Reading mode: Light Dark

Ricoh GR - why isn't it more popular?

Go to last post
Ray, I read/enjoyed a lot of your old posts on various forums about the GR a while back after buying one. Now that you are here it would be great to follow up even though you no longer have the camera.

The color issue was solved long ago but you wrote excellent posts that described issues with white balance and metering. I'm still struggling with these facets. The GR in the right conditions is excellent but goes wonky often times and produces some odd white balance/color. Did you ever come to grips with this or was this a part of why you sold?
 
take photos (and post some of them) and drink beer. Any camera, any brand.

PS Wine is fine too.
 
leaf shutter said:
Ray, I read/enjoyed a lot of your old posts on various forums about the GR a while back after buying one. Now that you are here it would be great to follow up even though you no longer have the camera.
Click to expand...
I never actually bought a GR. I owned a GRD3 for a few years and a GXR-28 for a couple. I had loaners of both the GR and Nikon A for a month after the GR came out - I shot with them both quite extensively before returning the GR and buying the A. I'd had a lot more experience with Ricoh than Nikon at that point so the Nikon was actually more of a learning curve for me than the Ricoh, but because a pocket 28mm camera with a great sensor was seemingly something I'd been waiting all my life for, I put them both through their paces INTENSIVELY. I've probably never spent as much time or energy comparing two cameras before because, in this case, I knew one of them was gonna become one of my primary cameras.
leaf shutter said:
The color issue was solved long ago but you wrote excellent posts that described issues with white balance and metering. I'm still struggling with these facets. The GR in the right conditions is excellent but goes wonky often times and produces some odd white balance/color. Did you ever come to grips with this or was this a part of why you sold?
Click to expand...
The color issue was never a particularly big deal to me, at least once the profiles were worked out, but it was clear they would be. I do prefer the Nikon colors when I compared them head to head, but I'd always been very happy with the GRD and GXR colors and I'd have been fine with the GR colors too if I'd have chosen that and stopped always shooting it back to back with the Nikon. But I do like Nikon's default colors better - I know that can get me accused of liking that "artificial saturation and pop" around here where everyone loves the more muted Ricoh colors, but it's what I like.

The metering was a bit more of an issue but wasn't make or break. Yeah, the Nikon matrix metering is probably as good as any implementation anywhere ever. It's even better in their DSLRs but the Coolpix A is VERY very good as well. The Ricoh had moments that made me wonder what it was doing but I was never sure if that was the metering or the wonky TaV behavior in odd light. I preferred the Nikon in this regard, but the Ricoh didn't cause me to miss many shots because of this.

I mostly just went with the Nikon because I came to like it's more limited interface more. It still allowed for a couple of custom setting banks assigned to the mode dial, which I can set up for my two most common groups of settings. They account for about 90-95% of my shooting. And when I want to do something with more manual settings, I just switch the camera off of the custom setting to A or S or M mode and manually set it how I like. Everything I might want to change occasionally is easily accessible with a touch of a button and it's the same full set of options regardless of whether I'm using a custom setting or not.

With the Ricoh, I actually got tired of the different "banks" of settings on the ADJ rocker switch. Yeah, it's nice that you can assign different combinations with different "mysets", but I just found it sort of confusing that if I changed what I had on one of those banks in one "myset", it wouldn't change in the others until and unless I went in and changed it for each group of settings. That's a high level of customization, but just something I don't need and ultimately came to dislike. I much prefer Nikon's auto-ISO setup (this was a big one for me, but probably not for a lot of people). Also, when I had to decide, I really disliked the way the Ricoh dealt with exposure compensation where you'd adjust the rocker but then you had to always hit the OK button or else the rocker would stay active in that mode. They finally fixed that in firmware several months later (where a half press on the shutter would lock in your adjusted setting) to match earlier Ricoh models, but I really disliked the way it worked at the time.

It really wasn't any one thing (although the auto-ISO differences were big enough to me to move me toward the Nikon) but a lot of little things that added up to me enjoying shooting with the Nikon more and getting better results more easily and consistently. It wasn't that I DIS-liked the GR at all. If Nikon had never come out with the Coolpix A, I'd have happily bought a GR and I'd be shooting with it and singingt it's praises today I'm sure. There are things about the GR I like more than the Nikon (the Ricoh feels sublime in the hand, for example - the Nikon is fine, but not in the same class IMHO). But after spending a lot of time with both, I developed a pretty real preference for the Nikon overall.

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
www.flickr.com

Ray

Explore Ray’s 2,013 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
cmscss said:
This is going to seem like a strange 'waste of space' post as it's simply a love-fest. But after owning many compacts and mirrorless cameras I'm surprised the GR isn't more popular.

It's simply the greatest compact on earth - totally usable 3200 ISO, an amazing lens, fantastic customisation and a great user interface which is made even more amazing by the fact that almost every other camera interface out there is a frustrating mess.

The only thing I'd change would be to replace the accessory mount around the lens with another customisable wheel - but I have no interest in the lens adapters.

Anyway, it's price/performance/size just can't be beaten!
Click to expand...
You need to understand that it is not about the camera body specs. Those are excuses.

The reason is about frame of its lens — of mind, of culture, of photography tradition.

28mm lens which GR has, means nothing particular in the history of world's photography — it is just one small chapter.

But 35mm means everything. It is the beginning and the end of every serious photography book.

Both Ricoh and Pentax have a talent to completely miss the mark when to comes to such obvious things; neither have a current 35mm equivalent lens for a system camera or a 35mm fixed lens digital camera. And, lo, neither are very popular brands, be it compacts or DSLRs.

A coincidence?

--
Madamina, il catalogo è questo; Delle belle che amò il padron mio; un catalogo egli è che ho fatt'io; Osservate, leggete con me.
 
Last edited:
Zvonimir Tosic said:
cmscss said:
This is going to seem like a strange 'waste of space' post as it's simply a love-fest. But after owning many compacts and mirrorless cameras I'm surprised the GR isn't more popular.

It's simply the greatest compact on earth - totally usable 3200 ISO, an amazing lens, fantastic customisation and a great user interface which is made even more amazing by the fact that almost every other camera interface out there is a frustrating mess.

The only thing I'd change would be to replace the accessory mount around the lens with another customisable wheel - but I have no interest in the lens adapters.

Anyway, it's price/performance/size just can't be beaten!
Click to expand...
You need to understand that it is not about the camera body specs. Those are excuses.

The reason is about frame of its lens — of mind, of culture, of photography tradition.

28mm lens which GR has, means nothing particular in the history of world's photography — it is just one small chapter.

But 35mm means everything. It is the beginning and the end of every serious photography book.

Both Ricoh and Pentax have a talent to completely miss the mark when to comes to such obvious things; neither have a current 35mm equivalent lens for a system camera or a 35mm fixed lens digital camera. And, lo, neither are very popular brands, be it compacts or DSLRs.

A coincidence?
Click to expand...
 
Nikon A is the same price as the GR now, about $ 600

Nikon A yields perfect jpegs. Perfect colors. GR reds look pinkish, orange, not red. GR RAWs are OK. GR B/W are better.

Nikon A focuses much faster in low light. Has higher ISO than GR.

Made in Japan. Can take a tiny Nikon hot shoe flash.
 
Thanks Ray! I read some of these thoughts in different places but it's nice to see them consolidated here.
 
I'm intrigued by the idea; it's one of a number of cameras I'd love to own, but can't rationalize spending money on.

Originally, I dismissed it because of the wide FOV. Years ago, I shot with a compact rangefinder with a 40/1.8 and loved it. I figured something more like the 23/2 on the X100s would be to my liking. I gave the GR a little more thought when I looked over my summer photos from my RX100 and found that 60% were shot at the wide end of the zoom (28mm eFL).

$700 is a fair price, but given that it's a compact camera (meaning, not my primary camera) it's not an amount of money I want to spend lightly. And the problem is that while I shot 60% of my photos at the wide end and those include a lot of my favorites, I can't just give up the other 40%. I did a similar analysis a few years ago when I took a NEX-5 with 18-55 to Disney one summer, then the same camera with 18-200 (back to Orlando, different park) the following summer. I found that I shot a lot at the wide end, and I found that I didn't really need the 55-200 (I shot a few things toward the longer end, but could have lived without it). But again, enough through normal & short tele that I'd miss it.

It lacks an EVF. That's not a showstopper in a pocket camera, but something that makes any camera a little less compelling to me.

I keep considering a camera with a larger sensor, like the GR or even another ILC (I don't much care for my old NEX) for the IQ I see when looking at files on my computer. But so far, I haven't bitten, because IQ from the RX100 is really quite good, and the convenience can't be beat. In other words, I think the convenience (compactness & zoom) outweighs the IQ of the GR for enough buyers to make the GR a niche product. Add in other issues like name recognition, retail shelf presence, etc.

The GR would be a lot more compelling if, like the X100s, it featured an f/2 lens. As it is, the zoom on my RX100 is f/1.8, which is "equivalent" (ugh, hopefully this doesn't go too far !) to f/3.2 on APS-C; a bit more than a stop behind. Comparing the sensors on dxomark, the RX100 looks to be roughly 1-stop behind, so the faster lens means the GR isn't compelling as an obviously superior low light camera. It undoubtedly sports a sharper lens, is definitely going to be superior at base ISO and for fine art/very large print purposes and may or may not be a bit better in this regard or that in low light, but it doesn't jump out at me as being better for my purposes. Here's an ISO 6400 shot from the RX100 (this was at the tele end at f/4.9 FWIW).



DSC01777.jpg


And then there's the lack of IS in a camera that people going to be using without a tripod. I took a quick look at EXIF in lightroom and saw that out of all the photos I've taken at the wide (28mm) setting on the RX100, slightly more than 1/8 were at or below 1/30s. Here's one taken at 1/4s handheld (not tack sharp, but the IS system isn't as good as some I've used):



DSC09107.jpg


So this isn't intended to be an "RX100 is better than GR" post by any means - I'm replying to the question "why isn't the GR more popular" by offering a few reasons why I didn't buy it, despite having some interest in it, and how I think cameras (like the RX100) with zooms & IS are going to be a better choice for most people, even if they lack the superior lens & sensor (and famous UI) of the GR.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
I have been using cameras for fifty years, and have owned many of them in that time. The GR, which I bought recently, is a lovely camera with a good sensor, fine lens, and good ergonomics. Certain things in the user interface could be improved, but all in all it's very easy and fun to use.

Why does it not sell more? Smple: it does not have a zoom lens, it does not have interchangeable lenses, and the lens it does have is too wide for "normal use." And so most people would never even consider it.

I like mine a lot, but would not want it to be my only camera. In other words, if I were the kind of photographer who owns one camera--the vast majority--it would not be the GR. I have the luxury of owning several really good cameras, and so the GR was simply a nice addition to that collection.

My other cameras at present are Sigma Merrill DP1, 2, and 3; Canon G1x; Sony NEX-7 with Sigma lenses (all three). Most of the time nowadays, I will carry the GR in my pocket, and either the DP2 or DP3 on a shoulder strap.
 
azoth7 said:
I have been using cameras for fifty years, and have owned many of them in that time. The GR, which I bought recently, is a lovely camera with a good sensor, fine lens, and good ergonomics. Certain things in the user interface could be improved, but all in all it's very easy and fun to use.
Why does it not sell more? Smple: it does not have a zoom lens, it does not have interchangeable lenses, and the lens it does have is too wide for "normal use." And so most people would never even consider it.
Click to expand...
though one of the most used cameras ever Iphone 4 has 28mm(eq.) lens.

azoth7 said:
I like mine a lot, but would not want it to be my only camera. In other words, if I were the kind of photographer who owns one camera--the vast majority--it would not be the GR. I have the luxury of owning several really good cameras, and so the GR was simply a nice addition to that collection.
My other cameras at present are Sigma Merrill DP1, 2, and 3; Canon G1x; Sony NEX-7 with Sigma lenses (all three). Most of the time nowadays, I will carry the GR in my pocket, and either the DP2 or DP3 on a shoulder strap.
Click to expand...
Hehe, we have similar taste, I use ricoh GR and DP2M and just ordered DP3M
 
photo perzon said:
Nikon A is the same price as the GR now, about $ 600
Click to expand...
This is complete rubbish and you've been spouting this same, misleading nonsense for months.

Adorama, Amazon, and B&H all sell the GR for about the same price, $697, $683 and $697. This is NOT about $600. It's about $700.

Adorama, Amazon and B&H sell the Coolpix A for the same price, $1097, $1097 and $1097.

B&H and Adorama sell the Coolpix A for $720 and $729. Amazon doesn't show any that are refurbished, only new and used.

If the Coolpix A is available new (you don't say if it's new or refurbished) it will be from some eBay or internet vendor located in Hong Kong, Kowloon or some other country like that, where you're likely to pay customs fees after it arrives in the USA in addition to whatever the shipping cost comes to. If there's a problem with the camera, you'll have to ship it back to Asia because it's a gray market camera that Nikon won't service even if you're willing to pay for it.

photo perzon said:
Nikon A yields perfect jpegs. Perfect colors. GR reds look pinkish, orange, not red.
Click to expand...
Not pinkish, just a slightly orange color cast to the reds, the same slightly orange color cast as I get from my Nikon and Fuji cameras.
 
Ricoh GR is an expensive compact; its very price segment suggests that it is a compact camera that is unlikely to appeal to the wider public. People want superzoom; the more zoom, the better, and the sensor size does not really matter to them.
 
azoth7 said:
Here is the Nikon--brand new--selling for $600. from Brooklyn, NY, free shipping.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-COOLP...079213?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item35cd25e42d
Click to expand...
It may be a good deal but there are several red flags. First, the web page does show the Coolpix A selling for $599.99, but further down on the same page it says that the price is $809.95.

db0666084d56460fa54c216efbde0613.jpg

.

Second, according to the note at the bottom of this screen capture it says that the Coolpix A is imported "in all English"). So it's not supported by Nikon add another $119.95 for the SquareTrade warranty if you want some protection.

Third, TheCameraBox claims to be a Nikon Authorized Dealer, but the little thumbnail that supposed to show the Nikon logo is blank/missing, and if you download Nikon's "Authorized Nikon Dealers as of 09/11/2014" you won't find The Camera Box anywhere in the list. Not surprising for a Brooklyn dealer that doesn't show a Brooklyn address, just a phone number.
 
rondom said:
Leporello, you have a good point, 28 has been my only focal length thanks to ricoh, but I am still not very comfortable with it. The thing is, the original GRD had two conversion lenses, adding 21 and 40 to the system. That actually turned the 28 into a very useful main lens. Alone, not so sure...and if I really need to pick one lens I would also prefer 35. But let's go for a minute to the other heated thread on this forum: crop mode...it is useful to remember that there were tons of posts here, only few years ago, asking for a 35 mm prime GRD with the 1 1/8 sensor, which was the sensor size at the time. So my guess is many people should be perfectly happy with a 28 equiv apsc cropped to 35.
Click to expand...
Crop is crop. It means an afterthought.

An afterthought means no original intent, no respect for the 35mm, and no deliberate commitment towards it.

Because any image size can be cropped from any original, and any FoV calculated to "fit" the illusion of a real focal length, it really only confirms the statement above — that Ricoh and Pentax both have a penchant for completely missing the mark.

Don't sell me very expensive suit and give me scissors with it. I prefer the original hemming and perfect fit.
 
The crop mode just cuts off the edges equally. Better to avoid crop mode and just shoot at 28. Then later you can decide where and how much to crop.
 
Honestly feel that you and Zvonimir are missing the point of the crop modes. Personally I know exactly what it is and does but it allows me to frame the picture when taking it and hence know whether it's the picture I'm looking for. Of course I could just fire away and crop later but the taking of the picture would be more spray and pray if I was doing that knowing I would be cropping in post processing. I use it regularly and to me it shows Pentax/Ricoh do understand photographers rather than the opposite
 
photo perzon said:
Nikon A is the same price as the GR now, about $ 600

Nikon A yields perfect jpegs. Perfect colors. GR reds look pinkish, orange, not red. GR RAWs are OK. GR B/W are better.
Click to expand...
Certainly I will have to disagree. I really don't like Nikon JPEGS, and the ergonomics/functionality of the Ricoh GR seems better thought out.
photo perzon said:
Nikon A focuses much faster in low light. Has higher ISO than GR.

Made in Japan. Can take a tiny Nikon hot shoe flash.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top