[GateCityRadio]

EVF, or the option at least to attach a EVF to the hotshoe. Maybe make it WR. A touchscreen would be nice

[savoche]

Ha, I think it would be amazing if Ricoh also made a fixed lens medium format camera, much like the old 645 medium format range finders (Mamiya 6?) I realize this isn't happening, but what a camera it would be.

Now that would be a surprise, wouldn't it... But yeah, amazing would be the word. I might even be tempted to get one if they actually made one

Maybe more realistic to hope for a 135 GR - it's where it came from, after all. And that wouldn't be too shabby, either, I think?

[bobbotron]

Now that would be a surprise, wouldn't it... But yeah, amazing would be the word. I might even be tempted to get one if they actually made one

Maybe more realistic to hope for a 135 GR - it's where it came from, after all. And that wouldn't be too shabby, either, I think?

It would be amazing and out of left field. I think the cost of 645 sensors is a little to dear for Ricoh to jump on it. It would be one heck of a camera though. I'm thinking something like the texas Leica. (But it would be smaller as it's only a 6x4.5 sensor.)

A full frame GR would be amazing! :-)

---------- Post added 02-10-17 at 04:04 PM ----------

It'd be really cool if these cameras were made with something like a film door, so you could crack it open and clean the sensor easily.

[Tony Belding]

The Ricoh GR series going back to the film days has always been a 28mm field of view so I don't think they will change that. I would love to see Pentax make a compact APS-C that has a 28mm lens to give the ~43mm field of view.

Keeping the same lens and replacing the APS-C sensor with a four-thirds sensor would be just about ideal to me, both in terms of aspect ratio and field-of-view. And if it were possible to fit in shake reduction, that would be another benefit. But of course, that's not going to happen. A slightly smaller sensor would be seen as a mark of shame.

[savoche]

Keeping the same lens and replacing the APS-C sensor with a four-thirds sensor would be just about ideal to me, both in terms of aspect ratio and field-of-view. And if it were possible to fit in shake reduction, that would be another benefit. But of course, that's not going to happen. A slightly smaller sensor would be seen as a mark of shame.

You're right in that it's unlikely to happen. Not because of the sensor (there's been no sensor snobbery in the GR line), but because they will likely stick to a 28mm (equiv) lens. And there's no (other) good reason not to use as big a sensor as you can shoehorn into the GR body, I think.

It would also mean that the GR left its niche and entered a rather crowded market of small-sensor compacts (RX100 and the like). Besides, there are plenty of small m43 bodies. Stick a 17mm or 20mm on one of those and you will have a pretty small package. I looked long and hard at that option before I happened upon a used GR for a good price.

[Rico]

Keeping the same lens and replacing the APS-C sensor with a four-thirds sensor would be just about ideal to me, both in terms of aspect ratio and field-of-view. And if it were possible to fit in shake reduction, that would be another benefit. But of course, that's not going to happen. A slightly smaller sensor would be seen as a mark of shame.

The Q would still be around if it were M43. I think something like that is what you may be looking for instead of a 4/3 GR.

[Tony Belding]

You're right in that it's unlikely to happen. Not because of the sensor (there's been no sensor snobbery in the GR line), but because they will likely stick to a 28mm (equiv) lens.

Yes. The 28mm (or equivalent) FOV has been associated with the GR line from the beginning, and it's been pretty consistent, and I don't know why. The rationale has never been explained. I'd rather have something closer to a normal lens. I'd rather have a 40mm equivalent. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. I've seen messages posted in other forums wishing for a 40mm GR.

Besides, there are plenty of small m43 bodies. Stick a 17mm or 20mm on one of those and you will have a pretty small package. I looked long and hard at that option before I happened upon a used GR for a good price.

No. A small M4/3 body with a pancake lens would be "pretty small" but would not comfortably fit in my vest pocket. I bought my GRD4 because it fits comfortably in my pocket. Even my Pentax Q7, which I adore in almost every other way, doesn't fit in my pocket with the 01 lens. I mean, I can kind of stuff it in there, but it's awkward and not comfortable, and it doesn't slip in and out easily. If it did I would have been happy to stick with it and never would have even been interested in a GR.

---------- Post added 05-16-18 at 12:06 AM ----------

The Q would still be around if it were M43. I think something like that is what you may be looking for instead of a 4/3 GR.

I'm one of those few weirdos who likes my Q7 just the way it is, and I don't think it needs a bigger sensor. (I do have a Q-series fantasy wish list, but a bigger sensor isn't on it.) However, the Q7 is not really pocketable, and those M4/3 cameras are not pocketable, not the way any GR is.

[savoche]

Yes. The 28mm (or equivalent) FOV has been associated with the GR line from the beginning, and it's been pretty consistent, and I don't know why. The rationale has never been explained. I'd rather have something closer to a normal lens. I'd rather have a 40mm equivalent. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. I've seen messages posted in other forums wishing for a 40mm GR.

Indeed. The current GR is specified to have a 18.3mm lens - which is rather close to 28/1.53 - so it seems that 28mm is seen as essential for the GR concept. To me, though, it's the size and handling that makes it such a great camera. While I rather like the focal length as it is I wouldn't mind having a slightly longer lens.

No. A small M4/3 body with a pancake lens would be "pretty small" but would not comfortably fit in my vest pocket. I bought my GRD4 because it fits comfortably in my pocket. Even my Pentax Q7, which I adore in almost every other way, doesn't fit in my pocket with the 01 lens. I mean, I can kind of stuff it in there, but it's awkward and not comfortable, and it doesn't slip in and out easily. If it did I would have been happy to stick with it and never would have even been interested in a GR.

Good point. The actual pocketability is as important as the size itself. Would an RX100 be an alternative? I'm not too fond of the user interface, but it does fit in a pocket.

I have never even held a Q. I don't think any b&m store around here has them. But I would still want one... Common sense tells me I don't need another system, though

[alteredcarbon]

I like the responses. From my 5 months of experience with the GRii (which btw I'm loving it so much!), I'd like to see the following in its successor-


(In order of priority)


1. Weather-sealing - I've become fond of capturing stories in the rain - during and before/after, and I find that carrying a small, pocket-able camera provides much better flexibility. Sure, I can go with alternatives, which are water-proof, or even my phone, but I'll lose the flair of the GR and the controls it provides! I've also read about sensor dust issues, which the weather-sealing can hopefully resolve.
2. More controls for interval shooting - This camera is not only my go-to street shooter, but also my main time-lapse camera. I feel like interval shooting controls could use a little more features - e.g. ability to control number of shots more than 99 shots and not just infinity; ability to program custom interval time and not just the built-in times. These seem more like firmware fixes, which I'm sure can be done without any hardware additions or updates. Bonus - if they can add ramping features, that would be an instant win!
3. Battery life - Anyone could use a slightly better battery life.
4. Image stabilization - the GRii, in my opinion, tends to underexpose than what my Pentax K-3 would expose for the same scene. I tend to compensate with +0.3 to +0.7ev in exposure compensation, but that increases the shutter speed as I mostly tend to shoot in Av. Don't get me wrong - with the 18mm focal length, I've managed to get away with 1/5th second exposure, tack sharp. But not all the time.
5. Sensor - I've read in above posts about the wish to improve the sensor's megapixel count and use a higher bit sensor. I'm OK with what the current offering of 16mp is as it does an excellent job. But could wish for a 24mp sensor, like the Pentax K-3, as I've come across many times where I've had to crop in after the fact.


#1 is a common ask from many people here, and with #3 and #4, if these DO become priority features for Ricoh to incorporate in the next GR, I hope the form factor, its compactness, its size, its weight, and controls are not compromised.

[beli_delfin]

Yesterday I was contemplating Sony RX1- series cameras, and it is also direction in which future Ricoh GR III should go. The central point of RX1 is its Sonnar lens and way it renders pictures. MTF lovers shoud now express serious objections... So Ricoh should use all the strengths from K-1: excellent sensor, sensor stabilization, pixel shift, signal/noise processing, etc. Using parts of K-1 should lower production costs on both cameras.

But would suggest some changes:
- tilting screen. It is pain in the a..... to shut low level pictures with GR, except if you have degree in yoga. K-1 style hinge could be too heavy, but two way tilt should be nice enough.

- EVF is mandatory, if possible exchangable/ external one. It is practical to incorporate EVF as RX1R mk II did, but this solution does not allow attaching viewfinder eyecup permanently and its position in left corner is perhaps not the best one. I've read some comments that actually prefer central position and tilting ability, especially if you use left eye for focusing. Something tha Panasonic did in GX8. 2,4Mp resolution is more realistic because of necessary cost of 4Mp EVF panels. But would not be nice, if external EVF could be upgradeable to higher resolution when available?

- use K-1 sensor stabilization if space allow it. New generation RX1 will probably have one.

- WR should be nice.
- please consider introducing mached converters that will mantain full optical quality of GR lens and will give 21mm/24mm/35mm/45-50mm FL. Pricey and heavy option, but it would make system complete and excellent travel camera.
- a little stronger build-in flash for fill-in shots,
- new GR should have excellent contrast AF, something Panasonic use. It is reasonable to expect that Sony will upgrade AF in next RX1 further, so also GRs AF should be at least on par with existing RX1R mkII. Phase detection would be nice, if possible.

- EVF and FF sensor will necessary demand bigger battery, but total weight and size should be comparable to RX1.
- now the most important part, lens. At least F2.4 but better F2.0 because of OOF rendering. And Sonnar-like rendering please, because IQ should be the main strength of new GR. Pentax had in the past made Sonnar-type SLR lens with shortest FL of all lens producers (ancient Takumar 2/58mm, should be enhanced and reintroduced once), so it could repeat this exercise once again for new GR.
- Fully functional aperture ring on lens and well separated manual focus ring. Some clutch-type solution should be preferable to wire-focusing.

- 4k video capability should be nice if Ricoh wants on videoblogger market.
- At least decent grip. K-1 has so excellent ergonomics,,,

- Central positioned tripod mount.

- 5 fps or more. 4,4 fps from K-1 is enough for me, but it is something reviewers see as a "drawback".
- Bigger RAM buffer, SD UHS-II card slot and quicker buffer data transfer rates. GR can be sometimes so slow writing on SD-card...
- And again, excellent IQ (do I repeat myself?). GR will compete with Leica Q and Sony RX1, not with RX100. Artistic IQ value should be main marketing point.

Honestly, weather sealing is the only thing I need.

Absolutely, the main thing putting me off from a second hand GR/GRII is the multitude of reports of dust ingress I see. I'm seriously considering an M100 with the 15-45 and 22mm as a cheaper (hopefully just as competent) alternative.

[Rico]

I have had my GRII since 2016 with it going in out of my pocket from coat to pants while the camera is on and off and have never encountered a dust problem. It is used this way frequently several times a week.

The GRIII should have WR. The form factor should remain the same. I could live with a slightly thinker grip to fit the D-Li109 battery. If they moved to MicroSD card slot they may not have to make it bigger to accommodate the larger battery. UHS-II is a must with a larger sensor. They should go right to UHS-III really. An EVF is not necessary on such a small camera especially when they move to an OLED screen.