The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Started 7 months ago | Discussions
James Bligh Senior Member • Posts: 2,382
Re: I think his list of criticism about GR3 is fairly pertinent.

telemach wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

thanks for your input,

why do you give #16 Smaller grip: I ?

even Chris Niccolls often talks about this detail in his reviews

#13 Wasted space on mode dial: I

so you think it is not a waste but the right move from Ricoh ? there shouldn't be anything for user at this dial position ?

You may recognize that GR3 divided GR enthusiasts into two groups who embrace it and who reject it. Among the latter group there are people who intensely dislike it and the important point is that they have been avid GR users. I feel that something is not right with GR3 despite many people accept it. I think there are many flaws in GR3 and it has resulted from the designing stage. My conjecture, a Pentax-Ricoh fiasco? For better or worse the selection and workmanship of material is not top notched either. (I do not have to give an example as you may understand.) As a result GR3 users may have to live with whatever flaws it entails. It is a pity.

-- hide signature --

You really want you a pound of flesh, don't you?
-- Mallory to Miller in the movie 'The Guns of Navarone'

(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 266
Re: I think his list of criticism about GR3 is fairly pertinent.
3

James Bligh wrote:

telemach wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

thanks for your input,

why do you give #16 Smaller grip: I ?

even Chris Niccolls often talks about this detail in his reviews

#13 Wasted space on mode dial: I

so you think it is not a waste but the right move from Ricoh ? there shouldn't be anything for user at this dial position ?

You may recognize that GR3 divided GR enthusiasts into two groups who embrace it and who reject it. Among the latter group there are people who intensely dislike it and the important point is that they have been avid GR users. I feel that something is not right with GR3 despite many people accept it. I think there are many flaws in GR3 and it has resulted from the designing stage. My conjecture, a Pentax-Ricoh fiasco? For better or worse the selection and workmanship of material is not top notched either. (I do not have to give an example as you may understand.) As a result GR3 users may have to live with whatever flaws it entails. It is a pity.

More pathetic trolling.

You don't even have the GR3.

Why the hate?

Or do you just like trolling and eating everybody's time?

-- hide signature --

jfa3000
www.fredfoto.net

Tungsten Nordstein
Tungsten Nordstein Senior Member • Posts: 2,798
Re: Don't feed the troll
5

Telemach. The whole thread is a trolling minefield started by none other than yourself. It's like the recent Harold 66 fiasco never happened. We should all know better than this by now.

-- hide signature --
 Tungsten Nordstein's gear list:Tungsten Nordstein's gear list
Ricoh Caplio GX100 Ricoh GR Digital Ricoh GR Digital IV Sigma dp2 Quattro Ricoh GR II +8 more
James Bligh Senior Member • Posts: 2,382
Re: I think his list of criticism about GR3 is fairly pertinent.

jfa3000 wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

telemach wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

thanks for your input,

why do you give #16 Smaller grip: I ?

even Chris Niccolls often talks about this detail in his reviews

#13 Wasted space on mode dial: I

so you think it is not a waste but the right move from Ricoh ? there shouldn't be anything for user at this dial position ?

You may recognize that GR3 divided GR enthusiasts into two groups who embrace it and who reject it. Among the latter group there are people who intensely dislike it and the important point is that they have been avid GR users. I feel that something is not right with GR3 despite many people accept it. I think there are many flaws in GR3 and it has resulted from the designing stage. My conjecture, a Pentax-Ricoh fiasco? For better or worse the selection and workmanship of material is not top notched either. (I do not have to give an example as you may understand.) As a result GR3 users may have to live with whatever flaws it entails. It is a pity.

More pathetic trolling.

You don't even have the GR3.

Why the hate?

Or do you just like trolling and eating everybody's time?

A pity you may say it a blessing. Enjoy your blessing in disguise.

-- hide signature --

You really want you a pound of flesh, don't you?
-- Mallory to Miller in the movie 'The Guns of Navarone'

(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 266
Re: Don't feed the troll
2

Tungsten Nordstein wrote:

Telemach. The whole thread is a trolling minefield started by none other than yourself. It's like the recent Harold 66 fiasco never happened. We should all know better than this by now.

There must be a way to stop the constant spiralling into the vortex of trolling that some OPs insist on inflicting on this forum.

Since Harold's self imposed exile, and up until now, it's been a respectful and dignified place.

It's a shame some fools enjoy defending ridiculous positions and wilfully misguiding future buyers or users of the GR3 with exaggerated tales of what a bad camera it is.

If you don't call out the trollers, people get a wrongly biased slant on what a great camera it is.

-- hide signature --

jfa3000
www.fredfoto.net

2ndact scene1 Contributing Member • Posts: 554
Re: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

telemach wrote:

All the good and wonderful was written and presented about this camera so I wanted to share my personal opinion about the bad and ugly of GRIII and what it is missing or lacking. Don't get me wrong, I like this camera and it is my main one which gives me results so I am not against it but simply disappointed about development of this product.

https://michal.walasz.net/ricoh-gr-iii-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

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.

 2ndact scene1's gear list:2ndact scene1's gear list
Ricoh GR Olympus TG-6 Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS Rebel T7 Canon EOS RP +10 more
OP telemach Contributing Member • Posts: 686
Re: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

2ndact scene1 wrote:

Personally, I found your review quite interesting and informative. It tells me that Ricoh has limited resources

thank you, I appreciate that you can put emotions aside and read simple facts about the camera

95%? Clearly from the comments, it is good enough for most buyers.

it's not exactly like that, this camera is for Japan market and their customers so others have to accept what's on the table and fanboys will always say that cons are irrelevant because they are happy; Ricoh is opening to Europe and USA and making more content so I presume for next model they might listen more the voices from the rest of the globe

But some users will push a camera to it's limits to meet their professional or artistic requirements, and some issues will be revealed.

exactly but it is beyond imagination for some

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 should be good for manufacturer also because it's quality control work done for free;

I agree that knowing some facts upon dropping a dime is beneficial

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).

of course but you trade new sensor with more megapixels, IBIS, AF and other goodies

however there are more people who preffer GRII over GRIII and it should send a signal to Ricoh that not everything went as planned

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.

you can put a request here

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1056?filter=buy&view=list

OP telemach Contributing Member • Posts: 686
Re: Don't feed the troll
1

Tungsten Nordstein wrote:

Telemach. The whole thread is a trolling minefield started by none other than yourself.

I started thread and Fred started trolling so don't reply to his posts and you will be safe

I am waiting for details from you regarding that fixed lens ring. Can you give a source or make a short video ?

Tungsten Nordstein
Tungsten Nordstein Senior Member • Posts: 2,798
Re: Don't feed the troll
6

jfa3000 wrote:

If you don't call out the trollers, people get a wrongly biased slant on what a great camera it is.

People should be able to air their views. I see no point in going down the trolling or troll-calling route when views can be simply and above all politely challenged or questioned.

Easy for a troll-caller to become a troll in the process.

-- hide signature --
 Tungsten Nordstein's gear list:Tungsten Nordstein's gear list
Ricoh Caplio GX100 Ricoh GR Digital Ricoh GR Digital IV Sigma dp2 Quattro Ricoh GR II +8 more
(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 266
Re: Don't feed the troll

telemach wrote:

Tungsten Nordstein wrote:

Telemach. The whole thread is a trolling minefield started by none other than yourself.

I started thread and Fred started trolling so don't reply to his posts and you will be safe

I am waiting for details from you regarding that fixed lens ring. Can you give a source or make a short video ?

You're so cruel...

It takes one to know one, or in this case, it doesn't.

BTW, what are you afraid of? Me? Sad.

Buy a camera you know how to use and stop exaggerating nonsense to make yourself feel like a big man.

-- hide signature --

jfa3000
www.fredfoto.net

(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.

Andrewteee Veteran Member • Posts: 3,076
Re: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
2

2ndact scene1 wrote:

telemach wrote:

All the good and wonderful was written and presented about this camera so I wanted to share my personal opinion about the bad and ugly of GRIII and what it is missing or lacking. Don't get me wrong, I like this camera and it is my main one which gives me results so I am not against it but simply disappointed about development of this product.

https://michal.walasz.net/ricoh-gr-iii-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

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.

Isn't this what most came manufacturers would hope for? If you can't please everyone all the time, then pleasing most of them is pretty good, right?

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.

Most artists and professionals would just find the right tool for their work and get down to work. Why expend energy on such a negative review when you can funnel that time toward your creative outlet or your work.

There are a whole lot of options in cameras and lenses - best to rent several before investing and see what might work best for you and your projects. Sometimes it takes time to find those right tools, trial and error. But it does not mean that the photography equipment was faulty, just that it was not a good match for the needs.

And let's be honest - no camera is perfect. They all involve tradeoffs. The GR3 is small and there are going to be tradeoffs to accommodate that requirement.

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.

I'm with others that if so many people finding at least something to like about the GR3, an entirely negative review is an outlier, an exception. I mean, there's absolutely nothing to like??? Yes, he says others have covered the positives, but his blog post would have had more value if he presented his own balanced POV.

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.

Buying used is often fine, but it's also a risk. That's true. Have you looked at what's available on Fredmiranda.com? It tends to be pretty reliable.

I've had each GR since the GRD2 and none have failed me. It's hard to argue against that kind of record. But I'm also a sample of one, true.

I would advise you rent from Lensrentals.com but they don't carry the Ricoh.

While the OP has some interesting work and seems to have used the GR3 for a long time, there's not a single image in the "review." How can you review a camera and not talk about the IQ and show images that convey your findings? At the end of the day, it's the pictures that matter - the output. And there's no comparisons with other cameras he shoots with.

It all just comes across as being grumpy about it, just looking for the negatives. I'm sorry he had a bad experience, I'm just not sure why he had to tell the world about it without at least either including photographs or touching on anything at all that he may have liked about the GR3.

 Andrewteee's gear list:Andrewteee's gear list
Ricoh GR III Ricoh GR IIIx Canon EOS R5 Sigma fp L Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM +5 more
2ndact scene1 Contributing Member • Posts: 554
Re: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Andrewteee wrote:

2ndact scene1 wrote:

telemach wrote:

All the good and wonderful was written and presented about this camera so I wanted to share my personal opinion about the bad and ugly of GRIII and what it is missing or lacking. Don't get me wrong, I like this camera and it is my main one which gives me results so I am not against it but simply disappointed about development of this product.

https://michal.walasz.net/ricoh-gr-iii-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

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.

Isn't this what most came manufacturers would hope for? If you can't please everyone all the time, then pleasing most of them is pretty good, right?

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.

Most artists and professionals would just find the right tool for their work and get down to work. Why expend energy on such a negative review when you can funnel that time toward your creative outlet or your work.

There are a whole lot of options in cameras and lenses - best to rent several before investing and see what might work best for you and your projects. Sometimes it takes time to find those right tools, trial and error. But it does not mean that the photography equipment was faulty, just that it was not a good match for the needs.

And let's be honest - no camera is perfect. They all involve tradeoffs. The GR3 is small and there are going to be tradeoffs to accommodate that requirement.

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.

I'm with others that if so many people finding at least something to like about the GR3, an entirely negative review is an outlier, an exception. I mean, there's absolutely nothing to like??? Yes, he says others have covered the positives, but his blog post would have had more value if he presented his own balanced POV.

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.

Buying used is often fine, but it's also a risk.

The dust issue is the main problem that concerns me plus I have the impression that Ricoh service is not topnotch.

That's true. Have you looked at what's available on Fredmiranda.com? It tends to be pretty reliable.

I don't look at Fredmiranda very often. I will check it out.

I've had each GR since the GRD2 and none have failed me. It's hard to argue against that kind of record. But I'm also a sample of one, true.

I would advise you rent from Lensrentals.com but they don't carry the Ricoh.

I do use Lensrentals  and I assumed they would have it but I just checked, no Ricoh or Pentax.

While the OP has some interesting work and seems to have used the GR3 for a long time, there's not a single image in the "review." How can you review a camera and not talk about the IQ and show images that convey your findings? At the end of the day, it's the pictures that matter - the output. And there's no comparisons with other cameras he shoots with.

It all just comes across as being grumpy about it, just looking for the negatives. I'm sorry he had a bad experience, I'm just not sure why he had to tell the world about it without at least either including photographs or touching on anything at all that he may have liked about the GR3.

As mentioned, I think he assumed all the good parts are well known.

 2ndact scene1's gear list:2ndact scene1's gear list
Ricoh GR Olympus TG-6 Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS Rebel T7 Canon EOS RP +10 more
OP telemach Contributing Member • Posts: 686
Re: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
2

Andrewteee wrote:

Isn't this what most came manufacturers would hope for? If you can't please everyone all the time, then pleasing most of them is pretty good, right?

Most manufacturers are improving and Ricoh is changing that is why some prefer GRII over GRIII.

Most artists and professionals would just find the right tool for their work and get down to work.

and what if that is the right tool ???

Why expend energy on such a negative review when you can funnel that time toward your creative outlet or your work

who told you it is a review and most importantly a negative one;

presenting cons are objective; for you overheating might be a great feature and for me it is something that makes me angry but don't focus on me but read facts and judge by yourself

I'm with others that if so many people finding at least something to like about the GR3, an entirely negative review

who told you it is a review ????

others have covered the positives, but his blog post would have had more value if he presented his own balanced POV.

if only I did a typical review instead of a compilation of cons

While the OP has some interesting work and seems to have used the GR3 for a long time, there's not a single image in the "review."

if only that was a review and the intention was to give image examples but it is not

I wrote that I am actively using GR3 for last 2 years and have all the documentation to prove it

How can you review a camera and not talk about the IQ and show images that convey your findings?

if only I did a typical review instead of a compilation of cons

At the end of the day, it's the pictures that matter - the output. And there's no comparisons with other cameras he shoots with.

and there will be no comparison because GR is my main camera and I don't use both at the same sime; I do have CX for different kind of shots

It all just comes across as being grumpy about it, just looking for the negatives.

that's the whole point of my post, grab and post all the negatives that I can think of so will serve a purpose

I'm sorry he had a bad experience, I'm just not sure why he had to tell the world about it without at least either including photographs or touching on anything at all that he may have liked about the GR3.

because it was not intended

(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 266
Re: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
3

telemach wrote:

Andrewteee wrote:

Isn't this what most came manufacturers would hope for? If you can't please everyone all the time, then pleasing most of them is pretty good, right?

Most manufacturers are improving and Ricoh is changing that is why some prefer GRII over GRIII.

Most artists and professionals would just find the right tool for their work and get down to work.

and what if that is the right tool ???

Why expend energy on such a negative review when you can funnel that time toward your creative outlet or your work

who told you it is a review and most importantly a negative one;

presenting cons are objective; for you overheating might be a great feature and for me it is something that makes me angry but don't focus on me but read facts and judge by yourself

I'm with others that if so many people finding at least something to like about the GR3, an entirely negative review

who told you it is a review ????

others have covered the positives, but his blog post would have had more value if he presented his own balanced POV.

if only I did a typical review instead of a compilation of cons

While the OP has some interesting work and seems to have used the GR3 for a long time, there's not a single image in the "review."

if only that was a review and the intention was to give image examples but it is not

I wrote that I am actively using GR3 for last 2 years and have all the documentation to prove it

How can you review a camera and not talk about the IQ and show images that convey your findings?

if only I did a typical review instead of a compilation of cons

At the end of the day, it's the pictures that matter - the output. And there's no comparisons with other cameras he shoots with.

and there will be no comparison because GR is my main camera and I don't use both at the same sime; I do have CX for different kind of shots

It all just comes across as being grumpy about it, just looking for the negatives.

that's the whole point of my post, grab and post all the negatives that I can think of so will serve a purpose

I'm sorry he had a bad experience, I'm just not sure why he had to tell the world about it without at least either including photographs or touching on anything at all that he may have liked about the GR3.

because it was not intended

This is the very definition of trolling.

Well done!

-- hide signature --

jfa3000
www.fredfoto.net

Andrewteee Veteran Member • Posts: 3,076
Re: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
3

Your points could be valid, but without the balance of things you also like about the camera - from your POV, not others - your message gets lost because it's so one sided. You say yourself you like the camera and it gives you the results you want. What is it you like about the GR3 and what about it gives you those results? We'd love to hear that.

Fine if it's not a review, with photographs that technically demonstrate image characteristics, but it would have been interesting if you had illustrated your post with your photographs, simply as poetic additions to make it more visual, since you're a photographer. They don't have to be from your portfolio, could just be from a recent outing. It's another opportunity to share your work.

I can understand the disappointment in engineering the perfect GR, but Ricoh is not a big player like Canon or Sony and I'm sure they don't have endless R&D budget. The GR3 is a compromise to meet certain criteria (including price - it's already a very expensive camera) and (hopefully) strike a balance that makes the GR3 a GR camera (small, light, unobtrusive, high IQ).

I hope that you can eventually accept the GR3 as it is and find a way to focus on the positives, and enjoy taking pictures with it. We'll all join you in hoping the GR4 is an uber camera, perfect in every way and a joy to shoot with.

BTW if you like the 28mm focal length, the Leica Q2 is not as compact but it addresses some of your concerns about the GR3. The original Q can be found used too; I still have it. The Fuji X100 has a 28mm adapter; again, not as compact.

 Andrewteee's gear list:Andrewteee's gear list
Ricoh GR III Ricoh GR IIIx Canon EOS R5 Sigma fp L Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM +5 more
James Bligh Senior Member • Posts: 2,382
Re: The list is increasing

The list is increasing* 

https://michal.walasz.net/ricoh-gr-iii-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

* Well, don't give Spitfires (or GR#) to the Pole. They may easily outperform you. 

and I rate** #26 Focus peaking as S (So so).

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65167978

** So in total

12 Appropriate

13 So so

2 Inappropriate

-- hide signature --

You really want you a pound of flesh, don't you?
-- Mallory to Miller in the movie 'The Guns of Navarone'

OP telemach Contributing Member • Posts: 686
Re: The list is increasing

James Bligh wrote:

The list is increasing*

there is more, keep looking

OP telemach Contributing Member • Posts: 686
Re: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Andrewteee wrote:

Your points could be valid, but without the balance of things you also like about the camera - from your POV, not others - your message gets lost because it's so one sided.

that's the point not to rant but to give list of negatives that you can expect from the camera

I understand that you are used to read blog posts and reviews where someone is guiding you by personal experience so you can reflect on author's feels and views and maybe sympathize

You say yourself you like the camera and it gives you the results you want. What is it you like about the GR3 and what about it gives you those results? We'd love to hear that.

that's a mix of different elements but most importantly it is sensor size, BW rendering, silent shutter, small dimensions and weight, focal length and auto ev compensation

characteristics, but it would have been interesting if you had illustrated your post with your photographs

sure but it's not this kind of post and I want to keep paragraphs fairly not large so there wouldn't be too much scrolling

simply as poetic additions to make it more visual, since you're a photographer. They don't have to be from your portfolio, could just be from a recent outing. It's another opportunity to share your work.

there will be plenty of other opportunities, I don't have to do this in this post

I can understand the disappointment in engineering the perfect GR

it's far from perfect

, but Ricoh is not a big player like Canon or Sony and I'm sure they don't have endless R&D budget.

if you read carefully then you will see most of these shortcoming could be fixed with firmware update

The GR3 is a compromise to meet certain criteria (including price - it's already a very expensive camera)

that's the point, you pay for premium and receive basic; I could understand if they released two cameras and one is cheaper because features have been reduced

and (hopefully) strike a balance that makes the GR3 a GR camera (small, light, unobtrusive, high IQ).

looks like GRIII is a product aimed at new clientele and not to sustain loyal ones

I hope that you can eventually accept the GR3 as it is and find a way to focus on the positives, and enjoy taking pictures with it.

I hope you will understand that it was me who came up with solution to overheating and not manufacturer. I had to solve their problems on my own so my life could be easier.

Having a knowledge about cons doesn't mean that I can't enjoy the ride.

We'll all join you in hoping the GR4 is an uber camera, perfect in every way and a joy to shoot with.

it might be possible because the current creator retired so we will see what new guy can bring into the GR line

BTW if you like the 28mm focal length, the Leica Q2 is not as compact but it addresses some of your concerns

filesize is a nightmare and it is overpriced and bulky

The original Q can be found used too;

but doesn't have multiple user modes, ev shift and compact size

The Fuji X100 has a 28mm adapter; again, not as compact.

fuji is more color pictures camera and I am BW guy

sae1lin2aug3
sae1lin2aug3 Senior Member • Posts: 1,856
Re: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
1

jfa3000 wrote:

James Bligh wrote:

jfa3000 wrote:

telemach wrote:

You seem to be under the misguided impression that it's up to me to answer any of your questions or solve any of your problems. Sorry, not true.

If you're getting the results you want, and have had to work around the limitations of the tool you've chosen, why write a lengthy piece with a provocative title 'bad and the ugly' and not expect someone to point out the obvious contradictions in your arguments?

Welcome to real life. Enjoy your camera and take great photos.

I remember telemach is a long-term frequenter of Ricoh forum. Beside that he has every right to state his opinions which does not harm anyone/anything. So why to be repulsive by his statement of facts/opinions?

Repulsive? Take a step back and look at how silly this sounds.

Oh dear, the GR cameras really do bring out some radical emotions in people.

I'm just pointing out there's no perfect camera, that the OP has posted a long lists of things he'd like in his perfect camera GR4/5/6, and that now he's getting the results he wants from the GR3 because he's figured out his tool and how to use it- news flash- that's what everybody does. It's called a learning curve, and adapting to the circumstances.

I'm questioning why he has to publish an emotionally charged hit sheet dissing the camera when it's his problem in not understanding and working with its limitations (reading the spec sheet is enough for most intelligent consumers)- an obvious contradiction.

I'm not negating his right to say whatever he wants- just the accuracy. To give an opinion, and influence others who may buy the camera in an inaccurate and misleading way is wrong. There's a difference, I hope you can see it.

If he's so into knowing what the perfect camera is, why doesn't he go and design, manufacture and market it himself.

Until then, chose the best tool for purpose on the market, like everybody, and get on with it. There's alternatives he, and others, can buy that are more suitable for his needs- they can find them out for themselves, like most adults.

It's not that difficult to understand, I hope, and certainly not 'repulsive' in any way.

Dear, oh dear... such defensive, sensitive people here in the Ricoh forum.

The GR3 is a great camera, not perfect, but great for its intended purpose.

All cameras are Not perfect. Name one that's perfect.

Go take some great pictures... and chill outa bit.

-- hide signature --

"Think Different." S. J.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads