@kreislauf

Yeah? What aspect of the Fuji XF10 don't you like? Let's be specific.

And which part of the Ricoh GR do you love? The GR III has removed many beloved features.

I have both and would like to know what you think.

Noise and moire are created by the sensor and associated firmware, not by the lens.

Yeah but despite the high iso situation where the Ricoh has more noise (or less noise reduction applied!!!) the Ricoh is still sharper and has more details ;)
And moire... guess we have to live with it

@kreislauf

The Ricoh is only sharper when shot in RAW. And you'd need to accept the higher noise and susceptibility to moire.

We'll see about that on the GR III.

It better be a lot better if Ricoh wants to charge $799 or more.

@KAllen

Certainly shooting RAW takes up much more file space, and the time it takes to process RAW is also longer. So for casual photography, most folks choose the JPEG format.

@pro photo 2011

really? you are saying that you receive sharper results only when you rely on the raw data?
I know that the jpg engine is not that advanced, but there surely is a sharpness setting on the GR

An IBIS for a 18.3mm lens is a stupid waste, isn't it. Who needs an IBIS for an ultra wide angle, seriously?

But actually, who needs an ultra wide angle as the one & only option alltogether. I'd get sick of being forced to such an angle all the time.

This entire package is beyond comprehension for me.

This applies to the Fuji XF10 to a certain extent as well, of course.

I'd simply go for a smartphone. Good Smartphones (such as the Samsung S9) have BSI sensors, phase detect AF, optical stabilization, a lens four times as fast (f/1.5 rather than slow&cheap f/2.8) (which mitigates the sensor size difference).

The entire camera class of the GR III is doomed by smartphone technology.

The GR III is a bit doomed like every camera that Ricoh touches (the outdated 645x is getting crushed by GFX, the K-1 II was a complete failure, not even a silver award here, even stood back behind the Canon 6D II which got the EISA award in its class instead, and the KP is also a complete failure).

First, the GR and GRII both had an integrated flash - Not sure why you say no flash on the GRIII (just because you don't see it in the product picture above? Look up for the "Specs" before anything else - https://www.dpreview.com/products/ricoh/compacts/ricoh_griii/specifications - As previous models, the GRIII has an integrated flash+ all flash modes available and necessary.

Second, the first 2 versions (GR and GRII) were priced at launching time at around $799 (or so) - and probably the 3rd will be priced at similar level - so yes, way under the bar of $1000 - Now, for an APS-C sensor + great lens + custom modes + pocket-ability + plus magnesium alloy body... frankly don't see the problem.

I owned the GR (great pocket camera) and plan to buy this 3rd model as soon as possible. But that's because I KNOW what I'm talking about !

Chers,

MC

PS : the XF10 it's all right, but nowhere near the built quality & IQ of the GR.
IMHO.

@Michel Cojan

The Ricoh GR III will not have integrated flash, but only an external flash unit. Read the DPReview specs carefully.

@ pro photo 2011-Sorry my mistake on that one, BUT... having used the GR for about 4 years now, I can tell the flash was not essential (even in low light). With a newly developed sensor/lens & for the photographic "style" this camera is designed - flash is not an absolute necessity (in my views). I understand your point (comparing bit by bit, yes it looks we're loosing one element - the flash). Is that a deal breaker? Not sure at all if the overall IQ (high ISO response also) is equal or better as the 2 previous models. BTW, ZEISS announcement of their first FF compact ( https://www.dpreview.com/news/3430444458/zeiss-announces-full-frame-compact-with-fixed-35mm-f2-lens?utm_source=self-desktop&utm_medium=marquee&utm_campaign=traffic_source ) doesn't have any flash either. Same for the respectable Sony RX1R II or the Leica Q. Compare the pricing with those & see the GRIII is quite decent in price especially considering the IQ should be quite close even if using an APS-C sensor.

LOL please read this: https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x70-review/6
GR lens miles better. X70 (XF10) below par.

In DPR's X70 vs. GR II comparison, each camera has its strong and weak attributes. The GR II doesn't win it all.

While the GR II's lens is sharper, you must shoot in RAW to see the difference.

In a high ISO/low light situation, the GR II displays much more chroma noise and moire than the X70 in both JPEG and RAW.

So the GR II may have an advantage when shooting in good light, the X70 performs much better (noise and moire supression) in non-ideal lighting situations.

How often is lighting ideal?

How much more are you willing to pay for Ricoh GR III's premium over Fuji XF10's $499 price?

I am not waiting for the GR III. I'll be buying the XF10 next week. The black one, of course.

There's a camera for everyone. You didn't mention that you were acquiring an XF10 (updated X70), and I don't like to criticise anyone's personal choices. Sorry for coming on strong. But OTOH you did come on strong about the XF10 being so much better than GR, including lens, so that was a bit provocative.

Me personally, I see it as routine to pay $500 more for a high-res lens over a cheaper lens. When DPR summarizes, "Overall the Ricoh has a much sharper and more consistent lens that is possibly one of the best we have seen on any APS-C compact", then I start to loosen the purse-strings. That's just me.

Enjoy your new camera. Cheers

@TN Args

I actually have the GR II already but I want to get the XF10 nonetheless.

My view on the GR III is that Ricoh may have a hard time trying to sell it if the price is $799 or higher.

For the GR III to be a market success, either the camera is significantly better or the price is a lot lower.

It has to be a lot better than the GR II and also a lot better than the XF10 to command a high price.

You can't shoot pictures with your camera/smartphone in your pocket.

If there is anything a modern smart device is not, it's ergonomic. The push for a bigger screen foot print while still being pocketable has led to the current thin and wide design that is anything but ergonomic. Sure, my I-phone6 fits in my pocket reasonably well, but it's horrible in the hand. Too wide, too thin, requires two hands to use effectively without the constant threat of slipping. The candybar style phones I had 15 years ago were much more ergonomic in the hand, (and horrible in the pocket).

The GR series is designed to be ergonomic in your hand, where it is actually used. AND, it's still small enough to be pocketable, albeit with the ergonomics of an old candybar phone.

Do you buy shoes that stack well in your closet or fit well on your feet?

1) An APS-C sensor is about 20x the area of a smartphone. That's more than a 3-stop advantage. So even with the small lens, the GRIII still has a 1-2 stop advantage over a modern smartphone in low light. Factor in sensor efficiency and it's more like a 2-3 stop advantage.
2) The GR III has 24MP and a lens capable of resolving a lot of detail. A smartphone sensor and lens doesn't come close to that.
3) The GR III has massively lower base ISO noise. Even in bright sunlight, smartphone images have smudged out fine textures and details due to noise reduction.

If you only ever view your photos on a smartphone and you can't be bothered editing, then a smartphone camera is ideal, but view your images on any decent computer monitor, and the image quality just doesn't cut it.

Correction: 20x sensor area is > 4 stops advantage. So a 3-4 stop advantage overall.

"minus much slower, tiny, cheap lens of only f/2.8 rather than f/1.5:"

The lens of the Ricoh is bigger, more expensive and gathers more light overall.

"minus cheap sensor without BSI, whereas good smartphones such as the S9 have BSI sensors these days:"

Absolute nonsense. BSI or not, the efficiency of a tiny smartphone sensor is still well below that of the APS-C Sony sensor.

"in darkness: The GR III doesn't have a flash"

That what the hotshoe is for.

"including the negative effect on candid shots (much less inconspicuous than a smartphone)."

The GR looks like a cheap 1970's compact film camera. The latest Samsung or iPhone does not make you more inconspicuous.

"The eventual advantage..."

Any decent photography enthusiast can shoot RAW and edit photos to give better results than a smartphone.

You probably need to read about the latest cell phones before putting your foot in your mouth.

No; they are not perfect. No; they don't win at every metric. Just overall for the pocket-able and that is over the best traditional pocket camera. All total benefits tallied.

The thing you may be missing is cell cams have an freaking crazy fast development cycle; that standard systems do not have. Not only that fact(current reality); but (like Canikon) show absolutely zero interest is speeding up. WITH a moving MORE toward specialty usages instead of SOME more comprehensive photography.

No matter what you want top believe; if you concede the current reality; that most will just get a cam phone and instead of the even higher non-nonsensical (inflated more than just more) price of standard systems then you may see it is a pricing failure in a huge manner. The old way is dead.

You are also glossing over the success of processing in previously missing pros only standard camera used to have.

... This is going around the physics and academic design realities.

And not only that; it is increasing a lot more than in standard cameras.

We all know that standard cams can or should be better out of the pocket. But the current reality is those pros are being eaten away at lighting speeds.

When you do in fact realize everything in a system can not be perfect and then start to choose your pros in photographic priority then surprisingly phones ARE winning; even if not quite there yet (accept for the pocket-able system NOW).

What we have here is change aversion and that's basic human nature. But the realities beacon in the technological age. Where ironically less is more. Meaning: Mayor on the majors!

You don’t know what you’re talking about. After 4 years of using the GR and smartphones, I do. If I had to choose between having no camera at all on my phone or giving up the GR, I would give up the camera phone.

An over simplification to fit your misleading narrative and not what I said.

You are talking about the past and I am talking about the future. You are having issue with change.

Which is indeed one factor we should consider more today. Just like when you may drive a new car off the lot. Same car. Huge value tanked. Gone and not a little bit. So now you not only have older benefits you do not even have a basically comprehensive older model. Unless you buy "photographers" camera systems; that are comprehensive (but not to a fault because then they are not.)

You see they can make better TOTAL cameras and they are not. We are digressing overall; even with new things. Generally a good new benefit in baby steps and in a terribly not comprehensive system including the total bad price. Then you are told you can buy the highest priced cameras then; but they are actually WORSE overall. (price, weight etc.).

As I said in the other sub-thread, it is not so much about pixelpeeping and which would win a pixelpeeping contest. This would be likely the GR III.

However, the shooting experience of being resricted to a single ultra-wide angle is so severe, that for such rare occasions, a smartphone is just good enough for the job these days.

The added value of a GR over a smartphone is still there for megapixels etc, but mostly only in the less relevant pixelpeeper domain.

In the more relevant domain related to photographic content and success (angle, inconspicuousness, pocketability, flashlight, some phones even have two lenses offering a choice of two angles), the high-end smartphones win more and more over the GR camera class.

They are not yet better in the pixelpeeper domain, of course, but their overall package of properties trumps a GR by now, or is at least on par (depending on how pixelpeepy vs. photographic-content-orientated you are).

I have compared daylight photos taken with the last iPhone with those taken with the last GR, the GR ii. There is no comparison - the GRii images are light-years ahead of the iPhone images, which fall apart when displayed on anything bigger than a phone. This is for sunny daylight, so low light would be much worse for the iPhone.

My experience too, Olifaunt.

Clearly DPthoughts has never used a GR and probably never will. I don't place any value on his messages.

He seems to pop up quite frequently on Ricoh and Pentax forums here, and always writes in that negative vein. The term, Troll comes to mind.

Still; it's easy to think cell phones will always be disadvantaged. I thought so till now. However; the latest developments says that's ALREADY mistaken. Find them.

I think cell cams will be much more competition; very soon. Shockingly so. All the problems are finding WORKAROUNDS. That is why.

Correct, it is the trend. Back in 2005, 13 years ago, the GR idea filled a niche when it was introduced. In particular, smartphones were bad and no threat at all.

Now, in 2018, that GR niche gets almost crushed by the advanced with smartphone photography. At least it gets smaller and smaller, narrower and narrower.

Other needs for compactness are covered by e.g. the likes of a Sony RX100, which also gets much evolution and ongoing attention from Sony.

And there's Fuji as well, of course.

But smartphones seem to become more of a threat to the GR concept, than GR fanboys may appreciate.

That's not to say smartphones will once cover every photography. You still will always need to have decent interchangeable lens systems.

But the GR concept is a candidate for being doomed. To little added value (against a high end smartphone) by now, for too much money.

"But the GR concept is a candidate for being doomed. To little added value (against a high end smartphone) by now, for too much money"

you mean the concept of having direct CONTROL, awesome LENS and a perfect HANDLING? right, if you don't care about that, cellphone-cameras are virtually identical.

It just sits between the chairs. It is still fiddly, but NOT pocketable.

The term "pocketable" is the biggest lie of the photography industry since it is around. The first and the only camera class, which is pocketable, are smartphones, given their slimness.

Tiny lenses are already "awsome" enough with good smartphones by now.

But say, if the GR would cost $100, I may consider, if any potential added value could balance off its drawbacks against a good smartphone (given, that I already have a smartphone). But I would likely come to the conclusion: no, $100 just doesn't give a net benefit justifying the expense of $100.

But for $1000, this is way over the roof.

@sae1lin2aug3sept4oct5nov5dec7:

If you convince me, why bothering with a BIO or a galery would improve my photography skills, then I'm open to suggestions. It's not that I couldn't be convinced ;)

Geez, easy cowboy.

Nonsense. Persistence is virtue of walking in others' shoes. I happen circumstantial writings to furtherance of opinionated posters. The factual design of absolutism creates imperfect disagreements. But childish hatefulness becomes good as good becomes hateful childishness. I am the problem evil and you are relative.

Gotta love the internet man. :)

You clearly don’t “get” this camera, which is totally fine, but that’s why we have the saying “different strokes for different folks.”

There is an entire subculture of photography that views the GR series with religious fervor: the street photographer. Daido Moriyama famously used a film GR exclusively when they were introduced in the 90’s, and this camera is every bit the spiritual successor. Very low profile and looks like a toy so passers by don’t think anything of it, and has zone focusing. Very much a ‘sleeper.’

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2017/05/01/ricohmafia/

Personally, I still have a GR 1, but I bought it more because of the leaf shutter for off camera flash. Will I upgrade? Maybe.

"does not change the fact that this camera design can never take advantage of longer focal lengths"

You're criticizing something for not being what it's not even intended to be. If you wanted to use longer focal lengths, then you simply wouldn't consider this camera in the first place, not as your only camera, anyway.

Yes @Revenant and I applaud you for serious thinking (and your opinions) that's exactly what I am saying. I'm saying it and no matter to anyone's so called (man made) religious type fervor for this camera (How dare I?). But further; that while it is certainly OK to make a limited camera, it is NOT without problems we are experiencing with the alternatives. Meaning the pros may out weight the cons here!

And it is certainly my opinion; that this camera is not recommended and by not by me. The main reasoning *why* it is not just opinion. It is the unchangeable fact; that this camera is wide only. My question to you all is; how much room and effort do we really all have left over; in order to make overly specialty cameras and in light of LIMITED alternatives(more comprehensive). How is this not dictation(slavery) by the manufactures (overall) and a FAILURE to simply MAKE A BETTER CAMERA! Not just to over pay for this one and for it's pros; as if the cons are unchangeable in its design.

And I am not even saying no camera can be specialty ones. We need SOME. But I'd say after the alternative and not the poorly combined offering we see now.

I other words; enough buyers are not properly asking and asking first for more comprehensive total value camera systems. Join me. Please! If you have any real love for photography at all.

And ALSO. I am not after the strictly PERFECT camera; which we know can not exist. But that is only used as an excuse to parse the market. Control it. Tell you what to buy and fix the prices you have to pay; or go home. In other words weak free market TRICKS. AKA propaganda to start.

Are these comments written by bots?!?

Sure seems like it. The weird thing is that, according to its comment history, this unit went online in January and idled without commenting until now -- and only to spew volumes of garbled syntax out about an update to the GR line. That's a strange thing to get suddenly triggered by.

*facepalm*

“The problem here is people are taught whatever they want is good.“
Or they might call something “flawed in its core “ when they don’t like it?

Do you know how naive and blunt you come across?

I’m in the “rather have a flash” camp. Especially because of the leaf shutter, the tiny flash punches well above its weight. Or get a speedlite and you can overpower full sun at 1/1000.

I keep thinking about getting an X100, and I'm sure I would love it, but once you go pocketable for your compact it is hard to go back...

Agree. I kept the GR in its case mounted on my belt, and it’s totally out of the way until I need it. Not so with the X100.

Many users use the GR's flash, take Terry Richardson for example.
Also, it can be used as a fill flash on many occasions so I really don't understand why they really need to take out, but if this is the price for having IBIS on board...

at least 7 of these gr cameras spanning well over a decade using 1 1/7 sensors and then apsc have had a tiny onboard flash, a delightful if sometimes ignored feature in a leaf shutter camera

the difference in length is 9 mm, less than a 1\4 inch, the difference in thickness & height are 1 mm and 1.5 mm, which are tiny insignificant differences. the weight has been reduced by 6 grams, also an extremely tiny difference.

the only big differences, it seems to me, are the inclusion of ibis,and the loss of a flash.a little bit of good and a little bit of bad.

the excellent Ricoh menu and controls allowed the manual use of flash down to 1\64 power... a fantastic level of control and a benefit for facial shadow control for sunlight portraiture or brightening a shot of a mushroom on the forest floor.despite the reality that most people never really explore most of the capabilities in their cameras menus, or seem to care about flash , the loss of this feature has diminished this camera.

Harold66- Now you are doubting what Ricoh have said themselves. "Then there is no pleasing you"- Goldmember.

Cgarrard. Here you go again try to comment without understanding my comments. I will explain at least for the benefit of others. It is a VERY COMMON practice in the industry ( NOT just the camera industry) to be a little bit ( or a lot) disingenuous about when a product will be discontinued .you can ask a member of dpreview if you do not understand this. Add to that the fact that this sensor on the current GR has been discontinued for a very long time ( check Fuji X70 date of discontinuation). But hey if you choose to not believe this , it is fine by me
H

Noted: Harold66 is right, and Ricoh are wrong.

Got it :) Thanks Harold!

so you already have an RX1.

Quest21 seriously? I use to edit my x100f pics with LR and I didn't notice any issue. do you have more info about it?

Just wonder who told them to get rid of all good stuff...

I hope they will keep the snap focus at least.

I agree and I also do not see the direct button for the ND filter anymore

Harold

@mdt1 Yep, agreed. Though for the record when the first GR was introduced there were complaints over it's increase in size over the GRD. Looks like this cam seeks to redress that somewhat.

@earthrise, yes, i remember those complaints...my first gr was the first aps-c so i had nothing to compare to...i'm still amazed by how small it is, how incredible the button placement is, just shoot and adjust with one hand, amazing...

the new model does look amazingly minimalist...fingers crossed it's better for 'haptics' than all the rest...trying to stay positive, 24mp, new 'better' lens? stabilized, touch screen, and honest, printing at A4, i can even crop quite a bit and 1600iso on my gr2 for color and black and white looks great...

how about a full frame GR43 next?...i mean 43mm lens...okokok, enough stress going on already...

"Sub 1,000 Euro" Good God I would hope so!

For the love of God...

Let’s be realistic: it will have to well under €1,000 or they’ll sell in the hundreds.

I agree the flash is a loss. But we don't know yet what the trade off - the gain - is.

@earthrise please pick up your camera and try to touch the screen with out tumb while hiding it with one hand.

The principles of photography should be easy to apply to any camera, however the 'fanatics' have ruined it for the majority, with their endless requirements for more pointless features. Thank you Ricoh for not listening to them.

fanatics have ruined photography for the majority?
do you realize how disturbed that sounds?

RogerMuss: I understand what you’re saying, in that if you listen to everyone’s idea of what should be included in a camera you get an unworkable hotchpotch of unnecessary complexity (hey, that describes most cameras circa 2018!).

However, the GR is supposed to be for practicing photographers, maybe more than any other camera. Those people want to control the technical process of taking a picture very, very efficiently, because they do it every day. This dictates a minimum complexity.

With the depth of field of a 28mm lens, and the GR being pin sharp at all apertures, you only need the P button for 90% of the photos, and the other 10% shooting on A.

Good bye TAv whatever you were?

At this stage, there's no reason to suppose that one of the user presets can't be made into a TAv option

Zvonimir, I haven't read such pathetic bs for a long time.

Nope!
I had 4 GRs and I like to use some more.
But Ricoh chance from apples to oranges.
I dont change my mind, Ricoh had change the user interface.
Thats the point!
You can buy if you like the new user interface, go for!

Microbi yes but I think your list is incomplete. No more 4;3 ratio option , no more direct button for ND filter . New battery ( and I assume) new charger ..
this is really downgrading the user interface
Harold