 M, where SPP is essentially your only choice).

The question is, how do we then accommodate the tiny handful of cameras that ACR can't handle well? The best answer we have at present is to make sure those files can only be compared in situations where that caveat can be made clear. If we can get that to work, we will.

0 upvotes

Ok guys. Every1 has some valid points. So just do your best.
Also if you have time to tests phone cameras, you should find time to test DPxM properly too. :-)

AND if you cannot use full potential of DP1M,(due to converter) don't use it as example at all. Don't compare it with others cameras if you cannot suck the best from it.

Have a nice day both of you. :-)

3 upvotes

THANK YOU for a civilized discussion.

2 upvotes

Page 9, aside from the moiré where the Sigma excels, the Ricoh puts the Nikon to shame! The test-shot differences are striking.

I'm surprised to not see half the posts being criticism for no viewfinder... are those three people asleep?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

4 upvotes

There are 2 types of OVF.

0 upvotes

Looking at the IR Test scenes it seems to me here:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ricoh-gr/EXIF/GRhSLI06400NR0.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-a/EXIF/CPAhSLI06400NR0.HTM

that at ISO 6400 with the same aperture the Nikon uses 1/800 and the Ricoh 1/640 (advantage Nikon) and at these settings the Nikon gets better results in respect of noise and colour.

What do you think?

0 upvotes

Felix11, I think it's the difference in noise handling method.
Nikon seems to be more saturated but you would see more color noise.
Just look at the black areas in the picture, there're lots more red noise due to this character.

On the other hand, Richo reduced more color noise thus appears to be a bit flat in color.

I would rather judge the details than color, which GR is still better than A.

0 upvotes

There is no fine detail in any of the cameras tested. Drag the comparison window over the watch in the lower right hand corner. Then, choose the Olympus OM-D E-M5, Pen E-PM2, or any other "Good" camera and see the difference. Not impressed one bit, especially for the price and features the GR and DP offer.

2 upvotes

I think what you're seeing is mostly the effect of Olympus's excellent JPEG engine. Switch to RAW and there's no striking difference.

5 upvotes

Are you saying that the JPEG engine in ALL the other cameras will not show any detail? I'm getting tired of certain cameras being able to be used in RAW only mode (like the Fuji X20), especially for the price they are asking. Did you look/compare the upper part of that watch and see how little (no) detail was shown :/ Unbelievable.

0 upvotes

Have you noticed, looking at that watch in the lower right hand corner, that all the test shots are taken at exactly the same time? Impressive consistency and attention to detail from DPR!

0 upvotes

Keywords: depth of field.
The OM-D like all ILC's, was tested with a much longer FL with a much larger distance to the subject. Add a smaller sensor and you have all the ingredients for DOF differences, which is why you shouldn't compare corners to conclude anything about lenses or cameras.

There's possibly a slight variance in focus point and field curvature at play too. The soon to be used test setup should eliminate most of the above factors.

3 upvotes

You're comparing a 50mm with a 28mm focal length. The angle is very different, thus the embossed silver markings don't display the same shadow lines and light reflection etc. Also, Olympus, beside their excellent JPEG engine, is known for applying more sharpening by default and delivering punchier, more saturated results. You can add that with the other cameras to come closer to your preferred impression.

5 upvotes

It's great that manufacturers are listening to photographers and responding with better image quality in smaller packages. All these cameras look interesting as does Sony's RX1. For sensor tech though, the 'writing' is literally 'on the wall', (or more to the point, you can't see the words!), for the APSC Bayer samples on page 10. So, like others here, I'm wondering why the DP compact cameras have largely been ignored on this site when it comes to serious review to this point? Agreed Foveon is not perfect, but it has had a fraction of the investment that all the other makers have poured into Bayer and it does seem to offer something of genuine value to photographers that deserves some further interest, if not support. The micro detail of the writing from the Foveon on page 10 is truly impressive compared to the Bayer. NB. The last people who tried to sideline a different technology simply because it didn't fit into their existing workflow were the Luddites!

1 upvote

Yeah, but set the ISO to something like 400 and watch the advantage tip _steeply_ to Bayer.

3 upvotes

I own and use Foveon cameras but they clip highlights are not really usable at even slightly high ISOs. I have no doubt that if a company like Sony was interested in Foveon both the sensors and the camera bodies would see huge improvement.

0 upvotes

Can you put a polarizer, or an ND filter, or any other kind of filter on it?

0 upvotes

There's an optional adapter for a lens hood as well as for 43mm filters and for a wide-angle converter making the lens a 21mm (ff, equiv.)!

1 upvote

It has a built in ND filter too.

0 upvotes

As usual, endless natter about the image IQ. I suppose that IQ is what everyone wants/needs. The actual use-value of these cameras is harder to evaluate. I am sure that everyone will pick the camera of their choice in the end.
These comments threads on new products seem to be a place where slaps are exchanged but little true light is shown.
To say that the GR is designed for a different type of use invites taunts of "elitist", so elitist I am as much as I have not yet savoured the delights and eccentricities of the DP nor the ease of use of the Nikon .

3 upvotes

Distortion's a little bit too much for my taste.

0 upvotes

Wow Dpreview, never one review of a DP Merrill camera, but now you throw one in for a JPEG comparison! That is about as useless as comparing the GR with a dead chicken. Just..wow.

4 upvotes

Would you rather we hadn't included it at all?

We cannot include its Raw files in a way that isn't massively biased in its favour (without that always being obvious to our readers) so, for now, we're not going to.

We've also included it in a test of both Raw and JPEG that shows its major advantage as clearly as you're ever going to see it.

And somehow this is a bad thing?

2 upvotes

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sigma_dp2m_review.shtml.

0 upvotes

I am curious: Why did you choose to include the Merrill in this test at all? Because it has more or less the same size and price range as the GR? Why not include the Iphone5 then for jpeg comparison. Comparing the Merrill in such a superficial way (this is a RAW only camera) only confuses and contributes nothing to the viewers.

0 upvotes

With aperture wide open the GR provides obviously better sharpness than the Coolpix A does. With F 5.0 the Nikon is above the Ricoh. I'd like to know how their lenses cope with sun inside the frame. Furthermore, the GR might offer more versatility, if its 21mm adapter proves usable and doesn't kill IQ. Therefore I'm hoping for additional test shots with this accessory.

Generally, all these cameras (including, of course, the Sigma with its impressive IQ at low ISOs) are pricy. And prices in this sector are constantly coming down as new rivals are pushing into the market.

0 upvotes

Why no stabilisation on this class of camera. I know that you can shoot at high ISO in low light and still get a great image, but why not go "belt and braces" by adding stabilisation. I am curious, what is the weight/size/image quality penalty of stabilisation?

3 upvotes

Probably a feature reserved for the GR2. Manufacturers are always leaving a few desirable features out so they can encourage you to upgrade to the revised model after "listening to their customers"!

0 upvotes

Why does the DP1 look so bad at every ISO?

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

That was my thought, too. One would expect the DP1M to absolutely blow away the Ricoh and Nikon in resolution at 100 ISO, but in these samples they look about the same. Could this be a result of differences in compression?
I viewed an original-sized Ricoh GR photo in the samples, and looked rather average--clearly not in the same league as any DPxM photos I've seen. The difference is almost like comparing a travel camera with a tiny sensor to a DSLR with a full-sized sensor.
I'm also wondering why the DP1M is totally ignored in the 1st impressions page of this review. Even though the DP1M doesn't handle very high ISO numbers particularly well, I would be hard pressed to come up with a reason to buy either the Nikon or Ricoh over the Sigma when you consider they are all in the same price range.

0 upvotes

It's because a Sigma can't do JPEGs. DPR should have included the DP1M's RAW even if they have to reduce it's sharpness setting to -2.0 in Sigma Photo Pro.

1 upvote

'Hadn't thought of that. I seldom take JPEGs with my DP2M. Processing the RAW photos is so satisfying and the results so amazing that I just don't bother. It's a pity that the DP1M is represented this way, though. If only looking at these samples, one could easily get the impression that the DP1M and GR are comparable cameras in terms of photo quality.

0 upvotes

The test scenes don't look that good to me. A little soft in places and the reds are too pale, tending to pink.

However the test scenes for the GR at imaging Resource, look absolutely stunning. Tack sharp, excellent colour and a great balance between soft textures and fine detail.

It's confusing to see two vastly different results. If I hadn't seen the IR test scenes I'd be having a few doubts about the IQ now.

0 upvotes

Looking at the IR Test scenes it seems to me here:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ricoh-gr/EXIF/GRhSLI06400NR0.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-a/EXIF/CPAhSLI06400NR0.HTM

that at ISO 6400 with the same aperture the Nikon uses 1/800 and the Ricoh 1/640 (advantage Nikon) and at these settings the Nikon gets better results in respect of noise and colour.

What do you think?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

Differences I see:

The Ricoh image is 14MP, the Nikon 16MP. Odd. They are both reported as 16MP Cameras.

The Ricoh at 1/640 vs 1/800 means the Ricoh received MORE light and should therefore have LESS noise.

In respect of the results. I would find the Ricoh more usable. The Nikon appears to have better saturation but it also has more false colour in its noise (more chroma noise). The Ricoh while having less saturation, has no remaining chroma noise, only luminance, which is more akin to grain. The absence of chroma noise means the saturation can easily be boosted without boosting noise.

The easiest place to see this is the purple napkin. Superficially, the Nikon looks better as it has retained more saturation. But on closer inspection, you can see it's now a patchwork of false colour with various shades of blues and reds making an appearance. The Ricoh retains an even colour and even when the saturation has been boosted, it retains a much more even colour and texture.

continued/...

2 upvotes

/...

If the intention was to use out of camera JPEGs, then for some purposes (where the chroma noise didn't matter) then the Nikon might be better. But personally, I prefer the approach taken by Ricoh to minimise the chroma noise.

However, I won't be judging these cameras on out of camera JPEGs at ISO6400. That's of very little interest to me. I shoot raw with my own NR workflow, and try to keep as close to true base ISO as possible. Hi ISO is for emergency use only.

0 upvotes

Surely what this means is that in real life we could shoot the Nikon at 1/640th and capture an additional 20% more light and therefore the visible noise in the Nikon image would be significantly reduced from its already superior level?

I am interested in JPG performance with available light. So my requirements are very different to yours.

I wish the Nikon had some of the nice features of the Ricoh, i.e. ND filter, interval shooting. This is going to be a tough decision! :-)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

If focus control is disabled as soon as you start recording, then what control are you saying the AFL button provides?

0 upvotes

Moiré endless, just like the Nikon A. Look the coin over the head of Mikey Mouse, then go to the left on the head left of the one cent coin, look the left side of the head, from the ears down to the neck, then go in the small blue robot and look the Mr Robot inscription, the blue field is like a zebra pattern. The Nikon A has huge moiré in the Indian ocean on the globe, while the GR does here do better job, the blue feathers in front of the Volkswagen picture have moiré on both.

Almost all cameras have some moiré in those spots, the coin over Mikey's head is and the Indian ocean or the Robot is found quiet often to show pattern or zebra stripes. The camera is sharp and offers huge image, but with that amount of moiré, same as Nikon A, those cameras are not what I look for. I do not seek for the problems in the picture of a camera, no camera has perfect picture, but that much moiré is just too much. It's even worse than Canons 5DMk3.

1 upvote

The Ricoh has an option to re-process Raws in-camera with a Color Moire Reduction option if you find moire in your real-world images. We'll be demonstrating how this works as part of the review.

3 upvotes

That's a cool feature but I guess the point is, if you want the most detail, you have to ditch the AA filter. Can't have it both ways and if you could, there would be just one version of the D800.

0 upvotes

Moire can occur in high resolution camera that have AA-filters. Any tight repeating pattern like the engraved Nero profile, fabrics, etc. can produce moire in any number of cameras, with or without the OLPF.

But in nature, for example, such regular repeating patterns are so rare, that moire is doesn't show up all that much. Besides, often it's only at 100% that you can even detect subtle moire patterns. At normal viewing size, any moire in this scene is undetectable. So I'd rather have the extra resolution that cameras like the D7100, A, GRD or D800E provide.

0 upvotes

no viewfindeeeeeeerrrggghhhh

1 upvote

inevitable crafts studio:

You understand what a fixed lens means? It means you can use any optical 28mm FF equivalent VF that fits in the hot shoe.

3 upvotes

An optical snap on VF is only good for framing... not focus point selection, etc... etc...

Basically you get no feedback on anything. Great for setting everything and just shooting but its not comparable to an actual OVF on a modern camera.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

2 upvotes

This camera looks absolutely perfect for me, from the controls and menus to the size. The sample pictures up so far are disappointingly desaturated though. Looks like the jpegs might be garbage, and this will be a RAW only camera in practicality, which is still fine by me, but they might lose some of the potential buyers less interested in post-production.

1 upvote

I wished Ricoh came out with this camera 6 month earlier. I will most likely get it to replace my RX100 but I hate to buy and sell things like a teenager.

2 upvotes

How did you like the RX100 though? That is, what is the RX100 missing that you like in the GR? This is interesting. Thanks.

3 upvotes

Hope has better dust control than prior GRDs. Cheers

0 upvotes

I hope it is not a repost, but I think it is interesting to notice that GR is about as pocketfriendly as my beloved RX100, .... but with the added advantage of a much bigger sensor.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#454,332

0 upvotes

Quick question, can this camera do timelapse using HDR images? I know it can do timelapse, and I know it can do HDR, but can it do both at the same time, in camera?
Thanks.

0 upvotes

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY RICOH!

I'm selling my RX-100.

Anyone who has ever handled a GR camera is bound to be very excited by this. The A is dead in the water. It's down to this or the X100S when it comes to large sensor compacts, especially when you consider the joy and ease of controlling the camera. And while Fujifilm seems to have improved the handling with the X100S, Pentax Ricoh are the undisputed champions in that field.

4 upvotes

the coolpix a is dead?

And the Sony RX100 has a much smaller sensor, it's not in the same game.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

The Nikon isn't dead but the price is coming down (obviously). People will bend over backwards to say the Nikon is so much better but I'll be very surprised if it is.

0 upvotes

I wonder if it has a Sony sensor, like the Pentax.

0 upvotes

yes, it's the same sensor used in NEX5N and NEX6 or Nikon A.

0 upvotes

Yes I didn't read the body part and missed the nicely hidden strap points on the GR.As someone who is waiting for the Fujii X-E1s to come over the horizon it is interesting to note that the X mount 18mm f2 lens costs $600. And on another note though I like the Pentax K-30 it is also 12 bit not 14. I think if you are going to keep a camera for a number of years 12 bit instead of 14 may be a deal breaker.Unless $1000 is pocket change to you that amount of money for a single lens camera is hard to justify. For APC-S I would side with 24mm proponents like the X100s.

1 upvote

I like this camera, but ......

1) The price is a substantial fraction of an interchangeable lens mirror-less camera - eg NEX6 or Fuji XE1. Add the price of the add-on GR VF and it might be even easier to buy the ILC.

2) What is it about manufacturers and the lack of built in VFs? - It seems a con to me to design a core body without a VF and then sell a (usually very expensive) accessory that bulks the height back up to pretty much what it would have been if it were built in. They're easily lost and they block the flash shoe in use. Bad idea.

3) For some reason large sensor/mirror-less cameras are deemed by their makers to be unfit for environmental sealing, despite being aimed at enthusiasts and being highly suited to travel and hiking etc.. None of the manufacturers has made their large sensor compacts/ILCs with sealing against dust and moisture. (eg NEX6&7, Fuji X series, Canon G1X & EOS M, Coolpix A, etc. Premium pricing should reflect premium build quality.

2 upvotes

The Nex system's shutters are very audible and the lenses aren't worth much investment.

You have a point about the Fuji system and the Samsung NX and the Olympus and Panasonic M43s systems and possibly the Canon M.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

Wonderful! One curiosity, though.. Does GR has any means of protection from dust getting onto that big sensor?

0 upvotes

Want one but can't afford it, Yet!

0 upvotes

The GR looks pretty nice, very interesting camera.

0 upvotes

@rxbot "Am I the only one who thinks the GR should have at least one strap lug for a wrist strap." Probably, because it actually has two :)
See 'Body and design'

3 upvotes

Am I the only one who thinks the GR should have at least one strap lug for a wrist strap.Looking forward to more detailed tests of both cameras. Nikon should of had 1 series viewfinder at that pricepoint.

0 upvotes

I have to hand it to Ricoh; their cameras have always been decent; but not as good as their fans foam at the mouth saying. However with this they have utterly, utterly blown the Nikon A out of the water and have hit the mark square perfect for a typical price settle. Nikon is in no doubt in a panic over this and will need to axe the launch price of the A in half or accept it will be a flop.

Here is hoping the AF is decent.

2 upvotes

Sorry but I'm looking at the RAW images and don't see the Ricoh blowing away the Nikon. in fact at the high ISO"s the Nikon is about 1/2 stop better in 3200

1 upvote

Yeah, compare them both vs. Canon G1X.
They both look a bit overpriced.
Yes, Canon is bigger, but it has a zoom lens with f/2.8 at 28mm, tiltable screen and it costs half of Nikon A and 2/3 of Ricoh GR.
By the way, it is a shame for Nikon that Ricoh has so much better lens for less price

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

But doesn't the Canon G1X have a smaller sensor? It's 1.5" right? The GR V is APS-C. The Fuji X100s is aps-c and what's the retail on that? The Canon G1X is a great camera but the correct comparison would be among the Rx100, X20 type cameras, I think.

I'm thinking really hard about this one as I've been waiting for a larger sensor GR model.

2 upvotes

Hang on for a minute whilst I stop laughing ....

0 upvotes

"Alternatively, you can set the ADJ lever to just control ISO."
From my experience of using GRD IV, it is not "just control ISO" but "control ISO additionally", which means we nudge the lever left and right without previously pressing it.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

1 upvote

I do apologise - I'd tried it and not spotted that subtlety. I'll updated the preview. It's been a while since I used a GXR and this is a lot of camera to learn in a weekend (without a manual).

0 upvotes

I understand, not too many cameras need a manual to get the finer points out of it. Ricoh also has not a few "undocumented" functions, seems the firmware boffins improve things faster than the manuals can be updated.

0 upvotes

The woman and the man on the right are out of focus on the GR. The A keeps them sharp. The brown tuft of rug is fuzzy on the GR. The pencil drawing is not as sharp as the A. The tip of corners of the A are not sharp. But the GR is not sharp in bands throughout the picture.

1 upvote