The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 381
Re: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
6

2ndact scene1 wrote:

Telemach, you told GRIII users that their baby was ugly and they are are upset at you!

Personally, I found your review quite interesting and informative. It tells me that Ricoh has limited resources and wasn't able to get the hardware and software on the GRIII to a very high level of performance by the deadline for introduction of the new model. But did they got to 95%? Clearly from the comments, it is good enough for most buyers. But some users will push a camera to it's limits to meet their professional or artistic requirements, and some issues will be revealed. You appear to be an engineer or scientist and you probably are also expressing your professional opinion on the imperfections in the design and execution of this model.

I think every forum benefits from a member who gets into the inner workings of a camera and reports what they find along with their personal opinions. It is unfortunate how many people want to censor contrary opinions.

It has been a while since I owned a GR II and the idea of getting a GRIII has crossed my mind. Reading this debate, I think maybe going back to the GR II makes more sense for me (I like the built in flash, I do use a hood and prefer better battery life). The main uses would be small events (I had the first one in a year yesterday in bright sunshine and 90 degree temperates; a camera with a leaf shutter and a small flash would have been great) plus travel. But reliability is a big concern, especially if the main source is the eBay roulette wheel where it so hard to know what you are getting.

Presenting a counter opinion is very far from "censorship"! I would be the first to praise an honest review, warts and all - but publishing a completely unbalanced review irritates me. We should all speak out against misinformation and hyperbole, and in favour fo facts and rational discussion.

The OP's review is entirely negative! According to the article, the camera has only bad points - everything is a downgrade! This is clearly nonsense.

If you are going to compare the pros and cons of the GR II and GR III, then shouldn't you at least mention what has been improved in the GR III: a significant upgrade in metering and AF; and new generation of sensor; an excellent IBIS system; a slightly improved lens; etc.?

The GR III is not a GR II with a few features and buttons removed, which is how it seems from the article! It is a new camera.

I have no idea about the OP's background but, in my experience, people who say "Oh - the engineers could easily have done X or Y ..." usually have little idea about real engineering. I say that as someone towards the end of a long career in engineering R&D, who has developed equipment operating for example at Kennedy Space Centre and on a significant number of navy ships around the world.

S.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow