aureliaaurita
Well-known
So I have an ep1, that I am very fond of, and really ought to be investing in rather than buying another camera but handy as it is, I still can't put it in my handbag.
I owned a GRD that I loved - adored, could not put down, until I killed it with sand and kindness that is.
I miss it.
I am now torn between the GX200 and the GRD III and don't know which way to turn.
The GX200 is markedly cheaper, half the price of the GRD III, but the lens is a zoom - not as good?
oh I am confused.
I owned a GRD that I loved - adored, could not put down, until I killed it with sand and kindness that is.
I miss it.
I am now torn between the GX200 and the GRD III and don't know which way to turn.
The GX200 is markedly cheaper, half the price of the GRD III, but the lens is a zoom - not as good?
oh I am confused.
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
I got the GX100 in Japan, used for a week, and traded in for GRD. I liked the size, shape, quickness and the fully customizable UI of GRD better than GX. Also I liked prime lens, and how it rendered black&white at high ISO. I used it till it broke.
Now I just got GRDIII and didn't even think about GX200. IMO, although GX isn't a big camera, GRD's shape and size, coupled with several speedy shooting features and UI make the camera ultimate quick street shooter.
It is completely personal choice I know a friend of mine loves his GX200. The GX100 took very nice photos when I had it as well.
Now I just got GRDIII and didn't even think about GX200. IMO, although GX isn't a big camera, GRD's shape and size, coupled with several speedy shooting features and UI make the camera ultimate quick street shooter.
It is completely personal choice I know a friend of mine loves his GX200. The GX100 took very nice photos when I had it as well.
aureliaaurita
Well-known
I thought that was what you'd say.
If I could find a GRD for less than £200 with a viewfinder I'd be on it.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
Ffordes in Beauly have the GRD-III for £199 .
Perhaps because the GRD-IV is due within a month of so.
Wait and GRD-III prices will also drop, second hand GRD-IIs will become plentiful or if the GRD-IV is a killer upgrade you can get that.
Perhaps because the GRD-IV is due within a month of so.
Wait and GRD-III prices will also drop, second hand GRD-IIs will become plentiful or if the GRD-IV is a killer upgrade you can get that.
aureliaaurita
Well-known
aureliaaurita
Well-known
or I could buy the pancake lens and VF I have been longing after.
fforbes seem very good though.
fforbes seem very good though.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
Sorry I just spotted my typo ... they have the GRD-II for £199
matthewm
Well-known
I've owned both the GX200 and the GRDIII. I'm on my second GRDIII as I sold the first and regretted it almost immediately. I liked the GX200, but the slower lens was a big trade-off and the EVF was kind of bulky and I didn't care much for it. Mainly, though, I found I was using the GX200 at the 24mm setting for most images and figured that I might as well do away with the zoom and get the prime. My favorite thing about the GX200 though was the step zoom. I'm a prime shooter for the most part and it was nice to be able to set a 24, 35, 50mm focal length without guessing. It just made everything a little more familiar for me and is a really thoughtful addition.
In the end, the GRDIII was the camera for me, though and I don't think you can go wrong with it. Unless the GRDIV is some APS-C Godsend... Then we're all screwed.
Here are a few shots from my short stint with the GX200:
In the end, the GRDIII was the camera for me, though and I don't think you can go wrong with it. Unless the GRDIV is some APS-C Godsend... Then we're all screwed.
Here are a few shots from my short stint with the GX200:
schaki
Established
In the end, the GRDIII was the camera for me, though and I don't think you can go wrong with it. Unless the GRDIV is some APS-C Godsend... Then we're all screwed.
I would say GRD3 as well. If I wanted zoom, then I would go for a used GX100 every day instead of a GX200 because of: Faster AF, (phase detection AF removed on GX200 made it slow), less aggressive noise reduction makes the GX100 a good jpeg-camera unlike the GX200 which needs raw to get something decent out of it. GX100 have unbuffered raw and it takes just about 4 secs as shortest for it to write these files. Depends very much on what card which is used. Panasonic works well.
On the other hand raw is hardly needed for GX100 but GX200 have properly buffered raw, at last.
Sample variation and sensor dust might be issues for GX100 but not so much for GX200. That's because Ricoh tweaked the zoom-design somewhat, added new better dust sealings and the sample variation are less wild. Some GX100 zooms could be soft at 72mm.
The best thing out there would be a GX100 with with the updated zoom-revision from GX200 / GXR S10. Unlike GX200 with 12mp ccd, the S10 uses the same low noise 10mp ccd which also are used in GRD3 as well as some other compacts released around the same time.
Martin Setvak on Dpreview reported that his repaired GX100 with new zoom (exchanged while still under warranty due dust issues)
At least I believe, and probably some more, that it is the S10 module with newer 10mp low noise ccd which was given to his GX100.
The noise levels was reported to be noticeably lower after the repair. Not talking about hot or stuck pixels here.
I've been thinking about possibly buy a used GX100 which are out of warranty. Somehow ruin the zoom so that it must be replaced with a new zoom-unit. Then send it in to Ricoh and pay the 119 Euro which I assume would be the cost for that job, to have the zoom and ccd upgraded to S10 standard. The benefits of that would as already mentioned be: Less noise, probably no more very serious problems with dust on the ccd and also a zoom which very likely are sharp at both the wide and the tele end of the zoom.
Some relevant links:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1013&message=35731723
http://ricohforum.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5580
And also some other guys with GX100 wondering however a repair would be worthwhile. I clearly think it is worth it if cost are just about 119 euro.
Still I don't know however any of them chose to get their cameras repaired or not.
Last edited:
thegman
Veteran
How about a GRDII, in the UK at least, it's a LOT cheaper than a GRDIII.
schaki
Established
Unfortunately the GRD2 are the least liked of the three digital GRDs.
Slow AF and no grainy noise unlike the GRD1 which have the same lens. AF is slow because of the phase detection had been removed and Ricoh struggled to find the AF speed without it. Also noise reduction was very bad and couldn't be completely turned off for jpegs.
I tried the GRD2 first but didn't like it for these reasons. About 1 or 2 year later I tried the GRD1 and liked it except the metering which really can struggle in mixed lighting conditions and finally got rid of it. Regretted it and got another used one. With the metering set to center it works better imo. The images may look a little bit pale with default settings so I up saturation one step in camera.
Both GRD2 and GX200 belong to a short era of regressions for Ricoh, unfortunately. overambitious NR and slow AF compared to previous models didn't make many happy, though some could live with these shortcomings.
Another nice model if one like the grainy GRD1 output might be the GX8 which not is too far away. Optically it is good though not quite so as the GR-lens on GRD1. Unlike the GRD the GX8 can have more CA / purple fringing around high contrast breakings. Bokeh in macro is about OK. Not always quite as smooth as the GRD1 but for most of the time it is good enough. Sharp wide-open at f2.5 as long as it is a good sample of that zoom.
Maybe not really fair to try and compare a GX-zoom compared to a GR-lens but hard not to compare anyway as I've used both the GRD1 and also Ricoh Caplio 500SE which is based on the GX8 and are a rugged, water and shockproof such. Though without aperture-priority. So I kind of know what the zoom of the GX8 is like.
Also the now aged super-zoom. The Ricoh Caplio R3 might be a good choice for these that like GRD1 output. It have only 5mp and marginally more grainy output than the R4 with 6mp.
R3. Well down the page. Unfortunately not the same object as for the R4 but still an OK display of what the noise is like http://www.digicamreview.com/ricoh_caplio_r3_review.htm
R4. A good bit down on that page http://www.digicamreview.com/ricoh_caplio_r4_review.htm
R3 Again. TrustedReview seem not to have reviewed the R4. Anyway, I think this compares better to the R4 at Digicam reviews and really shows with the noise is like in dark parts. Clearly more grainy than the R4 almost blotchy as the iso are cranked up.
Definitely GRD III
Definitely GRD III
Hi
I have had the GX100, GX200 and now have a GRD III. The GX100 was pretty good, but not great. I would agree, If I had to pick between a GX100 and GX200 I would pick the GX100 though for photo quality.
On to the GX200. Much better shot to shot times, photo quality at ISO 64 was good. I found I could really get quite a lot from the RAW files. Unfortunately, I couldn't stick to ISO 64 all the time and this is the biggest problem with the GX200. At ISO 100 there was some noise. At just ISO 200, the noise was a problem in some situations. Above that, I never bothered. I tried to like it, but not being able to get nice shots from ISO 200 and above was annoying. The noise wasn't film like, it was just, well....noisy and bad!
I then had an 8 Month stint with a Canon S90. I can't really knock it, it was a very good camera all round. But....It didn't seem to render photos how a Ricoh does. The colour a Ricoh produces, I find converts to Black and White very well. I don't know why or the exact reason, but I just couldn't get rich dark tones from the Canon. Also, even with a 3rd party grip, it didn't have the usability and handling of a Ricoh.
So, along came the GRD III for me about 4 Months ago. Wow! I just love the photos, the speed, the size and how much I have been able to taylor it to my needs. I am getting those nice dark tones again, with a definite jump in sharpness. (except when my hands aren't steady) I thought the lack of zoom might be a problem, but it hasn't been. I'm becoming a prime lens fan because of this. I now just use a prime lens on my other camera. Also, I'm not really big on scene modes, but the GRD III does have some good ones. Dynamic range double shot, cross process and dynamic B&W. Good fun, but a pity you can't save a RAW file at the same time.
I got mine from ebay new for £260. I have seen a couple go 2nd hand for close to the £200 mark and I think it is worth waiting for one. In saying that, if you enjoyed your GRD I, that could be an option. I often watch those on ebay and they tend to go from £90 up depending on the condition. In fact I wanted to pick one up to try it, but i'm rubbish at auctions and always lose in the last seconds!
Anyway, for some samples of the GX100, GX200 and GRD III, have a look at my flickr and see if that helps the decision at all. Especially if my post hasn't.
GX100 Photos | GX200 Photos | GRD III Photos
I look forward to hearing your final decision. Good luck!
Definitely GRD III
Hi
I have had the GX100, GX200 and now have a GRD III. The GX100 was pretty good, but not great. I would agree, If I had to pick between a GX100 and GX200 I would pick the GX100 though for photo quality.
On to the GX200. Much better shot to shot times, photo quality at ISO 64 was good. I found I could really get quite a lot from the RAW files. Unfortunately, I couldn't stick to ISO 64 all the time and this is the biggest problem with the GX200. At ISO 100 there was some noise. At just ISO 200, the noise was a problem in some situations. Above that, I never bothered. I tried to like it, but not being able to get nice shots from ISO 200 and above was annoying. The noise wasn't film like, it was just, well....noisy and bad!
I then had an 8 Month stint with a Canon S90. I can't really knock it, it was a very good camera all round. But....It didn't seem to render photos how a Ricoh does. The colour a Ricoh produces, I find converts to Black and White very well. I don't know why or the exact reason, but I just couldn't get rich dark tones from the Canon. Also, even with a 3rd party grip, it didn't have the usability and handling of a Ricoh.
So, along came the GRD III for me about 4 Months ago. Wow! I just love the photos, the speed, the size and how much I have been able to taylor it to my needs. I am getting those nice dark tones again, with a definite jump in sharpness. (except when my hands aren't steady) I thought the lack of zoom might be a problem, but it hasn't been. I'm becoming a prime lens fan because of this. I now just use a prime lens on my other camera. Also, I'm not really big on scene modes, but the GRD III does have some good ones. Dynamic range double shot, cross process and dynamic B&W. Good fun, but a pity you can't save a RAW file at the same time.
I got mine from ebay new for £260. I have seen a couple go 2nd hand for close to the £200 mark and I think it is worth waiting for one. In saying that, if you enjoyed your GRD I, that could be an option. I often watch those on ebay and they tend to go from £90 up depending on the condition. In fact I wanted to pick one up to try it, but i'm rubbish at auctions and always lose in the last seconds!
Anyway, for some samples of the GX100, GX200 and GRD III, have a look at my flickr and see if that helps the decision at all. Especially if my post hasn't.
GX100 Photos | GX200 Photos | GRD III Photos
I look forward to hearing your final decision. Good luck!
__--
Well-known
Quite true in terms of how the GRD2 is viewed, but when I look over my pictures many of the ones I like were taken with the GRD2. Also, the GRD2 has the 40mm tete-converter, which I like for B&W because the flare that one often gets in one of the corners pf the frame can be "vignetted away" in post-processing, as in these two pictures:
Bangkok | GRD2 | 40mm-e tele-converter | ISO 400 | f/2.4 | 1/73 sec
Bangkok | GRD2 | 40mm-e tele-converter | ISO 800 | f/2.4 | 1/26 sec
While I understand that many people prefer the GRD to both the GRD2 and GRD3, my favorite is the GRD3 — and I only shoot in RAW. Basically, I feel that the Ricoh has improved RAW file quality almost by a stop in the cameras that succeed the GRD. I would also prefer the GRD3 to the GX200, because I like being able to shoot with the 21mm wide-converter and find the f/1.9 maximum aperture very useful. The only thing that I miss is the 40mm tele-converter of the GRD2. Also, on the GRD3 the ISO 1600 is usable:
Bangkok | GRD3 | 21mm wide-converter | ISO 1600 | f/1.9 | 1/125 sec
—Mitch/Bangkok
Rainy Season (GRD3)
aureliaaurita
Well-known
nice photos guys
I am going to go for the GRD III and am keeping my eye out for price drops(!)
I am going to go for the GRD III and am keeping my eye out for price drops(!)