[Fontan]

Mono not this year.

Next year then?

[gbl]

Quote from Pentaxrumors.com from October 2020: "My personal guess is that a new Ricoh GR camera will be announced in 2022 and I don’t think it will be called GR IV." So this seems to be nothing new.
If Ricoh is bringing a "new" GR, I think it is more of a necessity. The GR3 hardware turned out to be on the side of being a bit "fragile". Heat problems, battery run time problems, the scroll wheel is acting up and so on. It reminds me a bit of the Nikon D600 problems and then Nikon decided to introduce the D610 instead, which featured nothing else but a fixed shutter.

I love the GR3 as it has no real competition, but I think the hardware needs to be re-worked. It needs a bigger battery, better quality buttons and electrical contacts, better quality lens attachments compared to this wobbly mess of a lens adaptor, updated viewfinders (i.e. contacts for a small electronic one, and an optical one that actually displays at least the correct aspect ratio) and I hope for the return of an onboard flash or LED light like in the Olympus tough GR series.

---------- Post added 08-29-21 at 03:06 AM ----------

I would literally crap in my pants if they put out a GR mono. I would love that so very much.

Why? I'm seriously interested for you to answer the question. I have a friend that runs around with a Leica monochrome and thinks he and his camera are the greatest thing since sliced bread. I have never seen any photo coming out of his camera that I couldn't have taken with a good "regular" camera and converted to B&W. On the contrary. He always talks about "tonality", because that's what some people on the net told him. I took photos with my regular Sony RX1R and his Leica Monochrome and we compared. Not a speck of difference in the tonality of the files. Nothing that would in any way make a difference in the final photo or could be attributed to editing.

I really don't mean disrespect, but I think this "I need a Mono version of this and that camera" is just pretentious. If you want to pay more for less, go for it. Leica got you covered, though, they even have a model without a screen.

[Serkevan]

Why? I'm seriously interested for you to answer the question.

A mono-only camera records more detail. I'd wager that in large prints it would be somewhat noticeable. Apart from that, I don't know... I think most stuff can be done in post.

[BigMackCam]

Quote from Pentaxrumors.com from October 2020: "My personal guess is that a new Ricoh GR camera will be announced in 2022 and I don’t think it will be called GR IV." So this seems to be nothing new.
If Ricoh is bringing a "new" GR, I think it is more of a necessity. The GR3 hardware turned out to be on the side of being a bit "fragile". Heat problems, battery run time problems, the scroll wheel is acting up and so on. It reminds me a bit of the Nikon D600 problems and then Nikon decided to introduce the D610 instead, which featured nothing else but a fixed shutter.

I love the GR3 as it has no real competition, but I think the hardware needs to be re-worked. It needs a bigger battery, better quality buttons and electrical contacts, better quality lens attachments compared to this wobbly mess of a lens adaptor, updated viewfinders (i.e. contacts for a small electronic one, and an optical one that actually displays at least the correct aspect ratio) and I hope for the return of an onboard flash or LED light like in the Olympus tough GR series.

---------- Post added 08-29-21 at 03:06 AM ----------



Why? I'm seriously interested for you to answer the question. I have a friend that runs around with a Leica monochrome and thinks he and his camera are the greatest thing since sliced bread. I have never seen any photo coming out of his camera that I couldn't have taken with a good "regular" camera and converted to B&W. On the contrary. He always talks about "tonality", because that's what some people on the net told him. I took photos with my regular Sony RX1R and his Leica Monochrome and we compared. Not a speck of difference in the tonality of the files. Nothing that would in any way make a difference in the final photo or could be attributed to editing.

I really don't mean disrespect, but I think this "I need a Mono version of this and that camera" is just pretentious. If you want to pay more for less, go for it. Leica got you covered, though, they even have a model without a screen.

A mono-only camera records more detail. I'd wager that in large prints it would be somewhat noticeable. Apart from that, I don't know... I think most stuff can be done in post.

Right. Specifically, a mono-only camera - at least the way Leica does it - has no need of a Bayer filter over the sensor. As a result, less light is lost and the raw images don't require de-Bayering (de-mosaicing), since each sensor pixel is recording luminosity alone. For two identical sensors, one with Bayer filter and one without, the one without should require less amplification (meaning less noise at base ISO and as ISO rises) and should produce greater detail with no de-mosaicing artefacts.

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 08-29-2021 at 04:57 AM.

[thegeaba]

i need GR with tilted screen

[BigMackCam]

i need GR with tilted screen

... which would alienate those who value the GR III's thin body. That's the problem - they can't possibly please everyone...

[thegeaba]

... which would alienate those who value the GR III's thin body. That's the problem - they can't possibly please everyone...

we are in 2021 my friend,we allready have flexible screens,you can do tiny things thise days,take a look at fujix100v as an example ,thin screen,and they can do it even better.

[gbl]

A mono-only camera records more detail. I'd wager that in large prints it would be somewhat noticeable. Apart from that, I don't know... I think most stuff can be done in post.

We printed large (Leica Monochrome vs. Sony RX1r) and I have seen no difference that could be attributed to the sensor. The much bigger problem is to find a printer who is able to print those subtle differences on paper...

[BigMackCam]

we are in 2021 my friend,we allready have flexible screens,you can do tiny things thise days,take a look at fujix100v as an example ,thin screen,and they can do it even better.

In which case... buy a Fujifilm x100v? It's far from tiny, but it's certainly fairly compact - and if it's compact enough for you, go for it

I'm well aware of the year, and equally aware - or, rather, I can see - that the design team at Ricoh prioritised certain aspects over others. The GRIII is what they came up with, and it either meets or doesn't meet someone's needs (that will always be the case with any product). But, as the photos below (courtesy of camerasize.com) show, it's clear that size was a priority for Ricoh, yet much less so for Fujifilm... or maybe it was a priority, and Ricoh just did it even better Frankly, I see them as quite different products...

[gbl]

In which case... buy a Fujifilm x100v? It's far from tiny, but it's certainly fairly compact - and if it's compact enough for you, go for it

I'm well aware of the year, and equally aware - or, rather, I can see - that the design team at Ricoh prioritised certain aspects over others. The GRIII is what they came up with, and it either meets or doesn't meet someone's needs (that will always be the case with any product). But, as the photos below (courtesy of camerasize.com) show, it's clear that size was a priority for Ricoh, yet much less so for Fujifilm... or maybe it was a priority, and Ricoh just did it even better Frankly, I see them as quite different products...

Well, Ricoh also did leave away major components a camera should have have, didn't they? The complete absence of a flash or lighting device makes for a smaller camera, that's right. But a tilt screen would not only increase the usability, but also make a difference compared to a smartphone. Given that the X100V has two different viewfinders, a tilt screen, a flash and more reasonable battery runtimes, the size difference is not that big at all.
I also prefer the Ricoh at the moment, but I have to say the gap between the Ricoh and a smartphone is not as wide as the Ricoh and the X100V in terms of overall usability.
Maybe that is why Ricoh is working on a new model?

[BigMackCam]

Well, Ricoh also did leave away major components a camera should have have, didn't they?

The problem with "what brand X's camera should have" statements is that they're always highly subjective, differing from individual to individual - hence why removing or adding certain features (a flash, a flippy screen, bigger or smaller dimensions) will attract or alienate different folks, and leave others ambivalent.

The complete absence of a flash or lighting device makes for a smaller camera, that's right. But a tilt screen would not only increase the usability, but also make a difference compared to a smartphone. Given that the X100V has two different viewfinders, a tilt screen, a flash and more reasonable battery runtimes, the size difference is not that big at all.

Actually, the lack of an on-board flash was a big issue for some folks, and no issue at all for others who valued the size more than that specific feature. It's a great example that demonstrates the subjectivity of "should".

As for the tilt screen and all the other goodies on the X100V, they're great - but they do result in a considerably bigger camera. Some folks, like you, will value the additional features over size. Others will feel the opposite way. Again, that's the subjectivity I'm talking about.

I'm not being negative about the flippy screen aspect. I get that some folks really like them, and they certainly have their uses. It's just that Ricoh's design brief clearly prioritised dimensions. The GRIII is thicker but actually narrower and shorter than many a high-end smartphone, whilst blitzing any smartphone I know of in terms of shooting ergonomics and image quality (when viewing at any decent reproduction size). The X100V looks like a great camera - I'm sure it is a great camera - but it's considerably bigger and far less pocketable as a result. That matters to some people - more than a flippy screen, multiple viewfinders, on-board flash, etc.

As always, you pays your money and takes your choice

I also prefer the Ricoh at the moment, but I have to say the gap between the Ricoh and a smartphone is not as wide as the Ricoh and the X100V in terms of overall usability.
Maybe that is why Ricoh is working on a new model?

See my previous comment. Anyone who finds the ergonomics and image quality (at larger reproduction sizes) of even the best smartphone camera enough for their needs probably ought to be shooting one of those. They're amazingly capable within certain limitations. In some use cases, they're even the better tool (I use my own smartphone as a serious photographic tool in preference to my DSLRs on rare occasions).

I guess we'll have to wait and see what Ricoh is working on. @OoKU said that the new model wouldn't be called the "GR IV", so maybe it's going to be a drastically different camera to the GR III, and may better suit your preferences...

... or it it may not. But I'm sure it will suit a lot of folks, just like the GR III

[thegeaba]

In which case... buy a Fujifilm x100v? It's far from tiny, but it's certainly fairly compact - and if it's compact enough for you, go for it

I'm well aware of the year, and equally aware - or, rather, I can see - that the design team at Ricoh prioritised certain aspects over others. The GRIII is what they came up with, and it either meets or doesn't meet someone's needs (that will always be the case with any product). But, as the photos below (courtesy of camerasize.com) show, it's clear that size was a priority for Ricoh, yet much less so for Fujifilm... or maybe it was a priority, and Ricoh just did it even better Frankly, I see them as quite different products...

my friend, these aren't my words, you're speculating on what I said, trying to prove ... nothing . leaving aside the meaningless comparison between the two cameras, as the colleague said above, x100v has many things in addition to GR ,my example refers to the fact that x100v has a very thin screen and considering that technology is advancing Ricoh has all the tools necessary to implement a tilted screen in the same GR body.Hard to understand?

[house]

A Ricoh camera with a flippy screen shouldn't be a GR. There have been folks asking for zoom as well...

The GR is one of few camera lines with a strong, single minded and excellent focus. If you don't understand the camera as it has been go look elsewhere. The worst possible thing would be a do it all generalist GR. The omission of flash is a more tricky one as arguably it's very important to the type of photography it's so well suited to.

[BigMackCam]

my friend, these aren't my words, you're speculating on what I said, trying to prove ... nothing . leaving aside the meaningless comparison between the two cameras, as the colleague said above, x100v has many things in addition to GR ,my example refers to the fact that x100v has a very thin screen and considering that technology is advancing Ricoh has all the tools necessary to implement a tilted screen in the same GR body.Hard to understand?

Not hard to understand at all. Ricoh could easily implement a tilt screen... but it would increase the camera's thickness, perhaps width and height too. See the photo of the X100V below... the tilting screen is admirably thin, yes - but it's still thicker than an internally-integrated, non-tilting display panel with no separate housing. Just look at the depth of the cut-out for storing the display in its non-tilted state. That's a chunk of space, and the GR III is already so tightly packed that they couldn't possibly add such a screen without making the camera thicker.

We can all wish for whatever we like in the new camera, and - as always - whatever Ricoh delivers, some will be satisfied with it, some won't... regardless of whether it has - or doesn't have - a flippy screen, on-board flash, viewfinder(s) or any other feature we can think of.

I wish you well, and will make this my last post on the matter

[stevebrot]

Well, Ricoh also did leave away major components a camera should have have, didn't they? The complete absence of a flash or lighting device makes for a smaller camera, that's right. But a tilt screen would not only increase the usability, but also make a difference compared to a smartphone. Given that the X100V has two different viewfinders, a tilt screen, a flash and more reasonable battery runtimes, the size difference is not that big at all.
I also prefer the Ricoh at the moment, but I have to say the gap between the Ricoh and a smartphone is not as wide as the Ricoh and the X100V in terms of overall usability.
Maybe that is why Ricoh is working on a new model?

Get the Fuji and be happy.


Steve