Ricoh GR Digital

Honestly for all the hype surrounding it, I was expecting alot more. I wasn't that impressed with the design like many. I like dual command dials but don't care for the placement. The medium to high ISO performance isn't quite as good as I expected either. I agree with the point Phil makes that Ricoh probably should have went with a sensor with less resolution but better noise performance. It is a niche product so it would seem the target market would be intelligent enough to know what a clean 6mp file will do vs. the "gadget of the month" consumers that would actually factor in the fact that another compact might have a few more mp's. Perhaps the next gen will straiten a few things out.
 
Actualy i like the looks and size but with the optional viewfinder which is needed in bright light it is very expensive and 13 seconds between RAW shots it's not as interesting anymore.

And did I understand that correct? The dedicated flash is a Sigma 500 something? That flash is bigger than the camera!
 
I'm a GR-D owner and I agree with the review.

Simon's analysis at the end of who the GR-D would suit at the bottom is very correct though and I fit right in. I am not obsessed with the amount of noise and very fine detail in my prints. I am comfortable working in RAW if I need this type of quality. I love street photography and handling. What's important to note that if you need:

* Great handling
* A decent optical viewfinder
* Small size

There is NO alternative to the GRD.

I only wish it was slightly less wide (35mm say) or that it had a stepped zoom like the GX-8.
 
beebleb said:
I'm a GR-D owner and I agree with the review.

Simon's analysis at the end of who the GR-D would suit at the bottom is very correct though and I fit right in. I am not obsessed with the amount of noise and very fine detail in my prints. I am comfortable working in RAW if I need this type of quality. I love street photography and handling. What's important to note that if you need:

* Great handling
* A decent optical viewfinder
* Small size

There is NO alternative to the GRD.

I only wish it was slightly less wide (35mm say) or that it had a stepped zoom like the GX-8.

Sorry, but there is an alternative - The Panasonic DMC LX1, and soon the LX2.
 
kbg32 said:
Sorry, but there is an alternative - The Panasonic DMC LX1, and soon the LX2.

I dislike having to disagree, but the LX1 doesn't have an optical viewfinder. At all.

The LX1 was way up the list for me when I bought the GRD but the inability for it to function with an optical viewfinder (short of superglue, which some people have used) was a deal-breaker.

The LX1 is also less pocketable due to the fact that the lens-ring protrudes. I also prefer the handling less; coming from a DSLR I prefer the dial to the little joystick.
 
Looks like the GRD got a lot of things right. Not wild about the RAW write rate. Nor the design of the retractable lens. Would have preferred a fixed non-moving lens just to cut down on the odds of malfunction.

Interested enough to wait for the second iteration of this camera. At least I'm glad Ricoh is trying to make a professional's P&S digital. 🙂
 
I think we have reached an interesting watershed in the development of digital cameras: it is not so much about the mega-pixel, feature-laden, zoom erection, noise-reduction race anymore. This camera represents a new way of thinking about compact cameras. Every camera seems to have trade-offs unless you want to move up to a DSLR.

The panasonic LX/leica is an excellent camera but it is not quite the same as the Ricoh. The Panasonic is especially better as a sunny day camera. It does not perform as well for hand-held low-light and the Ricoh has better ergonomics.

There is certainly enough reviews of the Ricoh on the internet for any potential buyer to get a good estimation of what they will be getting. I enjoyed the dpreview article as they do a thorough testing. I was surprised that the resolution of the lens is not top of the class because that is the major trumpeted feature of the camera. I expect this is more related to the sensor than the lens itself. It probably has better resolving power than the sensor can handle.

Yes, there are many compact cameras out there that take superb pictures now. I'm impressed by the Fugifilm F30 and the Canon SD700. The Fugi has AMAZing quality for a the high ISOs, but it's images look very processed. The Canon seems to be a superb performer all around.

When I was looking for a digital compact camera it would leave me completely boggled after I left the camera store. My mind would swim trying to weigh the balances on half a dozen cameras with many dozens of features that I didn't really want.

The Ricoh is something different. It has manual controls that are easy to use and will feel like a DSLR. It's simple and focuses on the important things for the type of photography I would like to do. Above all, this camera takes pictures with a beautiful character. So many of the digital cameras out there lack character, often over-processing their images in low light.

Whether one camera is ultimately better than the others is very subjective. Sean Reid talks about the unique "drawing" style of these small sensor cameras have, how they have a special character from the DSLRs which is unique and not necessarily negative. I only hope that the Ricoh I have ordered will last a long time and not suffer from the lens jamming problems that I've been reading about.

This has been a good discussion. Thanks to all the contributers.
 
Oh, and not many people have talked about the FANTASTIC macro photography that the Ricoh can do. Have you seen those pictures? It can focus as close as 1.5 cm from the lens (about 2/3" for the Americans who read this 🙂 )
 
Last edited:
beebleb said:
I dislike having to disagree, but the LX1 doesn't have an optical viewfinder. At all.

The LX1 was way up the list for me when I bought the GRD but the inability for it to function with an optical viewfinder (short of superglue, which some people have used) was a deal-breaker.

The LX1 is also less pocketable due to the fact that the lens-ring protrudes. I also prefer the handling less; coming from a DSLR I prefer the dial to the little joystick.

Well, I disagree with your disagreement and we can leave it at that. Enjoy your GRD.
 
The trouble with this review, which complains about the GR-D's noise (even at ISO 64!) is that many owners, particurly ones who have been using this camera for B&W, feel that the noise (at ISO levels of 200+) looks very much like film grain; and this is important to us. I've made huge prints — a 23x31 inch (58x79 cm) print from a GR-D DNG file shot at ISO 800 and a 100x133 cm (39x52 inches) from an ISO 64. However, reading this review would have made many people not buy the camera. I'm glad that I bought it before reading it.

I take it that Sean Reid had a completely different reading on the GR-D, but I haven't read his review.

Some of my B&W pictures are here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

—Mitch/Bangkok
 
Back
Top Bottom