jsrockit
Moderator
Oh ok, that's more of a software thing (focusing aid) than VF hardware thing.
X100S vs Ricoh GR
- Thread starter bushwick1234
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 30
- Views 9K
Oh ok, that's more of a software thing (focusing aid) than VF hardware thing.
f16sunshine
Moderator
I owned both at the same time. Can't go wrong. It comes down to personal need.
The vf on the X100 eliminated my need to put on glasses to properly compose and focus.
Long live the viewfinder 😀
The vf on the X100 eliminated my need to put on glasses to properly compose and focus.
Long live the viewfinder 😀
bushwick1234
Well-known
I had a look at the gallery images and the GR looks very tempting... Thanks for all the information.
Danielsan
Member
I ve got the x100t and the gr with wide and tele converters, they compliment each other so well for my style of shooting and i plan to never go more tele than 50mm equivalent.
dotur
od karnevala
Hi, Kaniel! I'm sorry I could not be of more help, but as another ancient Lumix user I would like to quote CameraDecision:
"Ricoh GR II has a higher Overall Score than the Panasonic GF1. It also has more features, more compact body and offers higher value for the money. But there is one area that GR II trails behind the GF1: Imaging.
If image quality is the most important aspect in a camera, choose the Panasonic GF1. If not, we recommend the Ricoh GR II."
http://cameradecision.com/compare/Ricoh-GR-II-vs-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GF1
"Ricoh GR II has a higher Overall Score than the Panasonic GF1. It also has more features, more compact body and offers higher value for the money. But there is one area that GR II trails behind the GF1: Imaging.
If image quality is the most important aspect in a camera, choose the Panasonic GF1. If not, we recommend the Ricoh GR II."
http://cameradecision.com/compare/Ricoh-GR-II-vs-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GF1
Landberg
Well-known
If you learn to use snap-focus on the GR it's super fast! The GR is my all time favorite digital camera and i have owned Leica M9, fuji x100, x100s and x100t.
I wrote a bit about it with som sample images here:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2017/01/24/ricoh-gr-the-camera-i-always-come-back-to-by-rikard-landberg/
I wrote a bit about it with som sample images here:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2017/01/24/ricoh-gr-the-camera-i-always-come-back-to-by-rikard-landberg/
lukitas
second hand noob
Mr Rockwell can be a bit of a plonker.
I use both the GR and a Fuji XE2. The XE2 with a summitar for portraits, and the GR for everything else. The Ricoh is ergonomic perfection. I put it in TAV, set the speed with the back wheel, the aperture with the front one, all with one hand. Focus speed is as fast as I need it to be. Wonderful camera.
The XE2, in comparison, is more demanding. But it has a viewfinder, which requires it's own set of controls - to save battery, I put it to viewfinder only, when the eye is put to the finder, but I want to be able to quickly show a picture to a subject, so I mapped the viewfinder options to the AE button, and then I tend to graze that button with my nose. The fuji surprises me with unexpected settings more often than the Ricoh.
Cheers
I use both the GR and a Fuji XE2. The XE2 with a summitar for portraits, and the GR for everything else. The Ricoh is ergonomic perfection. I put it in TAV, set the speed with the back wheel, the aperture with the front one, all with one hand. Focus speed is as fast as I need it to be. Wonderful camera.
The XE2, in comparison, is more demanding. But it has a viewfinder, which requires it's own set of controls - to save battery, I put it to viewfinder only, when the eye is put to the finder, but I want to be able to quickly show a picture to a subject, so I mapped the viewfinder options to the AE button, and then I tend to graze that button with my nose. The fuji surprises me with unexpected settings more often than the Ricoh.
Cheers
leo mm
Member
I am pretty sure that these CameraDecision comparative "reviews" are algorithmically generated, and I would not use them for anything other than a convenient side by side comparison of technical specs. In particular I think the "Imaging" value ascribed to each camera is a qualitative score that was assigned as of the time of original release of each camera, and is not updated as technology and standards improve over time. The GF1 is like 5 years older than the Ricoh GR II, with a smaller sensor from an earlier generation; while the GF1 can produce very nice images under the right conditions, there is no planet on which its general image quality is "better" than the GR II with a comparable lens (I own the GF1 and the GR). For starters, the GR is higher resolution and performs significantly better at high ISOs. That old 12 MP Panasonic sensor has problems after about ISO 400.
dotur
od karnevala
You are right, of course. I was just kidding Kaniel 🙂. According to CameraDecision, algorithm dynamically scores cameras using 63 different specs, current price and DxO Mark scores (where possible) in order to make a more objective and consistent comparison. Still, a question of the "Imaging" value remains: are the nowadays images really so much better than 5 years ago, objectively speaking? They ought to be, to justify our G.A.S. :angel:
jsrockit
Moderator
The hardware finder is the same in these models. But the other poster explained that you may have meant software differences? But come to think of it, the EVF is probably better res.
bushwick1234
Well-known
Thanks for all the great input! Much appreciated.
