Ricoh GR image quality comparison with Fuji X-Pro1, Canon G1x/G15, Sony RX100 and Nikon Coolpix A


Some quick comparisons between the image quality of the new Ricoh GR and several other cameras (click for larger view):


Ricoh GR ($799.95) vs. Nikon Coolpix A ($1096.95) at f/2.8:


Ricoh GR vs. Nikon Coolpix A at f/5.6:


This entry was posted in Ricoh and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • intergalactic_turkey

    Here are some test images:
    Unfortunately no high iso samples.

  • intergalactic_turkey
  • JC

    I am impressed with the ricoh but they have chosen the worst lens possible to use on Fuji XPRO1.

    • looh

      With similar aperture and focal length.

      • intergalactic_turkey

        there is no point in such a comparison. all chosen cameras are so different, except coolpix a. dpreview has a bunch more test shots. both suffer terrible moire effect whereas ricoh seems even worser than nikon. i can only make my mind when i see real life test shots in high iso and raw engine. jpegs are for me of no importance at all.

    • LOL

      Fuji initially loses due to XTrans

  • motogp

    the GR looks solid in those comparisons, high iso samples will be interesting.

    i had a gx200 back in 2009 and hated it, slow everything, weird sound from the lens, poor focusing, lag, average at best iso performance, it put me off ricoh. maybe its time to have another look with this new camera…..

  • RC

    Are differences in sharpening attributable to the differences that we see here? I want to know if these differences matter in the real world (i.e. to those other than pixel peepers)

    • LOL

      Yes, the matters. The GR significantly better than Coolpix A at edges WO — good for night shooting handheld. Well done, Ricoh.

      • BP2012

        Night shooting handheld without any kind of stabilization?

        Off course TAv mode and a good sensor should help a lot but not that much to shoot handheld at night. Tested on K5IIs, same sensor, same mode, with the same focal length f/2.8. With SR turned on it’s possible to take very good images (ISO in between 400-800), but if it is turned off shutter speed must be higher and ISO is not in so good anymore (1600 or higher).

  • dirk

    lol. What kind of a comparison is that?

    – something is wrong with the jpeg-compression of the x-pro images. There is an irregularity in the ledge above the windows in the first set.

    – if the frame in the second set is correct, there should be a blue background to the branches

    – why is each set made with different cameras?

    – what f-stops where the pictures taken at?

    • BP2012

      Quick and unsystematic comparison which shows the quality of GR lens 🙂 Impressive from my point of view.

    • No longer Pablo Ricasso

      It tells me enough to say that the camera is worth picking up and trying myself. Pentax may not be in the front of the sensor war, but when they do get a sensor they generally find a way to work it for all it’s worth. Much like Nikon in that regard. And yeah, it is tough for the cameras with zooms to compete…

  • bossa

    Which Pentax zoom lens is that exactly? A meaningless joke of a comparison… ..why not compare to the legendary FA 31mm Limited for something of value?

    • The answer to your problem is simple: Just simply ignore the things that are not of interest to you. Maybe the person didn’t have your “legendary” lens… actually, it’s legendary because of it’s size and cool looks… not necessarily because of it’s image quality. What other 30mm-something lenses are you comparing it against? Would like to know why you call it that.

      • intergalactic_turkey

        He’s simply trolling. Just ignore him 🙂

        • Jeremy Rata

          Could not agree more. He really has become a bit of a sideshow!

  • fjfjjj

    Obvious motion blur. Unspecified but obvious post-processing. Useless.

    • GlobalGuy

      That’s not true. And I don’t even care about a Ricoh or its fixed 28mm lens. Quite frankly, the 28-100+mm lenses on some of the rivals are holding up quite well, impressively, considering the Ricoh is stuck at 28mm at a fairly dark f/stop. Ricoh really should have made a zoom lens (24-70, etc)……… or a much brighter 28mm.

  • Jim

    Well, not super-scientific, but the enough to say the GR looks to be the best of the bunch? Want.

    • dirk

      definitely not enough!!

  • Daniel Watson

    All of these tests are at the extreme corners of the image. You think Ricoh knows it has better results in the corner? Maybe we need some center shots or close to center shots and the results will be more even. After all, I’m rarely looking at corner sharpness. But it does look like the GR has better corner sharpness.

  • The comments on this article are hilarious! If you think you can do a better comparison, then please, by all means, go do your own tests and show all of us feeble-minded lemmings what a truly unbiased, scientific, and “correct” comparison looks like.

    And while you’re wasting your time shooting brick walls at all apertures, I’ll be out making images with any one of these cameras…all are worthy competitors in the compact APS-C space.

    • The comparison is not perfect, but it’s the only one we have so far – the camera was announced just few hours ago.

    • dirk

      True to the word. All I meant is, that a few hand-picked photos with crops from the very border of the jpeg at unknown aperture are no way of comparing the imagequality, nevertheless the shaprness of photos.

      No doubt the Ricoh is a good camera that will give you great images if you use it right. But posting a couple of pictures with unknown aperture and you can’t even be sure all cameras focused at the same distance or what kind of jpeg-compression was used and thereby implying: “the GR is the best of them all” is just a joke.

      So get one and be happy about it or don’t. But don’t make any conclusions based on these “test shots”.

  • GK1128

    Try 18-55mm F2.8-4 on X-Pro1

  • I Think the XP1 is sharper than that. At least with the 35mm lens. Its the sharpest camera I have ever shot…. even @1.4.

  • madmax

    My comment (first of the thread), erased. I was saying it´s a non credible comparison made by Pentax-Ricoh. Also you, Michael, yesterday said it was possible to find full resolution images in the web of Pentax. Today, your comment is also erased. Any reasonable explanation for this?

    • Refresh your browser, I have not deleted any comments or just wait few minutes.

      • madmax

        Ok, you didn´t deleted it, but it´s not there. But are these comparisons still avalaible in the Pentax web?

        • No, I believe those were the press material and they are not officially published, Disqus sometimes takes a while to synch up comments.

          • madmax

            Sorry very much, Michael. You were right. Not published here.

  • G1X seems to do quite well in this bunch.

  • curiouspeter

    I was looking for a compact landscape/travel camera. Corner sharpness is essential. I almost bought the Coolpix A. Then came this announcement. 🙂

    $800 is an good deal for something like this. Of course, it is not suitable as your only camera. But it is an excellent third or fourth camera. In particular, this and a small OM-D kit would be perfect for trips.

  • Ade

    No meaning of this comparison due to unknown EXIF data, distance, and bla bla bla. Why did you choose only corner not every place in frame? Only newbie will believe this test.

  • Dennis

    We all know the picture quality of the GR is very good, this type of comparison usually backfires ending up with a discussion about how the test was performed. I own the xp1, if I hadn’t I would have bought the GR (or maybe the om-d em-1). Very good picture quality from all of them, no need to split hairs. Go out and shoot now ppl..

  • Back to top