How much for a Ricoh GR-2 digital?

Not really an answer to your question but...

I admit that I don't know what the price difference is, but I'd think long and hard about the GRD-III instead. Mine stays at f/1.9 pretty much all the time. I do realize that it's just half a stop brighter but still... It also has a much better screen (920 000 pixels like the high end Nikon DSLR-s have) that beats my old 40D's screen so hard it's not even funny.

If you can squeeze it, the III is a better choice, IMO, unless you already have the older converter lenses at hand. I put a lot of thought into the II vs III thing a year ago, went with the more expensive III and haven't had any regrets.
 
Last edited:
thanks. there's one on eBay right now for cheap and I thought maybe the seller had undervalued it...

if the GR3 is better and more readily available, I imagine the 2 isn't worth that much anyway.
 
Not a lot of people seem to be re-selling either model... I guess they either like them too much or just use them into bits.
 
Are you really sure that it is the Grd2 you want? The Grd2 seems to be the least liked of the three GRD models. The reason for that is basically the horrendous NR of jpegs which turn it into a raw-only camera unless one is prepared to stay at base iso and iso 100. I don't remember if the NR began to show off already at iso 200 but it certainly do so at 400.

Also, the phase-detection AF was removed with the Grd2 which slowed it down a little bit. There is still snapmode of course though.


The original Grd1 is loved for its grainy jpegs which makes it to a great camera for B&w at iso 800. Disappointingly that is not carried over to iso 1600 which looks marginally blotchy. The raw-writing is a little too slow to be useful. Approximately 9secs as shortest.
Sensordust have been a common problem for many Grd1 and 2 users but seems to finally have been cured with the Grd3.

I don't know a lot about the Grd3 though. It seems to be a clear improvment even though the Grd1 still is the best for B&w.
 
schaki said:
Are you really sure that it is the Grd2 you want? The Grd2 seems to be the least liked of the three GRD models. The reason for that is basically the horrendous NR of jpegs which turn it into a raw-only camera unless one is prepared to stay at base iso and iso 100. I don't remember if the NR began to show off already at iso 200 but it certainly do so at 400.

Also, the phase-detection AF was removed with the Grd2 which slowed it down a little bit. There is still snapmode of course though.
Click to expand...

The GRD2 is the unloved one in the family, and I did upgrade to the GRD3. The GRD3 has much better high ISO performance, including a usable ISO800 for colour. It also has the faster lens. Since I use my GRDs for shooting bands in clubs, these improvements were important to me, and I don't regret the upgrade.

It also has usable autofocus, which I do use from time to time. But frankly, using either snapmode or manual focus on the GRD2 was not a big pain. That is not to deny that autofocus on the GRD2 was pretty awful. It alone would not have been a reason for me to upgrade though.

I missed buying a GRD1, opting for the 2 as I saw it as being better for colour, as it had decent raw performance. The GRD2 may not have the filmlike look of the GRD1 for black and white, but I have an 11 x 14 enlargement from an ISO 800 jpeg (braincramp led to raw+jpeg being off) hanging on my wall. I used the GRD2 extensively in Paris and Buenos Aires, and I have exhibited prints from it, and I don't think any were shot at ISO100.

I do love my GRD3, but if I hadn't bought it, I would have continued to be happy with the GRD2. I don't know the seller in the auction referred to in this thread, and obviously don't know the condition of the camera -- but the price being asked is pretty good provided the camera is in good condition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom