Ricoh GR III review

😉

Sorry, I meant a tilting screen.

No EVF option is the con. There are plenty of cameras that don't have a built-in EVF but do feature contacts for an external viewfinder unit.

Honestly viewfinders are like phone keyboards. People used to care about them until most of them realised they don't them.

@Alex I already bought it for around $999 here. The price hurts so much. Ricoh's price in my country is quite constant. I bought my GR II for around $700 2 years ago and the price was still the same a month ago (it is $550 now after GRIII's release).

$999, wow, that is a lot; more than the full price where I live (including the VAT).
I actually bought mine at a discount; being a regular customer helps. ;-)

@Alex You are so lucky. XD

@Fazal I think so too. Despite many people hate the GR III here, I think the unit itself just being sold well. I even need to wait for 2 weeks to get my purchase bonuses (blue ring cap + additional battery) because they are out of stock. Yikes!!

@luck002: to be sure, there is an early adopter tax. I've wanted a GR for a long while, but hesitated because of the dust issues on the GRII. I don't regret buying my GRIII one bit, and it even replaced my RX1RII as EDC despite my preferring 35mm as a FL, simply because the smaller size makes it more carry-friendly.

@Robert

Agree with you. Though I had sold my m43 gears when I had my GRII, I could still say Lumix GM1 (with franiec grip) + 20mm or oly 17mm is the best travel camera I ever had.

Ouch it should @tom not @robert. Sorry. :(

I have both GRii and GRiii and the iii is amazing. The ibis and 24mp are great, and the colors in the jpegs are much better.
I also have an MFT camera, and the only lenses that come close to it in resolution (but do not improve on it) are the PanaLeica lenses; certainly not the Oly 17mm, which is quite poor, and also not the 20mm pancake. The Leica Summilux 15/1.7 is close, but the GRiii is still better resolution-wise. And a camera with 15/1.7 does not fit in your pocket.

So sure, when I go with an official large camera, I often choose my Pen-F for the ability to also use long lenses. But for a pocketable camera, or one that you can slip in your travel / work bag, the GRiii is fantastic.

It can....

Fine if you can get up close and personal :)

Exactly. As much as I enjoyed my GR, it was just a poor camera for too many subjects. Essentially I found it much like a camera phone with much better quality, but stuck with an often useless perspective.

People take good portraits all the time with cellphones, which tend to be 28mm. So if you can live with cellphone portraits, then yes, it's fine. MrHollywood, many of the better arts magazines will run environmental portraits of, say, celebrities that are obviously taken with wide angle lenses. The type of high school or family portraits taken by mall photographers with totally blurred-away backgrounds are literally scraping the bottom of the barrel nowadays as far as portraiture is concerned.

By the way MrHollywood, I tend to agree with you that 28mm is too wide for myself. I use my GR2 less because I have a 40mm camera that is better suited to my vision. But that is not because I take portraits (which I don't).

Virtually nobody shoots portraits at 28mm. Yes, they are occasions where it's done. But not one wedding shooter, event shooter or anyone who seeks to create intimate candids reaches for a 28mm prime. I don't know why anyone would argue this. Go into ANY amateur or pro forum and ask "what's the best portrait lenses?"
No one will suggest a 28mm. There may be instances where the 28mm will work. I've seen some wonderful portraits at 24mm, but that doesn't make the WA focal length something recommended.
I've also seen some great scenic stuff shot at 135mm, but if someone asks for the best ALL AROUND lens for scenic, the suggestions will be for 14-24 99% of the time.
I got rid of my GR because it was a failure when it came to being versatile. A fixed lens camera has its charms, but it has specific weaknesses that cannot be overcome. 28mm is like driving forever in 2nd gear. You can do a lot, but then there's a lot you can't do.

"I got rid of my GR because it was a failure when it came to being versatile." - slightly surprised you didn't realise that at the time of purchase...?

You're correct. But I wanted to give it a chance. And I did enjoy using it. I just think there are better options for street and travel.

@tbcass Yes, it is not a mass market product but that doesn't mean it makes no profit. I want to buy it because I really liked the GR for travelling but now I use a RX1r II so the overlap is too big. If you ever travel like me you will reduce all the size and weight of your stuff. And for video I now use a Osmo Pocket. Is it great? No, but for some short impressions it is good enough.

Daft Punk

I don't want anything and I'm not complaining about anything. My points were to point out why the camera has a very limited market, nothing more, nothing less. Nothing I said is a criticism of the camera but are reasons why it's not a big seller. If you go back and read my first post in this subthread you should understand that.

Daft Punk

I never said the 1" sensor cameras and the GR3 were the same.

tbcass
Man, he lack of zoom is not a disadvantage of this camera, it's rather a feature.

How many very expensive prime lenses still exist and being sold for MILC on both FF and APSC platforms? (Hint: a lot)

A prime lens appeals to many types of photographers. They don't want zoom. A fixed prime lens makes perfect sense on a camera that's made mainly to be used for street photography.

This is a perfectly accepted compromise.

Alex Sarbu
When I said "I say this because the IQ of the 1" pocketable zooms from Sony and Canon have IQ that is nearly indistinguishable from APS-C cameras below ISO 800" I meant it. I defy you to tell the difference in IQ between 1" sensor camera IQ and this Ricoh below ISO 800. I say this as an owner of a 42mp FF camera. The difference between my FF and APS-C cameras at iso 800 and below is greater than the Ricoh and a 1" sensor camera IMO.

SpeedyNeo

That is true but it does not address the issue that this camera has a limited market which after all was my point in the first place.

tbcass: it's irrelevant if you mean it or not - what matters is if it's true. ;-)
Sooo... who are you to decide I should only shoot below ISO 800? Actually, who are you do decide anything for us?

People who compare the 1" cameras' IQ to the GRIII are delusional. I have the original RX100, the RX100M4 and the GRIII, and there is no comparison. The GRIII is heads and shoulders above the mushy RX100 series.

Now if you want a zoom lens and EVF, that's your prerogative, but this is what you end up with:
https://camerasize.com/compare/#723,819

not to mention zooms this size are just mediocre compared to even an ordinary lens, let alone the GR's outstanding prime. The only thing that compares is the Sony RX1 series, the Leica Q series or the Sigma DP1M.

My last post. I find it curious that people defend this or any camera from even the slightest hint of criticism. The emotional attachment of some people to an inanimate object can sometimes be surprising. I would hate to see the response to someone actually trolling and saying the camera sucks.

I found this post in the Sony Forum from someone who "upgraded" to a Sony RX100vi;

"I upgraded from the Ricoh GRII because 28mm is no place to live 100% of the time."

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62680116

And this is one further post after your "last" <rolling eyes>

I have no attachment to an inanimate object.

tbcass is making no sense. If he cared so little, why does he go to such extraordinary lengths to question and disparage other people's choices ?

I did not bash the camera one bit.

Alex Sarbu
And to prove this isn't a Sony Fan thing I feel the same way about the Sony RX1R with it's 42mp FF sensor and 35mm f 1.8 fixed Zeiss lens.. Too limiting to be a big seller.

So what ?

Struggling to see the point of your posts. It’s self evident the Ricoh has a limited appeal to a specific market so I think most of us really struggling to understand why you are so invested in making these pointless statements.

Daft Punk

I fail to see the point of your posts.

@Daft Punk - thanks for the link - I'd forgotton about that guy, but he really knows his way around the camera and what it's for

The price and AF are not too bad...but it would be real nice had they kept the pop-up flash from the GR2. It has a leaf shutter and high sync speed which makes it great for back-lit subjects or to get rid of the racoon eyes, or to add nice catch light in the eyes.

A small flash in another pocket is probably the answer.

Or a pop up flash such as what is included in the GR2 and the GR would have been an even more convenient answer ;)

I actually totally agree with you, but there would probably have some sort of penalty like size or loss of other features.

Off camera flash always gives better results. Have the camera in one hand and a tiny flash in the other. Easy.

I don't see it as a "a different camera class". Both are compact, digital cameras with APS-C sensor.

Main difference: Canon M50 is somewhat less compact, jacket pocket vs. shirt pocket. But it is a much better camera in all relevant aspects - namely EVF, AF, IQ, UI, performance ... and much more versatile, thanks to interchangeable lenses and system accesories.

M50 should definitely score significantly higher (as a stills camera) than Ricoh GR III in any "serious" review.

If I would reviwe cameras according to my personal preferences, cameras with bolted-on single-focal length lens would get max. "49%" rating, if everything else were "perfect" ... IQ, AF, EVF, performance, UI/handling, price ... which is defintiely not the case for the GR III.

@Alex Sarbu: I almost thought you were serious before I understood your post ;)

@xeppelin: so you basically think any phone is crap because it has a fixed focal lens?

Why are we comparing this Ricoh camera to a Canon M50?

One fits in my jeans pocket, one does not. This is as binary a difference as black vs white.

In other news, xeppelin compares a Toyota Corolla to an Amtrak GE diesel train, on the basis that both of them have wheels.

or for a more current model, Canon M100 vs. Ricoh GR III
https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/canon-m100-vs-ricoh-gr-iii

Take the current EOS M100 and add the excellent and small pancake EF-M 22/2.0. Only a bit less compact than the Ricoh. But much better all around. At around a half the money (including lens).

The EOS100 is not “better” in any way for me.

There is no lens option to compete with the Ricoh.

I would never consider the Canon even if they paid me because with a lens on it will not go in my pocket and even the 22mm is too long.

for me its exactly other way round. Would not switch my old EOS M 1st gen (!) vs. a Ricoh GR or any other camera with bolted-on fixed focal length. :-)

And I am not "pushing" anything on you. I do exactly what everbody else here does: expressing my opinion.

Are you going to post such things on every review, article, forum etc. for a camera you won't switch to?

I refuse to switch my Fuji X-T3 for a Canon 5DIV. I am just waiting for the opportunity for a thread on the Canon to come up so I can post a lot telling everybody.

I also refuse to switch my Sony RX100IV for a Canon C100 video camera. Just wait for that opportunity to come up so I can tell everyone about that !

I also would never switch a cheese sandwich for a packet of washing detergent. They both came from the same shop, so they could be compared. But I would not switch. YMMV.

@xeppelin You need to think about the Ricoh GRIII as fitting within the class of cameras that can be carried in a shirt pocket, as in the picture in the review.

It's a pretty short list.

saw the image. And know the size of it. While it may tightly fit, it is still too bulky to be carried in a regular shirt pocket for any length of time. At least I'd not want to do so. But then, I don't feel comfortable carrying even small smartphones in a shirt pocket. You folks may have "wider chests" and/or "deeper shirt pockets", lol.

In reality, GR III is also a "jacket pocket camera" just like a Canon EOS M100 with EF-M 22/2.0 lens or an EOS M50 (yes, slightly larger jacket pocket needed for that one due to EVF bump).

So for me, they are in the same "super-compact APS-C camera" class, and that's why i directly compare them. With Ricoh GR III I'd be stuck with only 1 focal length. Whereas a package only slightly bigger will give me a better camera [EVF, AF, performance, handling, UI] and a much more versatile one. For significantly less money.

The M50 with the lens is literally double the width of the Ricoh. Would you compare the M50 with a camera that is double its width with a lens and says it's basically the same size? Given your spiel here I doubt you've used the Ricoh in a practical fashion. Those that have can attest to the usefulness of such a small sized camera.

So... what you also need to understand is that some people like fixed lens cameras. The fixed lens is a strength not a weakness.

If you think it's a weakness then don't buy the camera.

You really do not get why i and others like this camera.

I would never buy the EOS M. Never. Simply because it is does not fit in a pocket. If i have to put it in a coat or a bag then i may as well carry a much better camera than the EOS.

It is a binary situation. There are no measures of “ its only a bit bigger”. A “bit bigger” in the case of the EOS is a deal breaker.

It either fits in my jeans pocket ( Ricoh ) or it does not.

yep, I'll definitely never buy a camera with a fixed single focal length lens.
Except in smartphone, which I have on me (almost) all the time.

To me cameras with only one focal length when I could as well have one with a lens mount and interchangeable lenses are "total fail". And I have a hard time to udnerstanding, why anyone would chose a less universal, less capable and more expensive photographic tool when better options are available.

Also under ecological/sustainability viewpoint I prefer modular digital products. Lenses generally serve me much longer than camera bodies which become technically obsolete every few years. Would hate having to dispose of a nice lens along with camera body when I swap it for a technically more advanced and better successor. To me it is a bit similar to buying those "one-way film cameras" [film pack with lens].

@daft punk: our usage scenarios are really different.

i never wear technical gear (phones, cameras) in my left jeans pocket. Way too uncomfortable. And it does not go well along with my keys i carry there. Right side is my [sometimes] used handkerchief, also not a good place to put cameras in. ;-)

In back jeans pockets I wear my wallet on 1 side. Other side - even if camera would fit - I'll never put it, because for sure I'd accidentally sit on it and break it.

so in my real life, any small camera is a "jacket pocket"-camera. EOS M6 or M50 size/weight is the max limit for me.

Other than in jacket pocket I often carry my EOS M plus lens in a small Lowepro Dashpoint pouch attached to left shoulder strap of a backpack. Hands-free, comfortable, somewhat protected and quicker to draw than from a shirt or jeans pocket. :-)

Precisely. You end up with a back back. If I have a back pack I may as well carry my X-T3 with a prime or even EOS R and a 35mm. Both absolutely kill an EOS M and they are no more inconvenient.

In contrast, the Ricoh is with me ALL the time. Every time. Any where. Everywhere. Because it slips in a pocket.

you definitely don't need a backpack for any EOS M. I need backpack wwhen hiking or on some city trips. Then camera goes on shoulder strap of backpack.

But normally my M is in my pocket. Just not a shirt or jeans pocket. lol.

I've got the GR III partly to have a wide angle when my K-1 has the 150-450 on it (without carrying another DSLR), and partly to have it with me when I go out *without a camera bag*.
L.E. Or a big pockets jacket in full summer.

This is turning into a clothes / fashion site. :)

"always-with-me camera" with fixed lens, one focal length only ... about 28mm eq. = my cameraphone.

if i take along a "real camera" it's got to be more versatile. But still as compact as possible. :-)

You, you, you. Who cares about you?
*I* would rather have the GR III than any of the inferior alternatives presented here.
And for those occasions a GR III won't do, the inferior alternatives won't do either - and I'll get my SLR kit.

yes, me. *I* don't care a bit about *you* either.

And the GR III is inferior to any *real camera*. No EVF, bolted-on single focal length lens, subpar AF (for a 2019 camera), poor battery life, sub par jpgs ooc. Not much smaller than decent real cameras. But really expensive.

Really a very enticing product.

Haters gonna hate.

lol.out of arguments.

no hate in my postings. Only realistic appraisal of an inferior product.

You say the Ricoh is an “inferior product” while admitting to prefer an EOS M ?

A camera that is not pocketable even with the smallest lens ( which is too long anyway ) and has a sensor and IQ that cannot get close to the Ricoh.

The Canon is inferior by definition because it will not fit in a pocket. I would therefore always leave it at home. Why is that so hard to understand?

If you are not interested in a pocket camera - why are you here ??

Completely disagree.

:) :)

"The only reason Ricoh put a new 24mp ,perhaps Sony, sensor is because .There is no 16mp sensors being made (by Sony?)anymore. " - if true, seems ike a reasonable reason to me :)

Doesn't answer the question - it's a dedicated PHOTOGRAPHIC device.

Your opinion - almost certanly factually inaccurate regarding rushing out- others disagree

I think the difference in IQ is way bigger than the difference in size.

@cosinaphile, your long reasons can be summarized by just one 4-letters word.

B I A S.

Long reply.

Bias toward to big camera is better [more important] than small camera.
Bias toward to Fool Flame is better [ibid] than 4/3.
Bias toward to Image Quality is better [] than Form Factor.
Bias toward to Form Factor is better [] than Image Quality.

Fool Flame canera > 4/3 camera
interchangable lens camera > compact camera

Now
ANY camera is better than PHONE camera.

ROTFLMAO.

Double rotflmao when hearing the word "REAL" camera.

With such extreme bias, you can't not open your mind. No need to further 'explain'.

you keep calling smartphone real cameras .. and that is your bias

base iso from the 1930s

no working aperture

tiny lentil sized elements [plastic ,of course] in front of sensors so pathetic they must fuse to give a decent file

no sd cards ... in high end

usually have trapaziods or bulletholes in screen [ try that on a real camera lol]

no creative control

no shutter button

why not accept that cellphones due to incredible advances in computational photography produce pleasing images at ,... maybe iso 40

and stop pretending your bigwheel is the family car ....lol

i think no bias but how one view whether convenience or IQ is more important

many don't need the best IQ but view a waterproof device with 3 FL 16/27/125mm as more important
i also find out exposure and AF is usually better on phone than all my real camera

due to the very tiny sensor one could in theory have a fixed focus cellphone camera.in fact,that used to be the case. I know cellphone make good images. are almost foolproof, so serve their audience well
frankly they improve & advance much quicker than cameras to their credit

While i love to listen to music on a phone \ have dozens of bands full discographies , i dont delude myself to think my phone is my audio system.. cause it isnt
also,though i love having a pocket media server with tons of content, i never ever think my phone is my home theatre cause it aint.
my cellphone is my primary phone however, a role that seems to fit perfectly
while i enjoy games on my phone, it is not the nintendo switch. no one i know would imagine its gaming machine, its not, not a console not a gaming machine with high end gpu. i enjoy it for exactly what it is
When i need to send visual info or accept some my phone is there

my phone takes useful images, but is not & will never be a camera

due to the very tiny sensor one could in theory have a fixed focus cellphone camera

i don't think so.
my p30 pro has a not too tiny 1/1.7 sensor, its superior AF is due to having both dual pixel and a depth sensor
everyone can decide how much IQ is enough but the latest p30 pro/pixel phone IQ has get to quite decent level

and the all important processing of jpeg, i rarely see extreme dark shadow in phone pics but is common in jpeg of my A6500
no matte how much dynamic range is in the sensor, one need to do RAW for each individual pic or rely on Lightroom "auto" to get it

phone has many advantage besides decent IQ and so their popularity is well deserved

"many don't need the best IQ but view a waterproof device with 3 FL 16/27/125mm as more important"

Somehow this is funny because people might think the same, put $800+ in a smartphone to have that range when a $200 camera would do the job. Sometimes people think the same way as when they're buying a huge car ; twice the year they go on holiday or buy furniture, and need the space, but most of the time they just go to work with it. Yet to carry bigger stuff they need to rent a truck anyway...
The same way, most people are using digital zoom on their phone, with the quality compromises we know about. But if we don't care so much about IQ why go for the better zoom on P30 Pro? Would we trust someone to capture our wedding with that?

There are lots of compact cameras made with a 1/1.7", my LF1 is still unbeaten for range/size/weight/IQ ratio. A difference though with P30 Pro would be that the 1/1.7" covers all focal lengths on a dedicated camera, while other sensors on P30 Pro have smaller sensors.

which $200 camera have 3 FL 16/27/125mm?
also the stupid F3.5-5.6 kit lens compare with p30 pro 27mm F1.6

oh that's true, I forgot about the UWA there. My bad, there is no such camera. Then again, it will get more and more difficult to integrate longer focal lengths.

Yet I can't find the different sensor sizes involved, and how a P30 Pro compares to a compact travel zoom camera, for instance.

remember the equiv factor constantly used to compare apsc or m43 to the equiv standards

so the eqiv speed of that cell lens on a 1 1.7 sensor is f8.19
https://mmcalc.com/

Agree with Sezano. Look at what some of the best street photographers are doing and using on 1x, they are not using GR cameras.

As I said in a review on Amazon: "If you've bought a cellphone in the last 4 years, you can probably take better video than this."

It's so terrible they should not have even bothered.

Having said that, I love this camera for stills.