# Ricoh GR /GRII: cheapest, lightest and smallest APS-C digital compact camera you can buy.



## editor (Apr 17, 2013)

It still looks the same as the very first GR (which I'm still using) but with an APS sensor onboard this should take some mighty fine pics. 

Price is was beyond me though at £599.







http://www.wirefresh.com/ricoh-anno...its-gr-digital-iv-compact-enthusiast-snapper/


----------



## friedaweed (Apr 18, 2013)

It looks well


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2013)

It's going to be a lot better than my original GR, but the interface and build will no doubt be excellent. It's a lovely little camera.


----------



## plurker (Apr 18, 2013)

I've got a Ricoh GX100, which I use. It's sturdy, crap in low light, great in daylight.
I find it not that easy to use when using MF and some other settings.  

I'd buy one again, but the main thing my GX did is make me realise I should've just bought an SLR and a bigger bag


----------



## editor (Apr 24, 2013)

I really like the design philosophy of the Ricoh GR range. Lovely cameras.


----------



## George & Bill (Apr 27, 2013)

That looks really nice - I decided against getting a small camera in the end, but this would be a contender if my mind changes in future. Not cheap, but compares favourably to, for example, the Nikon Coolpix A...


----------



## dweller (Jun 11, 2013)

just watched this video, looks impressive


----------



## editor (Jun 11, 2013)

I love the Ricoh GR cameras. I've used the original GR-D for six years or something, but I can't afford the price tag of this beaut.

Edit to add: Wish I hadn't watched that video now. WANT!


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2013)

I've seen some more videos. Damn I want one of these. 
That snap focus mode is a treat.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 14, 2013)

I've been looking for the film GRs - the GR1, GR1s and GR1v. Way too expensive. Trendy camera bastards.

I found one at a camera fair the other week for £120 but didn't have enough cash for it - by the time I'd got back from the ATM somebody else had bought the bloody thing


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2013)

I've still got the original GRD digital camera and the interface is still superb. The fact that it's like the camera equivalent of a ThinkPad (i.e. matt black, industrial lines, barely any branding and built like a brick shithouse) only adds to its appeal.


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2013)

If I manage to sell any pics in the next month or so, or get any kind of unexpected windfall, I may get this.

I love my Olympus cameras, but neither are really pocketable and I'd like a high quality, street shooting camera in my back pocket.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 15, 2013)

Oh yes this Ricoh looks very interesting. I might be tempted. I have stayed with my Lumix LX3 for several years now without being tempted to move on but I might consider the Ricoh GR.

However I think I will hang on a bit before buying one. Discussion around the net suggests that this and the Nikon equivalent are the first of a batch of APS-C pocketable cameras that will be launched this year into what is seen as a new sector of the camera market. That could do a bit of damage to the 4/3 format sector.


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Oh yes this Ricoh looks very interesting. I might be tempted. I have stayed with my Lumix LX3 for several years now without being tempted to move on but I might consider the Ricoh GR.
> 
> However I think I will hang on a bit before buying one. Discussion around the net suggests that this and the Nikon equivalent are the first of a batch of APS-C pocketable cameras that will be launched this year into what is seen as a new sector of the camera market. That could do a bit of damage to the 4/3 format sector.


There may well be cameras with more gizmos than the GR, but it's by miles the most user friendly interface I've come across on a compact, ad I love its no nonsense looks.


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

I'm getting horribly tempted by this. I'm still using the GRD from 2006 for taking pics at the Offline nights and general nights out, but I'm very much warming to the advantages an APS-C sensor would add.


http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ricoh-gr/ricoh-grA.HTM


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)




----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 17, 2013)

Well, I'd buy one if I had the money.

Actually there are a couple of lenses that I'd buy first. And I'd probably buy a film one. But it's definitely up there - it's just my sort of thing.


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Well, I'd buy one if I had the money.
> 
> Actually there are a couple of lenses that I'd buy first. And I'd probably buy a film one. But it's definitely up there - it's just my sort of thing.


 
I've asked Ricoh to loan a review model but there's a bit of a wait on. They used to offer discounts for journalists, and if that's generous enough, I may just buy the thing anyway.


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

Another rave review....





> A camera with a fixed 28mm lens and no built-in viewfinder is never going to be everyone's cup of tea, but if you're in the market for a responsive, full-featured, understated and pocketable camera that delivers outstanding still images, then look no further than the new Ricoh GR.
> 
> In a departure from all previous GR models, the Ricoh GR (V) features a larger APS-C image sensor that delivers great results. There's almost no noise from the base sensitivity of ISO 100 all the way up to 3200, with the higher settings of 6400, 12,800 and even to a lesser extent 25,600 all perfectly usable for smaller prints - very impressive for any 1.5x sensor, never mind one housed in a humble compact camera. The tack-sharp 28mm lens and the on-trend absence of an optical low-pass filter both improve the image quality further, with the option of the ubiquitous Adobe DNG RAW format if you want to take control, complete with in-camera RAW processing.
> 
> ...


http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/ricoh_gr_review/

With test shots taken around Brixton: http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/ricoh_gr_review/sample_images/


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 18, 2013)

I previously read the preview on Digitalreview which had me wanting the camera and now with that review above I am getting ready to part with money. That Ricoh looks to be a real step up in quality for a pocketable camera and it has some very usable features that leave my existing cameras behind. Also it is much better value for money than its close rival the new Nikon with the same sensor (Sony reputedly).


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2013)

This is quite possibly the stupidest review I've read of a high end camera. The 'reviewer' hasn't a fucking clue.
http://gizmodo.com/ricoh-gr-review-a-great-starter-camera-for-aspiring-pr-513772607

Nice comparison video here:


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 19, 2013)

That is pretty much the shittest camera review I have yet read  I think it's real, too.


----------



## George & Bill (Jun 19, 2013)

editor said:


> This is quite possibly the stupidest review I've read of a high end camera. The 'reviewer' hasn't a fucking clue.
> http://gizmodo.com/ricoh-gr-review-a-great-starter-camera-for-aspiring-pr-513772607
> 
> Nice comparison video here:




Pretty unhelpful, but no worse than I've seen many times before, and indeed, for higher-end cameras than this...tbh I think it's the genuinely insightful reviews that are the exception, guff like this is more or less the norm!

Do like the way the video review seems go be being narated by Werner Herzog, though.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 20, 2013)

I just went to my local photography shop to have a look at a Ricoh GR. No luck, they have sold all they had and have 8 people waiting for the next batch to come in. There will apparently be 20 coming in next week. They have taken my number to call me when they are in.


----------



## editor (Jun 20, 2013)

DPReview review up: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ricoh-gr/


> The Ricoh GR is the latest in a long-running and much-loved series of enthusiast compacts. The move to an APS-C sensor means the image quality of the GR finally lives up to the standards of the user interface and build that the series has always offered.
> 
> Having that history to build on had helped Ricoh present a really well thought-out camera and one that's a pleasure to use. It's likely to most suit the dedicated photographer, willing to shoot Raw and take the time to set the camera up to suit their shooting style, but it's a very usable camera straight out of the box.
> 
> When it comes down to it, the Ricoh has more features (such as interval shooting, interval composite and multi-exposure shooting) than it makes sense for us to test. But even sticking to the core, single-shot, traditional photography options, the GR is a highly capable camera, thanks to inclusions such as a built-in ND filter and Snap Focus mode.





> The Ricoh GR is a camera for a fairly specific niche - dedicated photographers wanting a fixed 28mm equivalent pocketable camera - but it satisfies the needs of that niche very well. So, while its JPEGs aren't quite as punchy as those from the Coolpix A, we think its potential buyers will be just as interested in its Raw capabilities, which are every bit a match for the Nikon's.
> 
> The Ricoh's heritage plays strongly in its favor - the GR series had long ago overcome most operational quirks - resulting in an enjoyable, engaging camera with excellent image quality. So, with Raw performance that's essentially indistinguishable from the Nikon's, the Ricoh's ND filter, longer battery life, faster focusing, lens quality and better rear screen give it the edge. The lower price seals the deal - earning the Ricoh our highest rating.


GOLD award!

*double want!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 20, 2013)

I have long regarded Dpreview as itself the Gold Standard of reviewers. They know their stuff and don't write bullshizzle.

That other review criticized above doesn't go into the kind of detail that Dpreview does, yet it seems to have found a fault with Macro focusing. This could of course be the reviewer not understanding how to work the camera in that mode.

I was a bit mystified by the comment about the small size of the screen giving the impression of being in focus when they are not when seen larger. What camera is he used to using? Perhaps he should have gone to that famous opticians seen on TV.


----------



## editor (Jun 24, 2013)

Video review here. I always like this guy's style.


----------



## dweller (Jun 25, 2013)

^^ I saw that vid the other day and he mentions about the max shutter speed being lower than 4000 when
 wide open (2000?), just when you might want a higher speed to let less light in.
 I know it has a built in ND filter but this is a little niggle in an otherwise well specced beauty.


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2013)

Another damn rave review or two:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/ricoh-gr_Digital-Camera_review
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2013/06/camera-test-ricoh-gr-aps-c-compact


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 4, 2013)

It looks ok, but with the widest aperture at 2.8, it's a touch slow for my liking, especially with the night shooting I do. If I'm going to get another of these compact digitals, it will be the Sony Cybershot DXC RS100. 20 megapixels with a 1.8 widest aperture [28 - 100 mm equivalent]. Sleek.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m2

But I'm saving up; I want my next camera to be a full-frame DSLR.


----------



## George & Bill (Jul 4, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It looks ok, but with the widest aperture at 2.8, it's a touch slow for my liking, especially with the night shooting I do. If I'm going to get another of these compact digitals, it will be the Sony Cybershot DXC RS100. 20 megapixels with a 1.8 widest aperture [28 - 100 mm equivalent]. Sleek.
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m2
> 
> But I'm saving up; I want my next camera to be a full-frame DSLR.


 
Have you compared the high-ISO performance of the two cameras? I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Ricoh had at least a stop more of usable range, given the much lower pixel density (and the fact it's a newer camera). It's also a fair guess that a fixed 28mm lens will given nicer results than a 28-100mm equivalent. I don't plan on buying either, for the record.

But now is indeed a great time to save up for a full-frame DSLR - as long as you don't mind the bulk and the shutter/mirror noise, which are obviously two areas in which they can't compete with compact cameras. Both the Canon 6D and Nikon D600 are amazing value for money considering what you would have had to spend until recently to get something comparable. The choice of lenses you'll have available is still yet to be even remotely rivaled by any compact system.


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2013)

Both are splendid cameras but the GR has far better low light performance than the RX100. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ricoh-gr/14
You can't argue with sensor size: 22.3x14.9mm vs 13.2x8.8mm


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 4, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It looks ok, but with the widest aperture at 2.8, it's a touch slow for my liking, especially with the night shooting I do. If I'm going to get another of these compact digitals, it will be the Sony Cybershot DXC RS100. 20 megapixels with a 1.8 widest aperture [28 - 100 mm equivalent]. Sleek.
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m2
> 
> But I'm saving up; I want my next camera to be a full-frame DSLR.


 
Reasonable if you're thinking to "future-proof" your kit so you don't feel the urge to update every couple of years. Personally I'm happy with what APS-C produces, but then the largest anything I photograph ever gets reproduced is A3, so...


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2013)

If you're after any kind of 'future-proofing' you'd be far better off buying into an interchangeable lens camera system.


----------



## George & Bill (Jul 4, 2013)

If you're after 'future-proofing', I'd suggest buying a hammer and chisel and going in search of some granite cliffs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 4, 2013)

editor said:


> If you're after any kind of 'future-proofing' you'd be far better off buying into an interchangeable lens camera system.


 
That's what "full-frame DSLRs" (in fact, *any* DSLRs) tend to be, isn't it?


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's what "full-frame DSLRs" (in fact, *any* DSLRs) tend to be, isn't it?


And compact system cameras.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 4, 2013)

editor said:


> And compact system cameras.


 
I'm currently torn between replacing my Lumix (given to my dad) with a similar "travel zoom"-type camera (probably a Fujifilm F***EXR), a micro 4/3rds CSC (probably a 2nd-hand Olympus Pen E or a Panasonic GF), or a 2nd-hand Panasonic LX. Travel zoom is more pocketable, but the other two are more versatile. Arghh!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 4, 2013)

I'm very happy with my Lumix GF2, I have to say - with the Panasonic pancakes it's pocket sized but has terrific IQ. High ISO is on the "tolerable" side but it's a few years old now and later models are better.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 4, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Reasonable if you're thinking to "future-proof" your kit so you don't feel the urge to update every couple of years. Personally I'm happy with what APS-C produces, but then the largest anything I photograph ever gets reproduced is A3, so...


 
I'm unhappy with the image quality that the smaller cameras seem to be giving me. That might just be a result of not having enough technical knowledge of the cameras, meaning I'm not getting the most out of them.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 4, 2013)

editor said:


> If you're after any kind of 'future-proofing' you'd be far better off buying into an interchangeable lens camera system.


 
I 'future proofed' myself by buying a 30 year old Pentax SLR with interchangeable lenses. The way forward: back to film.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 4, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I 'future proofed' myself by buying a 30 year old Pentax SLR with interchangeable lenses. The way forward: back to film.


 
I've got dozens of film cameras in various formats, everything from "point and shoot" to Canon EOS and Pentax MZ SLRs. I'm proofed against anything this side of world film production being stopped, and even then I've got a couple of dozen films for each film format I need.
In case you're wondering, that's:
35mm
120
620
APS
110
16mm
Minox 8mm
6.5 x 9cm sheet.

Today I shot a roll of 135 Fomapan 100 in one of these:







And a roll of 120 Fomapan 100 in one of these (a gift from a fellow Urbanite):


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 4, 2013)

That Zeiss is a beauty.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 4, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I want my next camera to be a full-frame DSLR.


Me too, I would really like a FF dslr.

eta: atm it would possibly be a Nikon D600 but I need to make some money first.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 4, 2013)

I want my next camera to be the one that is the subject of the OP. Sadly I am still waiting for a call back from the shop that said that they would do so as soon as some more were available.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 4, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> That Zeiss is a beauty.


 
Yep. Made in the early '50s (can tell from the lens and shutter numbers), so it's about 60 years old, but everything works beautifully-smoothly, and it's comparatively light (weighs about the same as a standard SLR _sans_ lens). Once you get in "the zone" of going through the steps (wind on using red window, cock shutter, focus, press shutter release, then repeat) it's as easy to use as the Agfa is.

Mind you, the Agfa is damn good too. Probably one of the smallest manual 35mm compacts to ever hit the market, and full of well thought-out features, all executed with the usual German attention to detail (it's also a favourite of mine for *quiet* "point and shoot", as the shutter is super-smooth and almost Leica-silent, and the lens is a real winner - pin-sharp!).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 4, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I want my next camera to be the one that is the subject of the OP. Sadly I am still waiting for a call back from the shop that said that they would do so as soon as some more were available.


 
They're probably holding out on you because you didn't cross the salesman's palm with paper.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 4, 2013)

I will go and present my face to them tomorrow. That should shock them into action or at least get me some information.


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I 'future proofed' myself by buying a 30 year old Pentax SLR with interchangeable lenses. The way forward: back to film.


 
Good luck with that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep. Made in the early '50s (can tell from the lens and shutter numbers), so it's about 60 years old, but everything works beautifully-smoothly, and it's comparatively light (weighs about the same as a standard SLR _sans_ lens). Once you get in "the zone" of going through the steps (wind on using red window, cock shutter, focus, press shutter release, then repeat) it's as easy to use as the Agfa is.
> 
> Mind you, the Agfa is damn good too. Probably one of the smallest manual 35mm compacts to ever hit the market, and full of well thought-out features, all executed with the usual German attention to detail (it's also a favourite of mine for *quiet* "point and shoot", as the shutter is super-smooth and almost Leica-silent, and the lens is a real winner - pin-sharp!).


 
You own a lot of SLRs, so you can probably answer this question: If you took two or three of your SLRs out loaded with the exact same film, then used each in sequence to photograph the same scenes on the same camera settings, would  there be an appreciable difference in the result? I know that there are lens differences with expensive cameras like Leica, Zeiss or Hasselblad. How much of a difference can be seen in the photos?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 5, 2013)

editor said:


> Good luck with that.


 
You aren't a fan of film?


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You aren't a fan of film?


 
Love film, but not so keen on the expense or the delay in seeing what I've just taken. My favourite camera of all time is a film camera: the OM2, but apart from the superior aesthetics, there'd be zero benefit in me going back to film.


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2013)

You're going to find it hard to fit a full frame compact in your pocket. And this is a thread about a small camera.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You own a lot of SLRs, so you can probably answer this question: If you took two or three of your SLRs out loaded with the exact same film, then used each in sequence to photograph the same scenes on the same camera settings, would there be an appreciable difference in the result? I know that there are lens differences with expensive cameras like Leica, Zeiss or Hasselblad. How much of a difference can be seen in the photos?


 
Depends on how you quantify "appreciable". Me, I'd say "not really", because modern lens tech (since at least the '80s) is so good that the differences in lenses are often down to human perception (and psychologists can tell you how easily *that* is swayed!) rather than details of construction.  If the cameras and lenses are of similar standard, and the film is all from the same batch, then IMO no.
If (as some photography mags were getting into in the '90s) you're using high-magnification to assess the images, then yes, you'll see some *small* differences of sharpness, but with the naked eye, enlarged to A3 or below? Not in any meaningful way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2013)

editor said:


> Love film, but not so keen on the expense or the delay in seeing what I've just taken. My favourite camera of all time is a film camera: the OM2, but apart from the superior aesthetics, there'd be zero benefit in me going back to film.


 
Really, film *in general* is becoming like sheet film did in the '30s - the province of a minority (although large enough to keep the film companies relatively happy) of "nerd" types, rather than general photographers. It's simply nowhere near as convenient as what has superceded it, and image quality on the new systems is nowadays to all intents and purposes the same, so it becomes all about personal (and professional) preference.


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2013)

Unless there's some tricky lighting going on or you're getting the microscope out, barely anyone will be able to tell the difference between a 10 x 8 print of a well exposed photo taken on a £300 camera and a £3000 one.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 5, 2013)

Unless we start going into medium format, of course, but that's a whole different game.


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Unless we start going into medium format, of course, but that's a whole different game.


By then we've completely drifted away from any notion of compactness!

I'm well chuffed as I've just sold a picture I took on Saturday for £100, so that's 1/6th of the Ricoh paid for


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 5, 2013)

editor said:


> Love film, but not so keen on the expense or the delay in seeing what I've just taken. My favourite camera of all time is a film camera: the OM2, but apart from the superior aesthetics, there'd be zero benefit in me going back to film.


 
I carry both with me, and shoot interchangeably. That way I get the quick fix of digital, and then a bit of a pleasant surprise of some additional shots after the [admittedly lengthy] development process. I might go hardcore and learn  how to develop the damn stuff myself.

Superior aesthetics: that's the key.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Depends on how you quantify "appreciable". Me, I'd say "not really", because modern lens tech (since at least the '80s) is so good that the differences in lenses are often down to human perception (and psychologists can tell you how easily *that* is swayed!) rather than details of construction. If the cameras and lenses are of similar standard, and the film is all from the same batch, then IMO no.
> If (as some photography mags were getting into in the '90s) you're using high-magnification to assess the images, then yes, you'll see some *small* differences of sharpness, but with the naked eye, enlarged to A3 or below? Not in any meaningful way.


 
Thanks for that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Really, film *in general* is becoming like sheet film did in the '30s - the province of a minority (although large enough to keep the film companies relatively happy) of "nerd" types, rather than general photographers. It's simply nowhere near as convenient as what has superceded it, and image quality on the new systems is nowadays to all intents and purposes the same, so it becomes all about personal (and professional) preference.


 
Do you believe that IQ is the same? I think that film still has the advantage. Maybe I should modfy that to 'aesthetic quality'.


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Do you believe that IQ is the same? I think that film still has the advantage.


If that's the case why do you think most of the pros switched to digital a long time ago? After all, the lack of 'aesthetic quality' could result in them losing out on a sale.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 5, 2013)

editor said:


> If that's the case why do you think most of the pros switched to digital a long time ago? After all, the lack of 'aesthetic quality' could result in them losing out on a sale.


 
I think there are a few considerations. Digital is much faster to work with - and this is the 'digital age'. These days, being the last news service to get a photo up on the wire will lose sales.  Second, working with film for anyone has become more difficult, as film choice, lab choice etc has dried up as popular usage of film has dropped off to next to nothing. Third, pros use cameras like this, which no doubt will give superior IQ:

http://gizmodo.com/5805749/200-megapixel-hasselblad-camera-costs-45000


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 5, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I might go hardcore and learn  how to develop the damn stuff myself.


It's extremely easy, particularly B&W.


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2013)

B&W is dead easy. Wouldn't say the same about transparencies though.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 5, 2013)

editor said:


> B&W is dead easy. Wouldn't say the same about transparencies though.


I've been following a guy who has been experimenting with keeping the chemicals from an E6 kit far over the time that they say is allowed... he's up to six months now and hasn't had to change them. All the bleach and stuff does look much nastier though.

The major problem with slide film is the cost unfortunately  Unless you're this guy - http://petapixel.com/2013/07/04/thi...lvia-50-8x10-film-cost-a-photographer-100000/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Do you believe that IQ is the same? I think that film still has the advantage. Maybe I should modfy that to 'aesthetic quality'.


 
The aesthetic argument is always going to be made, not least because of the seeming "romance" of analogue technology over digital, but frankly I believe that's what most 1st-world film-users are - hopeless romantics surrounded by a rising tide of pragmatic digital-users.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's extremely easy, particularly B&W.


 
Wasn't that long ago I used the same argument on you!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2013)

editor said:


> B&W is dead easy. Wouldn't say the same about transparencies though.


 
True. Slides have several more "pain in the arse" phases than B & W, and that's *before* you mount the fuckers.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Wasn't that long ago I used the same argument on you!


I think I posted on here after I'd already started developing - but I didn't really know what I was doing. If there is anything I'd say to people now it is that it's dead easy and almost impossible to screw up, apart from (a) doing the steps in the wrong order, which you'd have to be really messed up to do, or (b) keeping your dev and fixer for a year with cockroaches drowning in them and then expecting them to still work fine.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I think I posted on here after I'd already started developing - but I didn't really know what I was doing.


 
Yeah, I think you'd made a couple of booboos and got a bit discouraged.



> If there is anything I'd say to people now it is that it's dead easy and almost impossible to screw up, apart from (a) doing the steps in the wrong order, which you'd have to be really messed up to do, or (b) keeping your dev and fixer for a year with cockroaches drowning in them and then expecting them to still work fine.


 
No need to have a go at stowpirate! The cockroaches are part of his dev recipe!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 5, 2013)

I was doing the dev fine, iirc, it was that the film wasn't properly winding on in the camera because I'd not loaded it right.

Of course I've never done that since then. *cough*


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 5, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's extremely easy, particularly B&W.


 
I read somewhere that the chemicals involved are quite toxic.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The aesthetic argument is always going to be made, not least because of the seeming "romance" of analogue technology over digital, but frankly I believe that's what most 1st-world film-users are - hopeless romantics surrounded by a rising tide of pragmatic digital-users.


 
I look  back on my early photography done in the 80s with a film camera. Imo, I've never reproduced the look of those images, through four different digital cameras. I have yet to do anything as good, IQ wise.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yeah, I think you'd made a couple of booboos and got a bit discouraged.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to have a go at stowpirate! The cockroaches are part of his dev recipe!


 
Cockroach protein in the recipe makes the images look like they came from an iPhone program...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I look back on my early photography done in the 80s with a film camera. Imo, I've never reproduced the look of those images, through four different digital cameras. I have yet to do anything as good, IQ wise.


 
Well, "the look" is usually down to a single over-riding factor, in my experience - the film emulsion. I knew a lot of landscapists (urban and rural) who'd only use Fuji colour print film, because of the saturation, and Kodachrome for slides, for the colour reproduction. While you can supposedly approximate many emulsion types in software, there's the issue of perception to get around too - you know the saturation has been done in software, so it may not seem as convincing to you, even if it looks exactly the same, if you see what I mean.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 5, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I read somewhere that the chemicals involved are quite toxic.


Fixer contains silver and is poisonous, but in the quantities and dilutions that the average home user would have it's nothing. It's only if you run a lab that you have to start worrying about how to dispose of it. Also you don't go through a lot of fixer. The others are pretty much nothing.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, "the look" is usually down to a single over-riding factor, in my experience - the film emulsion. I knew a lot of landscapists (urban and rural) who'd only use Fuji colour print film, because of the saturation, and Kodachrome for slides, for the colour reproduction. While you can supposedly approximate many emulsion types in software, there's the issue of perception to get around too - you know the saturation has been done in software, so it may not seem as convincing to you, even if it looks exactly the same, if you see what I mean.


 
Given the technology, it may be totally possible to emulate the various emulsions etc, and get that exact film look. I'll be the first to admit that my mastery of the technical elements of my digital cameras is woefully inadequate. It's one of the reasons I like an SLR. Not so many buttons.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 5, 2013)

If people ask me why I shoot film rather than using a nice digital camera like they have, I say "I shoot film because fuck you, that's why".


----------



## weltweit (Jul 6, 2013)

One of my favourite photos, taken by a friend and of my dad, was made with a medium format camera, it just has really great details is pin sharp without any artifacts at all and also has a lovely blurry but still colourful background. I know the lens, aperture, film size and the fact that it was film rather than digital all play a part in the unique characteristics of the print. I can make similar pictures with my dslr and particular lenses but the prints never have exactly the same features.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> If people ask me why I shoot film rather than using a nice digital camera like they have, I say "I shoot film because fuck you, that's why".


 
In Brockwell Park last week, field-testing the Super Ikonta, we stopped off at Brockwell Hall for refreshments. There was an older couple there with their grandchildren, and the guy had a Canon DSLR hung round his neck. He came over and mooched at the Super Ikonta, then said "I prefer yours, but I'm used to the immediacy of digital now", and I reckon that's why some people can't quite get their heads around film use - the lack of immediacy compared to the alternative.
Of course, immediacy is relative, given how long some photography enthusiasts spend post-processing their digi-pics in Photoshop or GIMP.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> In Brockwell Park last week, field-testing the Super Ikonta, we stopped off at Brockwell Hall for refreshments. There was an older couple there with their grandchildren, and the guy had a Canon DSLR hung round his neck. He came over and mooched at the Super Ikonta, then said "I prefer yours, but I'm used to the immediacy of digital now", and I reckon that's why some people can't quite get their heads around film use - the lack of immediacy compared to the alternative.
> Of course, immediacy is relative, given how long some photography enthusiasts spend post-processing their digi-pics in Photoshop or GIMP.


And cost.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2013)

editor said:


> And cost.


 
Yup, and the differential will probably continue to grow, as film gets ever more expensive and/or more "specialist" to get processed and printed, and the cost of both the hardware and the "perishables" side of digital printing either go down, or at least plateau.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2013)

I started I suppose with a Kodak instamatic. I hardly ever took photos so by the time the film was finished I had long forgotten what pictures were on it. It was a bit of a voyage of discovery getting the prints back, oh yes now I remember


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 7, 2013)

If I could get b&w film for £1 a roll like colour I'd shoot a lot more films.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 7, 2013)

editor said:


> And cost.


It's pennies, or fractions of pennies, per shot if you develop yourself.

_Time and effort_ is another thing entirely of course. That's the main thing.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 7, 2013)

fractionMan said:


> If I could get b&w film for £1 a roll like colour I'd shoot a lot more films.


Buy a bulk roll; you will find it hard to go below about £2 a roll but that's what I pay.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's pennies, or fractions of pennies, per shot if you develop yourself.
> 
> _Time and effort_ is another thing entirely of course. That's the main thing.


Developing black and white is cheap, but the rolls of film aren't. Given the amount of shots I take, I'd be paying hundreds of pounds out every year on rolls of film. Thousands, possibly.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 7, 2013)

editor said:


> Developing black and white is cheap, but the rolls of film aren't. Given the amount of shots I take, I'd be paying hundreds of pounds out every year on rolls of film. Thousands, possibly.


It's not very economical for anyone engaged in any sort of "photojournalism" certainly, unless they have a specific look they want. Not if they take hundreds of shots a day. I generally shoot digital if I'm covering a march or whatever (you've seen me! bang in there representing the micro four thirds crew)

The cost per shot ratio does start to look a lot better for people doing it for artistic purposes or for special occasions, when you consider the savings on equipment.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 7, 2013)

I'll go out with a digital and film camera. I might shoot the 36 roll in a day, but maybe not. Meanwhile, same day, I'll shoot 300 digital exposures. With the digital, I'll shoot scenes, lighting that are iffy, bracket everything, then just delete as necessary. With the SLR, I don't raise it to my face unless I KNOW the scene is right.

I'm not sure the shotgun approach of the digital yields any more useable images at the end of the day.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'm not sure the shotgun approach of the digital yields any more useable images at the end of the day.


The more wealthy photographers have always been able to fire off tons of photos on a shoot - and often they'll capture an image they may not have done if they were having to be very frugal with their shooting. That's why so many of the big name photographers came from well to do backgrounds.

I take a fair few photos but they're anything but "shotgun."


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2013)

The most I shot was about 800 over a 24 hour period. Digital, jpeg.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 7, 2013)

editor said:


> The more wealthy photographers have always been able to fire off tons of photos on a shoot - and often they'll capture an image they may not have done if they were having to be very frugal with their shooting. That's why so many of the big name photographers came from well to do backgrounds.
> 
> I take a fair few photos but they're anything but "shotgun."


I consider my bracketing to be 'shotgunning', so to speak. I call it shotgunning because with digital, I might get 5 - 10% useable from a day's shooting.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I consider my bracketing to be 'shotgunning', so to speak. I call it shotgunning because with digital, I might get 5 - 10% useable from a day's shooting.


I expect to get much higher than that, but it's different when you're shooting more documentary stuff.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I consider my bracketing to be 'shotgunning', so to speak. I call it shotgunning because with digital, I might get 5 - 10% useable from a day's shooting.


How many clicks on your shutters JC3?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 7, 2013)

weltweit said:


> How many clicks on your shutters JC3?


I don't understand the question? With bracketing, you mean? One.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I don't understand the question? With bracketing, you mean? One.


Total actuations of the shutter.
My dslr is now up to something like 40,000 clicks, it is only nominally rated to 50k ...
I just wonder if shutter life is something you take into account if you are bracketing a lot.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 7, 2013)

Garry Winogrand:


> “As we walked out of the building, he wrapped the Leica’s leather strap around his hand, checked the light, quickly adjusted the shutter speed and f/stop. He looked ready to pounce. We stepped outside and he was on.
> 
> We quickly learned Winogrand’s technique–he walked slowly or stood in the middle of pedestrian traffic as people went by. He shot prolifically. I watched him walk a short block and shoot an entire roll without breaking stride. As he reloaded, I asked him if he felt bad about missing pictures when he reloaded. “No,” he replied, “there are no pictures when I reload.” He was constantly looking around, and often would see a situation on the other side of a busy intersection. Ignoring traffic, he would run across the street to get the picture.” – Mason Resnick


He famously shot enough to have worn out the backplate of his Leica.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 7, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Total actuations of the shutter.
> My dslr is now up to something like 40,000 clicks, it is only nominally rated to 50k ...
> I just wonder if shutter life is something you take into account if you are bracketing a lot.


 
I don't know. I don't even know how one would check something like that.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I don't know. I don't even know how one would check something like that.


Well on mine, the image filename goes from dscf0001.* to dscf9999.* so indicating each 10,000 and then when you have shot the first 10k it opens a new folder called 0002 for the next 10,000 images .. I am up to folder 0004 and image dscf0724.* which either means I have done 40,724 actuations or perhaps 50,724.

I think there is also a way of extracting total actuations from an image file.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 7, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Well on mine, the image filename goes from dscf0001.* to dscf9999.* so indicating each 10,000 and then when you have shot the first 10k it opens a new folder called 0002 for the next 10,000 images .. I am up to folder 0004 and image dscf0724.* which either means I have done 40,724 actuations or perhaps 50,724.
> 
> I think there is also a way of extracting total actuations from an image file.


 
My current camera I got at Christmas. I just clicked over the 9999 a couple of days ago. My most recent shot was 764.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 7, 2013)

The last camera I used for maybe 4 years. At the current rate, that would be 80000 clicks.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The last camera I used for maybe 4 years. At the current rate, that would be 80000 clicks.


That is quite a high number of shutter actuations, depending on your camera spec you might be at some risk of having a shutter fail at some point. Pro dslrs have much higher rated shutters than more normal dslrs.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 7, 2013)

weltweit said:


> That is quite a high number of shutter actuations, depending on your camera spec you might be at some risk of having a shutter fail at some point. Pro dslrs have much higher rated shutters than more normal dslrs.


 
That's possible; but given the way I put that camera through the mill, it's surprising that it still works at all. It's been dropped a few times, dropped in sand at least once, etc etc.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> That's possible; but given the way I put that camera through the mill, it's surprising that it still works at all. It's been dropped a few times, dropped in sand at least once, etc etc.


Yes, it isn't worth worrying about ........


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 8, 2013)

Well I have gone and done it - bought a Ricoh GR. It is in my bag in its box waiting for me to attend to its needs. I got an optical viewfinder and a spare battery so a bit of a hole in my bank balance.

The shop called earlier today to say that one was ready. Apparently there were 5 ahead of me on the list but all cried off putting me at the top. They have sold about 60 of them since the release and none have come back with faults. Good that is what I expect.


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Well I have gone and done it - bought a Ricoh GR. It is in my bag in its box waiting for me to attend to its needs. I got an optical viewfinder and a spare battery so a bit of a hole in my bank balance.
> 
> The shop called earlier today to say that one was ready. Apparently there were 5 ahead of me on the list but all cried off putting me at the top. They have sold about 60 of them since the release and none have come back with faults. Good that is what I expect.


 
Nice one! Please post up your experiences (and example pics)!

*envy


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 8, 2013)

editor said:


> Nice one! Please post up your experiences (and example pics)!
> 
> *envy


Will do. You have no need to be envious with your own arsenal of shooters, including the Olympus OMG. See what I did  there?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 9, 2013)

Well I have hit a snag with my Ricoh GR. I have only taken a few pictures because I am still working out how to use it. I have downloaded the manual PDF on to my smartphone because the original is printed in very fine print on a tiny booklet. The problem I have is that when I connect the camera to my laptop to download the pictures, nothing downloads. The DCIM file shows up on screen and when I click on it the Ricoh file appears. When I click on that the numbers of the pictures appears but cannot be copied or even dragged and dropped. Windows Explorer stops and hangs. I have to unplug the lead to set the computer free again. I have tried re-formatting the SD card in the camera several times.

However if I take the SD card out and put it in a card reader or even plug it into the SD slot on the laptop all is well and the pictures can be copied to the computer. I called the shop about the problem and they were dumbfounded said they will contact Ricoh to see if they can find out anything that might be a cause. They took my number and promised to get back to me.

So while I wait for the shop to get back to me I will continue to use the camera. The picture quality is rather special so no complaints on that score.

Hey Ho!


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2013)

I don't think I've ever hooked up a camera to a PC - at least not for a  very long time (short of installing updates).

I always prefer to just take out the SD card (and it saves battery life on the camera too).


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 10, 2013)

editor said:


> I don't think I've ever hooked up a camera to a PC - at least not for a very long time (short of installing updates).
> 
> I always prefer to just take out the SD card (and it saves battery life on the camera too).


It looks like that is what I will be limited to. But I don't want to do that if I can avoid it. Mostly I have just downloaded pictures from the last 4 or so cameras without any problems.

I took some pictures tonight at an open mic night. They  were very harsh with their detail of some not so young performers. I will have to be careful how I use these pictures.


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2013)

One thought: you haven't saved the images to the camera's internal memory have you?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 11, 2013)

editor said:


> One thought: you haven't saved the images to the camera's internal memory have you?


No they were on the card and I was able to copy them to the laptop once I put the card in the computer. I am now starting to use the camera in Manual mode, it is good, very good - the best picture quality of any digital I have used and that includes my 4/3 Olympus E420 dSLR. Of course APSc is bigger.


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2013)

Hocus Eye. Any pics to show us? How are you getting on with the camera?

I've just spotted that it;'s available for £569 on Tesco's site (but not in stock).
http://www.tesco.com/direct/ricoh-gr-uk-camera-black-169mp-30lcd-fhd-28mm-lens-54mb/393-7835.prd

I was hoping to get a press discount from Ricoh but they seem to have gone a bit useless.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 1, 2013)

editor said:


> Hocus Eye. Any pics to show us? How are you getting on with the camera?
> 
> I've just spotted that it;'s available for £569 on Tesco's site (but not in stock).
> http://www.tesco.com/direct/ricoh-gr-uk-camera-black-169mp-30lcd-fhd-28mm-lens-54mb/393-7835.prd
> ...


Hi editor, I am on holiday in Devon ATM and have been taking but so far not uploading images. Hope to do that soon.

Working my way through the menus. It is good fun. I am keeping the camera in my trouser pocket even with the optical finder attached.


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2013)

I've convinced myself that the Ricoh GR is exactly what I need to fill an important photographic need. 
The OM-D is great for 'proper' photography, the E-PL5 for daytrips, but I've got nothing pocketable for nights out and street shooting...

I've just sold some photos too....


*itchy fingers


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 6, 2013)

editor check out my recent photographs in the August Photos thread.


----------



## editor (Aug 8, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> editor check out my recent photographs in the August Photos thread.


 
On my way to take a look!

It's still not in stock at Tesco (for £569).
http://www.tesco.com/direct/ricoh-gr-uk-camera-black-169mp-30lcd-fhd-28mm-lens-54mb/393-7835.prd


----------



## freshnero (Aug 8, 2013)

Ticked every box untill the fixed len
I'm just not that skilled to rock a fixed


----------



## editor (Aug 8, 2013)

There's a lot to be said for a fixed lens.  Keeps things simple.


----------



## freshnero (Aug 9, 2013)

I ordered a 18-200 nikon and while waiting the 2 week deliverly time
I was given a 50 fixed for my birthday.when compared to the 18-200 i shocked just how versatile the 50 was low-light, action and the quality of the pictures was shocking
It was the 1st time i looked at my pictures and thought that couldn't be taken with a point and shoot


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 10, 2013)

*Ricoh GR undressed.*

For those who want to see the orignal size of one of sthe Ricoh GR images I showed in the August thread, click on the link below find the original photobucket file.

When the image first appears it is in the compressed version with a magnify symbol in the bottom right. Click on that and the image again appears in compressed view with the magnify symbol again. Click on this a second time and you get the original massive image spread over much more than your computer screen. You can then judge if the pixelation is too much for you at an ISO of 4800.

Go on you know you want to.

http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Hoc...ic/H0000297XO_zpsc6ec92f8.jpg.html?sort=4&o=0


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2013)

freshnero said:


> Ticked every box untill the fixed len
> I'm just not that skilled to rock a fixed


 
To me that statement seems like poppycock!!  Me and most of my contemporaries, and certainly the generation before me, learnt photography on fixed-lens 35mm compacts like the Canon Canonet, and I reckon it probably teaches you much more effectively than an SLR to pre-visualise your shots.  Add to that the massive amount of editing you can do with a digital image, even from a fixed lens camera, and you're not losing anything with the fixed lens, you're actually gaining some more self-discipline.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 11, 2013)

You can get good large-sensor zoom compacts - the RX100 is one, and probably going down in price now the RX100 ii has been released.

But I never quite saw the point of zoom compacts myself, you can never hold them steady enough to get anything decent at the long end. Also I mostly shoot street stuff and buggering about changing the zoom just means you waste time. You need to be close for that sort of stuff anyway, shots taken with a long lens don't get the angles that make the viewer feel like they're there.


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You can get good large-sensor zoom compacts - the RX100 is one, and probably going down in price now the RX100 ii has been released.


It's a lovely camera but the sensor is a lot smaller than a Micro Four Thirds camera though.







There's another review here: 


> If you've been stroking your chin about buying a fixed focal length compact camera with a large sensor then we're not surprised: the choices in this niche market are limited, while each available option has its limitations. Fortunately the Ricoh GR sits up there among the best of them in - for us it's better than the Nikon Coolpix A on account of its price tag alone.
> 
> If image quality is number one on your list then the GR sure is a winner and we've been stunned by the super-sharp lens quality. Add in bundles of customisation and it feels like a pro street snapper in use.
> 
> ...


http://www.pocket-lint.com/review/122225-ricoh-gr-review


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 13, 2013)

I'm certainly dead interested in this one but the stuff about autofocus speed and battery life - which are my two biggest bugbears with digitals - is putting me off a bit. Not that I can afford it anyway so maybe that's good.

I've been using that pancake lens cap lens today on my m43 body actually  I'll put some pics up if any are worth it. Not on this thread obv.


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2013)

This guy has a pretty good blog made up of pics only taken with the GR (plus a fair bit of post-processing by the looks of things).


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 23, 2013)

As with some other digital cameras there is some post-processing that you can do in the camera. For instance the 'trim' feature acts like a digital zoom - and with such a large image this is viable. You can also change levels and alter the colour balance all within the camera after taking the picture. You cannot judge the final image quality until you blow it up on screen of course.

I have not so far experienced problems with slow focussing in low light or the battery becoming exhausted too quickly. I carry a spare battery in any case, but this is something I have done with my previous three digital cameras.


----------



## editor (Aug 24, 2013)

If you get chance, I'd love to see more of your GR pics.


----------



## editor (Aug 29, 2013)

I had a good play on one today. It's a fair bit bigger than my old GR but the interface is sublime.

There's another portfolio shot on a GR here but the pics aren't exactly inspiring:
http://lamgr.tumblr.com/


----------



## editor (Aug 30, 2013)

More great photos and a review here: 
















http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/05/06/review-2013-ricoh-gr-digital-v/


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2013)

Hocus Eye. I'm getting increasingly tempted by this camera. I really want a fast, high quality  camera with manual controls that will fit in my pocket. What's been the downsides, if any, you've felt after buying the GR?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 31, 2013)

I was browsing on the Ricoh GR group discussions on flickr the other day, plenty of people using it over there, might be worth taking a look for some varied opinions. Most seem to love it, but are bringing up one or two things that niggle.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 2, 2013)

To me



			
				editor said:
			
		

> Hocus Eye. I'm getting increasingly tempted by this camera. I really want a fast, high quality  camera with manual controls that will fit in my pocket. What's been the downsides, if any, you've felt after buying the GR?


To me the main probllem is that displayed by all digital cameras that I have owned, that is the difficulty of seeing the screen in bright daylight. That is why I forked out for the optical viewfinder. There is no option of an electtonic one so settings cannot be made while looking through it.

It is worth buying a second battery if you are out all day with the camera although I haven't noticed the lack of reserve some reviewers have mentioned. At first I didn't like the fact that there is no battery charger and you have to connect the charger line direct to the camera. It charges quickly though.

I don't think there is any secret flaw that will annoy any regular user.


----------



## editor (Sep 3, 2013)

I cracked and bought one!

Here's an ISO 1600 shot from my window late at night (f4) - straight out of the camera/JPG and handheld (leant against window sill)





100% crop.


----------



## editor (Sep 3, 2013)

Despite what some reviewers have said, it's a fair bit bigger than the original GRD:












(with LX5).

Still pocketable though.

More: http://www.wirefresh.com/ricoh-gr-v-vs-original-ricoh-gr-digital-vs-lumix-lx5-photo-size-comparison/


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 3, 2013)

It is hardly fair to compare its size with the original GR digital as the sensor is so much larger. What is of note is that it is slimmer than the otherwise smaller LX5.

Enjoy.

And don't blame me if you find some obscure fault that I hadn't noticed.


----------



## editor (Sep 3, 2013)

What batteries did you buy? I used to run my GR/LX3 on some right shonky internet-sourced cheapos that did the job, but they don't fit this camera


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 4, 2013)

editor said:


> What batteries did you buy? I used to run my GR/LX3 on some right shonky internet-sourced cheapos that did the job, but they don't fit this camera


I bought a spare DB 65 which is the battery that comes with the camera.  It is black and rectangular very like the Panasonic LX batteries.  I read somewhere that older Ricoh GR could take a bundle of AAA batteries but this one can't.


----------



## editor (Sep 4, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I bought a spare DB 65 which is the battery that comes with the camera.  It is black and rectangular very like the Panasonic LX batteries.  I read somewhere that older Ricoh GR could take a bundle of AAA batteries but this one can't.


How much did you pay for it and where did you get it? There seems to be some confusion on some forums about some third party batteries not fitting.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 4, 2013)

editor said:


> How much did you pay for it and where did you get it? There seems to be some confusion on some forums about some third party batteries not fitting.


I cannot remember what I paid for it. I bought it at the same time as the camera and optical viewfinder. The whole package cost me about £700 in a bricks and mortar shop. The DB-65 has 'Ricoh' written on it and is the one that comes with the camera It is not a 3rd party lash-up. When you pay that much for a camera there seems no point in trying to save money on batteries. Its specification is 3.6 V 1250mAh 4.5Wh. I am not sure what a Wh is.

http://www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk/2207/Ricoh-DB-65-Li-ION-Battery-for-Ricoh-GR.html

The battery in the link above - the real thing costs £44. You can get a "compatible" battery from digitalmediastore for £9.99. Perhaps that is the one that has caused controversy.

On further investigation I have tried and failed to fit either a Lumix L3 battery or a DB60, which is the battery for the Ricoh Caplio R5 into the GR and neither will locate in place although they look identical in size and shape. Some clever design feature there although the Lumix and the Caprio will take and work with each other's batteries.

I have also found out what Wh is. It means Watt hours.


----------



## editor (Nov 6, 2013)

I was pretty impressed with the Ricoh's performance at the fireworks last night. It's not so good at night shots - focusing can be hit or miss - so I switched to manual focus/aperture priority and got some pretty good results. 











http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/11/brockwell-park-fireworks-2013-photos-of-the-stunning-display/


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 6, 2013)

I note that the Coolpix A, which was generally considered the  closest camera on the market to the GR but way more expensive, has come down hugely in price on Amazon to about £630. Still more, though.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 9, 2013)

Okay, I cracked as well and bought one, on a deal with the GV-1 viewfinder for £600 total (which is a pretty good deal considering the GV-1 goes for £200 new on its own - this was at Chiswick Cameras which is just down the road from me and does mail order from their site if anyone else wants to get that). It's now charging while I have a cup of coffee and dry off after the Lord Mayor's Parade. Got a belt case free as well.

I had a go on the screw-in wide angle converter while I was there and it was surprisingly good - felt very solid and gives a nice extra-wide 21mm which would be great in some situations. However it does stop it being pocketable while it's on, and can't just be slipped on and off quickly, it's too secure for that. I'd definitely like one but it's £250 with the ring widget so maybe at some point in the future.


----------



## editor (Nov 9, 2013)

Good call! 

I've been out shooting with the GR today in not so sunny Bognor. It really is a fantastic camera but you need to get all manual on its ass to get the best out of it.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 9, 2013)

I see there is a firmware update for it which solves the "default to f4" issue which is good as it's already annoying me.

Past that though the quality even at ISO3200 is just nuts. It's like 400 on other compacts I have. The whole thing is a tiny bit bigger than the GRD-III but also I think lighter.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 10, 2013)

The new firmware is definitely much better - anyone who hasn't upgraded should do so.

Battery life not too impressive so far. At least it can charge in-camera so you just need to carry the cable around to do that, but I might get a spare battery too.

The optical VF is huge and bright and great on sunny days but I wouldn't pay £200 for it. If you see one for cheap, sure.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2013)

I bought two spare batteries for something like £6 each and they work ok.  The quality is fabulous and there's usually loads of details to r brought out of shots - even with JPGs.  I just love the control I have over the thing.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 10, 2013)

Yeah, the dynamic range is terrific. I don't even bother with RAWs, the JPEGs have practically film-like range even at 3200.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 10, 2013)

I've been using my original GR-D a bit more frequently of late, and the one thing I'm noticing that is irking me about it is the noise in lower light. It's a great camera, but I think I'm putting this on my Xmas 2014 list (I don't think I or anyone else can afford to buy it for me for Xmas 2013, woe).

Also, the battery drains like a bugger when not in use. Is it generally suggested to remove the battery if you're not using it for a while? I think I might start doing that.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 10, 2013)

Vintage Paw said:


> I've been using my original GR-D a bit more frequently of late, and the one thing I'm noticing that is irking me about it is the noise in lower light. It's a great camera, but I think I'm putting this on my Xmas 2014 list (I don't think I or anyone else can afford to buy it for me for Xmas 2013, woe).


That's basically why I got mine. I loved the GRD-III but 1600 was... Well, just what you'd expect from a small sensor compact. This is just so much better it's not even funny.

I'm seriously considering the 21mm adaptor.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 10, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The new firmware is definitely much better - anyone who hasn't upgraded should do so.
> 
> Battery life not too impressive so far. At least it can charge in-camera so you just need to carry the cable around to do that, but I might get a spare battery too.
> 
> The optical VF is huge and bright and great on sunny days but I wouldn't pay £200 for it. If you see one for cheap, sure.


I didn't know about the firmware update. I haven't noticed the default to f/4 problem because I have been using mine on Manual almost all of the time. I had better download that for when I want to use Programme mode. There is no problem with TV and AV modes.

No-one has mentioned Snap Focus mode yet. It is usable with several pre-set distances available. It works when low light scenes would cause focussing slowness.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 10, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I didn't know about the firmware update. I haven't noticed the default to f/4 problem because I have been using mine on Manual almost all of the time. I had better download that for when I want to use Programme mode. There is no problem with TV and AV modes.
> 
> No-one has mentioned Snap Focus mode yet. It is usable with several pre-set distances available. It works when low light scenes would cause focussing slowness.


The firmware update also has various other bits and pieces - not sure quite how many are wonderful (there's a 47mm crop mode now as well as a 35mm for some reason, as if anyone cared about either) but eh. It may just be psychological but I think AF is faster sometimes.

I have used snap focus with the GRD-III - it's basically the same with the GR - and it can be handy, but there are two main cons: (a) you're only going to use it when the AF is slow, i.e. in poor light, so your DoF is going to be low, so you need to be reasonably sure there's something at that distance pretty precisely and (b) the interface to change distances in snap mode doesn't seem to be that wonderful. I just leave it at 2.5m personally.


----------



## paul russell999 (Nov 19, 2013)

London Camera Exchange are doing the Ricoh GR with a GV-1 Viewfinder (and a case) for £650. In the unlikely event that I could afford the camera in the near future, I would want the viewfinder!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2013)

paul russell999 said:


> London Camera Exchange are doing the Ricoh GR with a GV-1 Viewfinder (and a case) for £650. In the unlikely event that I could afford the camera in the near future, I would want the viewfinder!



Is the case like the old Leica cases, where you could leave the viewfinder on the camera, though, or would you have to take it off every time you wanted to cover the camera, say if it were raining?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Is the case like the old Leica cases, where you could leave the viewfinder on the camera, though, or would you have to take it off every time you wanted to cover the camera, say if it were raining?


It's more of a belt pouch thing - the camera doesn't fit with the viewfinder on, unfortunately.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's more of a belt pouch thing - the camera doesn't fit with the viewfinder on, unfortunately.



Bloody daft, isn't it? A decent two-piece ever-ready case with a modern strap and the headroom to keep the viewfinder on the camera makes good sense - better sense than a belt pouch, anyway.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bloody daft, isn't it? A decent two-piece ever-ready case with a modern strap and the headroom to keep the viewfinder on the camera makes good sense - better sense than a belt pouch, anyway.


Yeah, it's kind of pointless, but tbh it's such a small camera - even with the OVF - that I never really feel the need for a case for it anyway.

I think there are some third-party cases for it which do let you have the OVF attached.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 23, 2013)

After using it for a bit at night, I can safely say that AF really sucks in bad light. It's superb in the day but it's unusually shit after dark unless you are in a fairly lit and importantly contrasty area - e.g. I was taking pictures at Winter Wonderland in Hyde Park yesterday and it was fine, the lighting produced lots of sharp edges for it to grab.

This is a pain as I bought it primarily for low light use. However, the snap focus function is pretty powerful and maybe what I need to do is learn how to use that properly.

I would advise anyone getting one to get the OVF if they can as part of a package, it's excellent, really big and clear, and also get a spare battery or maybe two because you'll want one or maybe two. It kind of eats them. (On the other hand the fact that it can charge the battery in-camera means you can also carry the cable plus the plug in a bag or pocket, and charge it if you stop somewhere with a socket, or from a portable USB battery pack like the ones people use for phones.)


----------



## editor (Nov 23, 2013)

Yep, it's not that wonderful in low light, but the snap focus function is your friend.

But this no half-focus feature looks ace!


> *Snap Focus*
> Few, ready for it? Ricoh GRD (And GXR and GX100-GX200) have a feature called snap focus. the idea is simple: On snap focus the camera focuses on a specified distance: 1m,1.5m, etc. That’s it. What is the fuss about? Well the simple fact that the GRD is a small sensor camera with a fast lens. What does that mean? it means that if you are un the streets, you can simply shoot without even thinking about focusing. Let’s say you are a relatively fast shooter, you simply set you shutter speed at something like 250 (if you are slow you can do 80-100), lock your aperture at f/8, leave your ISO on auto, and you will be pretty much guaranteed a good exposure and depth of field from 1m (depending on your snap setting) to infinity. Pretty useful, no?
> 
> In essence, to bring everything down, snap focusing is zone focusing at a specific distance, but because of the small sensor you can get mostly everything in focus at a generous apertures like 5.6. But the REAL treat is the fact that you don’t even need to go into the menus for snap focus, you can set it up to full press snap. So you can focus regularly with a half press than shoot, or you can full press (with no half press) to do snap.
> ...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 24, 2013)

The depth of field is pretty large as the lens is so wide, even at f2.8 - 2.5m will get you from 1.8m to 4.2m (so anybody close but not too close) and 5m will get you 2.8 - 27m. (Using the calculator at http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html based on the APS-C sensor.)

The 21mm adaptor, which I got yesterday, makes this even easier. It's great but does make the whole package a lot bulkier, to the level of an m43 camera. The quality you get from it, though, you'd be paying more for in m43, unless there are 10.5mm m43 primes around cheap that I've not heard of.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 24, 2013)

Oh, and the adaptor has a slight curve to it, as opposed to the normal lens which is dead straight from side to side if you do the "brick wall test". (It's a bjt of a challenge finding a brick wall large enough to test the 21mm with.)

It is a terrific piece of kit though. I'll post some examples up when I get home.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 28, 2013)

Yeah, I was going to post some pictures with the 21mm adaptor wasn't I.

















few more here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/redspotted/sets/72157638158047655


----------



## editor (Dec 5, 2013)

I'm using my GR every day in NYC (along with my OM-D). It is a truly wonderful street shooter and small and tough enough to take out in the evening.

I love the fact that it forces me to think about settings when I'm shooting , and I'm pretty sure my understanding of photography is improving a whole load as a result.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 8, 2013)

I've heard several people talking about using it as their only camera on a trip (in fact the guy in the shop who sold it to me was raving about doing that). My instinct would be to have something with interchangeable lenses but tbh all I ever use are 28s and 50s in practice when I'm on holiday.


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2013)

I took far more photos on my GR than my OM-D in NYC, but sometimes a zoom/telephoto really is necessary!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 10, 2014)

In case anyone missed it, they've released firmware version 4.0, which amongst other things adds a "High Speed" AF option.

http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/support/digital/gr_s.html

I really can't see why you would not use High Speed AF all the time - I've not extensively tested it but it seems to hugely improve the GR's previous rather rubbish low-light AF.


----------



## editor (Jun 10, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I really can't see why you would not use High Speed AF all the time - I've not extensively tested it but it seems to hugely improve the GR's previous rather rubbish low-light AF.


I've usually switched to snap mode when the light gets too low, but I'll see what difference this makes.

I'm still loving the GR. I take more pictures on that camera than any other I own.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 10, 2014)

editor said:


> I've usually switched to snap mode when the light gets too low, but I'll see what difference this makes.
> 
> I'm still loving the GR. I take more pictures on that camera than any other I own.


I normally do as well - the great thing is of course that you can still have "full press snap" on, so if it looks like it's hunting just press fully and snap. But this update seems to result in a lot less hunting in low light anyway.


----------



## editor (Jun 10, 2014)

It's a ridiculously configurable camera.  I've just learnt this; 


> You can easily change snap distance in any focus mode by holding "up" (macro) key and using the front wheel.
> http://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/1ocwyt/ricoh_gr_street_shooters_what_are_your_best/


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 10, 2014)

Yeah, I learned that from some user forums, they don't document it 

For a camera with a stupid number of options one also seems to spend a very small amount of time adjusting them. Once they're set to your preference you can just shoot and they don't get in the way.

{{{Ricoh GR}}}


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2014)

I'm getting a bit of a problem with dust on the sensor now and it seems that it's not that unusual. I may send it off to be serviced seeing as I've had such incredible use out of it (over 13,000 pics in under a year!)


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2014)

I've had to send off my Ricoh GR for service, and I'm realising just how much I use it. 

I dusted off my Lumix LX5 but that seemed slow and clunky compared to the GR, and ended up using my original GRD (from 2007, I think) to take pics at my club night.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 20, 2014)

I have heard a reference to sensor dust elsewhere, though can't say I've noticed any myself.


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I have heard a reference to sensor dust elsewhere, though can't say I've noticed any myself.


I guess it was inevitable given that I don't keep it in a case and have taken it *everywhere*.


----------



## editor (Aug 26, 2014)

The rumour mill is starting up that there may be a follow up being announced at Photkina next month. 

If they manage to add image stabilisation and perhaps a slightly faster lens I'll be horrendously tempted.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2014)

Finally got it back today. I never quite realised how utterly indispensable this camera has become until it went off for repair.


----------



## editor (Sep 17, 2014)

So happy to have this camera back. It is such an amazing thing.


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2015)

Still loving this camera and using it almost every day. This is incredible quality for low light 4000 ISO


----------



## UrbaneFox (Apr 5, 2015)

I think I might get one of these, but now the Expert DC is on sale. http://www.johnlewis.com/ricoh-gr-expert-digital-camera-hd-1080p-16mp-3-lcd-screen/p1091497

Is it the same / any better?

Good thread, thanks to all.


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2015)

UrbaneFox said:


> I think I might get one of these, but now the Expert DC is on sale. http://www.johnlewis.com/ricoh-gr-expert-digital-camera-hd-1080p-16mp-3-lcd-screen/p1091497
> 
> Is it the same / any better?
> 
> Good thread, thanks to all.


It's the same camera.  £399 on Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ricoh-Expert-Compact-Digital-Camera-Black/dp/B00CEZPQJE


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2015)

Well, there's a mightily disappointing camera update: 







What’s missing from the new Ricoh GR II compact camera


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 18, 2015)

So, what, it has wifi? Oh, plus some more effect modes....

Well, nice enough for new purchasers I suppose but it's not exactly a reason to upgrade. Actually I still wouldn't advise anyone to buy this new model when they can get the original for so much less, unless they are really mad for wifi.


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> So, what, it has wifi? Oh, plus some more effect modes....
> 
> Well, nice enough for new purchasers I suppose but it's not exactly a reason to upgrade. Actually I still wouldn't advise anyone to buy this new model when they can get the original for so much less, unless they are really mad for wifi.


I've never gone near any of those effects modes. I am disappointed though.


----------



## editor (Jul 27, 2015)

The price of the original GR has come down quite a bit now - Amazon have got it for around £370. No sign of any reviews for the update though....


----------



## Chilli.s (Jul 27, 2015)

I have one of these, it's possibly my favorite gadget.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2015)

Chilli.s said:


> I have one of these, it's possibly my favorite gadget.


I freaking love my GR - it's the camera I use more than any other - but its biggest flaw is the fact that it's not dust proof. Once again I've got dust spots


----------



## editor (Aug 7, 2015)

This is bloody impressive for ISO 25600






See more test pics here: http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/ricoh_gr_ii_photos/


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 22, 2015)

editor said:


> I freaking love my GR - it's the camera I use more than any other - but its biggest flaw is the fact that it's not dust proof. Once again I've got dust spots


Any other flaws other than the dust spots?

I've been thinking about getting a smaller camera to use for street shots and was considering a Ricoh. My 5D is great, but it's a bit obvious


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 22, 2015)

neonwilderness said:


> Any other flaws other than the dust spots?
> 
> I've been thinking about getting a smaller camera to use for street shots and was considering a Ricoh. My 5D is great, but it's a bit obvious


You have to like the 28mm focal length. (Well, the crop modes work well but that's not really using the full potential.) It does also take a couple of seconds to turn on and extend the lens, which is a bit unavoidable for a retractable lens camera I suppose. It eats batteries... off-brand replacements are very cheap though.

Can't really think of much else tbh. I tend to carry it with me any time I am shooting digital, along with another camera. The IQ is really unbelievable at ISO100—it competes with my full frame A900—and it's tolerable up to 3200, so you can use it practically anywhere.


----------



## editor (Aug 22, 2015)

neonwilderness said:


> Any other flaws other than the dust spots?
> 
> I've been thinking about getting a smaller camera to use for street shots and was considering a Ricoh. My 5D is great, but it's a bit obvious


It's pretty much an amazing camera that's capable of taking superb shots. I use it more than any other camera and I'd buy another one straight away if I lost this one.


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2015)

I love my GR. I use it almost every day, but the sensor dust issues are really pissing me off. I've already had to send the thing off once to get rid of sensor dust and it's become even worse now, rendering the camera pretty much unusable for some uses (the image below was taken in a foggy room but you can see the dust everywhere).


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 26, 2015)

Oh, is that the thing at the Wellcome collection?


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Oh, is that the thing at the Wellcome collection?


Yep: Walking through the swirling mists of Ann Veronica Janssens’ yellowbluepink at the Wellcome Collection

Took ages cleaning up all the images from those bloody dust specks,


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2015)

No way am I risking this DIY repair: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/161-ricoh-gr/261769-disassembling-gr-sensor-cleaning.html


----------



## RoyReed (Oct 26, 2015)

editor said:


> I love my GR. I use it almost every day, but the sensor dust issues are really pissing me off. I've already had to send the thing off once to get rid of sensor dust and it's become even worse now, rendering the camera pretty much unusable for some uses (the image below was taken in a foggy room but you can see the dust everywhere).
> 
> View attachment 78556


It hasn't got an interchangeable lens. Where the fuck is the dust getting in. Looks like a serious design flaw.


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2015)

RoyReed said:


> It hasn't got an interchangeable lens. Where the fuck is the dust getting in. Looks like a serious design flaw.


Dust gets into almost every digital compact camera ever made, usually courtesy of the retractable lens. It's really common.


----------



## Chilli.s (Oct 26, 2015)

`


editor said:


> No way am I risking this DIY repair: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/161-ricoh-gr/261769-disassembling-gr-sensor-cleaning.html


Was going to suggest that. Its what I'm going to do when the inevitable happens to mine.


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2015)

Chilli.s said:


> `
> 
> Was going to suggest that. Its what I'm going to do when the inevitable happens to mine.


You are a brave man.


----------



## RoyReed (Oct 26, 2015)

editor said:


> Dust gets into almost every digital compact camera ever made, usually courtesy of the retractable lens. It's really common.


Hmm - never happened on my little Fuji (which lives in my pocket without a case).


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2015)

RoyReed said:


> Hmm - never happened on my little Fuji (which lives in my pocket without a case).


It doesn't happen to some GRs either, but if you search for [insert camera name here] and sensor dust you'll almost certainly find problems for some. 

e.g. X100s ...3 days - 100 pics - dust on sensor


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 26, 2015)

Larger sensors are more prone to it as well. After years of changing lenses on dirty street corners I've still to get any dust on any m43 sensor.


----------



## editor (Nov 18, 2015)

So I've mailed off my Ricoh GR for a sensor clean - current estimate is €80, but I've asked them to look at the lens cover which gets stuck sometimes and (much less importantly) asked them for a quote to get rid of the dust behind the rear LCD screen. It's annoying but I have absolutely hammered this camera and taken thousands of photos with it so wear and tear is to be expected.


----------



## editor (Dec 1, 2015)

So, I got my Ricoh back. The sensor has been cleaned, the dust inside the LCD screen removed and the broken battery door fixed for £60. That's fair enough given the absolute hammering the camera has had.


----------



## editor (Dec 1, 2015)

Took this last night. ISO 3200. It's a bloody great camera.


----------



## Chilli.s (Dec 1, 2015)

I love it when people say "oh the flash didn't go off" when taking pics with the GR.


----------



## editor (Dec 23, 2015)

I'm going right off fucking Ricoh. The SD card holding spring was fucked on its return from repair so I sent it back, with the understanding that it would be a free repair as it was their fuck up. And now they've sent me this: 

 

I'm not even sure that they have the right camera because there was nothing wrong with my GR apart from the SD card slot.


----------



## editor (Feb 18, 2016)

Ricoh appear to be really losing the plot now. Look at this monstrosity:






Is Ricoh losing the plot? Behold the pug-ugly Silver Edition of the Ricoh GR II APS-C compact


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 18, 2016)

They released the original film GR1 series in silver and black. Funnily enough the silver ones are cheaper nowadays.


----------



## editor (Feb 18, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> They released the original film GR1 series in silver and black. Funnily enough the silver ones are cheaper nowadays.


Thing is that things have moved on a bit for premium cameras, and just sticking on a bit of silver paint really isn't cutting the mustard when you compare it to metal-covered rivals like the new Fujifilm X70.


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2017)

There's no sigN of a GR III yet, but it's good to learn that they're still actively developing the wonder camera:



> “Ricoh is focusing its resource on the high added value products such as Pentax and GR that are appreciated by the existing users and photo hobbyists,” the statement reads.


----------



## editor (Feb 21, 2018)

Nice piece here: https://petapixel.com/2017/12/29/7-reasons-ricoh-gr-perfect-travel-companion-now/

I'm still using my sensor-dust splattered original GR for night work/rough stuff - the front lens circle is held in with tape, the leatherette has fallen off the grip and had to be glued on at the back, and the flash assembly has fallen off - but it still takes remarkable results. It's not worth fixing though given that it's taken around 35,000 photos so must be bearing death soon!

I bought a new GR two years ago and use that when I want the best quality. Still my favourite camera by a country mile.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 22, 2018)

Reminds me that I still need to get mine cleaned  unfortunately there’s a massive dust blob in the middle of the frame which is impossible to ignore.

The Ricoh site seems to give an address in Staffordshire for repairs Repair Process - RICOH IMAGING EUROPE S.A.S but it only mentions Pentax  I think I will drop them an email just to check.


----------



## editor (Feb 22, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Reminds me that I still need to get mine cleaned  unfortunately there’s a massive dust blob in the middle of the frame which is impossible to ignore.
> 
> The Ricoh site seems to give an address in Staffordshire for repairs Repair Process - RICOH IMAGING EUROPE S.A.S but it only mentions Pentax  I think I will drop them an email just to check.


Well Ricoh own Pentax so maybe it's ok. How much are they charging for cleaning?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 22, 2018)

editor said:


> Well Ricoh own Pentax so maybe it's ok. How much are they charging for cleaning?


Ah, apparently they just forward Ricoh cameras to Germany rather than fix them on-site :/ You don't get an estimate until you send it off.

I might as well, it's useless unless I get it repaired.


----------



## editor (Feb 22, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Ah, apparently they just forward Ricoh cameras to Germany rather than fix them on-site :/ You don't get an estimate until you send it off.
> 
> I might as well, it's useless unless I get it repaired.


I think it's pretty pricey - or at least is was the one time I used it - something like £120. The other time they invented all sorts of other things that needed repairing and wanted to charge me over £200 - so I bought a refurb second one instead.


----------

