Shootout: Sony vs. Ricoh?!

I think I'm getting over my initial "IWT!" (I want that) reaction to the upcoming Ricoh GR IIIx.

For one thing, I remembered my Summer-long longing for a Sony A6600 and Sigma 30mm (45mm-e).

That lens seems to be different in a way from many other recent lenses I've tried—it tilts just a little more toward high contrast rather than high resolution. From what little I've seen so far, I'm guessing the GR IIIx's 26.1mm (40mm-e) lens does too. It's tough to know without trying them for myself, and sometimes, these days, it's tough to untangle true lens characteristics from lens+sensor characteristics. (It was easy as pie with film because you could change the lens but not the film.)

By the way, if you don't know what I'm talking about, the best explanation I've seen was in the old Canon EF Lens Work III (which Canon seems to have stopped updating some time ago). The appendix about the optical characteristics of lenses in that book is the best basic text about the optics of camera lenses I know of. Regarding this topic it has some illustrations that are worth a thousand words.

I once tried to suggest to Canon that they should publish the sections on optics as a separate publication, without the quickly outdated lens catalog. But my importunings fell on deaf ears. Or, more probably, no ears. It would have been a nice thing to have. When Canon stopped updating Lens Work the baby went out with the bath water.

But back to the subject—it does seem like a shootout is called for here, doesn't it? The Sony A6600 and the Sigma 30mm ƒ/1.4 DC DN Contemporary vs. the upcoming Ricoh GR IIIx which should be along before the end of October. Two very different cameras, but equally appealing to me, each in its own way. I've already tried the Sony for a week and very much want to use it some more. But I think I should also "demystify" the Ricoh, too—I've never used a GR, and the series has been around for a very long time. It's past time I tried one for myself.

And while the cameras are different, their results are potentially very close. Both lenses have similar angles of view and both sensors are 24-MP APS-C. The biggest difference is the lens speed, ƒ/1.4 vs. ƒ/2.8. I think it would make it a good comparison. The very different layout and design of the two cameras could make for interesting discussion. I'll put it in the queue.

Mike

Book o' the Week:

Andy Warhol: Polaroids 1958–1987. "Carrying a Polaroid camera from the late 1950s until his death in 1987, [Andy Warhol] amassed a huge collection of instant pictures of friends, lovers, patrons, the famous, the obscure, the scenic, the fashionable, and himself...this book features hundreds of these instant photos."

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Here's Andy Warhol: Polaroids 1958–1987 at The Book Depository. The following logo is also a link:

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Jeff1000: "Hey Mike, Nikon's coming to market very soon with a compact pancake 40mm Z lens. It's sure to be a stunner. Pair it with a Z5 or Z6 and you've got a pretty svelte package there."

brian: "For what it's worth, if you're willing to stray as far from your favored 40mm focal length as a 30mm lens on an APS-C camera would take you, you might be interested in the little Sigma 45mm DG DN ƒ/2.8 lens—on a 'full frame' body. The little Sigma 45mm seems like it might appeal to you since the designers opted to emphasize bokeh but still achieved good resolution with the lens stopped down a bit. A Sigma engineer [actually it was Yasuhiro Ohsone, Sigma's Head of Product Planning —Ed.] reported receiving 'a surprising proposal from our optical engineers in charge: to develop the lens with the highest priority given to its expression of bokeh.' The Sigma 45mm lens seems to puzzle people who prioritize wide-open sharpness, but it's been well received by some who look for a good balance of rendering and sharpness. As for me, I'd be interested in your take the GR IIIx. I use manual-focus Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses on my Sony A7R III, and the tiny Ricoh seems like it might be better than a phone as an autofocus complement to my kit."

Mike replies: Yes, the Sigma 45mm ƒ/2.8 DG DN Contemporary is a true lens connoisseur's lens, and a rarity on today's market. If I shot full frame it would be my main lens, and anyone who shoots L-mount or E-mount and has multiple lenses really should own one.

Albert Smith: "I love that Canon EF Lens Work book. I bought mine in the mid '80s while never having a Canon camera from that era. I also had the Eyes Of Nikon book, but the Canon book put it to shame in the amount of great info it contained. Besides the contrast/sharpness skewing in the designs that you mentioned, it also had one of the best sections on picking out a selection of focal lengths to cover your specific interests and subject matter. Terrific book that I still pull off the shelf today.

"It was simpler to test one lens against another it those days, even different brands. Just load the same film in each camera and test away. Today, how much is the sensor more responsible for the end item image than the lens? Direct comparisons of lens A to lens B might have little to do with the lenses."

Bill Allen: "The feel of the GR is very difficult to convey. The rubberized grip was the first thing that hit me when I took it out of the box. It just makes you want to go out and shoot. The heritage of the GR line really shines through. I have the GR II, and I was skeptical after the X100s didn't do it for me. But that skepticism went right out the window when I received it. You just have to try it. It's quite a nice landscape camera in its own right too. Even QT Luong used a film GR when mountain climbing, if I recall. Even if the GR IIIx is a bit on the pricy end, try getting your hands on an older model to get a feel for the GR ethos. I also recommend this article from Chris Leskovsek."

Comments

[Jamie Pillers]

I'd add the Fuji X-E4 with the new 27mm lens to the Ricoh/Sony comparison. The Fuji kit, like the Sony, offers a similar package regarding image quality and small size. The Ricoh announcement of the GR IIIx initially excited me. But after a few days thought, I'll stick with the Fuji, given the ability to switch lenses and a built-in EVF. The GR's compact size is tempting, but not enough so, at least for the moment.

[Jeff]

Neither my taste, but one has a viewfinder and one does not. Apples and pomegranates, to me.

[Ricardo Silva Cordeiro]

It would be interesting to see your take on the new Ricoh. I've seen reports of it's AF being sub-par, but I also find that reviews often make comparisons to current uber-performance cameras, when some (or a lot of) users don't need the state-of-the-art in a time where most current cameras reached a point of sufficiency.

Even more interesting will be to see what camera/lens you will choose for your One-year-one-camera project and the results of it. Alongside the Ricoh and Sony, I would throw the Fujifilm X-S10 with the new 27mm WR into the mix.

[Ricardo Silva Cordeiro]

About the "initial YWT", it's really wise to wait a bit before hitting the purchase button. Not only to wait for a good amount of reports on the new camera, but also to see how we feel about it upon rationalization of this "need".

Sometimes we even might be able to save money tricking ourselves: buying something for the cameras we already have to make them feel fresh (being a new lens or even a new handgrip).

In my case, I suffered from major YWT upon the announcement of the Nikon Z fc, I immediately wanted one with the tiny kit zoom. But recently I was finally able to effectively pushI away this impulse deciding to keep a Olympus E-M5 mk2 I had for sale and getting a tiny Panasonic 12-32mm, what a perfect match. I like this camera a lot, I can't understand why I wanted to sell it, maybe I will remember when I see the first Nikon Z fc in person.

[hugh crawford]

One could probably find some pretty good information about lens design in one of these books.

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Rudolf+Kingslake&dc&qid=1631579771&rnid=2941120011&ref=sr_ex_n_0

[Clemens]

Yes, please!

[Christer Almqvist]

Sorry, I have changed my mind. Shall not buy the new Ricoh.

It has not got an articulated LCD monitor. I hate these full length people pictures shot from eye level. Wrong perspective.

And I am too old to bend down. Not to speak of kneeling or getting down on my tummy.

OTH I do not need a viewfinder. A good monitor is something Hassy and Rollei film shooters would have liked . . .

[Jeff1000]

Hey Mike, Nikon's coming to market very soon with a compact/ pancake 40mm Z lens. It's sure to be a stunner. Pair it with a Z5 or Z6 and you've got a pretty svelte package there.

BTW, I just don't see how a tennis player, in this case Novak Djokovic, can be considered the GOAT after getting trounced in a Calendar Year Grand Slam match. That's just not something a GOAT should have on his record. Just my opinion.

[Andrew J.]

I'm very surprised no-one mentioned the newly announced (same day as the GRIIIs) Olympus 20mm f/1.4. Surely this lens should be part of the comparison and moreover mounted on a smallish size camera as Olympus's are would be more fair to the Ricoh. Anyway, the GR is a concept in itself and it's not just about the lens. Bill Allen said it much better than I ever could. So please compare apples to apples if you may.

[The OM Digital Solutions 20mm f/1.4 hasn't been announced, it's just on the roadmap. All they've said is that they're working on it. --Mike]

[Fred Haynes]

I am really looking forward to the Sony Ricoh ‘shoot out’!
I think my GRII lens is very sharp, but you know, I would like something less wide that the ‘two’ has as regards the optics. Ninety nine percent of all my pictures using my Olympus are with either with the 25mm or 17mm f/ 1.8 primes.
Maybe, just maybe if my GR had image stabilization and a finder, it would be close to perfect.
So I’m curious and anxious to hear what you have to say! Get your buddy at B&H to send you the IIIx as soon as it comes available!!👍
Fred

[Andrew L]

The GR series cameras are their own special beast. There's a "sum of its parts" sort of air of specialness about the GR that doesn't come through on spec sheets or in pictures. It's basically a camera made to be pulled from a pocket, used one-handed, including changing settings, and quickly turned off and put away again - yet having taken an extremely sharp, well-exposed, faithful image in that short period of time. On top of that, it feels (and is) solid. I have dropped a couple of GRIII's on hard surfaces (tile, concrete) since they debuted - yes, I'm occasionally an idiot not utilizing a wrist strap - and they have survived with nothing more than faint dents in the magnesium alloy. They exude quality.

At the same time, GR cameras don't have the feel of "true" or "full-fledged" cameras in the hand. Best I can say it, they still hold onto their identity as 1990's era premium point-and-shoots. They don't feel like feature-packed, over-engineered whiz-bang computers like mirrorless cameras in this day and age do. They feel stripped-down and focused. That, I think, is why some people (myself included) adore them, and others really do not get on with them: they have a specific method of working, and if you don't gel with it, tough luck. They will not adapt to you, you adapt to them (or "click" with them from the get-go).

[Moose]

"And while the cameras are different, their results are potentially very close."

Which results? Test shots, or actual shots out in the world?

To paraphrase an old saw, "The best camera is the one that allows you to see the subject."

Comment after comment raises the lack of an EVF; you don't seem to notice.

Another contender for 40 mm FoV in compact form is/was the Panny GM1 with 20/1.7 lens. I loved this camera, for a while. Then, after too many instances when I simply couldn't see the LCD image in direct sunlight, I succumbed to the GM5, with its tiny, but fully functional, EVF.

After a few years of sitting in a drawer, I realized I was never going to use the GM1 again, and sold it on.

============ WHOA! ======================

Did I miss something? I thought the GR IIIx discussion was about compact quality? Knowing nothing about APS-C bodies and lenses since leaving the Canon 60D nine years ago, I assumed this "Sigma 30mm" was a small lens.

Holy Smokes! The lens alone is twice the size and as heavy as the whole GR IIIx! Check 'em out on Camerasize.

How are these things to compare? What would a shoot-out between them even mean?

Confuse A. Moose

[The 30mm goes on the Sony A6600. The 40mm-e on the GR IIIx is just as small as the old 28mm-e and retracts into the camera body.

Re the Ricoh's lack of a VF, my phone doesn't have a viewfinder either. The GR IIIX would replace my phone, not a full-featured ILC. --Mike]

[John Camp]

Just a note about that Sigma 45 -- Sony E-mount adapters to Nikon Z are widely available, and apparently keep full electronic integration. I don't know that from personal experience, though. Maybe somebody here does?

[John London]

''my phone doesn't have a viewfinder either.''

LOL