A few thoughts on the Ricoh GR IIIx…and why I returned it
In my quest to fix the unsatisfactory iPhone camera experience, I started thinking about alternative ways to always have a “real” camera with me. My Fujifilm X100VI is compact for what it is, but I still do not carry it everywhere. Because of that, I miss a lot of small everyday moments I would have loved to capture. This is how I ended up trying the Ricoh GR IIIx – for a few days. Here are my brief thoughts on it.
A photo taken with the Ricoh GR IIIx using a custom JPEG recipe. The camera produces excellent image quality for its size, but compared to my Fujifilm X100VI, I’m missing a certain touch of roughness and depth. I miss the true snapshot feeling I get from my Fuji straight out of camera.
How I got to the Ricoh GR IIIx
In the previous post, I wrote about finally finding a solution for the iPhone itself. But before that, I actually explored a different idea: instead of fixing the iPhone, why not carry an even smaller compact camera in my pocket?
That thought led me to the Ricoh GR series.
The Ricoh GR IIIx is smaller than the X100VI, has excellent image quality, offers JPEG “recipes”, turns on quickly, and slides into a jeans pocket without effort. On paper, it seemed like the perfect ultra-portable camera for spontaneous everyday photography. And when I started watching YouTube videos and scrolling through Reddit threads, I realized just how hyped the GR is, especially among street photographers. For all the obvious reasons: size, speed, simplicity, and the general “always with you” philosophy.
Caught up in that hype, I ordered the GR IIIx. I chose the IIIx specifically because its full-frame equivalent focal length is close to 35 mm, which happens to be both my favorite focal length and the one I use on the X100VI.
The pros and cons I’ve experienced
When the camera arrived, I was really excited. The size advantage was absolutely real: it fit in my pocket comfortably. The handling was straightforward, the menus made sense, and I got used to it quickly. The first test shots looked good.
The GR offers several built-in film-style JPEG profiles, and you can tweak them or import custom “recipes” that the community shares onlineꜛ. I tried several and settled on Reggie’s Color Negativeꜛ, because in sample images it seemed closest to Fujifilm’s Classic Negative, which is my go-to simulation on the X100VI.
Images like these show the actual advantage of the GR IIIx as a true point-and-shoot camera. Its compact size and quick startup time make it easy to capture spontaneous moments. One feature, that I really appreciated.
Then I started shooting comparison test photos side by side with the X100VI. And this is where the Ricoh began to slip.
The GR IIIx has objectively excellent image quality. Sharpness, detail, color fidelity — all of that is truly good. But compared directly to Fujifilm’s film simulations, the GR images felt noticeably flatter. The tones lacked depth, the shadows were not deep enough, and the overall mood of the JPEGs never reached the level of Classic Neg. Even the best GR recipe could not reproduce the subtle curve, the microcontrast, or the feeling of “realness” that I get from my Fuji straight out of camera.
Ricoh GR IIIx (left) vs Fujifilm X100VI (right) – both images straight out of camera (sooc) JPEGs using film simulation recipes. The Ricoh images are excellent in terms of quality, but compared to the Fujifilm images, they lack a little more depth, microcontrast, and that certain “snapshot” feeling that I love about my Fuji.
Another limitation of the GR IIIx is that it cannot simulate grain in JPEGs. And for me, grain is an important part of photographic authenticity. It gives an image a certain lived-in texture and keeps it from looking digitally sterile. Without it, the GR files felt smooth in a way that made them less like memory photos. They were snapshots, yes. But something was missing — some small heartbeat of the image.
Another feature I miss on the Ricoh GR IIIx is grain simulation in JPEGs. Grain adds a certain texture and authenticity to images that I really appreciate. Also, in detail images like these, the Fujifilm X100VI (right) achieves more contrast, detail and depth than the Ricoh GR IIIx (left).
After a few days of testing and a few nights thinking about it, I decided to return the camera. I would have gained portability and spontaneity, but I would have lost the aesthetic that makes a photo feel like my photo. And once you are used to what the X100VI gives you straight out of camera, it is very hard to accept anything else.
That was my brief experience with the Ricoh GR IIIx.
Comparison: Ricoh GR IIIx vs Fujifilm X100VI
As I have done in my post about the iPhone No Fusion app, here are some side-by-side comparison shots between the Ricoh GR IIIx and the Fujifilm X100VI. All images are straight out of camera (sooc) JPEGs without any post-processing. Please note that the focal lengths of the Ricoh and the Fujifilm are not a hundred percent identical, so framing may differ slightly.
Sometimes, I had problems with the Ricoh’s autofocus. Since the display of the GR IIIx is not tilt-able, I sometimes overlooked that the focus point was not on my intended subject and, thus, the image was out of focus. But to be fair, I only had the Ricoh for a few days, so I might have just needed more time to get used to its handling:
Conclusion
Just to be clear: I’m not saying that the Ricoh GR IIIx is a worse camera than the Fujifilm X100VI. The Ricoh has its strength and its image quality and snapshot capabilities are excellent for what it is. However, when comparing images taken with both cameras side by side, at least for my personal taste, the Fujifilm X100VI produces images that I find more pleasing and engaging.
comments