[BeerCan]

I have a GR that I love but I have the dreaded shutter issue. From my research it seems it is not worth fixing so I am seeking advice on a replacement.
I don't keep up with the latest gear so looking for advice. Should I get a GRII wait for the GRIII or get something else?

[D1N0]

I don't think there is an alternative for pocketability for the GR. Fuji has extruding lenses.

Compare camera dimensions side by side
Compare camera dimensions side by side
It is even more pocketable than a rx100
Compare camera dimensions side by side

Used prices for the GR are so high you might as well get a new one. The new one will probably come in the first half in 2018. When it is a large improvement you could sell your GR II en get a GR III. When not you will enjoy a cheaper GR II.

[UncleVanya]

Nikon Coolpix A can sometimes be found cheap and they are very comparable.

---------- Post added 10-26-17 at 01:06 PM ----------

Nikon Coolpix A can sometimes be found cheap and they are very comparable.

Humm. Maybe not anymore based on a quick search.

[savoche]

When/if there will be a GR III is anybody's guess, I think. So if you need something now I would say a GR II or a Fuji X70. The Fuji will give you a flip-out screen, but the lens is not as good. And from what I've read it's not really suitable for shooting one-handed. And it's quite a bit deeper.

The RX100 (mark iii or later) could be an alternative, but the sensor is just 1/4th the size. Still good for a p&s, though, even if I don't think they are worth the price.

Nikon Coolpix A can sometimes be found cheap and they are very comparable.

---------- Post added 10-26-17 at 01:06 PM ----------



Humm. Maybe not anymore based on a quick search.

I don't think the Nikon has as good a lens - nor anything as good controls. And I would miss the ND filter and snap focus. But size and specs are otherwise very similar.

[DeadJohn]

...Should I get a GRII wait for the GRIII or get something else?

I'm in a similar situation. My GR is primarily for street photography and other places where I don't want to carry a big camera like my K-1. I am leaning towards the Olympus OMD E-M10 Mark ii. The new mark iii doesn't offer enough for me to justify an extra $200. Here's my full list of serious contenders:

GRii: I ultimately decided against a GRii because it still uses the same 5 year old sensor technology. Other cameras with smaller sensors have caught up in terms of high ISO quality, and bypassed it in other ways. The GR still has a great control layout IMO that I don't want to sacrifice.

Sony RX100 (multiple editions, all similar): My sensor dust experience with the GR and prior extendable lens cameras has me leaning towards something that is easier to clean.

Panasonic Lumix GX850: A micro-four-thirds body. $549 with a 12-32 lens. Tiny; body is smaller than GR but gets thicker when you add a lens. Flip up LCD is useful for street photography; look down at screen when shooting low. The main downside is the limited control layout, a huge drop down from the GR.

Olympus E-M10 ii: Another micro-four-thirds body. Currently $599 with the 14-42 EZ lens. Plenty of controls. In body image stabilization. The viewfinder makes it slightly larger but not too much.

[clackers]

An inferior sensor may well be fine for you, but I went with the GR II. I understand the Nikon Coolpix A is just as good, but may cost more.

[DeadJohn]

An inferior sensor may well be fine for you, but I went with the GR II. I understand the Nikon Coolpix A is just as good, but may cost more.

You didn't quote but posted below me. I've seen multiple tests of the EM10m2, GX850, and GR2. The m43 sensors seem superior (noisewise) to the GR2.

[clackers]

You didn't quote but posted below me. I've seen multiple tests of the EM10m2, GX850, and GR2. The m43 sensors seem superior (noisewise) to the GR2.

Highly unlikely, DeadJohn, the GR2 most likely uses the wonderful 16Mp Sony sensor found in the K5 IIs, Fuji XTs, etc.

The EM and GX are all m43 sensors, so you can see the disadvantage below.

Happy to be shown test results showing otherwise.

[UncleVanya]

M43 noise levels are typically not as good as APS-C, however I would love to see data - perhaps like the KP the newer cameras are working their magic in the electronics side.

[DeadJohn]

Highly unlikely, DeadJohn, the GR2 most likely uses the wonderful 16Mp Sony sensor found in the K5 IIs, Fuji XTs, etc.
The EM and GX are all m43 sensors, so you can see the disadvantage below.
Happy to be shown test results showing otherwise.

M43 noise levels are typically not as good as APS-C, however I would love to see data - perhaps like the KP the newer cameras are working their magic in the electronics side.

I know that the GR series has a bigger APS-C sensor than m43 cameras have; I said it earlier in the thread.

The K-5 variants all use the same sensor, and maybe the GR and GR2 use that same sensor, but the original K-5 was designed by Pentax while the GR was done by Ricoh. That was before the merger. The K-5 team did an amazing job getting the most from that sensor. The GR and GR2 lag the K-5.

I used to use a GR as a second body with a K-5. It was a great combo. In dim light, though, the K-5 was always much better. I compared my GR and K-5 for astrophotography. The difference was substantial, maybe 2 stops less noise on the K-5.

Here's one way to compare m43 to the GRii Bang for the Buck: Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Review: Digital Photography Review . Scroll below the test scene. Leave the left side camera the default Olympus. Swap out the right side Lumix for a Ricoh GRII. Raw instead of JPG for both cameras. Then experiment with different ISO and click around the image. Overall, I think the GR ii shows sharper detail while the E-M10 ii has better noise.

[clackers]

I know that the GR series has a bigger APS-C sensor than m43 cameras have; I said it earlier in the thread.

The K-5 variants all use the same sensor, and maybe the GR and GR2 use that same sensor, but the original K-5 was designed by Pentax while the GR was done by Ricoh. That was before the merger. The K-5 team did an amazing job getting the most from that sensor. The GR and GR2 lag the K-5.

I used to use a GR as a second body with a K-5. It was a great combo. In dim light, though, the K-5 was always much better. I compared my GR and K-5 for astrophotography. The difference was substantial, maybe 2 stops less noise on the K-5.

Here's one way to compare m43 to the GRii Bang for the Buck: Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Review: Digital Photography Review . Scroll below the test scene. Leave the left side camera the default Olympus. Swap out the right side Lumix for a Ricoh GRII. Raw instead of JPG for both cameras. Then experiment with different ISO and click around the image. Overall, I think the GR ii shows sharper detail while the E-M10 ii has better noise.

Yes, from that test there's a difference between the results from the Pentax K-50 and the Ricoh GR II, even though both probably have the same sensor.

As the authors note, "Raw noise performance ... [of the] E-M10 II ...is along the lines of what we've come to expect from micro four-thirds sensors. This means you can expect roughly a stop of ISO performance hit compared to modern APS-C cameraslike the Nikon D5500, and roughly two stops compared towell-performingfull-frame cameraslike the Nikon D610."

[BeerCan]

I think I have it down to the GRII and the Coolpix A. Both are within $20 of each other. Might just stick with the GR because I am familiar with it.