Olympus XZ-1 vs Ricoh GR
The Olympus XZ-1 and the Ricoh GR are two digital cameras that were announced, respectively, in January 2011 and April 2013. Both the XZ-1 and the GR are fixed lens compact cameras that are based on a 1/1.7-inch (XZ-1) and an APS-C (GR) sensor. The Olympus has a resolution of 10.1 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.
Going beyond this snapshot of core features and characteristics, what are the differences between the Olympus XZ-1 and the Ricoh GR? 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
The physical size and weight of the Olympus XZ-1 and the Ricoh GR are illustrated 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 width, height and depth measures are rounded to the nearest millimeter.
The XZ-1 can be obtained in two different colors (black, white), while the GR is only available in black.
If the front view area (width x height) of the cameras is taken as an aggregate measure of their size, the Ricoh GR is somewhat smaller (1 percent) than the Olympus XZ-1. Moreover, the GR is markedly lighter (11 percent) than the XZ-1. In this context, it is worth noting that neither the XZ-1 nor the GR are weather-sealed.
The power pack in the GR can be charged via the USB port, which can be very convenient when travelling.
The table below summarizes the key physical specs of the two cameras alongside a broader set of comparators. 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.
Camera Model |
Camera Width |
Camera Height |
Camera Depth |
Camera Weight |
Battery Life |
Weather Sealing |
Camera Launch |
Launch Price |
Street Price |
||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Olympus XZ-1 | 111 mm | 65 mm | 42 mm | 275 g | 320 | n | Jan 2011 | US$ 499 | ebay.com | |
2. | Ricoh GR | 117 mm | 61 mm | 35 mm | 245 g | 290 | n | Apr 2013 | US$ 799 | ebay.com | |
3. | Nikon Coolpix A | 111 mm | 64 mm | 40 mm | 299 g | 230 | n | Mar 2013 | US$ 1 099 | ebay.com | |
4. | Olympus E-PL1 | 115 mm | 72 mm | 42 mm | 334 g | 290 | n | Feb 2010 | US$ 599 | ebay.com | |
5. | Olympus E-PL3 | 110 mm | 64 mm | 37 mm | 313 g | 300 | n | Jun 2011 | US$ 599 | ebay.com | |
6. | Olympus E-PM1 | 110 mm | 64 mm | 34 mm | 265 g | 330 | n | Jun 2011 | US$ 499 | ebay.com | |
7. | Olympus E-PM2 | 110 mm | 64 mm | 34 mm | 269 g | 360 | n | Sep 2012 | US$ 499 | ebay.com | |
8. | Olympus TG-5 | 113 mm | 66 mm | 32 mm | 250 g | 340 | Y | May 2017 | US$ 449 | ebay.com | |
9. | Olympus XZ-2 | 113 mm | 65 mm | 48 mm | 346 g | 340 | n | Sep 2012 | US$ 599 | ebay.com | |
10. | Panasonic FZ150 | 124 mm | 82 mm | 92 mm | 528 g | 410 | n | Aug 2011 | US$ 499 | ebay.com | |
11. | Panasonic FZ200 | 125 mm | 87 mm | 110 mm | 588 g | 540 | n | Jul 2012 | US$ 599 | ebay.com | |
12. | Panasonic GM1 | 99 mm | 55 mm | 30 mm | 204 g | 230 | n | Oct 2013 | US$ 749 | ebay.com | |
13. | Panasonic LX5 | 110 mm | 65 mm | 43 mm | 271 g | 400 | n | Jul 2010 | US$ 499 | ebay.com | |
14. | Panasonic LX7 | 111 mm | 68 mm | 46 mm | 298 g | 330 | n | Jul 2012 | US$ 499 | ebay.com | |
15. | Ricoh GR II | 117 mm | 63 mm | 35 mm | 251 g | 320 | n | Jun 2015 | US$ 699 | ebay.com | |
16. | Sony NEX-5R | 111 mm | 59 mm | 39 mm | 276 g | 330 | n | Aug 2012 | US$ 749 | ebay.com | |
17. | Sony NEX-5T | 111 mm | 59 mm | 39 mm | 276 g | 330 | n | Aug 2013 | US$ 699 | ebay.com | |
Note: Measurements and pricing do not include easily detachable parts, such as add-on or interchangeable lenses or optional viewfinders. | |||||||||||
Any camera decision will obviously take relative prices into account. The retail prices at the time of the camera’s release place the model in the market relative to other models in the producer’s line-up and the competition. The XZ-1 was launched at a markedly lower price (by 38 percent) than the GR, which puts it into a different market segment. 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 tend to have larger individual pixels that provide better low-light sensitivity, wider dynamic range, and richer color-depth than smaller pixel-units in a sensor of the same technological generation. Moreover, a large sensor camera will give the photographer more control over depth-of-field in the image and, thus, the ability to better isolate a subject from the background. On the downside, larger sensors tend to be more expensive and lead to bigger and heavier cameras and lenses.
Of the two cameras under consideration, the Olympus XZ-1 features a 1/1.7-inch sensor and the Ricoh GR an APS-C sensor. The sensor area in the GR is 704 percent bigger. As a result of these sensor size differences, the cameras have a format factor of, respectively, 4.4 and 1.5. The sensor in the XZ-1 has a native 4:3 aspect ratio, while the one in the GR offers a 3:2 aspect.
With 16.1MP, the GR offers a higher resolution than the XZ-1 (10.1MP), but the GR nevertheless has larger individual pixels (pixel pitch of 4.79μm versus 2.13μm for the XZ-1) due to its larger sensor. Moreover, the GR is a much more recent model (by 2 years and 3 months) than the XZ-1, 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 has no anti-alias filter installed, so that it can capture all the detail its sensor resolves.
The resolution advantage of the Ricoh GR implies greater flexibility for cropping images or the possibility to print larger pictures. The maximum print size of the GR 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 XZ-1 are 18.3 x 13.8 inches or 46.5 x 35 cm for good quality, 14.7 x 11 inches or 37.2 x 28 cm for very good quality, and 12.2 x 9.2 inches or 31 x 23.3 cm for excellent quality prints.
The Olympus XZ-1 has a native sensitivity range from ISO 100 to ISO 6400. The corresponding ISO settings for the Ricoh GR are ISO 100 to ISO 25600 (no boost).
In terms of underlying technology, the XZ-1 is build around a CCD sensor, while the GR uses a CMOS imager. Both cameras use a Bayer filter for capturing RGB colors on a square grid of photosensors. This arrangement is found in most digital cameras.
For many cameras, data on sensor performance has been reported by DXO Mark. This service is based on lab testing and assigns an overall score to each camera sensor, as well as ratings for dynamic range ("DXO Landscape"), color depth ("DXO Portrait"), and low-light sensitivity ("DXO Sports"). Of the two cameras under consideration, the GR offers substantially better image quality than the XZ-1 (overall score 44 points higher). The advantage is based on 4.8 bits higher color depth, 3.1 EV in additional dynamic range, and 3.1 stops in additional low light sensitivity. The table below summarizes the physical sensor characteristics and sensor quality findings and compares them across a set of similar cameras.
Camera Model |
Sensor Class |
Resolution (MP) |
Horiz. Pixels |
Vert. Pixels |
Video Format |
DXO Portrait |
DXO Landscape |
DXO Sports |
DXO Overall |
||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Olympus XZ-1 | 1/1.7 | 10.1 | 3664 | 2752 | 720/30p | 18.8 | 10.4 | 117 | 34 | |
2. | Ricoh GR | APS-C | 16.1 | 4928 | 3264 | 1080/30p | 23.6 | 13.5 | 972 | 78 | |
3. | Nikon Coolpix A | APS-C | 16.1 | 4928 | 3264 | 1080/30p | 23.4 | 13.8 | 1164 | 80 | |
4. | Olympus E-PL1 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 720/30p | 21.5 | 10.1 | 487 | 54 | |
5. | Olympus E-PL3 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 1080/60i | 20.9 | 10.3 | 499 | 52 | |
6. | Olympus E-PM1 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 1080/60i | 21.0 | 10.3 | 499 | 52 | |
7. | Olympus E-PM2 | Four Thirds | 15.9 | 4608 | 3456 | 1080/30p | 22.7 | 12.2 | 932 | 72 | |
8. | Olympus TG-5 | 1/2.3 | 12.0 | 4000 | 3000 | 4K/30p | 20.5 | 11.9 | 934 | 50 | |
9. | Olympus XZ-2 | 1/1.7 | 11.8 | 3968 | 2976 | 1080/30p | 20.4 | 11.3 | 216 | 49 | |
10. | Panasonic FZ150 | 1/2.3 | 12.0 | 4000 | 3000 | 1080/60p | 19.4 | 10.9 | 132 | 40 | |
11. | Panasonic FZ200 | 1/2.3 | 12.0 | 4000 | 3000 | 1080/60p | 19.1 | 10.8 | 114 | 37 | |
12. | Panasonic GM1 | Four Thirds | 15.8 | 4592 | 3448 | 1080/60i | 22.3 | 11.7 | 660 | 66 | |
13. | Panasonic LX5 | 1/1.7 | 10.0 | 3648 | 2736 | 720/60p | 19.6 | 10.8 | 132 | 41 | |
14. | Panasonic LX7 | 1/1.7 | 10.0 | 3648 | 2736 | 1080/60p | 20.7 | 11.7 | 147 | 50 | |
15. | Ricoh GR II | APS-C | 16.1 | 4928 | 3264 | 1080/30p | 23.6 | 13.7 | 1078 | 80 | |
16. | Sony NEX-5R | APS-C | 16.0 | 4912 | 3264 | 1080/60i | 23.7 | 13.1 | 910 | 78 | |
17. | Sony NEX-5T | APS-C | 16.0 | 4912 | 3264 | 1080/60p | 23.6 | 13.0 | 1015 | 78 | |
Note: DXO values in italics represent estimates based on sensor size and age. |
Many modern cameras are not only capable of taking still images, but can also record movies. The two cameras under consideration both have sensors whose read-out speed is fast enough to capture moving pictures, but the GR provides a better video resolution than the XZ-1. 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 variety of features. The XZ-1 and the GR 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. However, optional viewfinders – the VF-2 for the XZ-1 and the GV-1 for the GR – are available as accessories. The table below summarizes some of the other core capabilities of the Olympus XZ-1 and Ricoh GR in connection with corresponding information for a sample of similar cameras.
Camera Model |
Viewfinder (Type or 000 dots) |
Control Panel (yes/no) |
LCD Specifications (inch/000 dots) |
LCD Attach- ment |
Touch Screen (yes/no) |
Max Shutter Speed * |
Max Shutter Flaps * |
Built-in Flash (yes/no) |
Built-in Image Stab |
||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Olympus XZ-1 | optional | n | 3.0 / 614 | fixed | n | 1/2000s | 2.0/s | Y | Y | |
2. | Ricoh GR | optional | n | 3.0 / 1230 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 4.0/s | Y | n | |
3. | Nikon Coolpix A | optional | n | 3.0 / 921 | fixed | n | 1/2000s | 4.0/s | Y | n | |
4. | Olympus E-PL1 | optional | n | 2.7 / 230 | fixed | n | 1/2000s | 3.0/s | Y | Y | |
5. | Olympus E-PL3 | optional | n | 3.0 / 460 | tilting | n | 1/4000s | 5.5/s | n | Y | |
6. | Olympus E-PM1 | optional | n | 3.0 / 460 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 5.5/s | n | Y | |
7. | Olympus E-PM2 | optional | n | 3.0 / 460 | fixed | Y | 1/4000s | 8.0/s | n | Y | |
8. | Olympus TG-5 | none | n | 3.0 / 460 | fixed | n | 1/2000s | 20.0/s | Y | Y | |
9. | Olympus XZ-2 | optional | n | 3.0 / 920 | tilting | Y | 1/2000s | 5.0/s | Y | Y | |
10. | Panasonic FZ150 | 202 | n | 3.0 / 460 | swivel | n | 1/2000s | 12.0/s | Y | Y | |
11. | Panasonic FZ200 | 1312 | n | 3.0 / 460 | swivel | n | 1/4000s | 12.0/s | Y | Y | |
12. | Panasonic GM1 | none | n | 3.0 / 1036 | fixed | Y | 1/500s | 5.0/s | Y | n | |
13. | Panasonic LX5 | optional | n | 3.0 / 460 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 2.5/s | Y | Y | |
14. | Panasonic LX7 | optional | n | 3.0 / 920 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 11.0/s | Y | Y | |
15. | Ricoh GR II | optional | n | 3.0 / 1230 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 4.0/s | Y | n | |
16. | Sony NEX-5R | optional | n | 3.0 / 920 | tilting | Y | 1/4000s | 10.0/s | n | n | |
17. | Sony NEX-5T | optional | n | 3.0 / 922 | tilting | Y | 1/4000s | 10.0/s | n | n | |
Note: *) Information refers to the mechanical shutter, unless the camera only has an electronic one. |
The Olympus XZ-1 and the Ricoh GR both have 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 XZ-1 is equipped with a zoom lens, while the GR comes with a built-in prime. The XZ-1 has a 28-112mm f/1.8-2.5 optic and the GR offers a 28mm f/2.8 (focal lengths in full frame equivalent terms). Hence, the Olympus and Ricoh provide the same view at the wide-angle end, but the Ricoh has less tele-photo reach at the long end. The XZ-1 offers the faster maximum aperture.
Concerning the storage of imaging data, both the XZ-1 and the GR write their files to SDXC cards. The GR supports UHS-I cards (Ultra High Speed data transfer of up to 104 MB/s), while the XZ-1 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 XZ-1 and Ricoh GR and, in particular, the interfaces the cameras (and selected comparators) provide for accessory control and data transfer.
Camera Model |
Hotshoe Port |
Internal Mic / Speaker |
Microphone Port |
Headphone Port |
HDMI Port |
USB Port |
WiFi Support |
NFC Support |
Bluetooth Support |
||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Olympus XZ-1 | Y | mono / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
2. | Ricoh GR | Y | mono / mono | - | - | micro | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
3. | Nikon Coolpix A | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | - | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
4. | Olympus E-PL1 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
5. | Olympus E-PL3 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
6. | Olympus E-PM1 | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
7. | Olympus E-PM2 | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
8. | Olympus TG-5 | - | stereo / mono | - | - | micro | 2.0 | Y | - | - | |
9. | Olympus XZ-2 | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
10. | Panasonic FZ150 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
11. | Panasonic FZ200 | Y | stereo / mono | Y | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
12. | Panasonic GM1 | - | stereo / mono | - | - | micro | 2.0 | Y | - | - | |
13. | Panasonic LX5 | Y | mono / mono | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
14. | Panasonic LX7 | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
15. | Ricoh GR II | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | micro | 2.0 | Y | Y | - | |
16. | Sony NEX-5R | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | mini | 2.0 | Y | - | - | |
17. | Sony NEX-5T | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | mini | 2.0 | Y | Y | - |
Both the XZ-1 and the GR have been discontinued, but can regularly be found used on ebay. The XZ-1 was replaced by the Olympus XZ-2, while the GR was followed by the Ricoh GR II. Further information on the features and operation of the XZ-1 and GR can be found, respectively, in the Olympus XZ-1 Manual (free pdf) or the online Ricoh GR Manual.
Review summary
So what is the bottom line? Which of the two cameras – the Olympus XZ-1 or the Ricoh GR – has the upper hand? Is one clearly better than the other? A synthesis of the relative strong points of each of the models is listed below.
Reasons to prefer the Olympus XZ-1:
- Better moiré control: Has an anti-alias filter to avoid artificial patterns to appear in images.
- Better light gathering: Has a lens with a wider maximum aperture (f/1.8 vs f/2.8).
- Longer lasting: Can take more shots (320 versus 290) on a single battery charge.
- Sharper images: Has hand-shake reducing image stabilization built-in.
- More affordable: Was introduced into a lower priced category (38 percent cheaper at launch).
- More heavily discounted: Has been available for much longer (launched in January 2011).
Advantages of the Ricoh GR:
- More detail: Has more megapixels (16.1 vs 10.1MP), which boosts linear resolution by 29%.
- Maximized detail: Lacks an anti-alias filter to exploit the sensor's full resolution potential.
- Better image quality: Scores substantially higher (44 points) in the DXO overall evaluation.
- Richer colors: Generates noticeably more natural colors (4.8 bits more color depth).
- More dynamic range: Captures a broader range of light and dark details (3.1 EV of extra DR).
- Better low-light sensitivity: Can shoot in dim conditions (3.1 stops ISO advantage).
- Better video: Provides higher definition movie capture (1080/30p vs 720/30p).
- More detailed LCD: Has a higher resolution rear screen (1230k vs 614k dots).
- Faster shutter: Has higher mechanical shutter speed (1/4000s vs 1/2000s) to freeze action.
- Faster burst: Shoots at higher frequency (4 vs 2 flaps/sec) to capture the decisive moment.
- Less heavy: Has a lower weight (by 30g or 11 percent) and is thus easier to take along.
- Easier travel charging: Can be conveniently charged via its USB port.
- Faster buffer clearing: Has an SD card interface that supports the UHS-I standard.
- More modern: Reflects 2 years and 3 months of technical progress since the XZ-1 launch.
If the count of relative strengths (bullet points above) is taken as a measure, the GR is the clear winner of the contest (14 : 6 points). However, the relative importance of the various individual camera aspects will vary according to personal preferences and needs, so that you might like to apply corresponding weights to the particular features before making a decision 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.
How about other alternatives? Do the specifications of the Olympus XZ-1 and the Ricoh GR place the cameras among the top in their class? Find out in the latest Best Travel-Zoom 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 XZ-1 or the GR 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 where reviews by experts come in. The adjacent summary-table relays the overall verdicts of several of the most popular camera review sites (amateurphotographer [AP], cameralabs [CL], digitalcameraworld [DCW], 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.
Camera Model |
AP score |
CL score |
DCW score |
DPR score |
EPZ score |
PB score |
Camera Launch |
Launch Price |
Street Price |
||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Olympus XZ-1 | 4/5 | .. | .. | 74/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Jan 2011 | US$ 499 | ebay.com | |
2. | Ricoh GR | 5/5 | .. | .. | 79/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Apr 2013 | US$ 799 | ebay.com | |
3. | Nikon Coolpix A | 4/5 | + | .. | 75/100 | 4/5 | 4/5 | Mar 2013 | US$ 1 099 | ebay.com | |
4. | Olympus E-PL1 | .. | 86/100 | .. | 69/100 | 4/5 | 4.5/5 | Feb 2010 | US$ 599 | ebay.com | |
5. | Olympus E-PL3 | 3/5 | + + | .. | 72/100 | 4.5/5 | 4/5 | Jun 2011 | US$ 599 | ebay.com | |
6. | Olympus E-PM1 | .. | 86/100 | .. | 71/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Jun 2011 | US$ 499 | ebay.com | |
7. | Olympus E-PM2 | 3/5 | .. | .. | 77/100 | 5/5 | 4.5/5 | Sep 2012 | US$ 499 | ebay.com | |
8. | Olympus TG-5 | .. | + + | 4.5/5 | .. | 4/5 | 4/5 | May 2017 | US$ 449 | ebay.com | |
9. | Olympus XZ-2 | 4/5 | + | .. | .. | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Sep 2012 | US$ 599 | ebay.com | |
10. | Panasonic FZ150 | 3/5 | + + | .. | 76/100 | 4/5 | 4.5/5 | Aug 2011 | US$ 499 | ebay.com | |
11. | Panasonic FZ200 | 3/5 | + + | .. | 80/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Jul 2012 | US$ 599 | ebay.com | |
12. | Panasonic GM1 | 3/5 | + | .. | 78/100 | 5/5 | 4.5/5 | Oct 2013 | US$ 749 | ebay.com | |
13. | Panasonic LX5 | 4/5 | + | .. | 73/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Jul 2010 | US$ 499 | ebay.com | |
14. | Panasonic LX7 | 3/5 | + + | .. | 75/100 | 4/5 | 4.5/5 | Jul 2012 | US$ 499 | ebay.com | |
15. | Ricoh GR II | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Jun 2015 | US$ 699 | ebay.com | |
16. | Sony NEX-5R | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Aug 2012 | US$ 749 | ebay.com | |
17. | Sony NEX-5T | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Aug 2013 | US$ 699 | ebay.com | |
Note: (+ +) highly recommended; (+) recommended; (o) reviewed; (..) not available. |
The review scores listed above should be treated with care, though. The ratings are only valid when referring to cameras in the same category and of the same age. A score, therefore, has to be seen in close connection to the price and market introduction time of the camera, and rating-comparisons among cameras that span long time periods or concern very differently equipped models make little sense. Also, please note that some of the review sites have changed their methodology and reporting over time.
Other camera comparisons
Did this review help to inform your camera decision process? In case you are interested in seeing how other cameras pair up, just make your choice using the following search menu. Alternatively, you can follow any of the listed hyperlinks for comparisons that others found interesting.
- Canon 2000D vs Ricoh GR
- Canon 200D vs Ricoh GR
- Canon 650D vs Olympus XZ-1
- Canon D60 vs Olympus XZ-1
- Canon M50 Mark II vs Olympus XZ-1
- Canon SX710 vs Ricoh GR
- Canon T6 vs Ricoh GR
- Hasselblad X1D II vs Ricoh GR
- Hasselblad X1D vs Olympus XZ-1
- Leica S Typ 007 vs Olympus XZ-1
- Olympus XZ-1 vs Sony NEX-3N
- Ricoh GR vs Sony A6400
Specifications: Olympus XZ-1 vs Ricoh GR
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 Model | Olympus XZ-1 | Ricoh GR |
---|---|---|
Camera Type | Fixed lens compact camera | Fixed lens compact camera |
Camera Lens | 28-112mm f/1.8-2.5 | 28mm f/2.8 |
Launch Date | January 2011 | April 2013 |
Launch Price | USD 499 | USD 799 |
Sensor Specs | Olympus XZ-1 | Ricoh GR |
Sensor Technology | CCD | CMOS |
Sensor Format | 1/1.7" Sensor | APS-C Sensor |
Sensor Size | 7.85 x 5.89 mm | 23.7 x 15.6 mm |
Sensor Area | 46.2365 mm2 | 369.72 mm2 |
Sensor Diagonal | 9.8 mm | 28.4 mm |
Crop Factor | 4.4x | 1.5x |
Sensor Resolution | 10.1 Megapixels | 16.1 Megapixels |
Image Resolution | 3664 x 2752 pixels | 4928 x 3264 pixels |
Pixel Pitch | 2.13 μm | 4.79 μm |
Pixel Density | 21.81 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 |
DXO Sensor Quality (score) | 34 | 78 |
DXO Color Depth (bits) | 18.8 | 23.6 |
DXO Dynamic Range (EV) | 10.4 | 13.5 |
DXO Low Light (ISO) | 117 | 972 |
Screen Specs | Olympus XZ-1 | Ricoh GR |
Viewfinder Type | Viewfinder optional | Viewfinder optional |
LCD Framing | Live View | Live View |
Rear LCD Size | 3.0inch | 3.0inch |
LCD Resolution | 614k dots | 1230k dots |
LCD Attachment | Fixed screen | Fixed screen |
Shooting Specs | Olympus XZ-1 | Ricoh GR |
Focus System | Contrast-detect AF | Contrast-detect AF |
Continuous Shooting | 2 shutter flaps/s | 4 shutter flaps/s |
Time-Lapse Photography | Intervalometer built-in | Intervalometer built-in |
Image Stabilization | In-body stabilization | no handshake reduction |
Fill Flash | Built-in Flash | Built-in Flash |
Storage Medium | SDXC cards | SDXC cards |
Single or Dual Card Slots | Single card slot | Single card slot |
UHS card support | no | UHS-I |
Connectivity Specs | Olympus XZ-1 | Ricoh GR |
External Flash | Hotshoe | Hotshoe |
USB Connector | USB 2.0 | USB 2.0 |
HDMI Port | mini HDMI | micro HDMI |
Wifi Support | no Wifi | no Wifi |
Body Specs | Olympus XZ-1 | Ricoh GR |
Battery Type | Olympus Li-50B | Ricoh DB-65 |
Battery Life (CIPA) | 320 shots per charge | 290 shots per charge |
In-Camera Charging | no USB charging | USB charging |
Body Dimensions |
111 x 65 x 42 mm (4.4 x 2.6 x 1.7 in) |
117 x 61 x 35 mm (4.6 x 2.4 x 1.4 in) |
Camera Weight | 275 g (9.7 oz) | 245 g (8.6 oz) |
Did you notice an error on this page? If so, please get in touch, so that we can correct the information.