Olympus XZ-2 vs Ricoh GR III
The Olympus XZ-2 and the Ricoh GR III are two digital cameras that were announced, respectively, in September 2012 and February 2019. Both the XZ-2 and the GR III are fixed lens compact cameras that are based on a 1/1.7-inch (XZ-2) and an APS-C (GR III) sensor. The Olympus has a resolution of 11.8 megapixels, whereas the Ricoh provides 24 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-2 and the Ricoh GR III? 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 side-by-side display below illustrates the physical size and weight of the Olympus XZ-2 and the Ricoh GR III. The two cameras are presented according to their relative size. Three consecutive views from the front, the top, and the rear side are shown. All width, height and depth dimensions are rounded to the nearest millimeter.
If the front view area (width x height) of the cameras is taken as an aggregate measure of their size, the Ricoh GR III is notably smaller (8 percent) than the Olympus XZ-2. Moreover, the GR III is markedly lighter (26 percent) than the XZ-2. In this context, it is worth noting that neither the XZ-2 nor the GR III are weather-sealed.
The power pack in the GR III can be charged via the USB port, which can be very convenient when travelling.
The following table provides a synthesis of the main physical specifications of the two cameras and other similar ones. If you want to switch the focus of the display and review another camera pair, you can move across to the CAM-parator tool and choose from the broad selection of possible camera comparisons there.
Camera Model |
Camera Width |
Camera Height |
Camera Depth |
Camera Weight |
Battery Life |
Weather Sealing |
Camera Launch |
Launch Price (USD) |
Street Price |
||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Olympus XZ-2 | 113 mm | 65 mm | 48 mm | 346 g | 340 | n | Sep 2012 | 599 | ebay.com | |
2. | Ricoh GR III | 109 mm | 62 mm | 33 mm | 257 g | 200 | n | Feb 2019 | 899 | amazon.com | |
3. | Canon G15 | 107 mm | 76 mm | 40 mm | 352 g | 350 | n | Sep 2012 | 499 | ebay.com | |
4. | Canon G16 | 109 mm | 76 mm | 40 mm | 356 g | 360 | n | Aug 2013 | 549 | ebay.com | |
5. | Fujifilm X10 | 117 mm | 70 mm | 57 mm | 350 g | 270 | n | Sep 2011 | 599 | ebay.com | |
6. | Fujifilm XF10 | 113 mm | 64 mm | 41 mm | 279 g | 330 | n | Jul 2018 | 499 | ebay.com | |
7. | Olympus E-P3 | 122 mm | 69 mm | 34 mm | 369 g | 330 | n | Jun 2011 | 799 | ebay.com | |
8. | Olympus E-PL2 | 114 mm | 72 mm | 42 mm | 362 g | 280 | n | Jan 2011 | 599 | ebay.com | |
9. | Olympus E-PL3 | 110 mm | 64 mm | 37 mm | 313 g | 300 | n | Jun 2011 | 599 | ebay.com | |
10. | Olympus Stylus 1 | 116 mm | 87 mm | 57 mm | 402 g | 410 | n | Oct 2013 | 699 | ebay.com | |
11. | Olympus XZ-1 | 111 mm | 65 mm | 42 mm | 275 g | 320 | n | Jan 2011 | 499 | ebay.com | |
12. | Panasonic LX7 | 111 mm | 68 mm | 46 mm | 298 g | 330 | n | Jul 2012 | 499 | ebay.com | |
13. | Panasonic ZS200 | 111 mm | 65 mm | 45 mm | 340 g | 370 | n | Feb 2018 | 799 | amazon.com | |
14. | Pentax MX-1 | 122 mm | 61 mm | 51 mm | 391 g | 290 | n | Jan 2013 | 499 | ebay.com | |
15. | Ricoh GR | 117 mm | 61 mm | 35 mm | 245 g | 290 | n | Apr 2013 | 799 | ebay.com | |
16. | Ricoh GR II | 117 mm | 63 mm | 35 mm | 251 g | 320 | n | Jun 2015 | 699 | ebay.com | |
17. | Ricoh GR IIIx | 109 mm | 62 mm | 35 mm | 262 g | 200 | n | Sep 2021 | 999 | amazon.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 listed launch prices provide an indication of the market segment that the manufacturer of the cameras have been targeting. The XZ-2 was launched at a markedly lower price (by 33 percent) than the GR III, 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.
Sensor comparison
The imaging sensor is at the core of digital cameras and its size is one of the main determining factors 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 associated with larger, more expensive camera bodies and lenses.
Of the two cameras under consideration, the Olympus XZ-2 features a 1/1.7-inch sensor and the Ricoh GR III an APS-C sensor. The sensor area in the GR III is 753 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-2 has a native 4:3 aspect ratio, while the one in the GR III offers a 3:2 aspect.
With 24MP, the GR III offers a higher resolution than the XZ-2 (11.8MP), but the GR III nevertheless has larger individual pixels (pixel pitch of 3.91μm versus 1.91μm for the XZ-2) due to its larger sensor. Moreover, the GR III is a much more recent model (by 6 years and 5 months) than the XZ-2, 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 III has no anti-alias filter installed, so that it can capture all the detail its sensor resolves.
The resolution advantage of the Ricoh GR III implies greater flexibility for cropping images or the possibility to print larger pictures. The maximum print size of the GR III for good quality output (200 dots per inch) amounts to 30 x 20 inches or 76.2 x 50.8 cm, for very good quality (250 dpi) 24 x 16 inches or 61 x 40.6 cm, and for excellent quality (300 dpi) 20 x 13.3 inches or 50.8 x 33.9 cm. The corresponding values for the Olympus XZ-2 are 19.8 x 14.9 inches or 50.4 x 37.8 cm for good quality, 15.9 x 11.9 inches or 40.3 x 30.2 cm for very good quality, and 13.2 x 9.9 inches or 33.6 x 25.2 cm for excellent quality prints.
The GR III has on-sensor phase detect pixels, which results in fast and reliable autofocus acquisition even during live view operation.
The Olympus XZ-2 has a native sensitivity range from ISO 100 to ISO 12800. The corresponding ISO settings for the Ricoh GR III are ISO 100 to ISO 102400 (no boost).
Technology-wise, both cameras are equipped with CMOS (Complementary Metal–Oxide–Semiconductor) sensors. Both cameras use a Bayer filter for capturing RGB colors on a square grid of photosensors. This arrangement is found in most digital cameras.
Since 2007, DXO Mark has published sensor performance measurements that have been derived using a consistent methodology. This service assesses and scores the color depth ("DXO Portrait"), dynamic range ("DXO Landscape"), and low-light sensitivity ("DXO Sports") of camera sensors, and also publishes an overall camera score. The following table provides an overview of the physical sensor characteristics, as well as the sensor quality measurements for a selection of comparators.
Camera Model |
Sensor Class |
Resolution (MP) |
Horiz. Pixels |
Vert. Pixels |
Video Format |
DXO Portrait |
DXO Landscape |
DXO Sports |
DXO Overall |
||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Olympus XZ-2 | 1/1.7 | 11.8 | 3968 | 2976 | 1080/30p | 20.4 | 11.3 | 216 | 49 | |
2. | Ricoh GR III | APS-C | 24.0 | 6000 | 4000 | 1080/60p | 24.1 | 13.5 | 1897 | 83 | |
3. | Canon G15 | 1/1.7 | 12.0 | 4000 | 3000 | 1080/24p | 19.9 | 11.5 | 165 | 46 | |
4. | Canon G16 | 1/1.7 | 12.0 | 4000 | 3000 | 1080/60p | 21.0 | 11.7 | 230 | 54 | |
5. | Fujifilm X10 | 2/3 | 12.0 | 4000 | 3000 | 1080/30p | 20.5 | 11.3 | 245 | 50 | |
6. | Fujifilm XF10 | APS-C | 24.0 | 6000 | 4000 | 4K/15p | 24.0 | 13.4 | 1844 | 83 | |
7. | Olympus E-P3 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 1080/60i | 20.8 | 10.1 | 536 | 51 | |
8. | Olympus E-PL2 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 720/30p | 21.4 | 10.2 | 573 | 55 | |
9. | Olympus E-PL3 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 1080/60i | 20.9 | 10.3 | 499 | 52 | |
10. | Olympus Stylus 1 | 1/1.7 | 11.8 | 3968 | 2976 | 1080/30p | 20.7 | 11.6 | 179 | 51 | |
11. | Olympus XZ-1 | 1/1.7 | 10.1 | 3664 | 2752 | 720/30p | 18.8 | 10.4 | 117 | 34 | |
12. | Panasonic LX7 | 1/1.7 | 10.0 | 3648 | 2736 | 1080/60p | 20.7 | 11.7 | 147 | 50 | |
13. | Panasonic ZS200 | 1-inch | 20.0 | 5472 | 3648 | 4K/30p | 22.0 | 12.2 | 449 | 64 | |
14. | Pentax MX-1 | 1/1.7 | 12.0 | 4000 | 3000 | 1080/30p | 20.4 | 11.3 | 208 | 49 | |
15. | Ricoh GR | APS-C | 16.1 | 4928 | 3264 | 1080/30p | 23.6 | 13.5 | 972 | 78 | |
16. | Ricoh GR II | APS-C | 16.1 | 4928 | 3264 | 1080/30p | 23.6 | 13.7 | 1078 | 80 | |
17. | Ricoh GR IIIx | APS-C | 24.0 | 6000 | 4000 | 1080/60p | 24.2 | 13.8 | 2146 | 85 | |
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. Both cameras under consideration are equipped with sensors that have a sufficiently high read-out speed for moving images, but the GR III provides a faster frame rate than the XZ-2. It can shoot movie footage at 1080/60p, while the Olympus is limited to 1080/30p.
Feature comparison
Apart from body and sensor, cameras can and do differ across a range of features. The XZ-2 and the GR III 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-2 and the GV-1 for the GR III – are available as accessories. The adjacent table lists some of the other core features of the Olympus XZ-2 and Ricoh GR III along with similar information for a selection of comparators.
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-2 | optional | n | 3.0 / 920 | tilting | Y | 1/2000s | 5.0/s | Y | Y | |
2. | Ricoh GR III | optional | n | 3.0 / 1037 | fixed | Y | 1/4000s | 4.0/s | n | Y | |
3. | Canon G15 | optical | n | 3.0 / 922 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 2.1/s | Y | Y | |
4. | Canon G16 | optical | n | 3.0 / 922 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 2.2/s | Y | Y | |
5. | Fujifilm X10 | optical | n | 2.8 / 460 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 10.0/s | Y | Y | |
6. | Fujifilm XF10 | none | n | 3.0 / 1040 | fixed | Y | 1/4000s | 6.0/s | Y | n | |
7. | Olympus E-P3 | optional | n | 3.0 / 614 | fixed | Y | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | Y | Y | |
8. | Olympus E-PL2 | optional | n | 3.0 / 460 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | Y | Y | |
9. | Olympus E-PL3 | optional | n | 3.0 / 460 | tilting | n | 1/4000s | 5.5/s | n | Y | |
10. | Olympus Stylus 1 | 1440 | n | 3.0 / 1040 | tilting | Y | 1/2000s | 7.0/s | Y | Y | |
11. | Olympus XZ-1 | optional | n | 3.0 / 614 | fixed | n | 1/2000s | 2.0/s | Y | Y | |
12. | Panasonic LX7 | optional | n | 3.0 / 920 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 11.0/s | Y | Y | |
13. | Panasonic ZS200 | 2330 | n | 3.0 / 1240 | fixed | Y | 1/2000s | 10.0/s | Y | Y | |
14. | Pentax MX-1 | none | n | 3.0 / 920 | tilting | n | 1/8000s | 1.0/s | Y | Y | |
15. | Ricoh GR | optional | n | 3.0 / 1230 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 4.0/s | Y | n | |
16. | Ricoh GR II | optional | n | 3.0 / 1230 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 4.0/s | Y | n | |
17. | Ricoh GR IIIx | optional | n | 3.0 / 1037 | fixed | Y | 1/4000s | 4.0/s | n | Y | |
Note: *) Information refers to the mechanical shutter, unless the camera only has an electronic one. |
One difference between the cameras concerns the presence of an on-board flash. The XZ-2 has one, while the GR III does not. While the built-in flash of the XZ-2 is not very powerful, it can at times be useful as a fill-in light.
The Olympus XZ-2 and the Ricoh GR III 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-2 is equipped with a zoom lens, while the GR III comes with a built-in prime. The XZ-2 has a 28-112mm f/1.8-2.5 optic and the GR III 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-2 offers the faster maximum aperture.
Concerning the storage of imaging data, both the XZ-2 and the GR III write their files to SDXC cards. The GR III supports UHS-I cards (Ultra High Speed data transfer of up to 104 MB/s), while the XZ-2 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-2 and Ricoh GR III 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-2 | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
2. | Ricoh GR III | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | - | 3.0 | Y | - | Y | |
3. | Canon G15 | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
4. | Canon G16 | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | mini | 2.0 | Y | - | - | |
5. | Fujifilm X10 | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
6. | Fujifilm XF10 | - | stereo / mono | Y | - | micro | 2.0 | Y | - | Y | |
7. | Olympus E-P3 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
8. | Olympus E-PL2 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
9. | Olympus E-PL3 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
10. | Olympus Stylus 1 | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | micro | 2.0 | Y | - | - | |
11. | Olympus XZ-1 | Y | mono / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
12. | Panasonic LX7 | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
13. | Panasonic ZS200 | - | stereo / mono | - | - | micro | 2.0 | Y | - | Y | |
14. | Pentax MX-1 | - | stereo / mono | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
15. | Ricoh GR | Y | mono / mono | - | - | micro | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
16. | Ricoh GR II | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | micro | 2.0 | Y | Y | - | |
17. | Ricoh GR IIIx | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | - | 3.0 | Y | - | Y |
It is notable that the GR III offers wifi support, which can be a very convenient means to transfer image data to an off-camera location. In contrast, the XZ-2 does not provide wifi capability.
The GR III is a recent model that features in the current product line-up of Ricoh. In contrast, the XZ-2 has been discontinued (but can be found pre-owned on ebay). There has not been a direct replacement model for the XZ-2 from Olympus. Further information on the features and operation of the XZ-2 and GR III can be found, respectively, in the Olympus XZ-2 Manual (free pdf) or the online Ricoh GR III Manual.
Review summary
So what is the bottom line? Which of the two cameras – the Olympus XZ-2 or the Ricoh GR III – 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.
Advantages of the Olympus XZ-2:
- Better moiré control: Has an anti-alias filter to avoid artificial patterns to appear in images.
- More flexible LCD: Has a tilting screen for odd-angle shots in landscape orientation.
- Faster burst: Shoots at higher frequency (5 vs 4 flaps/sec) to capture the decisive moment.
- Better light gathering: Has a lens with a wider maximum aperture (f/1.8 vs f/2.8).
- Longer lasting: Can take more shots (340 versus 200) on a single battery charge.
- Easier fill-in: Is equipped with a small onboard flash to brighten deep shadow areas.
- More affordable: Was introduced into a lower priced category (33 percent cheaper at launch).
- More heavily discounted: Has been available for much longer (launched in September 2012).
Arguments in favor of the Ricoh GR III:
- More detail: Has more megapixels (24 vs 11.8MP), which boosts linear resolution by 45%.
- Maximized detail: Lacks an anti-alias filter to exploit the sensor's full resolution potential.
- Better image quality: Is equipped with a larger and more technologically advanced sensor.
- Richer colors: The sensor size advantage translates into images with better, more accurate colors.
- More dynamic range: Larger sensor captures a wider spectrum of light and dark details.
- Better low-light sensitivity: Larger sensor produces good images even in poorly lit environments.
- Better video: Provides higher movie framerates (1080/60p versus 1080/30p).
- Better live-view autofocus: Features on-sensor phase-detection for more confident autofocus.
- More detailed LCD: Has a higher resolution rear screen (1037k vs 920k dots).
- Faster shutter: Has higher mechanical shutter speed (1/4000s vs 1/2000s) to freeze action.
- Less heavy: Has a lower weight (by 89g or 26 percent) and is thus easier to take along.
- Easier travel charging: Can be conveniently charged via its USB port.
- Faster data transfer: Supports a more advanced USB protocol (3.0 vs 2.0).
- Easier file upload: Has wifi built in for automatic backup or image transfer to the web.
- Easier wireless transfer: Supports Bluetooth for image sharing without cables.
- Faster buffer clearing: Has an SD card interface that supports the UHS-I standard.
- More modern: Reflects 6 years and 5 months of technical progress since the XZ-2 launch.
If the count of relative strengths (bullet points above) is taken as a measure, the GR III is the clear winner of the contest (17 : 8 points). However, the pertinence of the various camera strengths will differ across photographers, so that you might want to weigh individual camera traits according to their importance for your own imaging needs before making a camera decision. A professional sports photographer will view the differences between cameras in a way that diverges from the perspective of a street photog, and a person interested in family portraits has distinct needs from a landscape 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-2 and the Ricoh GR III 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 specs-based evaluation of cameras can be instructive in revealing their potential as photographic tools, it remains incomplete and does no justice, for example, to the way the XZ-2 or the GR III perform in practice. User reviews, such as those found at amazon, can sometimes inform about these issues, but such feedback is often incomplete, inconsistent, and biased.
Expert reviews
This is why expert reviews are important. The table below provides a synthesis of the camera assessments of some of the best known photo-gear 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 (USD) |
Street Price |
||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Olympus XZ-2 | 4/5 | + | .. | .. | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Sep 2012 | 599 | ebay.com | |
2. | Ricoh GR III | 4/5 | .. | 3.5/5 | 81/100 | 4/5 | .. | Feb 2019 | 899 | amazon.com | |
3. | Canon G15 | 4/5 | + | .. | 76/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Sep 2012 | 499 | ebay.com | |
4. | Canon G16 | 4/5 | + | .. | .. | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Aug 2013 | 549 | ebay.com | |
5. | Fujifilm X10 | .. | .. | .. | 76/100 | 4/5 | 4.5/5 | Sep 2011 | 599 | ebay.com | |
6. | Fujifilm XF10 | .. | .. | 4/5 | 75/100 | 4/5 | 4.5/5 | Jul 2018 | 499 | ebay.com | |
7. | Olympus E-P3 | .. | 83/100 | .. | 74/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Jun 2011 | 799 | ebay.com | |
8. | Olympus E-PL2 | 3/5 | 83/100 | .. | 71/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Jan 2011 | 599 | ebay.com | |
9. | Olympus E-PL3 | 3/5 | + + | .. | 72/100 | 4.5/5 | 4/5 | Jun 2011 | 599 | ebay.com | |
10. | Olympus Stylus 1 | .. | + + | .. | .. | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Oct 2013 | 699 | ebay.com | |
11. | Olympus XZ-1 | 4/5 | .. | .. | 74/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Jan 2011 | 499 | ebay.com | |
12. | Panasonic LX7 | 3/5 | + + | .. | 75/100 | 4/5 | 4.5/5 | Jul 2012 | 499 | ebay.com | |
13. | Panasonic ZS200 | .. | + + | 4.5/5 | 81/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Feb 2018 | 799 | amazon.com | |
14. | Pentax MX-1 | 3/5 | .. | .. | 74/100 | 4/5 | 4/5 | Jan 2013 | 499 | ebay.com | |
15. | Ricoh GR | 5/5 | .. | .. | 79/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Apr 2013 | 799 | ebay.com | |
16. | Ricoh GR II | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Jun 2015 | 699 | ebay.com | |
17. | Ricoh GR IIIx | .. | .. | 4.5/5 | .. | .. | .. | Sep 2021 | 999 | amazon.com | |
Note: (+ +) highly recommended; (+) recommended; (o) reviewed; (..) not available. |
Care should be taken when interpreting the review scores above, 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 comparing ratings of very distinct cameras or ones that are far apart in terms of their release date have little meaning. 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? 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.
- Canon 30D vs Ricoh GR III
- Canon 6D vs Ricoh GR III
- Canon SX620 vs Olympus XZ-2
- Fujifilm GFX 100 vs Olympus XZ-2
- Fujifilm GFX 50S II vs Ricoh GR III
- Fujifilm X-T30 II vs Ricoh GR III
- Nikon D5200 vs Olympus XZ-2
- Nikon D7200 vs Olympus XZ-2
- Olympus E-M10 II vs Ricoh GR III
- Olympus E-PL6 vs Olympus XZ-2
- Olympus Stylus 1s vs Ricoh GR III
- Olympus XZ-2 vs Panasonic G2
Specifications: Olympus XZ-2 vs Ricoh GR III
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-2 | Ricoh GR III |
---|---|---|
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 | September 2012 | February 2019 |
Launch Price | USD 599 | USD 899 |
Sensor Specs | Olympus XZ-2 | Ricoh GR III |
Sensor Technology | CMOS | CMOS |
Sensor Format | 1/1.7" Sensor | APS-C Sensor |
Sensor Size | 7.6 x 5.7 mm | 23.5 x 15.6 mm |
Sensor Area | 43.32 mm2 | 366.6 mm2 |
Sensor Diagonal | 9.5 mm | 28.2 mm |
Crop Factor | 4.4x | 1.5x |
Sensor Resolution | 11.8 Megapixels | 24 Megapixels |
Image Resolution | 3968 x 2976 pixels | 6000 x 4000 pixels |
Pixel Pitch | 1.91 μm | 3.91 μm |
Pixel Density | 27.26 MP/cm2 | 6.55 MP/cm2 |
Moiré control | Anti-Alias filter | no AA filter |
Movie Capability | 1080/30p Video | 1080/60p Video |
ISO Setting | 100 - 12,800 ISO | 100 - 102,400 ISO |
Image Processor | TruePic VI | GR Engine VI |
DXO Sensor Quality (score) | 49 | .. |
DXO Color Depth (bits) | 20.4 | .. |
DXO Dynamic Range (EV) | 11.3 | .. |
DXO Low Light (ISO) | 216 | .. |
Screen Specs | Olympus XZ-2 | Ricoh GR III |
Viewfinder Type | Viewfinder optional | Viewfinder optional |
LCD Framing | Live View | Live View |
Rear LCD Size | 3.0inch | 3.0inch |
LCD Resolution | 920k dots | 1037k dots |
LCD Attachment | Tilting screen | Fixed screen |
Touch Input | Touchscreen | Touchscreen |
Shooting Specs | Olympus XZ-2 | Ricoh GR III |
Focus System | Contrast-detect AF | On-Sensor Phase-detect |
Continuous Shooting | 5 shutter flaps/s | 4 shutter flaps/s |
Time-Lapse Photography | Intervalometer built-in | Intervalometer built-in |
Image Stabilization | In-body stabilization | In-body stabilization |
Fill Flash | Built-in Flash | no On-Board 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-2 | Ricoh GR III |
External Flash | Hotshoe | Hotshoe |
USB Connector | USB 2.0 | USB 3.0 |
HDMI Port | mini HDMI | no HDMI |
Wifi Support | no Wifi | Wifi built-in |
Bluetooth Support | no Bluetooth | Bluetooth built-in |
Body Specs | Olympus XZ-2 | Ricoh GR III |
Battery Type | Olympus Li-90B | Ricoh DB-110 |
Battery Life (CIPA) | 340 shots per charge | 200 shots per charge |
In-Camera Charging | no USB charging | USB charging |
Body Dimensions |
113 x 65 x 48 mm (4.4 x 2.6 x 1.9 in) |
109 x 62 x 33 mm (4.3 x 2.4 x 1.3 in) |
Camera Weight | 346 g (12.2 oz) | 257 g (9.1 oz) |
Did you notice an error on this page? If so, please get in touch, so that we can correct the information.