Here my experience, the autofocus basically doesn't work in lowlight and there is no real effective focusing aid, although there are three or four ineffective modes that work kinda like focus peaking and a DOF scale. The sharpness of the lens and the APS c sensor make the DOF scale not that great. This camera likes good light and to be used in snap focus mode

@RidgeRunner22, GR has 5+ focus modes and AF Assist Light. Are you sure you have used it?

I don't care if it has 20 modes when 0 work. You can look me up on Flickr I've dozens of photos from 2 years ago taken with the GR. the files it produces in ideal conditions are lovely. But any one who thinks this camera auto focused well in low light, or has a good manual focus implementation never used this camera or they didn't compare it to anything else

You can now buy one for ~ $600. Also on NX mini?

I had a typo for "NX 12-50mm", and It should be read as "NX 16-50mm". $600 will be possible soon as NX1 is very much dead.

"Also on NX mini?", no, it is NX-M 17mm.

replied on topic you started

which we don't want. we want what the GR is. Retractable lens which is offers a superb 28mm FOV.
Hell, we don't even want more than f2.8!
there are honestly people out there who propose to bring a faster lens to the GR like 1.8 or 1.4.
Thats the point where I love the manufacturers to not try to cramp big numbers in the camera but instead be reasonable (and payable)

Size and snap focus are the reasons for the GR. No other compact I know of has implemented zone focusing as well.

i would favour the GR for its compactness and the interface. the 6000 ist for me to much of a computer.
in terms of stellar 28mm eqv. lens - or lets say around 18mm - I give you the Sigma DP1.

Adamant - possibly, and the Fuji's AF and metering may be better. But the GR's lens and ergonomics will take some beating and it's cheaper. And of course, one has to contend with that crackpot sensor with the Fuji, and learn to tolerate all that silly X-Nonsense!

uh am what? my x100t produces nice images. until now, I didn't realize i have to tolerate "silly X-Nonsense"

kreislauf - it's Fuji's version of iBullsh1t! ;-)

You still can't beat the build quality of a Nikon Coolpix 'A.'

Simply unheard of before. (Coolpix 'A' lenses out of whack.)

I'm also not convinced by the ISO performance of the Leica Q- banding and such at higher ISO values tells me they aren't using a competitive sensor. Otherwise the Leica Q would be my second choice in a compact serious camera. That said, comparing the Leica Q is not really relevant as the Leica X's are much more direct competitors.

The Leica Q interests me for sure. Although, one could buy a Sony A7RII and the FE 28/2 for less. The Sony 28/2 isn't amazing, but I would think the combination would outperform the Leica in a number of respects, especially high ISO.

Neither camera will "destroy" the other. People will choose based on different approaches to ergonomics. Both cameras have unique advantages.

Indeed. Bear in mind that the 16 MP X-Trans sensor is pretty much the same as the sensor in the GR/II but with a bizarre colour filter. So yes, it's cooked.

Also, FUJI's shutter speed is noticeable lower for the same ISO ans same aperture compering to others in JEPG.

In other words, it makes FUJI seems better in NR for the same ISO.

Fuji RAF files are not cooked. It's Adobe doing the cooking. Just use a different raw converter and you will find better detail and presence of chroma noise in X-Trans than shown in those test images.

By the way, noise should be compared for equal amount of light (shutter and aperture). It's mostly okay in this test, but DPreview should make sure this is the case. Shorter exposures create more noise even if the camera QE is 100% and no circuit noise is produced.

Lol- what was I thinking Donald.

I think Donald can think whatever he'd like. Afterall its all about preference. Some people think Ferrari's are toy's -its all perspective and personal preference. Sometimes we agree with one another, sometimes we don't.

its all about getting the photo. most of the time you cant even see the image in day light let alone nail critical focus, to me they are just hit and miss cameras.

Interesting perspective Donald.

And how exactly is having those features going to impact the way 'you' use the camera? Just turn the touch off and leave the screen at the fixed position and you have the same camera. For the rest of us who like to be able to shoot from the hip it would make a huge difference with the angle and being able to better compose and frame our shots not to mention being able to shoot in lower light with a bit less noise by not having to always shoot at f8 with snap focus. It's all about choices and allowing the user make the camera theirs, something the GR does better than most already but these would make it perfect for some users.

Another good alternative is a Fuji X-A1 or X-M1 with the 18mm f/2 lens. Again a little bigger than the Ricoh but you get a faster lens. You can find a used X-A1 for under $200 and I've seen the 18mm lens go for $250 used.

The only thing that can be improved on my Sony NEX + 19/2.8 Sigma rig is to make it even smaller! This GR is smaller. What it lacks is Sony's 1080p60!

Personally, I use NEX and 16mm combo quite often, but after trying the GR II, I am a believer:-) If I want something that doesn't fit my pocket, I can use an a7.

16mm sony is a garbage.But when I wrote this comment,I was thinking about sigma 19 and 30mm lenses in front of sony.I agree with you about sony nex' lens line-up...But there are alternatives like panasonic and olympus.
Price of the a6000 is not that high nowadays (never been thou)...I know Samnsung's future is unclear in the market,but you can also go with samsung nx 300(M) and 30mm 2.0 combo,which is just slightly larger than this GR...I have mentioned Sony because of AF and viewfinder.
Before some of you say,I know samsung might not has a future in mirrorless market,but since this camera has a fixed lens on it,I don't think it would be a problem anyways.

It is easy to say this or that for a camera or lenses and yes you are probably right because we are different and we have different needs. But the real answer is coming when you use something long enough to understand how it is work and to see what it is capable of as IQ or handling or anything. So we won't know any camera or lens if is it proper for us until we don't give enough time to use it and fall in love with it or let it go. The specs and others opinions are great and could help though but we can have our own opinion. Anyway I always have a lot fun using this camera and I wish everybody has one having the same fun with or sooner or later find one...

Don't forget Nikon Coolpix A
And I prefer the flash system of Nikon to Ricoh...

Anyway I sold it because 28mm is a bit too large for me, AF is lacking speed, and no stab means no video. I'm not into street shooting so I'm probably not the right customer for theses cams. But the picture quality was impressive

How much important the image quality is,when it is about street photography?

@Cameracist,
I usually tend to call them as "pancake" when they are small (very light weighted as well)...But you are right.
On the other hand,since they are not pocketable with even those pancake lenses,then not a big deal.
Beside all these,Ricoh doesn't have a viewfinder...I would never prefere a camera w/o VF.

Another point is,nowadays almost any camera (with a sensor at least MFT sized) has decent enough quality when paired with a 200 USD lens like samsung 30mm or sigma 19mm...And beside that when it is street photography,what do you care THE MOST?
I am asking this question to all of you!
About street photography,I care about the composition and story the most!..A MFT camera with a 12-32 lens or Sony with 16-50 wud be enough for me (if you need big size prints,then maybe a better lens).