Reading mode: Light Dark

XF10, GR III, some tidbits

Go to last post
maltmoose said:
TN Args said:
Raist3d said:
fuki xf10 uses same Fuji a5 cpu/ a lot of the programming it seems and as such several reviews have pointed out that it responds slow to menu changes, focusing

we have to see final reviews of the griii on the focusing but all the grs we have used so far respond to menu and changes fast And from videos the griii keeps this
Click to expand...
The DPR review of the XF10 is generally scathing, IMO. In a way they are saying it is pretty to look at, ugly to use.

Regarding AF they say, "Though the XF10 has a hybrid autofocus system with phase detection, we weren't blown away by autofocus accuracy. Or speed, for that matter." Which just goes to show how much 'AF snobbery' there is around the necessity for PDAF. I have had CDAF cameras that are lightning quick and super-accurate.

It is also a cautionary note about the GRIII's hybrid AF, ie, there is no necessary connection between hybrid AF and superior AF.
Click to expand...
Some have different views of how good the xf10, xa5 etc AF is, some say fine, some say atrocious. Sometimes hard to determine on a forum and review.

I actually think the GR AF is very reliable although pretty bad in low light.

In comparison my xt20 AF is far superior in speed and tracking, low light, however, it is much less reliable, soo many more out of focus shots on the fuji. so is the AF actually better? hmm

In any case if the GRIII af is better than the GR i'll be happy, especially if low light AF is improved. cant be any worse right?

The high iso shots on GRIII look great to me, hopefully comparable with the fujis.

The one think that im very nervous about is the ergo and handling of the GRIII.

The GR is excellent in this area but im not sure how the GRIII can be anything but worse due to lack of dials/buttons and the touch screen are always worse if they replace a physical dial button. Touch screen is fine for navigation and touch AF though.
Click to expand...
This is how: when you make a camera smaller, haptics actually improve when you simplify the controls. Things get too cluttered and cramped. There is a fluid balance in the relationship. Ricoh might have chosen wisely.
maltmoose said:
The price, i think Ricoh got this plain wrong. you can basically buy almost any 24mp camera for the same price or less. with xf10 at half the price.
Click to expand...
I keep saying, the superior lens is worth the price difference alone.
maltmoose said:
Fuji really could put out an xf20 with xt30 af and some better controls and tweaks and 4k etc for the same or less price with little effort if they put some effort in. Thankfully the x100 series likley prevents them from doing that. the xf10 really is half assed attempt and maybe just testing the water..
Click to expand...
It is unhelpful to keep claiming that the GRIII should be priced like the XF10. It is simply a more premium camera, starting with the lens.
 
TN Args said:
maltmoose said:
TN Args said:
Raist3d said:
fuki xf10 uses same Fuji a5 cpu/ a lot of the programming it seems and as such several reviews have pointed out that it responds slow to menu changes, focusing

we have to see final reviews of the griii on the focusing but all the grs we have used so far respond to menu and changes fast And from videos the griii keeps this
Click to expand...
The DPR review of the XF10 is generally scathing, IMO. In a way they are saying it is pretty to look at, ugly to use.

Regarding AF they say, "Though the XF10 has a hybrid autofocus system with phase detection, we weren't blown away by autofocus accuracy. Or speed, for that matter." Which just goes to show how much 'AF snobbery' there is around the necessity for PDAF. I have had CDAF cameras that are lightning quick and super-accurate.

It is also a cautionary note about the GRIII's hybrid AF, ie, there is no necessary connection between hybrid AF and superior AF.
Click to expand...
Some have different views of how good the xf10, xa5 etc AF is, some say fine, some say atrocious. Sometimes hard to determine on a forum and review.

I actually think the GR AF is very reliable although pretty bad in low light.

In comparison my xt20 AF is far superior in speed and tracking, low light, however, it is much less reliable, soo many more out of focus shots on the fuji. so is the AF actually better? hmm

In any case if the GRIII af is better than the GR i'll be happy, especially if low light AF is improved. cant be any worse right?

The high iso shots on GRIII look great to me, hopefully comparable with the fujis.

The one think that im very nervous about is the ergo and handling of the GRIII.

The GR is excellent in this area but im not sure how the GRIII can be anything but worse due to lack of dials/buttons and the touch screen are always worse if they replace a physical dial button. Touch screen is fine for navigation and touch AF though.
Click to expand...
This is how: when you make a camera smaller, haptics actually improve when you simplify the controls. Things get too cluttered and cramped. There is a fluid balance in the relationship. Ricoh might have chosen wisely.
TN Args said:
The price, i think Ricoh got this plain wrong. you can basically buy almost any 24mp camera for the same price or less. with xf10 at half the price.
Click to expand...
I keep saying, the superior lens is worth the price difference alone.
TN Args said:
Fuji really could put out an xf20 with xt30 af and some better controls and tweaks and 4k etc for the same or less price with little effort if they put some effort in. Thankfully the x100 series likley prevents them from doing that. the xf10 really is half assed attempt and maybe just testing the water..
Click to expand...
It is unhelpful to keep claiming that the GRIII should be priced like the XF10. It is simply a more premium camera, starting with the lens.
Click to expand...
Thats not what im saying at all. I dont think the GRIII should be priced at xf10 level, but i sure dont think it should be the price its going to be released at either. end of the day its a point and shoot.

I dont mind buying expensive cameras or lenses but they have to be worth it, If the lens is as good as the GR i'll be very happy indeed but a lens alone doesnt make a good camera.
 
TN Args said:
Raist3d said:
fuki xf10 uses same Fuji a5 cpu/ a lot of the programming it seems and as such several reviews have pointed out that it responds slow to menu changes, focusing

we have to see final reviews of the griii on the focusing but all the grs we have used so far respond to menu and changes fast And from videos the griii keeps this
Click to expand...
The DPR review of the XF10 is generally scathing, IMO. In a way they are saying it is pretty to look at, ugly to use.
Click to expand...
Pretty much though they also say it can take a good pic. It's the lag/ AF the issue. Certainly vs a GR a big issue.
TN Args said:
Regarding AF they say, "Though the XF10 has a hybrid autofocus system with phase detection, we weren't blown away by autofocus accuracy. Or speed, for that matter." Which just goes to show how much 'AF snobbery' there is around the necessity for PDAF. I have had CDAF cameras that are lightning quick and super-accurate.

It is also a cautionary note about the GRIII's hybrid AF, ie, there is no necessary connection between hybrid AF and superior AF.
Click to expand...
Early reports seem to indicate the GR III AF is not so far, though it was also preliminary firmware.
 
maltmoose said:
TN Args said:
Raist3d said:
fuki xf10 uses same Fuji a5 cpu/ a lot of the programming it seems and as such several reviews have pointed out that it responds slow to menu changes, focusing

we have to see final reviews of the griii on the focusing but all the grs we have used so far respond to menu and changes fast And from videos the griii keeps this
Click to expand...
The DPR review of the XF10 is generally scathing, IMO. In a way they are saying it is pretty to look at, ugly to use.

Regarding AF they say, "Though the XF10 has a hybrid autofocus system with phase detection, we weren't blown away by autofocus accuracy. Or speed, for that matter." Which just goes to show how much 'AF snobbery' there is around the necessity for PDAF. I have had CDAF cameras that are lightning quick and super-accurate.

It is also a cautionary note about the GRIII's hybrid AF, ie, there is no necessary connection between hybrid AF and superior AF.
Click to expand...
Some have different views of how good the xf10, xa5 etc AF is, some say fine, some say atrocious. Sometimes hard to determine on a forum and review.
Click to expand...
I actually haven’t read a single review that says the XF10 if fine. I’m not following the other cameras so cannot comment on them.
maltmoose said:
I actually think the GR AF is very reliable although pretty bad in low light.

In comparison my xt20 AF is far superior in speed and tracking, low light, however, it is much less reliable, soo many more out of focus shots on the fuji. so is the AF actually better? hmm

In any case if the GRIII af is better than the GR i'll be happy, especially if low light AF is improved. cant be any worse right?

The high iso shots on GRIII look great to me, hopefully comparable with the fujis.

The one think that im very nervous about is the ergo and handling of the GRIII.

The GR is excellent in this area but im not sure how the GRIII can be anything but worse due to lack of dials/buttons and the touch screen are always worse if they replace a physical dial button. Touch screen is fine for navigation and touch AF though.

The price, i think Ricoh got this plain wrong. you can basically buy almost any 24mp camera for the same price or less. with xf10 at half the price.

Fuji really could put out an xf20 with xt30 af and some better controls and tweaks and 4k etc for the same or less price with little effort if they put some effort in. Thankfully the x100 series likley prevents them from doing that. the xf10 really is half assed attempt and maybe just testing the water..
Click to expand...
 
TN Args said:
Andrew Mitchell said:
The GR3 has a new hybrid autofocus system. Unfortunately, all the previews I have read say that it’s nothing to write home about: slow, and often can’t find focus at all.

I find this very worrying; why would Ricoh put an (expensive) camera on the market that didn’t have the latest and best autofocus?
Click to expand...
Yes I have seen that. My approach to any new camera with a completely new AF system is to wait for reviews of production shipping-version models. And maybe wait for the first firmware update.

Patience is the thing.
Click to expand...
A second reply to your post, now that the XF10 review is up.

Surely - if a firmware update can fix a broken AF system - Fuji would have done it by now, especially as this feature of the camera is being hammered by every reviewer, written or on YouTube. But, they haven’t and it’s been out a good long while (because they can’t?)

I sooo hope that the GR3s that everyone is previewing at the the moment are pre-production models, and better is to come. What a fantastic opportunity for Ricoh, if they decide to take it. Having the camera work fast work fast in snap focus modes, but be iffy in other modes just won’t cut the mustard.

Fingers still crossed!
 
maltmoose said:
TN Args said:
maltmoose said:
TN Args said:
Raist3d said:
fuki xf10 uses same Fuji a5 cpu/ a lot of the programming it seems and as such several reviews have pointed out that it responds slow to menu changes, focusing

we have to see final reviews of the griii on the focusing but all the grs we have used so far respond to menu and changes fast And from videos the griii keeps this
Click to expand...
The DPR review of the XF10 is generally scathing, IMO. In a way they are saying it is pretty to look at, ugly to use.

Regarding AF they say, "Though the XF10 has a hybrid autofocus system with phase detection, we weren't blown away by autofocus accuracy. Or speed, for that matter." Which just goes to show how much 'AF snobbery' there is around the necessity for PDAF. I have had CDAF cameras that are lightning quick and super-accurate.

It is also a cautionary note about the GRIII's hybrid AF, ie, there is no necessary connection between hybrid AF and superior AF.
Click to expand...
Some have different views of how good the xf10, xa5 etc AF is, some say fine, some say atrocious. Sometimes hard to determine on a forum and review.

I actually think the GR AF is very reliable although pretty bad in low light.

In comparison my xt20 AF is far superior in speed and tracking, low light, however, it is much less reliable, soo many more out of focus shots on the fuji. so is the AF actually better? hmm

In any case if the GRIII af is better than the GR i'll be happy, especially if low light AF is improved. cant be any worse right?

The high iso shots on GRIII look great to me, hopefully comparable with the fujis.

The one think that im very nervous about is the ergo and handling of the GRIII.

The GR is excellent in this area but im not sure how the GRIII can be anything but worse due to lack of dials/buttons and the touch screen are always worse if they replace a physical dial button. Touch screen is fine for navigation and touch AF though.
Click to expand...
This is how: when you make a camera smaller, haptics actually improve when you simplify the controls. Things get too cluttered and cramped. There is a fluid balance in the relationship. Ricoh might have chosen wisely.
maltmoose said:
The price, i think Ricoh got this plain wrong. you can basically buy almost any 24mp camera for the same price or less. with xf10 at half the price.
Click to expand...
I keep saying, the superior lens is worth the price difference alone.
maltmoose said:
Fuji really could put out an xf20 with xt30 af and some better controls and tweaks and 4k etc for the same or less price with little effort if they put some effort in. Thankfully the x100 series likley prevents them from doing that. the xf10 really is half assed attempt and maybe just testing the water..
Click to expand...
It is unhelpful to keep claiming that the GRIII should be priced like the XF10. It is simply a more premium camera, starting with the lens.
Click to expand...
Thats not what im saying at all. I dont think the GRIII should be priced at xf10 level, but i sure dont think it should be the price its going to be released at either. end of the day its a point and shoot.

I dont mind buying expensive cameras or lenses but they have to be worth it, If the lens is as good as the GR i'll be very happy indeed but a lens alone doesnt make a good camera.
Click to expand...
Go back and look at previous release prices of GRs. They fall quickly and many retailers sell below Richos recommendation. Someone found that the equivalent price of a new GR2 today would cost $850 or so, and look where it is today $500-600.
I would gladly give $700-800 for a GR2 today if I didn't already have it. And 800 will not be an issue when I need to upgrade to GRIII. At that time it might sell at $700-750.

About Fuji putting out a better xf10. Obviously they can't (or won't), they are yet to understand what it is that make the GR special.
That said, I don't think xf10 was meant to be a GR killer, to me it simply looks like they wanted to put out a camera for instagram uploads, which it probably do well.
 
Andrew Mitchell said:
TN Args said:
Andrew Mitchell said:
The GR3 has a new hybrid autofocus system. Unfortunately, all the previews I have read say that it’s nothing to write home about: slow, and often can’t find focus at all.

I find this very worrying; why would Ricoh put an (expensive) camera on the market that didn’t have the latest and best autofocus?
Click to expand...
Yes I have seen that. My approach to any new camera with a completely new AF system is to wait for reviews of production shipping-version models. And maybe wait for the first firmware update.

Patience is the thing.
Click to expand...
Surely - if a firmware update can fix a broken AF system - Fuji would have done it by now, especially as this feature of the camera is being hammered by every reviewer, written or on YouTube. But, they haven’t and it’s been out a good long while (because they can’t?)
Click to expand...
Don't care about Fuji.
Andrew Mitchell said:
I sooo hope that the GR3s that everyone is previewing at the the moment are pre-production models, and better is to come. What a fantastic opportunity for Ricoh, if they decide to take it. Having the camera work fast work fast in snap focus modes, but be iffy in other modes just won’t cut the mustard.
Click to expand...
Firmware updates can potentially upgrade AF. Example: Panasonic GH5 has had two firmware updates that improve AF responsiveness or performance -- not just add new features like Nikon who are in the process of adding Eye AF to their Z cameras via firmware.

Back to the GR III: 'I had a quick play or photo walk' type reports can be very misleading. Nobody masters the camera doing that, so these reports can do a disservice in the rush to get a 'me first click me me' type report published.

For example: I would not be surprised if the 'quick play' testers set the camera to pinpoint area AF. It is not at all unusual for a non-DSLR camera to AF significantly slower on pinpoint area than on any other AF area, and to be best/fastest when set to the next-larger AF area. I would not demand of the GR III to deliver its fastest AF when set to pinpoint.

So it is entirely plausible that this has happened, and they note "oh the AF was a bit hesitant sometimes" without any real mastery of the camera. It's too early.

Ricoh have definitely said, on the GR III website, the AF will be quick and responsive. To quote, "The common issue of searching for focus peaks in contrast-detection AF has been significantly reduced on this model. The hybrid system delivers faster autofocus and greater precision." Fingers crossed.
 
Last edited:
The GR III jpegs look greatly improved over the GR II, but will the XF10 still be better for SOOC?
 
Ken Prager said:
The GR III jpegs look greatly improved over the GR II, but will the XF10 still be better for SOOC?
Click to expand...
Personally I've found the GR original version jpegs to be quite good, vivid and b+w are my faves, the new GR III will have quite a few styles to choose from. They aren't finished as of yet but will come with a comming firmware update.
 
Ken Prager said:
The GR III jpegs look greatly improved over the GR II, but will the XF10 still be better for SOOC?
Click to expand...
It never was better, just different.
The question can not be fully answered here. What is your preferences?

Every user has different preferences. I like the GR SOOC, the fact that is is so easy to tweak and personalize beats the film output.

Sure Fujis colors has its strengths, but I prefer good files to work with. My main objection against it is, that I want to make pictures that differ from the crowd (not better, just different) and that makes my vote go to neutral colors that can be molded.

My main issue with the Ricoh is colors near saturation point, these highlights are tricky and should be controlled at shooting time (another reason to watch out for clickbait reviews). Otherwise they are perfect for me.
No filters SOOC (maybe add a little "vivid") for documentation. For anything else I find it interesting to play with the filters or going crazy with darktable.

I look forward to GRIII fiters, there should be fewer, but with more control.
Now let those reviews and samples begin, PLEASE :-D
 
Last edited:
That's, true, but I had trouble with them sticking on a Sony RX100. I know I'm in the minority, but I prefer a snap on lenscap...
 
I have Olympus E-M1.2 (usually paired with 12-100/4 PRO) and Fuji X-T3 (with Fujicron primes), but I’ve been looking for smaller camera to everyday carry. For that job I had Sony RX100.3 but I sold it, never liked it and UI was beyond horrible. Then I went with Fuji X100F, loved it but sold it too, as it was too big for the purpose. Now I’m going either Fuji XF10 or Ricoh GR III, and I think it will be Ricoh.

Something I should know about GR III, compared to my other cameras? I’m looking for truly pocketable camera with awesome IQ and easy UI, so I can take it with me everywhere at times I don’t want to take my bigger camera(s) along. I think Ricoh GR III will do just that.
 
I have a Canon G1X III and it’s a great compact camera, but it’s big enough that it mostly stays home. I’m also looking at the Fuji XF10 and Ricoh GR III for carry everywhere. The 24 megapixel sensor of should provide enough flexibility if cropping.
 
Last edited:
Raist3d said:
- Richard Butler in the news thread for the GRIII commented to someone that their XF10 review will highlight why they aren't super thrilled with it in terms of it being at $500 being "such a good deal" vs the GRIII, and how the first GR did come out at like $864 in today's money.

It sure seems you get what you pay for.

----------------
Click to expand...
I don't get all the complaint about the price. Compared to sony 35/2.8 you get sharper corners, ibis and a free camera :)
 
Smallpox said:
Ken Prager said:
The GR III jpegs look greatly improved over the GR II, but will the XF10 still be better for SOOC?
Click to expand...
Probably, as Fuji is jpeg and low light master.
Click to expand...
Not so fast, though: ina 2016 blind test of SOOC JPEGs of 8 brands (Ricoh missing), Fuji did no better than average. The 'JPEG master' from that test was Nikon.

Fuji SOOC JPEGs more of a legend than in reality.

(Cue attacks on the test, but I'm satisfied it's a lot better as a guide than any sighted evaluation)
 
Last edited:
TN Args said:
Smallpox said:
Ken Prager said:
The GR III jpegs look greatly improved over the GR II, but will the XF10 still be better for SOOC?
Click to expand...
Probably, as Fuji is jpeg and low light master.
Click to expand...
Not so fast, though: ina 2016 blind test of SOOC JPEGs of 8 brands (Ricoh missing), Fuji did no better than average. The 'JPEG master' from that test was Nikon.

Fuji SOOC JPEGs more of a legend than in reality.

(Cue attacks on the test, but I'm satisfied it's a lot better as a guide than any sighted evaluation)
Click to expand...
Nikon better than Fuji would surprise me big time... although I don't understand why Fuji has some magic stardust formula... Look at the DPR studio scene @ 12800 iso and which APS brand stands out?
 
siberstorm27 said:
The xf10 has trash autofocus even in good light. I had it six months ago and returned it . They supposedly updated the firmware but this recent review with the newest firmware also says the autofocus is trash. Like worse than my 15yr old Canon budget point and shoot. The XA-5 was just as bad and used the same underlying system.


Here's a Chinese review making fun of the autofocus and also turning the 4k 15fps into a nice dramatic shot. No language skills needed.

Click to expand...
No idea what you were trying to shoot but I've found completely the opposite. The XF10 is an absolutely brilliant camera and the AF is totally fine, particularly after the latest firmware update. I've compared the images to my XT3 and in many cases they're better. I've compared shots between the Leica Q2 Monochrom and XF10 treated with a Leica Tri-X plugin to LR and in no way is it put to shame. Bear in mind the price differential we're talking about here: I bought the XF10 second hand for £200 and the Leica is around £5000. Sure the Leica will do better in low light but not 25 times better. So, for carrying around in your pocket, the XF10 is brilliant and absolutely fantastic value. I could of course buy a Sony RX1RIIRx1XXRIiI super fast AF camera but I'd be buying a Sony with their shyte controls and menus. People need to work out what they want a camera for and buy accordingly. And just for a reality check here; nearly every camera produced today has a capability that is on a much higher plane than the people who are operating it.
 
Andrew Mitchell said:
I find this very worrying; why would Ricoh put an (expensive) camera on the market that didn’t have the latest and best autofocus?
Click to expand...
because they are almost always behind with latest technology, I can live with not latest but it is SAD they still can't manage to make continuous with AF (even with new cpu), so you and your subject better be still or use greater DOF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
GR IV Missing in Japan!
2
Replies
33
Views
171
Tom Caldwell
T
L
GR Pricing?
Replies
3
Views
96
Jaime100
J
E
Ricoh GR: Legacy vs. innovation
Replies
5
Views
6
Tungsten Nordstein
Tungsten Nordstein
P
Ricoh GR vs Fuji with Cookie lens?
Replies
2
Views
36
BG_DPREVIEW
B
Joachim Gerstl
Ricoh GRIII vs GR
2
Replies
21
Views
49
SMCTakumar
SMCTakumar

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
p
Previous
n
Next
w
Next unread
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