Let's face it. The Ricoh GR II is just amazing in this respect. It has a full on DSLR sized sensor packed into it. It's an APS-C (crop sensor), literally over 3 times the size of the one in the Sony RX100 III (which is already a 1-inch, and not too shabby). However, considering the the Sony's sensor is 3 times smaller, I doubt anybody would say the quality is 3 times less. The Ricoh GR III's full autofocus lag time was quite quick in the lab, faster than the GR II's. Full AF-S shutter lag was 0.175 second in Select AF mode (center).
The Ricoh GR III is a compact 24MP APS-C format camera with a 28mm equivalent F2.8 lens. The third in a series of APS-C 'GR' compacts from Ricoh, the GR III has been a long time coming, but updates the GR II in some highly significant ways. Several Ricoh representatives have described the GR III to us as a 'labor of love' - keep reading to find out whether the work of the company's engineers has paid off. Key specifications:.
24MP APS-C sensor. 18.3mm (28mm equivalent) F2.8 lens. 3-axis in-body SR stabilization system. On-sensor phase detection autofocus. Ultrasonic sensor cleaning. 3' 1.04M-dot touch-sensitive LCD screen. Anti-aliasing filter simulation.
Optional 21mm equivalent GW-4 wide adapter lens. 1080/60p video. USB 3.0 (Type C) enables in-camera chargingRicoh took its time with the GR III. The original GR was announced a full six years ago, and the intervening GR II was such a minor update that Ricoh felt compelled to reduce its MSRP by $100 less than a month after it was introduced.The GR III is a major update to the GR and GR II that preceded it.
The resolution increase from 16-24MP was expected (and overdue) but the addition of sensor stabilization, a touch-sensitive screen, and the removal of the built-in flash make the GR III a very different photographic tool, albeit one that should feel instantly familiar to GR / II fans.The GR III is available now for $899: $100 more than the introductory price of the GR II in 2015 (and $200 more after the GR II's rapid MSRP reduction three weeks after it launched).What's new and how it comparesThe GR III might look very similar, but it's a significant update over the GR and GR II. Find out more about what's new.Body, handling and controlsThe GR III's control layout has been completely overhauled compared to its predecessors, with fewer external controls and the addition of a touchscreen. What difference does this make?Shooting experienceThey say the best camera is the one you have with you - should you take the GR III on your next excursion?Image qualityThe GR III's 24MP APS-C sensor is at least a generation newer than the sensors in its predecessors.
How does it stack up against modern competitors?Video and PerformanceThe GR III is primarily a stills camera, but we thought we should check-in on its video features and see how the autofocus behaves.ConclusionFor most photographers, the GR III makes a good camera even better, but there are some caveats. I received my Ricoh GR3 six days ago and compared the body with my GR2 yesterday. The specs claim both cameras have a 3 inch screen and one might believe it until the displays are turned on side by side displaying an image. The GR3 has a smaller screen which accounts for the fewer specified screen dots in the spec listing. I initially thought fewer dots meant less dot density across the same 3 inch screen real estate until I saw this difference.
So, 3 inches doesn't literally mean 3 inches. However, the sensor sizes are specified in the spec list with accurate dimensions in mm, but screens are given in SWAG dimensions. You're mistaken.The GR2 has a 3.0' screen with a 4:3 aspect ratio. It has a resolution of 640 x 480 pixels (with 4 dots per pixel - RGB plus a white dot for extra brightness).The GR3 has a 3.0:' screen with a 3:2 aspect ration. It has a resolution of 720 x 480 pixels (with 3 dots per pixel - it has white dots scattered throughout, in the place of some green ones, I believe).Even putting to one side the fact that the GR3's screen is a better match for the sensor shape, so it likely to be better utilized, it's also physically larger (about 15% larger, by my calculations). 'controls are very poor'.The M100 is really not that bad for one of the most compact APS-C MILC. The touch screen is great which often more than makes up for the lack of a second control dial.
You have a control wheel for shooting TV/Av and when shooting manual it's a single tap of the screen to switch between adjusting shutter speed and adjusting aperture.Don't get me wrong there is lots of room for improvement with ergonomics even on the small body but controlling is not as bad as I thought it would be. The funny thing about the Hogan numbers is that they've been interpreted as evidence that this camera is making a huge impact on the company's bottom line. It would have to be one hell of a seller for that to be true, because the camera had barely arrived on the market when the quarter closed (that Hogan cited figures for and based his observation on). And it's true that it's been top dog of DPR for quite a few days now, but I wonder if other factors aren't playing a role, like the Theta, the KP, lens sales (D FA.
50, maybe), or that Ricoh has perhaps been benefitting more than other brands from new international trade deals. At this point this new released camera is quite bad. I agree with you and with this TS:Ricoh must be kidding to shamelessly ask a $1000 USD (with taxes ) for that. They should have included a small pocket flash and a spare battery at least.The only ppl who perhaps buy it are those who really loyal yo the brand (but the brand isn’t ), not really smart consumers and some Rich folks to try it out and toss after 150 shots.It’s not backordered,actually as some stated, many units were recalled and returned and that’s what created it at some retailers. Here in Ontario no backorders.
The GRD itself was great for the compact camera for enthusiasts of its day - the GR lost a lot of its compactness benefit in the interests of larger sensor. The sensor size increase was a benefit but my GR was too large for this person to carry everywhere. So my compromise has been the no-longer-sold GM5 which is not really pocketable in my book but has the advantage of being a systems camera and can dip into the stock of wonderful M4/3 lenses against being restricted to one lens copes with all needs.Furthermore the GM5 came with a quite useful built in evf and a little clip on flash in the box.I am a long term Ricoh fan and appreciate that the GRIII is a pinnacle of its type with “fixed collapsing prime lens” - but the reality for me at least is a tiny systems camera with built in evf and 100+ lenses I can choose from. But of course the GM5 is no more - but I can continue to manage as it still is a much more versatile camera than any GRD/GM can ever be. I don’t know why some Ricoh users here are trying to defend this stripped down camera. The web is full of negative reviews criticizing the horrible battery life and the lack of flash.
Even paid by Ricoh utube bloggers mention it in some, more hidden, way.I’ve never seen so many negative reviews when the GRII was released and it is,actually, a better camera overall in real use.Ricoh perhaps aware of what’s happening and could partially rectify the issues as once Sony did with their alpha 7r and 7s: they started to include a second battery for free. Fuji, PanaLeica and Canon (M1-M2) we’re shipping their cameras with small pocketable flash units.
LOL, thanks Alex, what a ridiculous comparison!@Fox, show me a camera as small with as big a sensor and long battery life. Oops there isn't one! So it's difficult to criticise Ricoh here, if no-one does it better.And I laugh at people whining about battery life. I have cameras with poor battery life and I have spare batteries and changing them in 10 secs with no tools is the least problem in all of photography.
It's just whining!With the GRIII it is even worse than whining, because you are getting something back for it: incredible size and large sensor. You can even avoid battery changes by connecting USB-C to a power bank in your pocket and shoot all day.Don't like it? Get a bigger camera, or one with a 2-sizes-smaller sensor like a the obsolete Nikon 1. Knock yourselves out.
I am waiting with the purchase because I like to learn from long time users reports. Both, my GR and GR II developed the Closed Shutter Problem which made the cameras use- and worthless before the shutter counts reached 50K frames. I hope that Ricohs Engineers quietly adressed and fixed the internal lens module parts from 'dying at a young age'.My wishes for the GR IV:- Bring back the build-in flash- Address the cameras Achilles' heel by developing a non-rectractable 28mm pancacke lens module (ex.
Fuji x100 series). It could enable the camera body to become weather sealed and noticably reduce the still reported dust issue.
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.
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. Glad you asked Mike. Why do compact cameras fail?
Just as soon as they are built down to meet the popular market price.I have had 3 out of 4 GRD models and the GR itself - at which point it became too large for my personal requirements. It was a question of whether once size became borderline the versatility of a similar size systems camera body became more interesting.However the GRD/GR has remained interesting because it was and is an enthusiasts camera better built and has enviable firmware support.
Funnily enough the firmware and enthusiast support in use does not review very well.Those that have simply wanted a cheap easily portable compact camera have long since opted for the “automatic dumbness” of the mobile phone.Point’n’press. The GRIII is much more than that. It is a pity that it cannot offer a built in evf and a mount system that can handle a wide variety of lenses. What is there not to like? No zoom, mediocre AF, no flash, mediocre video, no EVF, OVF costs extra.
For the people that want this camera these things may not matter but I believe that these limitations will turn off most potential buyers. Since this camera appeals to you, you don't understand that most people want more and are willing to sacrifice a small amount of IQ to get a 1' sensor camera that is far more versatile.
I don't understand what the appeal is because small size is a lower priority for me than APS IQ so I'll take the 1' sensor zoom. Tbcass wants the GR to have a zoom lens, a flash and an EVF.If it had those things I it would not fit in my pocket.
Which is the whole point of the camera.If it had an EVF or an OVF the VF would be a tiny tunnel. I don't want that.If it had a flash the flash would be on body and essentially rubbish - better to have a tiny little flash and shoot off camera.If it had a zoom lens it would be too bulky and the lens too slow. I dont want that either.If you want those things there is nothing to see here - move on and buy a Sony RX ( a camera I also own by the way. ).Tbcass complaining about the GR is like complaining that coffee has coffee in it. Fair point, but you were holding the GR3 up in comparison to 1' cams from Sony, for example.This makes no sense.
I have a Sony RX something and I see no comparison. None at all.Ricoh are ( I am certain ) well aware that their new camera does not have a zoom lens, or a flash. They have probably noticed this and factored it into their expectations in terms of sales.
I cannot see a Ricoh exec somehow shocked that their camera is not suitable for someone who wants a built in flash. Just like I am not expecting someone to compare my Sigma SD-H with a cheese sandwich. Or compare my X-T3 with a prawn salad.Ricoh know what their market is. It clearly is not you. And a few thousand other people like me.
For us, it really hits the spot. Alex SarbuWhen 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.SpeedyNeoThat 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.
Why do people come on a forum to argue over a camera they are not interested in? Why do they think people care why they are not interested?It is bizarre.If i went on the Canon 5D forum saying that i do not see the point in a DSLR people would rightly question why i was there.If i went on a forum about 80’s prog rock to talk about electronic trance music people would rightly say “wrong thread”.So why do people feel the need to talk about a camera with a fixed lens as a key feature and argue it should have a zoom???Why? Life is short. Dont they have better things to do?? 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: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. So you are commenting about a thing you are not interested in, nor have any intention of purchasing; an item that is of no appeal to you, does not meet your requirements in any way.
I ( and others ) in contrast, either are interested in the item or already own it. I can see why I ( and those interested in the camera ) would comment, but what precisely is the point of you being here?I am not interested in needlepoint. Shall I go on a needlepoint forum and tell everyone why I am not interested, using hundreds of words and being argumentative? Would that be a sensible, sane thing to do?
This is precisely what you are doing. Frankly, it's weird. I wanted to love this camera.
But, it seems that my preference for shooting at night or in available light interiors is a deal killer. Miss after miss with this one. It often hunted forever and then fired at minimum focus. Maybe it's too much to ask for a better low light focusing system that fits in your pocket, but I'm asking anyway. I don't need the extra pixels, but I do need the shot to be in focus without destroying the moment with that horrible green light.
Day exterior folks, trying to hide their camera, should love the Ricoh, but night stalkers will need to keep looking. I am not a raging fan boy type - let me make that clear.But this is a bloody marvellous camera. Fantastic IQ and easy to use. Smaller than a small thing and well made.AF complaints are largely irrelevent. With snap focus if you cannot get sharp pictures taken in a hurry with this camera then give up photography now, hand over your cameras and use a smartphone.Lack of flash? Does not matter.
Get a little cheap pocket unit and a little remote cube on the hotshoe.The price? Getoutahere - for the IQ alone this camera is a billy bargain. Size is not correlated with value.
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. You can't see the difference between a fixed lens camera and an interchangeable lens camera?Think of the difference between a knife and a fork. You're not going to down rate a fork because it's bad at cutting.
Or a knife because it's doesn't have any prongs.You review a camera based on its intended uses. That what they've done here.The Ricoh is clearly not intended to be used for video, so let's stop talking about that.Saying that the M50 is 'more versatile thanks to interchangeable lenses' is nonsensical given that the core design of the GRIII is as a fixed lens camera.
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. 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.:-). Ricoh completely owns the large sensor “shirt pocket camera” segment (1” sensor is not same IQ).It seems so obvious to me that this combination of IQ, features and size is the perfect antidote against the smartphone monopoly: sure, it is an additional device, but just as pocketable, and so much better/easier/faster to use than that a laggy phone. Smartphone for selfies and stellar pocket camera for all the rest.This is a crucial time for the photography industry, with mass-market dedicated cameras at risk of vanishing completely. So, yes, it is a pity that this iteration of the legendary GR line is underwhelming on key usability aspects. Ricoh had plenty of time for refinement and optimisation of the concept.
They missed the target and there is no alternative.Nikon almost got there with the excellent Coolpix A back in 2013, then dropped the ball. There is still a window of opportunity for someone to crack that nut, and bring out the Minox 35 or Olympus XA of the digital age! No need for 28/35/50mm. The only reason it’s there is to try and rectify the serious dust issues GRii has by shaking the dust off.No built in flash! It’s the major flaw. If you don’t need it than perhaps you are in the wrong field again. Or buy a huge Pentax flashes.Poor battery life!
The point of such a small camera is not to fiddle with additional cords, power banks, spare batteries etc.Poor low light focus. Worse buttons layout in exchange for a touch screen - always slower. Poorer built quality. Some other, more minor flaws.Tbh, I consider this camera as a huge failure. Ok, again the same comment we see from you on every article about GR III. I guess the same answer is only fitting.
Just because you don't value the new features like IBIS doesn't mean that they're not useful to someone else.Even if they could still get a 16mp sensor, how would asking $900 for a 16mp camera look from a marketing point of view? I'm sorry but touchscreen is almost a must for a new consumer camera. How would you gain back smartphone users if you don't offer the minimum they expect from the cheapest phone?' If you don’t need it than perhaps you are in the wrong field again.
'Or maybe consider that this camera is not only a street camera but can be used for landscape/travel as well. There is no other camera or system that gets such a sharp lens in such a small camera. So yes, I'd get IBIS over flash anytime, but that's just me. Question is, how many customers are they losing because of it? Maybe they can afford losing a few to gain more new customers. A very good.dedicated.
camera should be built around solid engineering premises and real photographer's demands. That is, it should be built like someone's life and constancy of results depend on it:1. A very good sensor2. A very good lens performance throughout the frame3.
Excellent battery life4. Excellent AF5. Excellent sturdiness and dependency6.
Runs cool (no heating issues)Only when these are all addressed, add some extra features. With GRIII, Ricoh failed in 4.5 out of 6 (because even the 'good' lens in GRIII is vignetting heavily). Let me ask any engineer: who on earth needs a.dedicated. $900 camera that has less battery life than a $300 smartphone with a similar FoV lens, is vignetting like a $50 pinhole camera, and is heating like a hotpod?
Previous GR ticked more boxes than this release. As good as the p30 is calling it the better of this new GR is like calling Egyptian cotton the same as polyester. The versatile plastic fiber can be a soft and plush couch throw. Or a rigid tray to hold your chips and guacamoleone creates image files and one fakes image files one is the real article.a camera and one is an electronic Swiss army knifea smartphone lets you game. But calling it a gaming machine is absurda smartphone lets you watch video.
But put it on your living room wall instead of a proper television and you will be committeda smartphone allows you to create a pleasing image. But call it a real camera. Well.you get the point. 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 camerainterchangable lens camera compact cameraNowANY 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'. Bias is everywhere, guys.
It's the same thing as debating about FF being the only way for serious photography. You buy something, based on knowledge, excitement for technology and/or whatever. Someone tells you that something new and/or something cheaper can do the same, how do you react?Yet, one cannot dismiss an argument simply because of bias. We're not talking about best photophone against just any camera. The Ricoh GR holds its own against most cameras/lenses I have used, if the GR III is anything near this optical excellence, it is not unreasonable to think the best photophone is not enough to challenge it.
You keep calling smartphone real cameras. And that is your biasbase iso from the 1930sno working aperturetiny lentil sized elements plastic,of course in front of sensors so pathetic they must fuse to give a decent fileno sd cards. In high endusually have trapaziods or bulletholes in screen try that on a real camera lolno creative controlno shutter buttonwhy not accept that cellphones due to incredible advances in computational photography produce pleasing images at. Maybe iso 40and stop pretending your bigwheel is the family car.lol. 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 wellfrankly they improve & advance much quicker than cameras to their creditWhile 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 isntalso,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 perfectlywhile 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 isWhen i need to send visual info or accept some my phone is theremy phone takes useful images, but is not & will never be a camera. '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?