Ricoh GR - Opinions?

[mara_ce]

Hello,
I have a Nikon D7100 with which I am (slowly) learning SLR photography. Hopelessness aside, I really want a less conspicuous and more portable camera for street photography and some of my travelling.
I have been looking at the images generated by a lot of Sony Cameras on Flickr - Dx100 series, a5000 and 6000, and the seemingly gazillion dollar full frames like the a7 and RX1. Only the picture quality generated by the full frames seems terribly impressive.
When I googled 'digital point and shoot with largest sensor', the Ricoh GR appeared along with the Sony full frames in the search results. Why does this camera not get more love??? Is it the fixed lens? Because the images are STUNNING for a point and shoot IMO. At $500, it would cost more than my DSLR so I'm wondering if anyone here has hands on experience with this camera and can provide insight? Would this be a good buy? Any comparable point and shoots at the same price point out there? I know the Canon Powershot is a favorite but the images quality does not compare IMO.
TIA!

 

[Ido]

The Ricoh GR is an excellent camera in and of itself, but the prime lens makes it more of a niche camera than zoom lens-equipped compacts (like the Sony RX100 series) or small mirrorless (interchangeable-lens) cameras. That shouldn't bother you, of course.
The Ricoh GR's main competition is the Nikon Coolpix A, which I can't find on B&H anymore (maybe it's discontinued?) and the Fujifilm X100 series (currently the X100T, but the previous model, X100S, is highly regarded and you can probably find good deals on it used) — those cameras have a 35mm-equivalent lens, slightly longer than the 28mm-equivalent lenses on the Ricoh and the Nikon. They all have APS-C sensors, so no need to talk in equivalence: the Ricoh and Nikon have ~18mm lenses, while the X100 cameras have a 23mm lens.
There's also the new Leica Q, which is technically better than the others, but I don't you'll want to shell out $4,250 on a secondary camera.

Ming Thein is very fond of the Ricoh GR, and has covered it rather extensively. You can find his review, and some more articles he has written regarding that camera:
Review The 2013 Ricoh GR digital V Ming Thein Photographer
Battle of the 28mm compacts Ricoh GR vs Nikon Coolpix A Ming Thein Photographer
Premiere and review The 2015 Leica Q Typ 116 Ming Thein Photographer — Here he talks a little about how it compares to the Ricoh.

You may also wish to check out the Panasonic LX100, especially if you're not sure you're ready to commit to a single focal length with the Ricoh, Nikon, Fuji or Leica.

I really want a less conspicuous and more portable camera for street photography and some of my travelling.

If indeed you want a smaller camera to complement your DSLR kit, it's generally better to get a fixed-lens camera (what you call "point-and-shoot") instead of a mirrorless (interchangeable-lens) camera. If you get the latter (such as the Sony α6000), you'd have to buy lenses for both systems, and in some cases you may simply end up with duplicates.

I know the Canon Powershot is a favorite but the images quality does not compare IMO.

Canon has very few high-end fixed-lens cameras. Their best offering is the G1 X Mark II, which isn't very well regarded actually. Then there is the G7 X which is meant to compete with the Sony RX100 series, but it seems to me like the controls are less geared towards photographers using the ASM exposure modes. There's also the new G3 X, which goes up against the Sony RX10 and Panasonic FZ1000, I guess, but it doesn't have an eye-level viewfinder built-in and lacks a couple of other high-end features to really make it competitive in those lines in my opinion.
So basically, no, the Canon PowerShot line isn't "a favorite" in the high-end market.

 

[jaomul]

Someone on this form was raving about how cheap the nikon coolpix A was available for recently, just a thought if you don't want to spend a fortune, its similar specced I believe.

If i were you I'd just buy a small prime such as the 35mm f1.8 and plough on with your d7100. If that really doesn't suit you, put your kit lens onto 19mm and shoot for a day with it, this is what the Ricoh can do, and as good as image quality may be the lens might be to restrictive (or not). It certainly would be to restrictive for me

 

[soufiej]

Hello,
I have a Nikon D7100 with which I am (slowly) learning SLR photography. Hopelessness aside, I really want a less conspicuous and more portable camera for street photography and some of my travelling.
I have been looking at the images generated by a lot of Sony Cameras on Flickr - Dx100 series, a5000 and 6000, and the seemingly gazillion dollar full frames like the a7 and RX1. Only the picture quality generated by the full frames seems terribly impressive.
When I googled 'digital point and shoot with largest sensor', the Ricoh GR appeared along with the Sony full frames in the search results. Why does this camera not get more love??? Is it the fixed lens? Because the images are STUNNING for a point and shoot IMO. At $500, it would cost more than my DSLR so I'm wondering if anyone here has hands on experience with this camera and can provide insight? Would this be a good buy? Any comparable point and shoots at the same price point out there? I know the Canon Powershot is a favorite but the images quality does not compare IMO.
TIA!

"digital point and shoot with largest sensor"? Why not, "digital point and shoot with highest megapixels"? Why not, "digital point and shoot with best processor"?

Why not, "digital P&S with the best lens"? Why not, "P&S with the fastest lens"? Or, " ... with the best anti-aliasing filter"?

One problem with search engines is they prove the adage; garbage in = garbage out. They are no better than your input and, if your input misses the mark, so do the search engines.

You can't take one gross value and equate that to the quality of the equipment - unless you are talking car stereo where watts on paper are all that matter and SPL is all you're after.

A camera is a system and you can't separate the parts of the system to come up with a logical conclusion about anything other than that one part in a completely static condition.

IMO, if you are a student of photography, your ability to judge image quality is pretty limited at this time. Not a knock, just a fact. For most of us who aren't paid to make IQ our job, we all lack somewhat in our own priorities regarding image quality.

That's not to say the Ricoh isn't a nice camera. But Ricoh is like Peugeot, they have their market, it's just not where you're looking.

There are hundreds of "nice cameras" available today. Most of today's cameras have image quality that exceeds the ability to print your shot. Yet, none of today's cameras have the dynamic range or color discrimination of the human eye. That is to say, if you're counting on the camera to make your shot, you're missing the point.

I'd mostly agree with the above post; buy a pancake lens for your current camera and determine whether you can live with a fixed focal length before you invest in another camera. Or, buy a $49 P&S and see what you can do to actually turn out good photos on your own. You'll actually learn a lot about photography by not having the crutch of the gear doing the work. And, in all but fast action or low light situations, there are a few cheap P&S camera that turn out quite acceptable quality if you put quality in front of the lens.

If you want something "less conspicuous", buy a smart phone. No one nowdays pays any attention to someone using a phone camera. AP photojournalists use smart phone cameras.

Make it about you, not the gear.

 

[mara_ce]

Hello,
IMO, if you are a student of photography, your ability to judge image quality is pretty limited at this time. Not a knock, just a fact. For most of us who aren't paid to make IQ our job, we all lack somewhat in our own priorities regarding image quality.

LOL. Are you among the newbies just to make yourself feel better? Not a knock, just an observation.

There are situations in which I wouldn't want to or just wouldn't have the time to change lenses, make a lot of setting adjustments, etc., so that's the major consideration for my second camera. That's not to say it's unimportant to know how to do these things or I'm looking for a camera solely to compensate for a lack of technical skill. Honestly, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't with someone who just wants to nitpick on this board. If you mention manual focus, someone will rant and rave about how you should just get a box camera. If you talk about getting the newest equipment, you'll be bashed about focusing on sensor size and then told you really are not in a position to judge (?)

I mean, why are people paying top dollar for this equipment? Is it a Leica-like status thing? No, it's because the technology can improve picture quality. More mega pixels and larger sensors essentially equal more light, detail, and potentially better picture quality. That's just the bottomline. A more expensive camera isn't going to teach you exposure, focus, composition, or anything else fundamental (there's a "duh" here somewhere). But no one said that. So please stop thinking you are in a better position than the rest of the world to judge.

 

[Derrel]

There may be hundreds of nice cameras available today, but the number of compact, pocketable cameras with APS-C sensors is extremely limited. The Ricoh GR has a 16-MP sensor, and if you look at the High ISO capabilities, this camera can do ISO 3,200 as well as most Nikon d-slrs that use the same Sony 16-MP sensor...this is, I think, the same sensor used in the Nikon D7000 and in other cameras of that same generation that were made by Pentax. Ricoh owns Pentax, and has for a few years.

I think the larger sensor, the APS-C size sensor, made by Sony, really sets this camera apart from the many hundreds of compacts that use the tiny, pinky-nail-sized compact sensors, and which can not "do" any kind of selective focus beyond about five feet.

I thought this thread might be a good place to embed the Steve Huff.com video overview of the Ricoh GR.

 

[mara_ce]

The Ricoh GR is an excellent camera in and of itself, but the prime lens makes it more of a niche camera than zoom lens-equipped compacts (like the Sony RX100 series) or small mirrorless (interchangeable-lens) cameras. That shouldn't bother you, of course.
The Ricoh GR's main competition is the Nikon Coolpix A, which I can't find on B&H anymore (maybe it's discontinued?) and the Fujifilm X100 series (currently the X100T, but the previous model, X100S, is highly regarded and you can probably find good deals on it used) — those cameras have a 35mm-equivalent lens, slightly longer than the 28mm-equivalent lenses on the Ricoh and the Nikon. They all have APS-C sensors, so no need to talk in equivalence: the Ricoh and Nikon have ~18mm lenses, while the X100 cameras have a 23mm lens.
There's also the new Leica Q, which is technically better than the others, but I don't you'll want to shell out $4,250 on a secondary camera.

Ming Thein is very fond of the Ricoh GR, and has covered it rather extensively. You can find his review, and some more articles he has written regarding that camera:
Review The 2013 Ricoh GR digital V Ming Thein Photographer
Battle of the 28mm compacts Ricoh GR vs Nikon Coolpix A Ming Thein Photographer
Premiere and review The 2015 Leica Q Typ 116 Ming Thein Photographer — Here he talks a little about how it compares to the Ricoh.

You may also wish to check out the Panasonic LX100, especially if you're not sure you're ready to commit to a single focal length with the Ricoh, Nikon, Fuji or Leica.

I really want a less conspicuous and more portable camera for street photography and some of my travelling.

If indeed you want a smaller camera to complement your DSLR kit, it's generally better to get a fixed-lens camera (what you call "point-and-shoot") instead of a mirrorless (interchangeable-lens) camera. If you get the latter (such as the Sony α6000), you'd have to buy lenses for both systems, and in some cases you may simply end up with duplicates.

I know the Canon Powershot is a favorite but the images quality does not compare IMO.

Canon has very few high-end fixed-lens cameras. Their best offering is the G1 X Mark II, which isn't very well regarded actually. Then there is the G7 X which is meant to compete with the Sony RX100 series, but it seems to me like the controls are less geared towards photographers using the ASM exposure modes. There's also the new G3 X, which goes up against the Sony RX10 and Panasonic FZ1000, I guess, but it doesn't have an eye-level viewfinder built-in and lacks a couple of other high-end features to really make it competitive in those lines in my opinion.
So basically, no, the Canon PowerShot line isn't "a favorite" in the high-end market.

Thank you so much for this!!! Liking images produced by the Nikon Coolpix A!
Yep, instead of focusing on how the image was made (regular DSLR, mirrorless DSLR, point and shoot, etc.), I was looking at the picture quality of smaller cameras and going from there. I understand that technical skills would matter much more for the first two categories of cameras and take that into consideration, of course.
I've read a lot of articles saying the picture quality produced by the Fuji X100 and the Ricoh GR are similar. Not finding that the case though. The Ricoh images seem sharper and the Ricoh also appears to do better with low light conditions.
I saw Ming Thein mentioned in an article about the Ricoh. Will definitely check the links out. Thank you!

 

[mara_ce]

There may be hundreds of nice cameras available today, but the number of compact, pocketable cameras with APS-C sensors is extremely limited. The Ricoh GR has a 16-MP sensor, and if you look at the High ISO capabilities, this camera can do ISO 3,200 as well as most Nikon d-slrs that use the same Sony 16-MP sensor...this is, I think, the same sensor used in the Nikon D7000 and in other cameras of that same generation that were made by Pentax. Ricoh owns Pentax, and has for a few years.

I think the larger sensor, the APS-C size sensor, made by Sony, really sets this camera apart from the many hundreds of compacts that use the tiny, pinky-nail-sized compact sensors, and which can not "do" any kind of selective focus beyond about five feet.

I thought this thread might be a good place to embed the Steve Huff.com video overview of the Ricoh GR.

Thank you for this! Looking at used Ricoh GR 16 MP cameras. If I can find one in good condition at a good price, I will probably buy it.

 

[Derrel]

Steve Huff's use of cameras is very much "social" types of photography...carrying a camera around and using it in real-world, social photography type shooting, which is importantly different from so many of the bloggers and reviewers and writers who publish reviews on the web; a lot of the web's camera reviewers evaluate cameras from the point of view of either landscape/nature or for wedding/portraiture shooting.

There's a BIG difference between shooting pictures in the car, or at a restaurant, or at a party indoors, and between locking a camera down on a $900 Gitzo tripod and then focus-stacking a series of frames made with a $2,499, 40-ounce Nikon ultra-wide zoom. This is why I linked to Steve Huff--because the way he uses digital cameras is appropriate for evaluating a camera like the CoolPix A, or the Sony or Fuji APS-C sensor compact systems, or the Ricoh GR.

 

[sashbar]

I have been shooting with Ricoh GR for over two years and all can say, it is an excellent camera. It is not cheap for a compact fixed lense camera, but it is worth every penny... Well, to be honest, I think GR is unbelievably cheap for what it is.

The image quality is easily on par with APS-C DSLRs. It has all the controls you need plus some controls you will not find in a DSLR - like a snap focus, which is a brilliant idea. It has more shooting modes that a Nikon or Canon DSLR have. You can customise the controls the way you want, it is more customiseable, than many serious DSLR cameras. This is a very advanced camera.

Ergonomically it is great, better than Nikon Coolpix A in my view. The body is all magnesium alloy and very strong, I dropped it twice on the pavement, not even a mark left.

The 18 mm lense is crazy sharp, the AF is fast, the color rendition is trademark Pentax, very good. The Sensor is indeed very similar to Nikon 7000, but not exactly the same. But the 18 mm fixed is not the easiest lense to shoot with. You will struggle if you do not know how to shoot with a wide lense.

Essentially it is a camera for advanced street shooters, I would not say it is a beginners camera. It requires a completely different shooting style compared to DSLRs.

There is one drawback that I find here - the detracting lense can attract dust, and when the dust find its way to the sensor it is not easy to clean. You will need to service it. There is no in-body electronic sensor cleaning either. Be careful when you put it in your pocket, make sure it is clean.

Ideally I would also like it to have an inbuilt vibration control, to get a couple of additional stops, but I guess that all would mean a larger body.

I have other cameras, but if I loose my GR I will go and buy another one the same day. I love this camera.

You can buy a cheap point and shoot, or use your phone, but these have only one thing in common with GR: size, in all other aspects they are worlds apart. My advice - if you have the money - go for it, it is an exiting camera to shoot with.

And btw I was told that AFP/Getty stuff reporters use GR as a backup camera.

 

[soufiej]

Hello,
IMO, if you are a student of photography, your ability to judge image quality is pretty limited at this time. Not a knock, just a fact. For most of us who aren't paid to make IQ our job, we all lack somewhat in our own priorities regarding image quality.

LOL. Are you among the newbies just to make yourself feel better? Not a knock, just an observation.

There are situations in which I wouldn't want to or just wouldn't have the time to change lenses, make a lot of setting adjustments, etc., so that's the major consideration for my second camera. That's not to say it's unimportant to know how to do these things or I'm looking for a camera solely to compensate for a lack of technical skill. Honestly, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't with someone who just wants to nitpick on this board. If you mention manual focus, someone will rant and rave about how you should just get a box camera. If you talk about getting the newest equipment, you'll be bashed about focusing on sensor size and then told you really are not in a position to judge (?)

I mean, why are people paying top dollar for this equipment? Is it a Leica-like status thing? No, it's because the technology can improve picture quality. More mega pixels and larger sensors essentially equal more light, detail, and potentially better picture quality. That's just the bottomline. A more expensive camera isn't going to teach you exposure, focus, composition, or anything else fundamental (there's a "duh" here somewhere). But no one said that. So please stop thinking you are in a better position than the rest of the world to judge.

"More mega pixels and larger sensors essentially equal more light, detail, and potentially better picture quality. That's just the bottomline."

Only if you think those are the things which will "potentially" make you a better photographer. Sort of like buying a more powerful car thinking that will make you a better driver. Or that a five thousand dollar refrigerator and a six thousand dollar oven along with a few recipe books will make you a great cook.

"A more expensive camera isn't going to teach you exposure, focus, composition, or anything else fundamental (there's a "duh" here somewhere). But no one said that. "

No, that's exactly what I said. Pay attention. If the op feels his learning is "hopeless", what makes anyone think he knows enough to buy a "better camera"? The op doesn't say what is difficult about learning but, knowing your priorities and setting values is a large part of selecting the proper equipment.

If I didn't know why I wanted a piece of gear, I wouldn't buy a piece of gear. Photography is a hobby where more can simply be more, not better. Throwing money at any difficulty is seldom the answer.

Of course, a lot of people feel buying is what they must do to become better. I don't agree with that.

Or as we both agree, a more expensive camera isn't going to teach the op exposure, focus, composition, or anything else fundamental (there's a "duh" here somewhere).


"So please stop thinking you are in a better position than the rest of the world to judge."

Please stop judging what you don't know.

 

[soufiej]

I have been shooting with Ricoh GR for over two years and all can say, it is an excellent camera.

And btw I was told that AFP/Getty stuff reporters use GR as a backup camera.

BTW I was told Jesus prefers Canon.

 

[sashbar]

Yep, instead of focusing on how the image was made (regular DSLR, mirrorless DSLR, point and shoot, etc.), I was looking at the picture quality of smaller cameras and going from there. I understand that technical skills would matter much more for the first two categories of cameras and take that into consideration, of course.
I've read a lot of articles saying the picture quality produced by the Fuji X100 and the Ricoh GR are similar. Not finding that the case though. The Ricoh images seem sharper and the Ricoh also appears to do better with low light conditions.
I saw Ming Thein mentioned in an article about the Ricoh. Will definitely check the links out. Thank you!

Technical skills matter as much with GR as it is with a DSLR camera. It has same controls, same ability to produce excellent images as a DSLR with a fixed 18 mm lense. Why do you think technical skills do not matter as much there? The difference is there is no viewfinder. That means different shooting style, but it does not mean a dumbed down shooting style.

I do not like the "point and shoot" term, because it is used in the USA for any pocketable camera regardless of its quality. I think it is really misleading, one should not treat a camera as point and shoot, just because it is small. Then again there are lots of people who treat a DSLR as point and shoot...

To me point and shoot is a camera, that is predominantly used in auto mode, regardless of its size and price. There are lots on modes in GR apart from Auto - Program mode, Av, Tv, TAv (Pentax trademark, I love this mode, very useful), Manual mode and Three user programmed modes. Plus you have two control wheels and lots of customiseable control buttons to operate these modes. You do not have it on your beginners Nikon or Cannon DSLR. From that point of view your DSRL is more point and shoot than this little Ricoh.

As for FUJI X100, I would not say that Ricoh images are "better", they are in the same league, both having a good 16 Mp APSC sensor and advanced digital engines. FUJI is different due to its non-Bayer array sensor and is better at ISO 3200, 6400 and higher due to a clever FUJI noise suppression.

In my experience Ricoh RAW files are good, but slightly less flexible in post production compared to a Nikon 16 Mp APSC DSLR. Just slightly. In that regard FUJI RAW files are slightly more superior than aforementioned Nikon files, especially when it comes to recover highlights.