A fair review. Good job!

Thank you for the review Amin. A very good read and this camera remains very interesting indeed. Although I remain interested in the DP1 too.

Excellent, I've got a DP1 qnd it's a nice camera, but I think I would now choose Ricoh, at least it would nicely fit into a pocket (DP1 is still too big) and the image quality is not that bad compared to DP1

"From my perspective, having reviewed a number of prints from both cameras, the DP1 image quality is overall superior to that of the GRD and all other compact cameras. Here I am referring to measurable characteristics which dominate what I am looking for in a print, including wide dynamic range, colors, and tonal range. These qualities bring a realism to low ISO DP1 prints that I do not see in small sensor compact prints. "

Wow, a conclusion TOTALLY unsupported by any of the columinous writing preceding it. Show your work and explain what you're doing -- you have thrown in a conclusion to a different test we have never seen or heard about previously!

This is not to say you're wrong, but that this does not belong in a conclusion if the information leading up to it is not in the body of the report.

Thanks Amin, that's a good review. It captures the what matters well I think.

To my eyes the DP1 does quite a bit better in all the detail shots. It's not that there isn't detail in the GRD shots, it's just that it starts to look like the made-up / simplified detail which noise reduction produces. The individual leaves look a bit computer-generated. The detail in the shadows shows the biggest difference, I guess this is the better dynamic range at work.

That said, these are big blowups, and I haven't printed anything!

I did download the raw files, thanks for posting them. I played around with them a bit in lightroom... interesting that the horizontal angle of view seems to be the same, so presumably in 2x3 mode the GRD will match the DP1's view perfectly.

Good job Amin. I guess you have been busy lately. We haven't made it to the LX3 vs D-LUX 4 comparison shots also. I am thanking for Ricoh to open up a market with Sigma and Panasonic followed up. A week ago I participated a photo seminar that Nikon was one of the sponsors. The pro photographer was asking for a cropsize compact camera from Nikon, but when I asked to the rep he said it was the pros wish. He said if Nikon thinks that there is a market for it, they would build it. Hopefully Olympus will succeed in that so the big boys will follow.

An interesting review, but the overall conclusion reached, does not do the DP1 justice. Besides superior dynamic range, better colors, and tonal range, there is something about how the foveon sensor draws (incl 3d efffect), which make a significant difference on screen and print. The amount of detail, the shadow parts of the DP1 RAW files contain and which can easily be pulled up is astounding and make a difference in real life shooting. Also out of 100 shots or so, I often get about one jaw dropper with the DP1 (a much better ratio than with any other cam), and often it is simply a surprise of what the camera was capable of doing under tricky lighting conditions.

Nice review. It's pretty much what I think of the GRD2. Parts of it sound almost more like a DP1/GRD shoot out though. I enjoyed the image comparisons. The DP1's output is impressive, but I just can't get over the handling.

If the DP1 buffered its raw writes I would own one. But it doesn't. Too much time waiting for file writes on early digital cameras; I am not willing to put up with that any more. Looks like the DP2 will, parhaps, but I am not at all interested in a longer focal length lens. Maybe a DP1a with DP2 body and DP1 lens? Even better, a DP3 with 24mm equivalent...

Excellent review Amin. I find your points and conclusions well illustrated.

Well done, Amin! The comparison to the DP1 is interesting for me as I have only looked at but not shot with this camera, having rejected it on the basis of handling characteristics, including the low quality and slowness of its LCD.

On the comparison with the GX200, I have experience only with the GX100 and found that the files of the latter require much — and I mean very much — more sharpening and more increase in contrast to get anywhere near the quality of those of the GRD2; and even then they do not render surface texture as well as the GRD2. According, to Sean Reid's review the GX200 is very much like the GX100 in this respect. So, my strong preference is for the razor over the Swiss Army knife.

On the 21mm and 40mm converters, I feel that people who want more than a 28mm lens, should not be put off by these converters for the GRD2, which really are very good. On this my take is different form yours, in that, first, I feel that a serious camera of this quality should not be judged by whether it fits into a pocket — there is no problem in carrying such a camera in a case attached to one's belt, so that I don't find a camera the size of the D-Lux-4 a problem either; and, wearing the GRD2 in a belt-case, makes it convenient to carry the 21mm and 40mm converters and the adapter barrel in one's pockets. However, some people complain that, with one of the converters attached, the camera becomes too bulky and cannot be put in a pocket. That is true, but not relevant for my way of shooting in that I generally shoot when I'm in a "shooting mode", which means that I like to have the camera in my right hand all the time — I don't put it away and take it out repeatedly. Second, once you have one of the converters attached it's simple and quick to unscrew the converter lens to get back to 28mm or to attach the other converter. I find this very fast and flexible — and prefer it to the compromised quality of a zoom lens camera like the GX100/200.

—Mitch/Bangkok

Very interesting review Amin, thanks a lot.
I'm just waiting for the sales to get a GRD II, and at least enjoy a usable raw on a Ricoh.

A comprehensive review between the Ricoh,Leica,Canon and the Sigma. I am surprised how well the Ricoh turned out

I'll like to share some comments about the Ricoh Gr2
I bought mine one year ago and my experience with it has been a love-hate relationship.
I really like the size, the photos and the overall construction of the camera, but it has an important design problem letting dust get into the lens-sensor. This is my 4th digital camera and I've used all them in the same way, the GR2 is the only camera that have given me these kinds of problems.

In one year I've sent mine 3 times to the repair facility: dust in the sensor-lens, electronic failure and dust in the sensor again. Unfortunately my warranty is over and I'm scared that I'll continue having the same problems. There is only one repair facility in the US, and as far as I know the cleaning of the lens-sensor costs around $200.

As I said before, using Nikon, Canon and Olympus I never had any problem like this. This is very annoying for a nice and expensive camera.