Ricoh GR vs GR II

[nightfly]

Got rid of my GR and replaced with a Fuji XE-2 and a 28mm lens. Just sold the Fuji and want my Ricoh back.

Debating between a used (or possibly new) GR or a new GR II.

New GR's are a negligible savings over a II but I could probably get a used one and save a few hundred.

A little hesitant to go used on a compact digital as I know they don't last forever, but would be nice to save a little cash.

Anything the II does that is worth the extra $$. OR anything that the II does that is simply annoying and makes you long for the original GR?

I don't care at all about video or anything like that. Wifi might be useful but really taking a card out and processing in my computer isn't really a big deal.

 

[Landberg]

No real difference, just wifi.

 

[dwojr]

You might want to wait to see if anything is announced at Photokina.

 

[nightfly]

Good point but really I just want my GR back.

I think the only thing they could do that would tempt me would be to make it full frame and keep it in the same size body which might not even be physically possible.

I've had the GR I, GR III and GR and although I wish the jpegs out of the camera were as nice as Fuji's, all in all it's probably the best compromise for me when I can't or don't want to take my M9.

 

[:: Mark]

I have both the older GR and current GR II.

I do not use the WiFi at all, so for all practical purposes the cameras are practically identical. I think that the GR II is possibly a little faster and sharper when reviewing images, but the difference is not huge. Battery life is about the same with WiFi off.

My original GR was a disaster for sensor dust, while the GR II remains (so far....) completely dust free. However, I suspect that this is more likely due to poor build quality - there is a rubber seal internally that surrounds the sensor, and it was not fitted very tightly in the older camera. Either this was improved in the GR II or I just got lucky.

Great little cameras...

 

[f16sunshine]

BTW
I use the latest Toshiba Flashair card in the Ricoh GR.
The write times for RAW+ is not slower than it is for the RAW alone until you fire off 5 frames or more consecutively.
It's a pretty cheap way to upgrade to WIFI.

 

[BlackXList]

Wifi, NFC and a bigger buffer are I believe the only changes.

I don't need or want the Wifi or NFC, there's been a couple of occasions when I'd have liked a bigger buffer, but I haven't actually missed shots completely because of it, just come away with something slightly different than I thought of to start with.

I've been tempted, but I can't justify the upgrade.

As far as longevity goes, my GRDII is still going strong, from 2008, as is my Panasonic LX3 from the same year.

 

[Addy101]

If you want to share your pictures on social media, WiFi is great. I didn't think I needed it, but now it is a big plus for any camera I'm considering. Just saying.

 

[Richard Griffith]

I seem to remember reading somewhere on DP Review that JPEGS had been improved in the GRD 2, so colours are now slightly better

 

[jsrockit]

I seem to remember reading somewhere on DP Review that JPEGS had been improved in the GRD 2, so colours are now slightly better

As someone who has used both, color isn't the GR's strong suit.

 

[nightfly]

I originally ditched my GR because I mostly shoot color and I prefer the out of camera JPEGS from Fuji.

But the GR is so much better to use that I'm going to suck it up and find JPEG settings or a simple post processing routine that gets the files where I want them. I'd rather futz on my computer than out in the field, like I found myself doing with the Fuji. Felt like I was constantly fighting the camera.

The GR Raws are neutral and flexible but take some messaging to get the color where I'd like. On my GRD III I got some pretty good JPEGS eventually though I don't know how I got there. Nothing rivals the M9 color for me but the Fuji was close.

 

[bayernfan]

I owned the original GR for about 2 weeks and found it to be a buggy little thing.

For example:
- The flash worked about half the time.
- I'd turn it on and it would turn right back off.
- Hot pixels began appearing in my images

Needless to say, returned it. Was turned off by the experience and didn't even bother trying a replacement. It seems a lot of other people had similar or worse issues with theirs.

Decided to give the GR II a chance, hoping that Ricoh fixed the QC issues. So far I'm in love with it. The black and white jpegs are awesome and remind me of pushed Ilford HP5. I highly recommend the GR II.

 

[gilpen123]

I have a GR3 and the GR. It would be dreadful to think that my GR will be dead and can't find another GR in the market so I just ordered a GRII. Just loved how it works in my type of shooting if and when a GR 3 arrives and it is monochrome I will jump right in.

 

[sevres_babylone]

My GR stopped working last year. Initially the problem was that when I turned it on, the lens would extend, but the aperture blades would not open when I pressed the shutter. The first frame would be blank, but then it would work. But then the camera stopped working altogether. This problem has been discussed on DPReview and on flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/ricohgr/discuss/72157655664854300/

I then bought a used X100T in the classifieds, think I would wait until this year, when there is likely to be a new GR model to replace my GR. But I miss it too much, and before the year was out bought a used GR II from the classifieds (love the classifieds, never had a bad experience).

I really haven't noticed a difference in the quality of the images between the two GR models, but I'm not a pixel peeper, and generally do some "post" with the RAW images.