Ricoh GR Digital camera review - comments
- right!
the grd could be a nice kamera.
it depends on ricoh to make this little camera perfekt.
i like to use compact/rangefinder cameras like hexar or mju II.
but the digital brothers and sisters are not at the same level.
not today, lets hope!
microbi, 05.12.2005 @ 01:29
- Yes, digital is still transitional technology and in coming years lets hope some real progress instead of selling more megapixels out of this tiny 1/1,8" CCD. But handling problems (usability) and software bugs can be solved today. On the other hand, it seems that most products are designed by people who have little glue about what they are doing. ;)
Ahto, 05.12.2005 @ 01:45
- Seriously disappointing news, yet another manufacturer who just wants to make a sale rather than provide a quality product. Digital seems to be plagued with these problems, which contributes to some peoples negative opinions of the format, when really I think it's the lack of thought gone into the products not the format (and that's coming from a film only user).
Rwilson, 12.12.2005 @ 15:40
- i had the histogram problem with the caplio gx8 too.
and remember, ricoh needed 3 versions of the gr1 to make it really good.
and they doesnt fix the stupid flashshoe until now with the grd.
the gr21, caplio gx and hx8 had this unusable flashshoe since years.
shame on ricoh!
thanks.
microbi, 13.12.2005 @ 01:34
- I really want to like this camera. I have both the GR1v and the GR21. I am trying to return the camera now. There are just too many problems. The worst problem, for me, is the slow RAW file time. I could use RAW and adjust the images, but it takes 7 to 10 seconds for each image to be saved to the card, which is too much and a fatal flaw in the camera design. I also do some street photography and the image exposure is very erratic, not at all like my Olympus 7070 or my Canon S70. Other problems have to do with exposure and color balance. The infinity focus is another problem. I also compared the files with my Olympus 7070 at 400 ISO and the Olympus files were much more detailed at 100% and 400%. Do not buy this camera until these flaws are corrected. The camera is potentially great, but right now it is a poorly implemented idea. I do not see how the manufacturer would release a camera in this state, do not the realize that its reputation will be harmed and future sales will be limited. The camera is very expensive, and I would, and in fact did, pay the premium price. If the camera worked as advertised I would be very happy, but it does not.
Stephen Cysewski, 13.12.2005 @ 11:37
- microbi, what's wrong with the hotshoes on those Ricoh cameras you mentioned? The one on the GX worked very well for me:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1001&thread=16123530
The GR-D should actually be even better, as it supports TTL flash and doesn't change the aperture value when zoomed (important for non-TTL auto mode).
Prog.
Prognathous, 13.12.2005 @ 17:13
- I am not against an external Viewfinder. I basically like the idea. And the autofocus of a Ricoh GR1s also made a lot of noise. But, apparently the firmware is very sloppy. I have read somewhere that there was already one update for the firmware, and based on this description, it won't be the last. Manufacturers should realize that putting an unfinished product on the market is extremely bad for reputation.
The slow RAW file time is of course inexcusable. And that applies also to handling. A street camera should be able to do a quick succession of foto's. And the handling must be intuitive, and those glitches make it everything but intuitive. So based upon this review, I would say that this is again a failed attempt for a digital street camera in the tradition of a Leica or a Ricoh GR1s (such as for instance IMO the Panasonic LC1 or Leica Digilux 2).
What I want to know, what is the level of noise? In the announcement of Ricoh they said they paid particular attention to noise suppression. I think a small sensor is not necessarily a bad thing for a street camera, as it increases DOF, and that seems to me a good thing for a street camera. But small sensors are more noisy, and a street camera should also work well in low light situations are therefore with a high ISO, and that only works with low noise. So I wonder if the sensor is not too small? I suspect that they would have done better if they would have used an APS-C size sensor or less resolution.
Anton Moolenaar, 14.12.2005 @ 04:45
- The slow RAW file save would not be a problem for me as I generally shoot jpegs even with my RAW capable cameras and use RAW mainly for tricky exposure situations, or for a shot I feel might turn out to be exceptionally worthwhile. Most adjustments can be performed on a jpeg as long as it is a good one. But for the price, and given the obvious shortcomings in where the GR-D is in the development cycle I can't see myself getting one of these. Honestly I paid a premium price for my Ricoh Caplio GX, including all accessories like the WA lens. Yet I've never regretted the purchase and compared to the GR-D, I think Ricoh did more homework to produce an all around useful camera that, while a bit quirky, does what it is supposed to at a realistic resolution (5mp) for the size of the sensor. While haven't had hands-on with the GR-D, I think it is a mistake to overlook the GX or GX8. They are the better, and in a way, more serious cameras, IMO. And realistically priced.
Dean G., 14.12.2005 @ 17:08
- Last night I went through all the photographs that I have taken with the Ricoh. The quality of the lens, and the accuracy of the exposure were excellent. I had arranged to return the camera today, but after looking at the photographs I will keep it. When I get back to the USA, or when I can find a good supplier, I will try to get a viewfinder for the camera. I am looking at the Voigtlander 28/35mm minifinder, or maybe just the metal Voigtlander 28mm finder. I hope that the Ricoh GR Digital keeps being updated, but the quality of the pictures, in the end, made me decide to keep the camera.
Stephen Cysewski, 15.12.2005 @ 05:09
- Of course the camera takes pictures and pictures I saw in the 'net made my mind choosing this camera over Panasonic LX-1. I'm not trying to say that the camera is so bad it can't be used to make some great photographs. It just can be much better. :)
I'll use the camera much more in coming months -- will let you know and also posty some images.
Ahto, 15.12.2005 @ 10:23
- for caplio gx and gr21:
the hotshoe works only together with the onboard flash.
and the onboard flash isnt adjustable!
that is really stupid! for what kind of use?
if i use the external flash as a bounced flash,
i cant adjust the onboard flash!
there is no flash correction,
and in A or P i cant control the time (for the ambient light),
if i use the exposure correction to adjust the flash.
for grd:
yes, the hotshoe works fine!
but the onboard flash isnt really usable!
there is no correction.
my small sonycam from 4 years ago
had a flash control with (-) (0) (+)!
if i use the exposure adjustment in A or P,
i cant handle the exposure time.
and in M the exposure adjustment doesnt work!
they dont think!
it would be perfect, to control the aperture and time in M,
and the onboard flash ist adjustable to -1 with the exposure adjustment,
and an external flash is used as a bounced flash,
or with flash cable or wireless.
yes, the grd had an dedicated flash for ttl use!
but what kind of flash?!
the sigma 500 flash is so much bigger and heavier
than the camera. no way!
if there a flash like the nikon sb-30 or metz 34 cs digital
that would be a nice combi,
and yes, then is the big sigma the second choise for a wireless flash.
yes, the grd is more usable than other compact cameras,
but the grd is not really good!
check the coolpix 8400 for better flash functions.
pentax had make the same mistake with the *istd dslr,
and they fixed it, and make the exposure adjustment possible in M.
remember, the *istd had also no internal flash adjustment.
the newer dslr have this on board. they had learn, what photographers need.
ricoh, go for it!
microbi, 16.12.2005 @ 23:34
- Microbi, I've taken the liberty to quote your comment in a new dpreview thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1001&message=16320989
Hopefully it will lead to some fruitful discussion about the subject,
Prog.
Prognathous, 18.12.2005 @ 10:46
- hello,
would any owner of the GR Digital tell me what is the camera's continues burst rate?
for both jpeg(fine) and RAW.
many thanks,
Bryan
London
23:27
02Jan2006
Bryan loke., 03.01.2006 @ 01:18
- jpeg fine is 1 shot every 1.7secs, RAW depends on the speed of card apparently, some have said 5 secs per RAW, the average tends to be about 8 secs per RAW according to posts on other forums. I'm using a Sandisk 1gb SD card (cheap one bought from mymemory.co.uk for £37.99)which is fine for jpegs (1.7secs etc) but takes 15 secs would you believe for each RAW...
John Carolan, 04.01.2006 @ 16:12
- Ricoh is notoriously slow with Sandisk SD cards. Try a Panasonic one, they're usually 5 to 10 times faster than Sandisk (when used with Ricoh digicams).
Prog.
Prognathous, 05.01.2006 @ 17:59
- See my latest update about Panasonic Pro card, it is not that much faster with GR (but cost twice).
Ahto, 07.01.2006 @ 15:18
- I Personally think that the GRDigital is a great, small and lightweight camera that can deliver great images. I am very very happy with mine! It may have some querks but it has a great lens and I don't care that it has a smaller than aps sensor or that it takes 8 seconds for a raw image. If I want speed I'll turn to my D2X or my RD-1.
The GR Digital is a good camera.
MikeT, 04.02.2006 @ 16:41
- This was one of the cameras that i seriously considered for a long time - and i was nearly convinced by all the rave reviews by various forum posters around the net. The other serious contender was the Leica d-lux 2 - which was consistently criticised for being overly noisy.
But then i actually started comparing real images taken by both cameras - and the inevitable result is that i bought the Leica!
It amazes me that certain cameras will attract 'knee-jerk' criticism just because of the manufacturer's name or reputation, while other cameras get praised even though the actual output is defective.
The Ricoh is getting a free ride from most reviewers imo - thanks for balancing that!
mani, 05.02.2006 @ 13:37
- As a conformed GR1 fan, I took a good look at the GRD. I loved lots about it, but I couldn't accept that there's no optical viewfinder, and that Ricoh expect us to pay BIG bucks for the benefit of the slot-in finder.
So for now and until the GRD Mk 2 (optifinder, please, plus filter thread on the lens surround), I still wander around with the GR1 in my pocket.
Ken Munn, 03.04.2006 @ 16:54
- Hi,
I like the Ricoh GR !!!!!
Photos on:
http://ricoh-grd.blogspot.com/
Pierre, 24.04.2006 @ 17:42
- I experienced the same problems with GR digital as described on this site and I agree fully with the critics!
I am disappointed and will probably sell it unless Ricoh comes up with a new firmware correcting the flaws (I doubt though....)!
JCI, 16.05.2006 @ 11:11
- i'm a photojournalist and doin' all my private shooting with a grd+viewfinder, for some weeks now. the outcome is exceptional good, and blind-tested you would not be able to tell which pics are from my canon 1Dss and which ones from the grd.
every bad thing bears a good thing in itself, ching chang once said (or was it tsun dschun?). so i've decided to love the raw-writing time because it makes me waiting for the really, really decisive moment - obviously a really, really bad thing for the ram-ram-ram-ram-zzz-power-8fps-shooter. who clearly should stay away from this oldfashioned baby...
ps: best raw-development comes from silkypix.com, by far.
ixania, 10.07.2006 @ 19:28
- I do like most things about GRD, other than the fact that JPEG images seem to have a very strong magenta cast which I'm unable to get rid of. I wonder if they are all like that? It seems better in RAW, where these issues can be corrected.
Why it's lke this I just don't know? WB, Color mode and satuaration don't seem to have much effect. I can continue to use RAW but it's slower than I would like. Design-wise it's great, but there are lots of good images I see from this camera without colour casts, so perhaps mine is a dud?
Anyone else with similar issues?
Peter Bendheim, 13.07.2006 @ 01:27
- For anyone who is considering buying this camera and has read this review I would advise you to look and play with the camera your self. Choosing a camera is a very personal thing. The Grd is a compact camera and should be treated as such. In my opinion it out peforms everything else in its class. I have now taken several hundred shots on it and as my take everywhere camera it fits the bill perfectly. I would happily recomend it to anyone. It does have a few minor issues: raw write speed being my only real disapointment. The reviewers comments about the usb cable and "adj" button did make me laugh though, and so I would agree that if the flexibility of the usb cable is more important to you then image quality (not really mentioned at all) don't buy this camera! For everyone else enjoy.
Hugh, 23.08.2006 @ 20:29
- I just bought the GRD. This is really a photographers camera as opposed to a tourist camera. Once you touch and operate it you will know what I mean. Its simple yet extremely sophisticated. I don't mind the slow write times. The positives of this camera make the negatives look negligble...The BW mode is excellent. This camera is very small and solid
Scott, 23.08.2006 @ 23:23
- The GR digital is my second digital camera. (My first was the Lumix FZ-10.) I won't dwell on the reasons I am generally satisfied as it has all been said above, but I do have the following problems:
- awkward focus in macro (same problem with the Lumix)
- overheating (It got so hot this summer I could barely touch it.)
- time exposure too long (When I set the camera's shutter speed to the three lowest on the dial, the shutter apparently stays open for twice as long, i.e. one minute is actually two, etc.)
Otherwise, it is a great little camera. The above issues, however, are significant, and suggest that Ricoh, like many companies in the digital age, gambled that the flaws would not be serious enough to discourage sales.
J. Graham, 27.09.2006 @ 15:57
- With regards this last comment on 'time exposure too long'. This is true but there is a very good article on dpreview explaining exactly why the camera takes twice as long to make a 8s + exposure as normal. The answer is 'dark frame subtraction' which is a method to factor out hot pixels that will only show up during long exposures (that's my understanding of it). The process has to take the same length of time as the original exposure to find the 'hot pixels'. I'm not sure if this explained in the manual - I certainly didn't find any mention of it.
With regards flash adjustment. As far as I can make out the camera's flash strength is adjusted with the use of the EV setting and is confirmed by other users on dpreview. I don't know if this answers the criticisms above but it must go some way towards a solution.
mr.datsun, 07.01.2007 @ 01:08
- I am considering this camera as a pocket camera as opposed to carrying my Dslr everywhere. I was wondering if anyone had some good recomendations for a ttl flash for it and is there a option to turn off the auto-off function.
Michael Scott Vincent, 11.04.2007 @ 18:09