Leica S1 Contax Camera Comparison
APO-Telyt Module Vivitar Exif data
A potelyt.com – Photography & Imaging Resources
PW

Olympus E-P1 vs Ricoh GR II

The Olympus PEN E-P1 and the Ricoh GR II are two digital cameras that were revealed to the public, respectively, in June 2009 and June 2015. The E-P1 is a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera, while the GR II is a fixed lens compact. The cameras are based on a Four Thirds (E-P1) and an APS-C (GR II) sensor. The Olympus has a resolution of 12.2 megapixels, whereas the Ricoh provides 16.1 MP.

Below is an overview of the main specs of the two cameras as a starting point for the comparison.

Headline Specifications
Olympus E-P1
versus
Ricoh GR II
Olympus E-P1   Ricoh GR II
Mirrorless system camera Fixed lens compact camera
Micro Four Thirds lenses 28mm f/2.8
12.2 MP, Four Thirds Sensor 16.1 MP, APS-C Sensor
720/30p Video 1080/30p Video
ISO 100-6,400 ISO 100-25,600
No viewfinder, LCD framing Viewfinder optional
3.0 LCD, 230k dots 3.0 LCD, 1230k dots
Fixed screen (not touch-sensitive) Fixed screen (not touch-sensitive)
3 shutter flaps per second 4 shutter flaps per second
In-body stabilizationno shake reduction
300 shots per battery charge320 shots per battery charge
121 x 70 x 36 mm, 355 g 117 x 63 x 35 mm, 251 g

Going beyond this snapshot of core features and characteristics, what are the differences between the Olympus PEN E-P1 and the Ricoh GR II? Which one should you buy? Read on to find out how these two cameras compare with respect to their body size, their imaging sensors, their shooting features, their input-output connections, and their reception by expert reviewers.

Body comparison

An illustration of the physical size and weight of the Olympus E-P1 and the Ricoh GR II is provided in the side-by-side display below. The two cameras are presented according to their relative size. Three consecutive perspectives from the front, the top, and the back are available. All size dimensions are rounded to the nearest millimeter.

The E-P1 can be obtained in three different colors (black, silver, white), while the GR II is only available in black.

Size Olympus E-P1 vs Ricoh GR II
Compare E-P1 versus GR II top
Comparison E-P1 or GR II rear

If the front view area (width x height) of the cameras is taken as an aggregate measure of their size, the Ricoh GR II is notably smaller (13 percent) than the Olympus E-P1. In this context, it is worth noting that neither the E-P1 nor the GR II are weather-sealed.

The above size and weight comparisons are to some extent incomplete and possibly misleading, as the GR II has a lens built in, whereas the E-P1 is an interchangeable lens camera that requires a separate lens. Attaching the latter will add extra weight and bulk to the setup. You can compare the optics available for the E-P1 and their specifications in the Micro Four Thirds Lens Catalog.

Concerning battery life, the E-P1 gets 300 shots out of its BLS-1 battery, while the GR II can take 320 images on a single charge of its DB65 power pack. The power pack in the GR II can be charged via the USB port, which can be very convenient when travelling.

The adjacent table lists the principal physical characteristics of the two cameras alongside a wider set of alternatives. If you would like to visualize and compare a different camera combination, you can navigate to the CAM-parator app and make your selection from a broad list of cameras there.

scroll hint
Body Specifications
    Camera
Model
Camera
Width
Camera
Height
Camera
Depth
Camera
Weight
Battery
Life
Weather
Sealing
Camera
Launch
Launch
Price (USD)
Street
Price
1.
 
Olympus E-P1 121 mm 70 mm 36 mm 355 g 300 n Jun 2009 799 i
2.
 
Ricoh GR II 117 mm 63 mm 35 mm 251 g 320 n Jun 2015 699 i
3.
 
Canon G7 X 103 mm 60 mm 40 mm 304 g 210 n Sep 2014 699 i
4.
 
Olympus E-M10 119 mm 82 mm 46 mm 396 g 320 n Jan 2014 699 i
5.
 
Olympus E-P3 122 mm 69 mm 34 mm 369 g 330 n Jun 2011 799 i
6.
 
Olympus E-PL2 114 mm 72 mm 42 mm 362 g 280 n Jan 2011 599 i
7.
 
Olympus E-PL3 110 mm 64 mm 37 mm 313 g 300 n Jun 2011 599 i
8.
 
Olympus E-PL1 115 mm 72 mm 42 mm 334 g 290 n Feb 2010 599 i
9.
 
Olympus E-620 130 mm 94 mm 60 mm 521 g 500 n Feb 2009 699 i
10.
 
Olympus E-P2 121 mm 70 mm 36 mm 355 g 300 n Nov 2009 799 i
11.
 
Olympus E-520 136 mm 92 mm 68 mm 535 g 750 n May 2008 699 i
12.
 
Panasonic GM5 99 mm 60 mm 36 mm 211 g 220 n Sep 2014 749 i
13.
 
Panasonic GF1 119 mm 71 mm 36 mm 385 g 380 n Sep 2009 749 i
14.
 
Panasonic GH1 124 mm 90 mm 45 mm 385 g 300 n Mar 2009 899 i
15.
 
Ricoh GR 117 mm 61 mm 35 mm 245 g 290 n Apr 2013 799 i
16.
 
Sony RX100 IV 102 mm 58 mm 41 mm 298 g 280 n Jun 2015 999 i
17.
 
Sony RX100 III 102 mm 58 mm 41 mm 290 g 320 n May 2014 799 i
Notes: Measurements and pricing do not include easily detachable parts, such as add-on or interchangeable lenses or optional viewfinders.

The price is, of course, an important factor in any camera decision. The manufacturer’s suggested retail prices give an idea on the placement of the camera in the maker’s lineup and the broader market. The GR II was launched at a lower price than the E-P1, despite having a lens built in. Usually, retail prices stay at first close to the launch price, but after several months, discounts become available. Later in the product cycle and, in particular, when the replacement model is about to appear, further discounting and stock clearance sales often push the camera price considerably down. Then, after the new model is out, very good deals can frequently be found on the pre-owned market.

Sensor comparison

The size of the imaging sensor is a crucial determinant of image quality. A large sensor will generally have larger individual pixels that offer better low-light sensitivity, provide wider dynamic range, and have richer color-depth than smaller pixels in a sensor of the same technological generation. Further, a large sensor camera will give the photographer additional creative options when using shallow depth-of-field to isolate a subject from its background. On the downside, larger sensors are more costly to manufacture and tend to lead to bigger and heavier cameras and lenses.

Of the two cameras under consideration, the Olympus E-P1 features a Four Thirds sensor and the Ricoh GR II an APS-C sensor. The sensor area in the GR II is 64 percent bigger. As a result of these sensor size differences, the cameras have a format factor of, respectively, 2.0 and 1.5. The sensor in the E-P1 has a native 4:3 aspect ratio, while the one in the GR II offers a 3:2 aspect.

Technology-wise, both cameras are equipped with CMOS (Complementary Metal–Oxide–Semiconductor) sensors.

Olympus E-P1 and Ricoh GR II sensor measures

With 16.1MP, the GR II offers a higher resolution than the E-P1 (12.2MP), but the GR II nevertheless has larger individual pixels (pixel pitch of 4.79μm versus 4.29μm for the E-P1) due to its larger sensor. Moreover, the GR II is a much more recent model (by 6 years) than the E-P1, and its sensor will have benefitted from technological advances during this time that further enhance the light gathering capacity of its pixel-units. Coming back to sensor resolution, it should be mentioned that the GR II has no anti-alias filter installed, so that it can capture all the detail its sensor resolves.

The resolution advantage of the Ricoh GR II implies greater flexibility for cropping images or the possibility to print larger pictures. The maximum print size of the GR II for good quality output (200 dots per inch) amounts to 24.6 x 16.3 inches or 62.6 x 41.5 cm, for very good quality (250 dpi) 19.7 x 13.1 inches or 50.1 x 33.2 cm, and for excellent quality (300 dpi) 16.4 x 10.9 inches or 41.7 x 27.6 cm. The corresponding values for the Olympus E-P1 are 20.2 x 15.1 inches or 51.2 x 38.4 cm for good quality, 16.1 x 12.1 inches or 41 x 30.7 cm for very good quality, and 13.4 x 10.1 inches or 34.1 x 25.6 cm for excellent quality prints.

The Olympus PEN E-P1 has a native sensitivity range from ISO 100 to ISO 6400. The corresponding ISO settings for the Ricoh GR II are ISO 100 to ISO 25600 (no boost).

E-P1 versus GR II MP

For many cameras, data on sensor performance has been reported by DXO Mark. This service determines an overall sensor rating, as well as sub-scores for low-light sensitivity ("DXO Sports"), dynamic range ("DXO Landscape"), and color depth ("DXO Portrait"). Of the two cameras under consideration, the GR II offers substantially better image quality than the E-P1 (overall score 25 points higher). The advantage is based on 2.2 bits higher color depth, 3.3 EV in additional dynamic range, and 1 stops in additional low light sensitivity. The adjacent table reports on the physical sensor characteristics and the outcomes of the DXO sensor quality tests for a sample of comparator-cameras.

scroll hint
Sensor Characteristics
    Camera
Model
Sensor
Class
Resolution
(MP)
Horiz.
Pixels
Vert.
Pixels
Video
Format
DXO
Portrait
DXO
Landscape
DXO
Sports
DXO
Overall
1.
 
Olympus E-P1 Four Thirds 12.2 4032 3024720/30p21.410.4536 55
2.
 
Ricoh GR II APS-C 16.1 4928 32641080/30p23.613.71078 80
3.
 
Canon G7 X 1-inch 20.0 5472 36481080/60p23.012.7556 71
4.
 
Olympus E-M10 Four Thirds 15.9 4608 34561080/30p22.812.3884 72
5.
 
Olympus E-P3 Four Thirds 12.2 4032 30241080/60i20.810.1536 51
6.
 
Olympus E-PL2 Four Thirds 12.2 4032 3024720/30p21.410.2573 55
7.
 
Olympus E-PL3 Four Thirds 12.2 4032 30241080/60i20.910.3499 52
8.
 
Olympus E-PL1 Four Thirds 12.2 4032 3024720/30p21.510.1487 54
9.
 
Olympus E-620 Four Thirds 12.2 4032 3024none21.310.3536 55
10.
 
Olympus E-P2 Four Thirds 12.2 4032 3024720/30p21.510.4505 56
11.
 
Olympus E-520 Four Thirds 10.0 3648 2736none21.410.4548 55
12.
 
Panasonic GM5 Four Thirds 15.8 4592 34481080/60p22.111.7721 66
13.
 
Panasonic GF1 Four Thirds 12.0 4000 3000720/30p21.210.3513 54
14.
 
Panasonic GH1 Four Thirds 12.0 4000 30001080/24p21.611.6772 64
15.
 
Ricoh GR APS-C 16.1 4928 32641080/30p23.613.5972 78
16.
 
Sony RX100 IV 1-inch 20.0 5472 36484K/30p22.812.6591 70
17.
 
Sony RX100 III 1-inch 20.0 5472 36481080/60p22.412.3495 67

Many modern cameras are not only capable of taking still images, but also of capturing video footage. The two cameras under consideration both have sensors whose read-out speed is fast enough to capture moving pictures, but the GR II provides a better video resolution than the E-P1. It can shoot movie footage at 1080/30p, while the Olympus is limited to 720/30p.

Feature comparison

Apart from body and sensor, cameras can and do differ across a range of features. The E-P1 and the GR II are similar in the sense that neither of the two has a viewfinder. The images are, thus, framed using live view on the rear LCD. That said, the GR II can be equipped with an optional viewfinder – the GV-1. The adjacent table lists some of the other core features of the Olympus E-P1 and Ricoh GR II along with similar information for a selection of comparators.

scroll hint
Core Features
    Camera
Model
Viewfinder
(Type or
000 dots)
Control
Panel
(yes/no)
LCD
Size
(inch)
LCD
Resolution
(000 dots)
LCD
Attach-
ment
Touch
Screen
(yes/no)
Mech
Shutter
Speed
Shutter
Flaps
(1/sec)
Built-in
Flash
(yes/no)
Built-in
Image
Stab
1.
 
Olympus E-P1none n 3.0 230 fixed n 1/4000s 3.0 n Y
2.
 
Ricoh GR IIoptional n 3.0 1230 fixed n 1/4000s 4.0 Y n
3.
 
Canon G7 Xnone n 3.0 1040 tilting Y 1/2000s 6.5 Y Y
4.
 
Olympus E-M101440 n 3.0 1037 tilting Y 1/4000s 8.0 Y Y
5.
 
Olympus E-P3optional n 3.0 614 fixed Y 1/4000s 3.0 Y Y
6.
 
Olympus E-PL2optional n 3.0 460 fixed n 1/4000s 3.0 Y Y
7.
 
Olympus E-PL3optional n 3.0 460 tilting n 1/4000s 5.5 n Y
8.
 
Olympus E-PL1optional n 2.7 230 fixed n 1/2000s 3.0 Y Y
9.
 
Olympus E-620optical n 2.7 230 swivel n 1/4000s 4.0 Y Y
10.
 
Olympus E-P2optional n 3.0 230 fixed n 1/4000s 3.0 n Y
11.
 
Olympus E-520optical n 2.7 215 fixed n 1/4000s 3.5 Y Y
12.
 
Panasonic GM51166 n 3.0 921 fixed Y 1/500s 5.8 n n
13.
 
Panasonic GF1optional n 3.0 460 fixed n 1/4000s 3.0 Y n
14.
 
Panasonic GH11440 n 3.0 460 swivel n 1/4000s 3.0 Y n
15.
 
Ricoh GRoptional n 3.0 1230 fixed n 1/4000s 4.0 Y n
16.
 
Sony RX100 IV2359 n 3.0 1228 tilting n 1/2000s 16.0 Y Y
17.
 
Sony RX100 III1440 n 3.0 1229 tilting n 1/2000s 10.0 Y Y

One difference between the cameras concerns the presence of an on-board flash. The GR II has one, while the E-P1 does not. While the built-in flash of the GR II is not very powerful, it can at times be useful as a fill-in light.

The Ricoh GR II has an intervalometer built-in. This enables the photographer to capture time lapse sequences, such as flower blooming, a sunset or moon rise, without purchasing an external camera trigger and related software.

The E-P1 writes its imaging data to SDHC cards, while the GR II uses SDXC cards. The GR II supports UHS-I cards (Ultra High Speed data transfer of up to 104 MB/s), while the E-P1 cannot take advantage of Ultra High Speed SD cards.

Connectivity comparison

For some imaging applications, the extent to which a camera can communicate with its environment can be an important aspect in the camera decision process. The table below provides an overview of the connectivity of the Olympus PEN E-P1 and Ricoh GR II and, in particular, the interfaces the cameras (and selected comparators) provide for accessory control and data transfer.

scroll hint
Input-Output Connections
    Camera
Model
Hotshoe
Port
Internal
Microphone
Internal
Speaker
Microphone
Port
Headphone
Port
HDMI
Port
USB
Port
WiFi
Support
NFC
Support
Bluetooth
Support
1.
 
Olympus E-P1Ystereo---mini2.0---
2.
 
Ricoh GR IIYstereomono--micro2.0YY-
3.
 
Canon G7 X-stereomono--micro2.0YY-
4.
 
Olympus E-M10Ystereomono--micro2.0Y--
5.
 
Olympus E-P3Ystereo---mini2.0---
6.
 
Olympus E-PL2Ystereo---mini2.0---
7.
 
Olympus E-PL3Ystereo---mini2.0---
8.
 
Olympus E-PL1Ystereo---mini2.0---
9.
 
Olympus E-620Y-----2.0---
10.
 
Olympus E-P2Ystereo---mini2.0---
11.
 
Olympus E-520Y-----2.0---
12.
 
Panasonic GM5Ystereomono--micro2.0Y--
13.
 
Panasonic GF1Ymonomono--mini2.0---
14.
 
Panasonic GH1Ystereo-Y-mini2.0---
15.
 
Ricoh GRYmonomono--micro2.0---
16.
 
Sony RX100 IV-stereomono--micro2.0YY-
17.
 
Sony RX100 III-stereomono--micro2.0YY-

It is notable that the GR II offers wifi support, which can be a very convenient means to transfer image data to an off-camera location. In contrast, the E-P1 does not provide wifi capability.

The GR II is a recent model that features in the current product line-up of Ricoh. In contrast, the E-P1 has been discontinued (but can be found pre-owned on eBay). As a replacement in the same line of cameras, the E-P1 was succeeded by the Olympus E-P2. Further information on the two cameras (e.g. user guides, manuals), as well as related accessories, can be found on the official Olympus and Ricoh websites.

Review summary

So how do things add up? Which of the two cameras – the Olympus E-P1 or the Ricoh GR II – has the upper hand? Is one clearly better than the other? The listing below highlights the relative strengths of the two models.

ilogo

Advantages of the Olympus PEN E-P1:

  • Better moiré control: Has an anti-alias filter to avoid artificial patterns to appear in images.
  • More flexible: Accepts interchangeable lenses, so that lens characteristics can be altered.
  • Sharper images: Has hand-shake reducing image stabilization built-in.
  • More heavily discounted: Has been available for much longer (launched in June 2009).

ilogo

Arguments in favor of the Ricoh GR II:

  • More detail: Has more megapixels (16.1 vs 12.2MP), which boosts linear resolution by 17%.
  • Maximized detail: Lacks an anti-alias filter to exploit the sensor's full resolution potential.
  • Better image quality: Scores substantially higher (25 points) in the DXO overall evaluation.
  • Richer colors: Generates noticeably more natural colors (2.2 bits more color depth).
  • More dynamic range: Captures a broader range of light and dark details (3.3 EV of extra DR).
  • Better low-light sensitivity: Can shoot in dim conditions (1 stops ISO advantage).
  • Better video: Provides higher definition movie capture (1080/30p vs 720/30p).
  • More framing options: Can be equipped with a hotshoe-mounted accessory-viewfinder.
  • More detailed LCD: Has a higher resolution rear screen (1230k vs 230k dots).
  • Faster burst: Shoots at higher frequency (4 vs 3 flaps/sec) to capture the decisive moment.
  • Easier time-lapse photography: Has an intervalometer built-in for low frequency shooting.
  • Ready to shoot: Has an integrated lens, whereas the E-P1 necessitates an extra lens.
  • More compact: Is smaller (117x63mm vs 121x70mm) and will fit more readily into a bag.
  • Less heavy: Has a lower weight even though it has a lens built in (unlike the E-P1).
  • Easier travel charging: Can be conveniently charged via its USB port.
  • Easier fill-in: Has a small integrated flash to brighten shadows of backlit subjects.
  • Easier file upload: Has wifi built in for automatic backup or image transfer to the web.
  • Easier device pairing: Supports NFC for fast wireless image transfer over short distances.
  • Faster buffer clearing: Has an SD card interface that supports the UHS-I standard.
  • More affordable: Was introduced at a lower price, despite coming with a built-in lens.
  • More modern: Reflects 6 years of technical progress since the E-P1 launch.

If the count of relative strengths (bullet points above) is taken as a measure, the GR II is the clear winner of the contest (21 : 4 points). However, the relevance of individual strengths will vary across photographers, so that you might want to apply your own weighing scheme to the summary points when reflecting and deciding on a new camera. A professional wildlife photographer will view the differences between cameras in a way that diverges from the perspective of a family photog, and a person interested in architecture has distinct needs from a sports shooter. Hence, the decision which camera is best and worth buying is often a very personal one.

E-P1 04:21 GR II

How about other alternatives? Do the specifications of the Olympus E-P1 and the Ricoh GR II place the cameras among the top in their class? Find out in the latest Best Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera and Best Prime Lens Compact Camera listings whether the two cameras rank among the cream of the crop.

In any case, while the comparison of technical specifications can provide a useful overview of the capabilities of different cameras, it remains incomplete and does no justice, for example, to the way the E-P1 or the GR II perform in practice. User reviews that are available, for instance, at amazon can sometimes shed light on these issues, but such feedback is all too often partial, inconsistent, and inaccurate.

Expert reviews

This is why expert reviews are important. The adjacent summary-table relays the overall verdicts of several of the most popular camera review sites (amateurphotographer [AP], cameralabs [CL], dpreview [DPR], ephotozine [EPZ], photographyblog [PB]). As can be seen, the professional reviewers agree in many cases on the quality of different cameras, but sometimes their assessments diverge, reinforcing the earlier point that a camera decision is often a very personal choice.

scroll hint
Expert Camera Reviews
     Camera 
 Model 
 AP 
 score 
 CL 
 score 
 DPR 
 score 
 EPZ 
 score 
 PB 
 score 
Camera
Launch
Launch
Price (USD)
Street
Price
1.
 
Olympus E-P1..+66/1004/54.5/5 Jun 2009 799 i
2.
 
Ricoh GR II......4.5/54.5/5 Jun 2015 699 i
3.
 
Canon G7 X4/5+ +77/1004.5/54.5/5 Sep 2014 699 i
4.
 
Olympus E-M104/5..80/1005/55/5 Jan 2014 699 i
5.
 
Olympus E-P3..83/10074/1004.5/54.5/5 Jun 2011 799 i
6.
 
Olympus E-PL23/583/10071/1004.5/54.5/5 Jan 2011 599 i
7.
 
Olympus E-PL33/5+ +72/1004.5/54/5 Jun 2011 599 i
8.
 
Olympus E-PL1..86/10069/1004/54.5/5 Feb 2010 599 i
9.
 
Olympus E-6203/588/10072/1004.5/55/5 Feb 2009 699 i
10.
 
Olympus E-P23/5+69/1004/54.5/5 Nov 2009 799 i
11.
 
Olympus E-520..87/100+ +4.5/54.5/5 May 2008 699 i
12.
 
Panasonic GM53.5/5+77/1005/54.5/5 Sep 2014 749 i
13.
 
Panasonic GF1..85/10069/1004.5/54.5/5 Sep 2009 749 i
14.
 
Panasonic GH1..+ +72/1004.5/54.5/5 Mar 2009 899 i
15.
 
Ricoh GR5/5..79/1004.5/54.5/5 Apr 2013 799 i
16.
 
Sony RX100 IV4.5/5+ +85/1004/54.5/5 Jun 2015 999 i
17.
 
Sony RX100 III5/5+ +82/1004.5/55/5 May 2014 799 i
Notes: (+ +) highly recommended; (+) recommended; (o) reviewed; (..) not available.

The above review scores should be interpreted with care, though. The assessments were made in relation to similar cameras of the same technological generation. Hence, a score should always be seen in the context of the camera's market launch date and its price, and rating-comparisons among cameras that span long time periods or concern very differently equipped models make little sense. It should also be noted that some of the review sites have over time altered the way they render their verdicts.

Olympus E-P1:
Check Ebay offers
Ricoh GR II:
Check Amazon price

Other camera comparisons

Did this review help to inform your camera decision process? If you would like to see a different side-by-side camera review, just make a corresponding selection in the search boxes below. As an alternative, you can also directly jump to any one of the listed comparisons that were previously generated by the CAM-parator tool.

~
    loader

    Specifications: Olympus E-P1 vs Ricoh GR II

    Below is a side-by-side comparison of the specs of the two cameras to facilitate a quick review of their differences and common features.

    Camera Specifications
    Camera Model Olympus E-P1 Ricoh GR II
    Camera Type Mirrorless system camera Fixed lens compact camera
    Camera Lens Micro Four Thirds lenses 28mm f/2.8
    Launch Date June 2009 June 2015
    Launch Price USD 799 USD 699
    Sensor Specs Olympus E-P1 Ricoh GR II
    Sensor Technology CMOS CMOS
    Sensor Format Four Thirds Sensor APS-C Sensor
    Sensor Size 17.3 x 13.0 mm 23.7 x 15.6 mm
    Sensor Area 224.9 mm2 369.72 mm2
    Sensor Diagonal 21.6 mm 28.4 mm
    Crop Factor 2.0x 1.5x
    Sensor Resolution 12.2 Megapixels 16.1 Megapixels
    Image Resolution 4032 x 3024 pixels 4928 x 3264 pixels
    Pixel Pitch 4.29 μm 4.79 μm
    Pixel Density 5.42 MP/cm2 4.35 MP/cm2
    Moiré control Anti-Alias filter no AA filter
    Movie Capability 720/30p Video 1080/30p Video
    ISO Setting 100 - 6,400 ISO 100 - 25,600 ISO
    Image Processor TruePic V GR Engine V
    DXO Sensor Quality (score) 55 80
    DXO Color Depth (bits) 21.4 23.6
    DXO Dynamic Range (EV) 10.4 13.7
    DXO Low Light (ISO) 536 1078
    Screen Specs Olympus E-P1 Ricoh GR II
    Viewfinder Type no viewfinder Viewfinder optional
    Viewfinder Magnification
    LCD Framing Live View Live View
    Rear LCD Size 3.0inch 3.0inch
    LCD Resolution 230k dots 1230k dots
    LCD Attachment Fixed screen Fixed screen
    Shooting Specs Olympus E-P1 Ricoh GR II
    Focus System Contrast-detect AF Contrast-detect AF
    Continuous Shooting 3 shutter flaps/s 4 shutter flaps/s
    Time-Lapse Photographyno IntervalometerIntervalometer built-in
    Image StabilizationIn-body stabilizationno handshake reduction
    Fill Flash no On-Board Flash Built-in Flash
    Storage Medium SDHC cards SDXC cards
    Second Storage Option Single card slot Single card slot
    UHS card support no UHS-I
    Connectivity Specs Olympus E-P1 Ricoh GR II
    External Flash Hotshoe Hotshoe
    USB Connector USB 2.0 USB 2.0
    HDMI Port mini HDMI micro HDMI
    Wifi Support no Wifi Wifi built-in
    Near-Field Communication no NFC NFC built-in
    Body Specs Olympus E-P1 Ricoh GR II
    Battery Type BLS-1 DB65
    Battery Life (CIPA)300 shots per charge320 shots per charge
    In-Camera Charging no USB charging USB charging
    Body Dimensions 121 x 70 x 36 mm
    (4.8 x 2.8 x 1.4 in)
    117 x 63 x 35 mm
    (4.6 x 2.5 x 1.4 in)
    Camera Weight 355 g (12.5 oz) 251 g (8.9 oz)

    Did you notice an error on this page? If so, please get in touch, so that we can correct the information.

    You are here Home  »  CAM-parator  »  Olympus E-P1 vs Ricoh GR II

    Thanks for your vote!

    You rated this page 4 out of 5.


    Rating

    Any additional comment or suggestion for improvement would be welcome.


    If you like it, make sure you share it:

    • Mention this page to your Facebook friends and Twitter followers.
    • Bookmark it in your browser for future reference by pressing "Crtl" + "D".
    • Create a hyperlink by copying the text below into your web-project or discussion forum entry.

    Once again, thanks for taking the time to provide feedback. I appreciate it.