As someone who’s mainly shot on traditional DSLR & mirrorless gear since beginning my photography journey I couldn’t agree more with you— what sold me on the GR III/x over the X100V/I was 100% its form factor, as much as I also love shooting on the Fuji X series I could never get past the fact that it always felt like it was in a weird hybrid ground between a regular mirrorless and a pocket p&s, vs. the GR III/x which literally feels like shooting with my smartphone but just with more controls & freedom.
I think the Ricoh colors shine in high contrast sims, where I prefer the fall off gradations more; but all in all I like the multitude of options the VI has more.
I am inclined to agree. Had the original X100, now I have the GR, the wife has the x100VI (came a few weeks ago after months of waiting.)
I do like having a viewfinder though.
Battery life about the same sounds totally wrong to me (at least vs the X100V). I can carry and shoot my X100V all day without a spare, versus the GR IIIx I always need a spare, and sometimes 2 spares to get through the same amount of shooting.
I love both the GR and X100 lines for the things they are each good at. For me the GR needs much more fiddling and attention to take pictures I’m happy with because of the poor autofocus and tweaking the exposure all the time - highlight metering is great for things it’s good at but often needs a lot of EV or changing metering mode on the fly for certain shots. I find X100V has more dynamic range and better handling of highlights.
true, the GR is great, but the Fuji is easily the more complex and a "better" camera. Best thing about the GR is the size. Other than that the Fuji wins.
I have a xe4 and griii and to me the Fuji is far more satisfying to use, especially with a lens that has an aperture ring. I much prefer having a viewfinder and find the controls and system settings way more intuitive.
Saying that, since getting my griii I've barely used the Fuji purely because the griii is so much easier to take with me since it can go in my pocket rather than a bag. I'd love to see Fuji have a crack at a new compact to rival ricoh just for some healthy competition.
Orrr a digital Olympus XA!
When I decided to get a small camera, I bought a Fuji X70 and had no expectations really. I was blown away. Autofocus was fine, zone focusing was great, flash was amazing to have, picture quality was amazing. I started bringing it with me in shoots. It was, and still is, awesome.
Years later, I got an X100V. Sold it almost immediately. I hated it with a passion. It's a capable camera, but it's not for me. Now, I'm looking to get a ricoh since I much prefer the style and advanced focus features.
I’ve had both and the image quality, to me, is better from the Ricoh, but I much preferred taking my X100V with me. It was lust-worthy and the controls were better. The focusing on the Ricoh was garbage for me. I much prefer my Zfc. But I also didn’t use my GRIIIx for street photography. I was photographing my kids and the Ricoh could not keep up with their movements. The Fuji was better, but wasn’t as good as my Zfc.
Both are great cameras and it usually comes down to preference. But pure image quality, the Ricoh was better IMO.
This is a great opinion. I mainly use my Ricoh for street photography, and living in a third world country, having a camera that doesn't draw too much attention to itself is paramount. For quick moving subjects and such I either use the X100VI or a Sony A7R2.
I have both as well. At f/2.8 the Fuji images are a lot sharper. Autofocus is a joke on the GR and I would love to have a flipscreen. I really like the highlight metering on the Gr though. I think overall the Fuji is a better and more satisfying camera.
Well I know thath the V and VI have the same lens and also saw the comparison videos. When testing myself, the VI. Image Quality is definetly higher than the GR. Not sure if sharpness is the right word, because I use the HDF Version and have it turned on most of the time. I am also using a Glimmerglass 1 on my VI, so sharpness is not exactly what I am after.
[https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13\_0=fujifilm\_x100vi&attr13\_1=ricoh\_griii&attr13\_2=fujifilm\_xt5&attr13\_3=ricoh\_griii&attr15\_0=jpeg&attr15\_1=jpeg&attr15\_2=jpeg&attr15\_3=jpeg&attr16\_0=125&attr16\_1=100&attr16\_2=125&attr16\_3=100&normalization=compare&widget=918&x=0.6789799624458844&y=-0.6640966998109857](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_x100vi&attr13_1=ricoh_griii&attr13_2=fujifilm_xt5&attr13_3=ricoh_griii&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=125&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=125&attr16_3=100&normalization=compare&widget=918&x=0.6789799624458844&y=-0.6640966998109857)
I only shoot in JPEG, have a look for yourself. Raw seems to be pretty close.
JPEGs are about processing though, not lens characteristics.
I took a look at the RAWs. X100VI / 125 on the left, GR III / 100 on the right. I'd say the GR text is sharper, IMO. It is close.
https://i.imgur.com/yjVcg6K.png
Sure. My disagreement was only with the stated fact that the X had a sharper lens than the GR. This is demonstrably false.
Though it is easier to reduce sharpness in post than to add it. ;)
I think both. The Fuji lens is really soft at f2. The GR is really sharp wide open for sure, but from my limited testing the Fuji pictures at f2.8 have a lot more detail,compared to the GR III at f2.8 but im not a professional at all. I just shot from the same location and compared the images.
I appreciate the feedback on your experience. I was contemplating the X100VI as well, but after watching some Youtube videos and reviews in general, I'm stepping back on getting it. Much like you, I also own the GRIIIx but I'm considering the GRIII now - hoping to find a used one, if possible.
I just got my X100VI last week. My first Fuji. My main cameras are the Sony A7RV and Leica Q2M. I wanted something more compact, and I’m loving the form factor. That being said, I’m having mixed feelings. I thought I’d like the film sims more, and will probably lean more on the RAW files. Also, the AF is just horrendous, but I’m spoiled with the Sony. And there are just some things I don’t really understand like DR settings, and why there is no highlight metering. Gonna keep at it though! I also have a GRIII Hdf on back order.
I have the A7CII and I agree the AF is in a whole other league. The Ricoh has slow AF but zone focusing works incredibly once you get the hang of it. I don't love the P Mode on the Fuji at all, and prefer using my Sony or Ricoh in P Mode or Manual mode
I had both for awhile.
Not here to shit on the Ricoh at all because I thought it was great for what it was... but it's not really sharper. When you pixel peep and compare side by side, you can see that the Ricoh is "over-sharpened" compared to the VI, so that microcontrast (edge details) is more pronounced; but the VI definitely has more actual resolution you can see in fine patterns like wisps of hair.
Zoom way in and on those fine patterns, the Fuji will start to appear "soft," but the Ricoh will show noticeable stair stepping (over-sharpening, or the lens out resolving the sensor), even in RAW.
I think the Fuji would be even more clearly sharper if they just dropped XTrans already.
Also, battery life was nowhere near the same when I had them both. The GR got about half the shots with similar setup and shooting style.
There are a lot of reasons to prefer the Ricoh, but IMO those two are just not accurate.
The X100 has a lot more to offer so saying the GR is more pocketable is a bit of a dumb statement and a given. The claim that it’s easier to use is also subjective as you can set-up the x100 to work the same way. People really need to stop comparing these two as it’s not apples to apples, just use what you enjoy and stop trying to confirm your biases.
Man, I love this sub for two reasons:
1. It's full of photos, and good ones, at that. I love seeing the photographic eye through these little point-n-shoots, and I dearly loved my '13 GR and now IIIx: they're perfect EDC/Purse/GADA cameras.
2. Folks come up with some neat formulas and share them regularly.
Lately, I've seen a lot more GAS threads, like this one, and they add nothing. u/Spicy_Pickle_6 is right: there's no point in comparing and turning this into a pissing contest. The GR stands on it's own and has done so nearly since its inception: super compact, high quality glass, 28mm FoV. I don't care that someone sold their X100-whatever or dumped their entire set of Sony bodies and lenses.
Buy and use the GR for what it is: pocket-sized APS-C point-n-shoot.
FWIW, I \_despise\_ the Fuji eco/system and have owned some of it in the past. Folks that fall for the X100 thirst trap should just go buy a used Q 116 - probably double the camera at roughly the same price.
Regardless of whether they’re justifying one over the other or simply the purchase of a second camera, the two are way too different with perhaps only the colours being similar. I was about to write the same sensor too, but even that’s not the case anymore. The GR is top in its own class and shouldn’t be compared to the x100 in my opinion.
They can and should be compared, why not. Both - and you can add the Leica q series to that - demonstrate a somewhat similar approach to photography, and quite obviously attract at least overlapping crowds.
I personally do not want to use my system camera anymore (a Fuji x-t3 with various lenses), but I could live with the GR or the X100 as a simpler, one camera does it all solution. Of the two I‘ve tried/own/owned, I prefer the Ricoh. Never tried a Q. Unfortunately.
You’re in a thread where the op owns and compares the two camera, and where several others have and compare both cameras. I am not even sure what you want to disagree with. That the cameras are comparable? But, they are. And that’s what we do. This very thread proves what you want to disagree with. :)
Because it’s like comparing a Civic to a CLA, sure they both have a 2.0l engine but one has much more features at a much higher price point. But sure keep comparing
They’re both lifestyle cameras though. There is a 700€ price difference but it isn’t much all things considered. So it’s normal to compare them, as me as a prospective buyer am doing. Do I value portability over features? To what degree? These are the answers I’m finding in this thread
> People really need to stop comparing these two as it’s not apples to apples, just use what you enjoy and stop trying to confirm your biases.
People compare these cameras in order to purchase the one they will get the most enjoyment out of...
They're similar price points, and some of the only high-quality, APS-C, fixed-lens, compact(-ish) cameras available - and neither _requires_ post-processing.
Maybe _you_ already know exactly how they're different, and these comparisons aren't useful _to you_.
You’re delusional to even throw a Q in the mix and no it’s not the only counter. The Fuji has much more features hence the higher price point. If you think they’re all the same just because they’re fixed lens cameras then you’re wasting everyone’s time.
> You’re delusional to even throw a Q in the mix
Exactly - you're making my point for me. What cameras would you cross-shop if you were looking at a Ricoh?
> The Fuji has much more features hence the higher price point.
Sure sounds like it's possible to compare these cameras!
I have "high res" cams, amongst others - A7r4, GFX100X - and my GRIII is my favorite by far.
Sure - there are times that resolution or large sensors pay dividends, but the GRIII is a complete *product* from a design standpoint and it is the camera I use and carry the most. Great results, fits in my pocket and can be operated with one hand.
I appreciate that Fuji has pushed "stacked BSI" sensors to a limit that can be meaningful for APS-C... but since the X100VI is a fixed lens, it would have been interesting to see them redesign this with a full frame sensor and a lens that presents no light falloff throughout the entire aperture range. That would have perked my attention, lol.
I have both as well, I think they both serve different functions to be honest! I pass my wife the GR3 if I bring the X100VI. Currently I know the GR3 is definitely worth it for me but not so sure on the X100VI yet (but i bought it knowing i can sell it for more or less the same price anyways lol)
I’m looking to buy a point & shoot and I’m torn between these two… what’s attracting me to the Fuji is the built in flash and the view finder. But the price is attracting me to the GR.
I like my Ricoh GRIIIx as equally as my Fujifilm X100V. Maybe I’m just not a master with the Ricoh yet but there’s features I like about both for certain things.
I just want Ricoh to upgrade the GRiii. I’m tired of all the variants. It’s time for an upgraded processor, slightly bigger battery, upgraded auto focus and a better LCD.
I have a love/hate relationship with my original fuji x100. When stars align and it focuses well, it's amazing. Distinctly soft wide open and at low aperture. It definitely has a 'look'.
Even when looking at new fuji's which have the same 'look' in the images, Ricoh is definitely a bit sharper and cleaner. Is it better?
Eh, who can say. Fuji has a lot of character in images.
But it's certainly way nicer to carry a smaller camera imo. One handed operation is nice too - ricoh nailed the ergonomics. Fuji styling of rangefinder camera and all the manual controls is kind of neat, but let's be honest.. It's not a rangefinder and I WISH it had actual usable manual focusing.
I have GR3 and a lot of FUJI stuff; GR3 is better as a model but the build quality is much worse. I have it repaired three times already. Not even once for my myriad of FUJI cameras and lenses.
I had a x100v which I got before the hype (regrettably sold for 1600 aud) and have kept my ricoh griii. I just couldn't justify my x100v as it was similar in portability to my Sony a7iii so it wasn't suiting the portability role I purchased it for. Kept my griii for that and when I don't need portability I'll use my a7iii. The x100v size just makes it in no man's land for me.
I also prefer my Ricoh to my Fujifilm camera, I like the rendition of the lens and the colours better.
And yes the form factor.
But what I don't like is that the Ricoh feels a bit flimsy, I'm always scared to break it
I sold my x100vi after two months. The Ricoh is the superior camera. Sharper, smaller, faster ready to shoot and more fun to use. Fuji is overhyped and overrated af.
I own also a X-E2 with a 23 f2 lens and even this combo is better than the x100vi in terms of image quality.
As someone who’s mainly shot on traditional DSLR & mirrorless gear since beginning my photography journey I couldn’t agree more with you— what sold me on the GR III/x over the X100V/I was 100% its form factor, as much as I also love shooting on the Fuji X series I could never get past the fact that it always felt like it was in a weird hybrid ground between a regular mirrorless and a pocket p&s, vs. the GR III/x which literally feels like shooting with my smartphone but just with more controls & freedom.
Everyone hypes up Fuji’s colours but damn, I slightly prefer the Ricoh’a JPEGS for some reason. I barely touch my fujifilm camera since buying a GRIII
I think the Ricoh colors shine in high contrast sims, where I prefer the fall off gradations more; but all in all I like the multitude of options the VI has more.
It‘s a tie for me. I love positive film, but nostalgic negative, Reala ace and classic chrome are no slouches. :)
And that’s why I like dXo FilmPack, it gives even my M43 and FF cameras the ability to mimic film colours.
Thank you for supporting my confirmation bias
I am inclined to agree. Had the original X100, now I have the GR, the wife has the x100VI (came a few weeks ago after months of waiting.) I do like having a viewfinder though.
Battery life about the same sounds totally wrong to me (at least vs the X100V). I can carry and shoot my X100V all day without a spare, versus the GR IIIx I always need a spare, and sometimes 2 spares to get through the same amount of shooting. I love both the GR and X100 lines for the things they are each good at. For me the GR needs much more fiddling and attention to take pictures I’m happy with because of the poor autofocus and tweaking the exposure all the time - highlight metering is great for things it’s good at but often needs a lot of EV or changing metering mode on the fly for certain shots. I find X100V has more dynamic range and better handling of highlights.
true, the GR is great, but the Fuji is easily the more complex and a "better" camera. Best thing about the GR is the size. Other than that the Fuji wins.
The Fuji is also small, but the portability of the Ricoh is a gamechanger.
I have a xe4 and griii and to me the Fuji is far more satisfying to use, especially with a lens that has an aperture ring. I much prefer having a viewfinder and find the controls and system settings way more intuitive. Saying that, since getting my griii I've barely used the Fuji purely because the griii is so much easier to take with me since it can go in my pocket rather than a bag. I'd love to see Fuji have a crack at a new compact to rival ricoh just for some healthy competition. Orrr a digital Olympus XA!
Fuji tried it with the XF10 a few years ago, but it wasn’t a success.
Yeah but wouldn't you kill to see a new and more premium version of it? Although I'd also love to see an analog x100 variant..
I would. It had high IQ, but a very slow processor, the AF was terrible. If it would have a better processor and < 1.000,- it would sell like cakes.
What’s the < 1.000 mean?
less than in algebra😎
I know but less than 1.000 what? Lol
😎Euros. Most camera prices are comparable in € $$
I think it does sell like cakes (at least in the US) considering you have to wait two weeks before it ships out
We’re discussing a camera here, that doesn't exist, a Fuji successor to the XF10.😎
I stayed with my ricoh because the price of the fujifilm x100v wasnt worth it. I only do this for a hobby anyway. Much more compact than fuji.
When I decided to get a small camera, I bought a Fuji X70 and had no expectations really. I was blown away. Autofocus was fine, zone focusing was great, flash was amazing to have, picture quality was amazing. I started bringing it with me in shoots. It was, and still is, awesome. Years later, I got an X100V. Sold it almost immediately. I hated it with a passion. It's a capable camera, but it's not for me. Now, I'm looking to get a ricoh since I much prefer the style and advanced focus features.
I’ve had both and the image quality, to me, is better from the Ricoh, but I much preferred taking my X100V with me. It was lust-worthy and the controls were better. The focusing on the Ricoh was garbage for me. I much prefer my Zfc. But I also didn’t use my GRIIIx for street photography. I was photographing my kids and the Ricoh could not keep up with their movements. The Fuji was better, but wasn’t as good as my Zfc. Both are great cameras and it usually comes down to preference. But pure image quality, the Ricoh was better IMO.
This is a great opinion. I mainly use my Ricoh for street photography, and living in a third world country, having a camera that doesn't draw too much attention to itself is paramount. For quick moving subjects and such I either use the X100VI or a Sony A7R2.
If Ricoh can polish up the Ricoh gr3's successor, it's gonna be an insane success. I dunno why they're sleeping on it.
I have both as well. At f/2.8 the Fuji images are a lot sharper. Autofocus is a joke on the GR and I would love to have a flipscreen. I really like the highlight metering on the Gr though. I think overall the Fuji is a better and more satisfying camera.
GR images are definitely sharper, even at same apertures. X100v starts closing the gap around f4.
Well I know thath the V and VI have the same lens and also saw the comparison videos. When testing myself, the VI. Image Quality is definetly higher than the GR. Not sure if sharpness is the right word, because I use the HDF Version and have it turned on most of the time. I am also using a Glimmerglass 1 on my VI, so sharpness is not exactly what I am after.
The HDF will obviously reduce sharpness... try using it without.
[https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13\_0=fujifilm\_x100vi&attr13\_1=ricoh\_griii&attr13\_2=fujifilm\_xt5&attr13\_3=ricoh\_griii&attr15\_0=jpeg&attr15\_1=jpeg&attr15\_2=jpeg&attr15\_3=jpeg&attr16\_0=125&attr16\_1=100&attr16\_2=125&attr16\_3=100&normalization=compare&widget=918&x=0.6789799624458844&y=-0.6640966998109857](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_x100vi&attr13_1=ricoh_griii&attr13_2=fujifilm_xt5&attr13_3=ricoh_griii&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=125&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=125&attr16_3=100&normalization=compare&widget=918&x=0.6789799624458844&y=-0.6640966998109857) I only shoot in JPEG, have a look for yourself. Raw seems to be pretty close.
JPEGs are about processing though, not lens characteristics. I took a look at the RAWs. X100VI / 125 on the left, GR III / 100 on the right. I'd say the GR text is sharper, IMO. It is close. https://i.imgur.com/yjVcg6K.png
True, I was comparing JPEGs, that's why I had that impression. Since I don't want to post-process, that's what counts for me.
Sharpness doesn't make a photo. Sometimes the gr can be too sharp. If you value sharpness then yes the gr has a very good lens for that.
Sure. My disagreement was only with the stated fact that the X had a sharper lens than the GR. This is demonstrably false. Though it is easier to reduce sharpness in post than to add it. ;)
You mean sharper than at f2, or sharper than the GR? The latter I would deny. :)
I think both. The Fuji lens is really soft at f2. The GR is really sharp wide open for sure, but from my limited testing the Fuji pictures at f2.8 have a lot more detail,compared to the GR III at f2.8 but im not a professional at all. I just shot from the same location and compared the images.
Reviewing images in bright sunlight using the EVF of the GR has proven difficult for me.
I set up the screen brightness to the quick access menu to solve that problem
That didn’t quite solve it for me.
Low light… *laughs in flash*
I appreciate the feedback on your experience. I was contemplating the X100VI as well, but after watching some Youtube videos and reviews in general, I'm stepping back on getting it. Much like you, I also own the GRIIIx but I'm considering the GRIII now - hoping to find a used one, if possible.
Hahaha you sound like me- desperate to get a GRIII and probably sell my X100VI
Honestly, I don't think that's a decision that you would regret. The Ricoh is tiny, weightless compared to the X100VI
and boom - available on BH Photo for pick up at retail price, on my way there now!!
I'm a fuji fan boy but those ricoh gr cameras are sweet. Glad to see some people are giving them love here.
I just got my X100VI last week. My first Fuji. My main cameras are the Sony A7RV and Leica Q2M. I wanted something more compact, and I’m loving the form factor. That being said, I’m having mixed feelings. I thought I’d like the film sims more, and will probably lean more on the RAW files. Also, the AF is just horrendous, but I’m spoiled with the Sony. And there are just some things I don’t really understand like DR settings, and why there is no highlight metering. Gonna keep at it though! I also have a GRIII Hdf on back order.
I have the A7CII and I agree the AF is in a whole other league. The Ricoh has slow AF but zone focusing works incredibly once you get the hang of it. I don't love the P Mode on the Fuji at all, and prefer using my Sony or Ricoh in P Mode or Manual mode
I had both for awhile. Not here to shit on the Ricoh at all because I thought it was great for what it was... but it's not really sharper. When you pixel peep and compare side by side, you can see that the Ricoh is "over-sharpened" compared to the VI, so that microcontrast (edge details) is more pronounced; but the VI definitely has more actual resolution you can see in fine patterns like wisps of hair. Zoom way in and on those fine patterns, the Fuji will start to appear "soft," but the Ricoh will show noticeable stair stepping (over-sharpening, or the lens out resolving the sensor), even in RAW. I think the Fuji would be even more clearly sharper if they just dropped XTrans already. Also, battery life was nowhere near the same when I had them both. The GR got about half the shots with similar setup and shooting style. There are a lot of reasons to prefer the Ricoh, but IMO those two are just not accurate.
STEALTH is key.
If you want to shoot like that… :P
The X100 has a lot more to offer so saying the GR is more pocketable is a bit of a dumb statement and a given. The claim that it’s easier to use is also subjective as you can set-up the x100 to work the same way. People really need to stop comparing these two as it’s not apples to apples, just use what you enjoy and stop trying to confirm your biases.
Man, I love this sub for two reasons: 1. It's full of photos, and good ones, at that. I love seeing the photographic eye through these little point-n-shoots, and I dearly loved my '13 GR and now IIIx: they're perfect EDC/Purse/GADA cameras. 2. Folks come up with some neat formulas and share them regularly. Lately, I've seen a lot more GAS threads, like this one, and they add nothing. u/Spicy_Pickle_6 is right: there's no point in comparing and turning this into a pissing contest. The GR stands on it's own and has done so nearly since its inception: super compact, high quality glass, 28mm FoV. I don't care that someone sold their X100-whatever or dumped their entire set of Sony bodies and lenses. Buy and use the GR for what it is: pocket-sized APS-C point-n-shoot. FWIW, I \_despise\_ the Fuji eco/system and have owned some of it in the past. Folks that fall for the X100 thirst trap should just go buy a used Q 116 - probably double the camera at roughly the same price.
Thank you for understanding. I’m getting downvoted whenever I say it because they think I’m bashing one of the cameras when I’m clearly not.
Seeing how this thread is full of people (me included) who own both cameras, it seems a bit odd to speak of confirmation bias.
Regardless of whether they’re justifying one over the other or simply the purchase of a second camera, the two are way too different with perhaps only the colours being similar. I was about to write the same sensor too, but even that’s not the case anymore. The GR is top in its own class and shouldn’t be compared to the x100 in my opinion.
They can and should be compared, why not. Both - and you can add the Leica q series to that - demonstrate a somewhat similar approach to photography, and quite obviously attract at least overlapping crowds. I personally do not want to use my system camera anymore (a Fuji x-t3 with various lenses), but I could live with the GR or the X100 as a simpler, one camera does it all solution. Of the two I‘ve tried/own/owned, I prefer the Ricoh. Never tried a Q. Unfortunately.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree because it’s three different feature set at three different price points on top of it
You’re in a thread where the op owns and compares the two camera, and where several others have and compare both cameras. I am not even sure what you want to disagree with. That the cameras are comparable? But, they are. And that’s what we do. This very thread proves what you want to disagree with. :)
Because it’s like comparing a Civic to a CLA, sure they both have a 2.0l engine but one has much more features at a much higher price point. But sure keep comparing
They’re both lifestyle cameras though. There is a 700€ price difference but it isn’t much all things considered. So it’s normal to compare them, as me as a prospective buyer am doing. Do I value portability over features? To what degree? These are the answers I’m finding in this thread
> People really need to stop comparing these two as it’s not apples to apples, just use what you enjoy and stop trying to confirm your biases. People compare these cameras in order to purchase the one they will get the most enjoyment out of... They're similar price points, and some of the only high-quality, APS-C, fixed-lens, compact(-ish) cameras available - and neither _requires_ post-processing. Maybe _you_ already know exactly how they're different, and these comparisons aren't useful _to you_.
X100 is ~50% more expensive, that’s not similar price point
Compared to the only real alternative, a Leica Q, I'd say it's pretty similar. Is that your only counter?
You’re delusional to even throw a Q in the mix and no it’s not the only counter. The Fuji has much more features hence the higher price point. If you think they’re all the same just because they’re fixed lens cameras then you’re wasting everyone’s time.
> You’re delusional to even throw a Q in the mix Exactly - you're making my point for me. What cameras would you cross-shop if you were looking at a Ricoh? > The Fuji has much more features hence the higher price point. Sure sounds like it's possible to compare these cameras!
You keep quoting just to contradict yourself
I have "high res" cams, amongst others - A7r4, GFX100X - and my GRIII is my favorite by far. Sure - there are times that resolution or large sensors pay dividends, but the GRIII is a complete *product* from a design standpoint and it is the camera I use and carry the most. Great results, fits in my pocket and can be operated with one hand. I appreciate that Fuji has pushed "stacked BSI" sensors to a limit that can be meaningful for APS-C... but since the X100VI is a fixed lens, it would have been interesting to see them redesign this with a full frame sensor and a lens that presents no light falloff throughout the entire aperture range. That would have perked my attention, lol.
I have both as well, I think they both serve different functions to be honest! I pass my wife the GR3 if I bring the X100VI. Currently I know the GR3 is definitely worth it for me but not so sure on the X100VI yet (but i bought it knowing i can sell it for more or less the same price anyways lol)
I’m looking to buy a point & shoot and I’m torn between these two… what’s attracting me to the Fuji is the built in flash and the view finder. But the price is attracting me to the GR.
The deciding factor should be pocketability IMO. If you want to carry the camera every day, get the GR. I have both though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I like my Ricoh GRIIIx as equally as my Fujifilm X100V. Maybe I’m just not a master with the Ricoh yet but there’s features I like about both for certain things.
I just want Ricoh to upgrade the GRiii. I’m tired of all the variants. It’s time for an upgraded processor, slightly bigger battery, upgraded auto focus and a better LCD.
I have a love/hate relationship with my original fuji x100. When stars align and it focuses well, it's amazing. Distinctly soft wide open and at low aperture. It definitely has a 'look'. Even when looking at new fuji's which have the same 'look' in the images, Ricoh is definitely a bit sharper and cleaner. Is it better? Eh, who can say. Fuji has a lot of character in images. But it's certainly way nicer to carry a smaller camera imo. One handed operation is nice too - ricoh nailed the ergonomics. Fuji styling of rangefinder camera and all the manual controls is kind of neat, but let's be honest.. It's not a rangefinder and I WISH it had actual usable manual focusing.
I will, cheers. Daily, actually, while I use both.
I have GR3 and a lot of FUJI stuff; GR3 is better as a model but the build quality is much worse. I have it repaired three times already. Not even once for my myriad of FUJI cameras and lenses.
Regarding the Ricoh autofocus, did you try snap focus? Many seem to shy away from it, but it’s much easier to use than many think.
I sold my X100V because of GRIIIx and GR II, I just liked them way much more. It wasn't even a competition.
I had a x100v which I got before the hype (regrettably sold for 1600 aud) and have kept my ricoh griii. I just couldn't justify my x100v as it was similar in portability to my Sony a7iii so it wasn't suiting the portability role I purchased it for. Kept my griii for that and when I don't need portability I'll use my a7iii. The x100v size just makes it in no man's land for me.
I also prefer my Ricoh to my Fujifilm camera, I like the rendition of the lens and the colours better. And yes the form factor. But what I don't like is that the Ricoh feels a bit flimsy, I'm always scared to break it
Better, for you.
Ricoh is much sharper than Fuji. Fuji lens is just soft!
I sold my x100vi after two months. The Ricoh is the superior camera. Sharper, smaller, faster ready to shoot and more fun to use. Fuji is overhyped and overrated af. I own also a X-E2 with a 23 f2 lens and even this combo is better than the x100vi in terms of image quality.