Sony RX100 Mark III VS Ricoh GRII

[travis_mccormack]

<p>Like the subject says I am on a budget in terms of getting a good point and shoot and am curious of peoples opinions between Sony RX100 Mark III VS Ricoh GRII? </p>

<p>I like what both the cameras have to offer but cant decide which way to go.</p>

<p>Thanks <br>

Travis </p>

[Norman 202]

Both are very good. I'd toss a coin to decide. Although if money is a problem I'd probably choose between Sony and the

cheaper GR first version unless there is something specific in the second version you need.

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>I obtained a Ricoh GXR and several modules for very little. I can use all my old Nikon and Leica lenses with one module as well. IMO worth looking at. I use Nikon (and always have) as my primary system, but the GXR and Modules are sophisticated and very good. Best of luck!</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Can't really see how the two can be considered at the same time since they have virtually nothing in common: 1" sensor vs APS-C, zoom lens vs fixed focal length. The GRII was a relatively minor upgrade to the GR and only you can decide if those upgrades matter to you. I have the GR and never even considered any of the RX100 bodies as an alternative. I certainly wouldn't call the GR a "point and shoot" - the fixed focal length lens alone sees to that. Unless you are willing to live with that limitation and learn to use it creatively, the RX100 is the better choice for the flexibility the zoom offers alone.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I don't know how much you're going to pay for either but I can see that on the one hand you have a camera with a large sensor and a fixed lens, and on the other you have a camera with a smaller sensor and a zoom. So it's an interesting choice.<br /><br />If you are satisfied with the image quality of the Sony, get that without thinking about it. The 1st RX100 was a dud IMO. I don't know about the 3rd.</p>

<p>Edit: Wait a minute, this review is interesting:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What it comes down to is this: while the RX100 III is a fantastic camera, it isn't the obviously superior choice for all photographers the way the RX100 II was clearly superior to the RX100. <br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/sony/rx100-ii/vs/sony/rx100-iii/</p>

[Norman 202]

<i>Can't really see how the two can be considered at the same time since they have virtually nothing in common: 1"

sensor vs APS-C, zoom lens vs fixed focal length</i>

<p>

They are very similar, sony has focal length of 24-70 but the GR can be cropped to give a working focal length of 28-70

easily(it even has built in 35/50 mm crop modes), very similar size, sony fast AF vs Ricoh snap focus, similar flash

capabilities, Sony's EVF is probably the biggest difference between the two although you can buy an optical finder for the

Ricoh. Can't comment on Video.

[Brian]

<p>I own neither camera so I suppose I can be impartial. I agree with Norman that they are not so far apart as they might appear on paper, though I think as a user you will definitely notice zoom versus fixed focal. The Ricoh does require a more deliberate approach, and as you do say it's to be a 'point and shoot', then I think the choice has to be the Sony (that EVF on the Sony is apparently very good too).</p>

[Ken Katz]

Here is a review of the Ricoh GR (version I):

 

https://blog.mingthein.com/2013/05/06/review-2013-ricoh-gr-digital-v/

 

I think it is more of a niche product than the Sony RX100 series and much less of a point and shoot. I believe

the RX100 Mk II has a 28-100mm equivalent zoom and does not have an EVF. If you cropped a GR to an equivalent

70mm FOV, I think you would have about a 3MP file vs 20MP the RX would provide.

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Sony fits into your pocket and has a useful zoom.</p>

<p>But I would buy the Ricoh GR its just better...</p>

[eric_brody]

I had the original RX100 and sold it. The images were fine for what I used it for but I could not stand not having a proper finder. I then got a Fuji X100S, superb camera, good finder, but I sold it because having a fixed focal length was not tolerable. I now have the RX100 M3 and am having a great time with it. I really do carry it almost everywhere. I have a good iPhone but really prefer the images from a real camera. Assess what is really important to you, rent if necessary, and then it won't take you three purchases to get where you want to be. When I do "photography," e.g. rocks, trees, landscapes, "serious stuff," I use my Fuji X T-2 and 10-24, 16-55, and 50-140 zooms, rather a bit more to carry than the RX.

[travis_mccormack]

Thanks for all the help everybody. I have decided to go with the RX100 but am now unsure what version. the 3,4 or 5.

Has anyone used multiple versions of those 3 and if so what major differences?

 

Thanks