Ricoh GR3 or Ricoh GR3x or both?

[dirk]

Hi,

this question is asked a lot on the internet. Which Ricoh GR is the right one for me? I do not think that there is only one answer to this. Both have advantages in their own field and many of us have developed personal preferences over the years for this or that focal length.

IMHO sooner or later you will end up with both Ricoh GR. Similar to ILC, there is always an argument for having several different focal lenghts. So why then not also with an APS-C compact camera? At the end of the day it is the same if you use an ILC with APS-C sensor and 2 lenses or two Ricoh GRs. The GRs are just more convenient and faster to use

Normally I tend to prefer 40mm over 28mm. I like even longer lenses to get the background closer to the foreground or to blur the background more.

But there are also situations, in which 40mm is not wide enough to capture a scene/family shot or the desired impression of depth or you want to "frame" something which can not be achieved with the 40mm in that situation. In other situations, 28mm is too wide, if you want to force the viewer to focus on something specific or if you want to blur the background more.

I would be interested in your experiences. Can you show us some images in which the 28mm was better than the 40mm and vice versa?

 

[dirk]

• RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. - RICOH GR IIIx
• 26.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/50 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• -1
• ISO 2000

• RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. - RICOH GR III
• 18.3 mm
• ƒ/3.5
• 1/50 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• -1
• ISO 1250

No edits. Jpeg ooc. Only reduded to 4k resolution in LR6

 

[dirk]

• RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. - RICOH GR IIIx
• 26.0 mm
• ƒ/4.5
• 1/1000 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• -0.7
• ISO 200

• RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. - RICOH GR III
• 18.3 mm
• ƒ/4.5
• 1/1000 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• -0.7
• ISO 200

No edits. Jpeg ooc. Only reduded to 4k resolution in LR6

 

[dirk]

• RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. - RICOH GR IIIx
• 26.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/1000 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• -0.7
• ISO 320

• RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. - RICOH GR III
• 18.3 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/500 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• -0.7
• ISO 200

No edits. Jpeg ooc. Only reduded to 4k resolution in LR6

 

[kennikins]

GRiiiSE vs GRiiiX….

 

[dirk]

I think what often gets overseen with the differences of the Ricoh GR and the Ricoh GR3x is the creative process to compress or extend the depth of foreground and backgrount.

I tried to demonstrate the with the first comparison shots, alway made from the same position.

The 40mm lens of the Ricoh GR3x compresses foreground and background a lot more. Independent from any blurr effect.

The 28mm draws you more into a scene. It has a lot more depth. The viewer is more part of the scene itself than with a 40mm.

With the 40mm, it is easier to push the attention of the viewer to something specific. It is easier to select within a scene, which is only possible with a 28mm if you have help with specific ligh situations or forms or colours to guide the eyes of a viewer.

I like both focal lengths and would not give up one for the other.

 

[kennikins]

I think what often gets overseen with the differences of the Ricoh GR and the Ricoh GR3x is the creative process to compress or extend the depth of foreground and backgrount.

I tried to demonstrate the with the first comparison shots, alway made from the same position.

The 40mm lens of the Ricoh GR3x compresses foreground and background a lot more. Independent from any blurr effect.

The 28mm draws you more into a scene. It has a lot more depth. The viewer is more part of the scene itself than with a 40mm.

With the 40mm, it is easier to push the attention of the viewer to something specific. It is easier to select within a scene, which is only possible with a 28mm if you have help with specific ligh situations or forms or colours to guide the eyes of a viewer.

I like both focal lengths and would not give up one for the other.

Indeed think that shows in the two shots above how different you can make a scene appear. The GRiii gives context and the X can better tell a story without distracting too much from that. Both shots taken within feet of each other

 

[dirk]

It is so funny. Next week I will go on a short trip to Portugal.

Now I am thinking about what kind of photo equipment I want to take with me this time.

But the motivation to take something else than my two Ricoh GRs with me is not very high. I am really spoiled with Ricoh GR3 and GR3x.

It is kind of sad to see my other very expensive photo equipment collecting dust. But is is really hard to beat that mixture of convenience, portability, image quality, weight and size of the two Ricoh GRs.

Ricoh needs to offer additionnally a Ricoh GR3z with a 70mm/2.8 and I would be very happy to add this to the other two GRs. That would be a great trio. 28mm, 40mm and 70mm

One can dream...

 

[CRPM69]

Ricoh needs to offer additionnally a Ricoh GR3z with a 70mm/2.8 and I would be very happy to add this to the other two GRs. That would be a great trio. 28mm, 40mm and 70mm

Well, I've got "crop" set to the Fn button which gives 50 & 71mm. Yes you lose some megapixels but images seem fine to me.

 

[dirk]

and the perspective is different with a crop. But you are right, better than nothing and for most users good enough.

 

[riccadonna]

Hi,

this question is asked a lot on the internet. Which Ricoh GR is the right one for me? I do not think that there is only one answer to this. Both have advantages in their own field and many of us have developed personal preferences over the years for this or that focal length.

IMHO sooner or later you will end up with both Ricoh GR. Similar to ILC, there is always an argument for having several different focal lenghts. So why then not also with an APS-C compact camera? At the end of the day it is the same if you use an ILC with APS-C sensor and 2 lenses or two Ricoh GRs. The GRs are just more convenient and faster to use

Normally I tend to prefer 40mm over 28mm. I like even longer lenses to get the background closer to the foreground or to blur the background more.

But there are also situations, in which 40mm is not wide enough to capture a scene/family shot or the desired impression of depth or you want to "frame" something which can not be achieved with the 40mm in that situation. In other situations, 28mm is too wide, if you want to force the viewer to focus on something specific or if you want to blur the background more.

I would be interested in your experiences. Can you show us some images in which the 28mm was better than the 40mm and vice versa?

That`s how mu Ricoh adventure started first GXR with A28 then I got A50macro and finally another GXR body. My normal outfit was two cameras with respectively 28 and 50 lense. Just in case when you dont have time to change modules. So solution would be both. A bit expensive one but it would cover the field.

 

[Iansky]

Hi,

this question is asked a lot on the internet. Which Ricoh GR is the right one for me? I do not think that there is only one answer to this. Both have advantages in their own field and many of us have developed personal preferences over the years for this or that focal length.

IMHO sooner or later you will end up with both Ricoh GR. Similar to ILC, there is always an argument for having several different focal lenghts. So why then not also with an APS-C compact camera? At the end of the day it is the same if you use an ILC with APS-C sensor and 2 lenses or two Ricoh GRs. The GRs are just more convenient and faster to use

Normally I tend to prefer 40mm over 28mm. I like even longer lenses to get the background closer to the foreground or to blur the background more.

But there are also situations, in which 40mm is not wide enough to capture a scene/family shot or the desired impression of depth or you want to "frame" something which can not be achieved with the 40mm in that situation. In other situations, 28mm is too wide, if you want to force the viewer to focus on something specific or if you want to blur the background more.

I would be interested in your experiences. Can you show us some images in which the 28mm was better than the 40mm and vice versa?

That is a real dilemma and if the G3X had been available at the time I would have gone for that over the G3. I am happy with the G3 and perspective it gives especially for general street and architecture but only suitable for environmental portraits rather than H&S where there will always be an element of distortion. I do use my G3 as a carry camera that fits in a pocket or on my belt and can always be with me for impromptu photos but will continue to use my larger full frames for planned photos. I could not personally justify the expense of both but can understand the desire for both.

 

[riccadonna]

Well, I've got "crop" set to the Fn button which gives 50 & 71mm. Yes you lose some megapixels but images seem fine to me.

It is so funny. Next week I will go on a short trip to Portugal.

Now I am thinking about what kind of photo equipment I want to take with me this time.

But the motivation to take something else than my two Ricoh GRs with me is not very high. I am really spoiled with Ricoh GR3 and GR3x.

It is kind of sad to see my other very expensive photo equipment collecting dust. But is is really hard to beat that mixture of convenience, portability, image quality, weight and size of the two Ricoh GRs.

Ricoh needs to offer additionnally a Ricoh GR3z with a 70mm/2.8 and I would be very happy to add this to the other two GRs. That would be a great trio. 28mm, 40mm and 70mm

One can dream...

Well, then there are converters. I really loved mine wide conv, turning GR into 21mm camera invaluable for interiors and close in crowd snaps. A bit big and expensive but optically perfect. Only caveat was on I couldn`t and can`t understand till tese days is why on the earth Ricoh didn`s come with bayonet fitting of converters, Screwing them on and of was a real pain. That goes for otherwise excellent Fuji X100V too. I ended with fixing permanently GA-2 filter adapter being able to bayonet it on and off at will and ease. Having a wide and tele with GRIII and GRIIIx they would give you four focals. 21, 28, 40 and 70. Not bad. Another thing I decried demise of GXR with it`s lensors was ability to use daylight syncro up to 1/4000sec with 28, 50 and 24-85 lenses, something no however expensive and modern camera can offer. I know, there`s HSS but you loose lot of flash power.

 

[dirk]

I think I still have a converter and wideangle lens for my older Ricoh GR MkI (the first with the APS-C sensor size). But I ended up never using it, because it was (for me personally) too front-heavy and not pocketable anymore. Although I heard that the final output with the additional tele-lenses are good, I do not like to add them.

I would rather prefer a 70mm as the default lens in the size of a GR like GR3 and GR3x. But I doubt such a compact 70/2.8 lens would be technical possible in such a small body and except me, nobody cares about this focal lenght in a pocket camera.

But wait, Sigma did this with the DPM3. Maybe there is a market for a GR with 70/2.8 lens. The DP Merrill 3 was a wonderful camera. I liked it. But large for a compact camera.