That’s exactly where the Ricoh GR IV fits in.

I’ve taken it out a couple of times recently — once on a walk with Sofia, and again yesterday on a local stroll where I didn’t want to carry a full system camera on a strap or in a bag. Its tiny size means I can slip it into my pocket and no one would even know I have it on me.

It makes it feel as if I’m just going out to spend time with Sofia, or in nature, or simply for a walk in the countryside. I don’t feel any pressure to take photos with it. If it stays in my pocket the whole time, that’s fine — but if I see something worth capturing, I know it still offers the quality to make that photo good enough.

When Sofia gets distracted charging around or discovering something interesting, I can pull it out, and it’s instantly on and ready to shoot, fire off a few shots, and get some memories of these moments and places in our lives — then just as quickly, it’s back in my pocket and out of the way.

No other camera that I own offers that.

If you’re looking at alternatives in this category, I’ve covered the best options in my guide to the best compact cameras.

After using it like this, it becomes pretty clear who should actually buy this camera — and who shouldn’t.

What It’s Actually Like to Use Day-to-Day

The biggest difference with the GR IV isn’t really about specs — it’s how it fits into your life.

Yesterday, walking a local country lane in Perthshire just to get some fresh air, I must have pulled it in and out of my pocket a hundred times or more. And that never gets frustrating in the way pulling a camera out of a bag does.

Before I’ve even brought it up to shooting level, it’s already turned on and ready to go.

I only use the small wrist strap supplied by Ricoh — just to make sure I don’t drop it if I’m clumsy in cold weather — but apart from that (and a screen protector), I keep it as simple as possible. That’s how I like to shoot with this camera.

The fixed 28mm field of view also plays into that simplicity. There’s no choice. That’s the camera I’ve brought, and realistically it’s the only one I would have brought on a walk like this anyway.

Image Quality (In the Real World)

If I didn’t have the Ricoh GR IV — or previously the GR III — with me on these kinds of walks, I probably wouldn’t take any photos at all. Maybe the odd one on my phone, but those are usually just record shots that I’ll never look at again.

The GR IV sits a level above that.

It’s smaller than my phone, yet when I use it I’m far more mentally switched on. I know that unlike with a phone, the shot won’t be wasted because of the output quality.

I’ve been shooting RAW + JPEG, and the Positive Film profile gives very nice-looking results straight out of camera, particularly when there’s a bit of blue sky or sunshine. In the Philippines I was mostly shooting in warm afternoon light, but here in the Scottish Highlands I find myself shooting in whatever conditions I get as I explore the area and make notes on where to come back to in better light.

Battery life is much improved over the GR III. I still don’t have a second battery, but it comfortably gets me through several-hour walks where I’m taking shots every few minutes.

The Trade-Offs (And Why They’re Part of It)

On the odd occasion, I might miss a shot because of the fixed 28mm focal length or slightly slower autofocus compared to larger cameras with interchangeable lenses.

But I don’t really see that as a problem.

I rarely regret anything like that — there’s not much point. If I miss something, I just take it in properly instead of trying to force a photo. That’s part of using a camera like this.

There are a couple of more practical considerations though.

The lack of weather sealing is one. Walking here in Scotland, that did cross my mind yesterday. I was wearing a softshell rather than a waterproof, and I did think — what happens if that cloud bank rolls in and soaks me through? Will the GR IV be alright?

That’s where something like the Fujifilm X100VI, with a filter attached, feels like a safer option.

The other issue — and one that’s always been there with the GR series — is the lack of a viewfinder. Even in a bit of Scottish sunshine, the rear screen simply isn’t bright enough to see clearly. I found myself lining up shots but not being able to properly check the edges of the frame, making sure nothing was creeping in where it shouldn’t.

So I ended up going back to the old DSLR habit of chimping shots afterwards to see what I’d actually captured.

None of this ruins the experience, but it does define what the camera is.

Who Should Actually Buy the Ricoh GR IV

This isn’t a camera for everyone.

But for the right person, it makes a lot of sense.

You don’t want to feel like you’re carrying a camera

If you want to go out for a walk, spend time with your family, or just get some fresh air without turning it into a photography session, this is where the GR IV fits.

You want something you can just slip into your pocket

No bag, no strap, no planning.

Just take it with you and forget about it until you need it.

You’d otherwise just use your phone — or nothing at all

If the alternative is not taking photos, or relying on your phone for quick snapshots, the GR IV gives you something noticeably better without adding effort.

You prefer simplicity over flexibility

No lens choices. No zoom. No overthinking.

Just a fixed 28mm view and a camera that’s ready when you are.

You want the option to take photos, not the obligation

You don’t feel like you have to use it.

But when you do, it’s there and it’s capable.

Who Should Avoid It

You want one camera to do everything

This isn’t that camera.

You need fast autofocus for demanding situations

It’s fine for what it is, but it’s not built for speed.

You want zoom or multiple focal lengths

The fixed 28mm lens is part of the appeal — but also the main limitation.

You rely on a viewfinder

If you struggle with rear screen composition, like I do, especially in brighter conditions, this might frustrate you.

Final Thoughts

For me, the Ricoh GR IV fills a very specific role.

It’s the camera I take when I don’t want to carry anything — when I just want to go for a walk, spend time with Sofia, or get out into the countryside without it becoming about photography. It’s also the camera I would feel most comfortable with, shooting street photography, or around town where I don’t like to draw attention to myself.

And because of that, it’s a camera that offers something that none of my other cameras do.

Not because it’s the best camera I own — but because it’s unique.

Well, except for the Ricoh GR III, which when used in the same way offers a very similar experience. The main difference is that the GR IV simply does everything that little bit quicker.

I own both the Fujifilm X100VI and the Ricoh GR IV, and I’ve also shot extensively with the Ricoh GR III. Recently, I’ve been using the GR IV quite a lot and spent time comparing it directly to the GR III. While it is a better camera overall, I’ll be honest — the updates feel a little underwhelming, especially given how strong the GR III already was.

I’ve been shooting with the X100VI since I pre-ordered it, and it has firmly taken on the “bring-it-everywhere” role in my kit. That said, it’s simply not as small as the GR series. It’s also more expensive, harder to get hold of, and — despite being compact — asks more of you in terms of size and commitment.

So the question is obvious: can the Ricoh GR IV replace the X100VI? And is it actually the better compact camera? If you want to see which compact cameras are the best heading in to 2026 then I’ve written a full article on just that subject.

This article contains affiliate links. If you buy something through these links, I may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support the site and lets me keep creating free content. Thank you.

Size, Handling, and Everyday Carry

I’m going to cut straight to the chase here: these cameras simply don’t function in the same way.

The Ricoh GR IV is genuinely pocketable. It’s tiny and slips into almost any pocket without effort. You can take it out with you and genuinely forget it’s even there. This has nothing to do with style or how the camera looks — it’s about always having a camera on you for everyday life, or being as unobtrusive as possible to get shots you simply wouldn’t if you’d left your camera at home.

In my view, the X100VI is not this kind of camera. While it is relatively small — and some people say it fits comfortably in their pockets — it doesn’t fit in any of mine. It’s also too nice an object for me to want to squeeze it in alongside keys and other items. This is a camera that asks to be carried with a bit more care.

That’s because it offers more in terms of the shooting experience. The X100VI has a hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder, dedicated physical dials for shutter speed, ISO, and aperture, and a beautifully machined tilting rear LCD. All of that makes it more engaging to use, but it also means there’s a greater level of commitment involved in taking it out with you. It’s not a “throw it in your pocket and forget about it until you need it” kind of camera.

That said, it is compact and lightweight enough to be far more suitable as an everyday carry camera than most interchangeable-lens systems.

Which camera is actually “better” really comes down to how you plan to use it, and a set of very personal preferences around how you like to shoot. What I will say is this: both cameras are excellent at what they’re designed to do — they just approach the problem from completely different directions.

Viewfinder vs Screen-Only Shooting

The Ricoh GR IV uses the same rear LCD screen as the GR III. It’s perfectly usable in dull to normal light, but here in the Philippines — especially in bright sunlight — I do sometimes struggle to see the screen clearly enough to compose precisely. You can work around it by finding a bit of shade or adjusting how you hold the camera, but it does make accurate composition more difficult at times.

The screen is also fixed, so if you want to shoot from more unusual angles you either have to move your body into position or shoot blindly and hope you get what you want. It’s not a huge issue — and, as I’ve said, there are workarounds — but it does affect how fluid and precise the shooting experience feels.

The X100VI, by contrast, offers a completely different way of working. Its hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder allows me to immerse myself far more fully in the act of photographing, and I find I’m simply more accurate with my compositions when shooting through a viewfinder. The tilting rear screen also makes low- or high-angle shots much easier without resorting to guesswork.

Shooting via an LCD screen feels more casual to me. That’s not a criticism — some people will actively prefer that approach. But if, like me, you value immersion and precision in how you frame your images, the X100VI’s viewfinder makes a meaningful difference. Others will feel the exact opposite, and that’s perfectly valid too.

Autofocus and Responsiveness

Neither the Ricoh GR IV nor the Fujifilm X100VI is known for lightning-fast autofocus, but both are more than capable of getting the shot in most everyday situations.

This is an area where the GR IV has improved significantly over the GR III. In daylight, autofocus is now genuinely usable as long as your subjects aren’t moving too quickly. I can, for example, get sharp photos of Sofia playing at the playground — just not when she’s racing around at full speed. The camera can keep up with casual movement, but not fast, unpredictable action.

The X100VI is a little better, but it’s not in a different league. It won’t suddenly let you track fast-moving subjects with confidence, and neither camera is designed for that kind of shooting. If your main priority is reliable subject tracking at speed, neither of these is the right tool.

Low-light autofocus is where the gap widens.

On a recent trip to Dumaguete, the GR IV struggled noticeably at night. In a poorly lit restaurant, it hunted back and forth repeatedly and often took multiple attempts to lock focus. In that scenario, I’d estimate my focus hit rate was around one in four — workable if you’re patient, but far from ideal.

The X100VI isn’t fast in low light either, but it does perform noticeably better. Focus acquisition is more reliable, and the f/2 lens helps here compared to the GR IV’s f/2.8, giving the camera a small but meaningful advantage when light levels drop.

In terms of overall responsiveness, the X100VI always felt quicker than the GR III, but the GR IV has clearly caught up. Menu navigation, changing settings, and general operation now feel much more modern. Both cameras feel responsive, efficient, and up to date in everyday use.

28mm vs 35mm Equivalent: Lens and Focal Length Philosophy

I want to start this section by saying something that often gets overlooked in comparisons like this: image quality really isn’t a deciding factor between these two cameras, at least in my opinion.

Both use very good APS-C sensors — the Ricoh GR IV with 26 megapixels and the Fujifilm X100VI with 40 megapixels. On paper, that gives the X100VI a slight advantage for cropping, which may matter to some people. In reality, the difference is far smaller than it sounds. I’ve printed images from both, and I’d wager that 90% of people wouldn’t be able to tell the difference based on image quality alone.

Where these cameras genuinely differ is focal length and field of view.

The Ricoh GR IV uses an 18mm lens (28mm full-frame equivalent), while the X100VI is built around a 23mm lens (35mm equivalent). That might not sound like much — after all, what’s a few millimetres between friends — but in real-world shooting, the difference is very noticeable.

The 28mm equivalent field of view lets a lot more into the frame, which means you need to be much more careful about what’s happening around the edges. It encourages you to move closer and immerse yourself in the scene, but it also demands greater awareness of perspective and distortion, particularly when people are involved. For street and travel photography, it’s incredibly popular for good reason — but unless you’re being deliberate, it’s not the most flattering focal length for people.

The X100VI’s 35mm equivalent, on the other hand, is just that bit narrower, and that makes it more flexible. It can still give a wide, expansive feel when needed, but it’s far easier to include people in your images without worrying as much about distortion or exaggerated verticals. It’s simply more forgiving.

Personally, I like both — but for different reasons.

I tend to enjoy 28mm for Alex Webb–style compositions, where you’re consciously organising multiple elements in the frame and creating depth. It asks more of you as a photographer, and nailing a composition takes work, but when it comes together the results can be exceptional. The 35mm equivalent of the X100VI, though, is easier to live with day to day and works well across a broader range of subjects and situations but if you’re not deliberate, images can stray into feeling a little safe and boring.

Ultimately, this is one of the most important differences between these two cameras, and it really does come down to personal preference and how you like to see the world.

Who Each Camera Is Really For

Ultimately, I think this matters far more than whether one camera is slightly better than the other at autofocus or low-light performance. In my view, these are the two best compact cameras available today — but they suit different people and different styles of photography.

The Ricoh GR IV is, for me, the perfect everyday carry camera. It’s especially well suited to photographers who already shoot with a full mirrorless system but don’t want to haul that kit around everywhere just in case they see something worth photographing. It’s so compact, yet still offers the things we actually care about — excellent image quality, full manual control, and a now-improved lens — that you can simply slip it into a pocket and take it everywhere.

The GR IV’s appeal lies in its minimalism. There’s no fuss, no excess, no attempt to be anything other than a tool that does its job quietly and efficiently. It prioritises function over form, and for many photographers, that’s exactly what they want from a second camera.

The Fujifilm X100VI, while capable of filling a similar role, is better suited to photographers who value the shooting experience as much as the utility of having a light, compact camera with them. The physical dials, the hybrid viewfinder, and the overall design create a very different relationship with the camera — one where form and function are balanced rather than purely utilitarian. Let’s not forget that it also offers a built in flash and a 4-stop ND filter compared with the GRIV’s 2 stop ND.

I wouldn’t slip the X100VI into my pocket and grab shots in quite the same carefree way I do with the Ricoh. But I can see the X100VI satisfying me as an only camera — and it has, in the past. The X100T was my sole camera for over a year, and I never felt limited by it.

The GR IV’s higher launch price compared to the GR III brings it closer to the X100VI financially, which makes the choice more nuanced than it once was. If I were advising a friend, my recommendation would be simple:

• As a second camera to a larger system — something genuinely compact for everyday carry — the Ricoh GR IV is hard to beat, provided you’re happy shooting without a viewfinder.
• As a single do-everything camera, one that delivers strong results while also making the act of photographing enjoyable and immersive, I’d recommend the Fujifilm X100VI.

Neither choice is wrong — but they’re right for different people.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Ricoh GR IV better than the Fujifilm X100VI?

Neither camera is objectively “better” — they’re designed for different purposes. The Ricoh GR IV is ideal as a genuinely pocketable everyday carry camera, while the Fujifilm X100VI is better suited as a primary camera with a viewfinder, physical dials, and greater overall versatility.

Can the Ricoh GR IV replace the Fujifilm X100VI?

For most photographers, no. The GR IV works extremely well as a second camera but lacks a viewfinder, tilting screen, built-in flash, and the immersive handling that makes the X100VI suitable as an only camera.

Which camera is better for travel photography?

If you want something you can carry everywhere without thinking, the Ricoh GR IV is hard to beat. If you want one camera that can comfortably handle street, people, landscapes, and low-light situations, the Fujifilm X100VI is the more versatile option.

Is 28mm or 35mm better for photographing people?

The 35mm equivalent lens of the X100VI is generally more forgiving for people photography, with less distortion and easier composition. The Ricoh’s 28mm equivalent works well for immersive street photography but requires greater care with framing.

Does the Fujifilm X100VI have better image quality than the Ricoh GR IV?

In real-world use, image quality is very similar. Both cameras use high-quality APS-C sensors, and most differences come down to focal length, handling, and shooting style rather than outright image quality.

I’ve continued shooting with the Ricoh GR IV since my review, and I’ve updated this post to reflect my long-term experience. My overall take remains largely unchanged: the GR IV is a worthwhile improvement over the GR III. Despite it being one of the best everyday carry cameras, I don’t use it that way. I have found that I use it purely for its minimalist design, when I want a camera but I really don’t want to feel like I’m carrying a camera. It’s my ‘just in case I see a shot camera’. Now that you can no longer find new GRIII’s and used prices have held up, anyone thinking of buying a Ricoh GR series camera should choose the GRIV.

The Ricoh GR IV is one of those cameras that’s frustrating to review — not because it’s bad, but because it’s both genuinely improved and still very obviously a GR III at its core. Ricoh has refined almost every area of performance: faster operation, cleaner image quality, slightly sharper corners, better battery life, and meaningful autofocus improvements in daylight. See how the GRIV compares to the Fuji X100VI. If you want to see which are the best compact cameras as we head in to 2026 then I wrote an article just for you.

But it also carries every familiar weakness forward: it still won’t track movement, it still struggles at night, it still isn’t weather-sealed, and the screen is still too dim under harsh sun. Six years after the GR III, I can’t help but feel the upgrades should have gone further.

Yet here’s the thing: despite all of that, the GR IV remains the best genuinely pocketable camera you can buy. Nothing else offers this blend of size, image quality, and simplicity. And because of that, I find it very hard to imagine not owning one. If you are looking for alternatives, then I wrote an article about the best compact cameras.

The Verdict: Is the Ricoh GR IV Worth It?

The Ricoh GR IV is a refined, faster, and cleaner version of the GR III—but it remains a specialist tool at heart. Here is the bottom line:

• The Improvements: Daylight autofocus is genuinely better with usable eye detection, image quality is cleaner with sharper corners, and battery life is finally capable of lasting a full day with just one spare. It now offers improved IBIS, dust sealing and a physical position for snap focus on the PASM dial.
• The Familiar Limits: It still lacks weather sealing and a bright-sun-friendly screen. Indoor autofocus and white balance remain inconsistent, and it still struggles to track moving subjects. It does not open up new types of photography—it just makes the existing experience more reliable.
• Buying Advice: If you don’t own a GR, get the GR IV; it is the best pocketable camera on the market today. If you already own a GR III, only upgrade if you are a heavy user. The improvements are welcome, but they are incremental rather than game-changing.

Final Thought: The Ricoh GR IV remains an unmatched second camera and a capable, if niche, primary camera for those who prioritize ultimate portability and image quality above all else. I own it and really enjoy using it when I want a camera that is there for photos but photography is not the reason for the outing. These days, in all honesty, I don’t use it as much as my other cameras because I prefer shooting through a viewfinder.

This article contains affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, I may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. Thank you for supporting the site.

First Impressions — Familiar, But Better

Although the GR IV looks almost identical to the GR III, it feels like a more modern camera. It starts up faster, menus respond more quickly, and the redesigned rear buttons make the camera nicer to operate one-handed.

Image quality is also cleaner. Files look slightly more polished straight out of camera, with a touch more microcontrast and noticeably sharper corners. It’s not a night-and-day leap, but it’s an upgrade you feel as soon as you start shooting.

Battery life is also significantly improved. I managed full days of shooting by topping up with a power bank, and this is the first GR where I’d comfortably head out with just one spare battery.

All these small updates add up. The GR IV simply feels more responsive and more reliable — at least in the right conditions.

Autofocus: A True Daylight Improvement (But Still Not a Fast Camera)

The biggest real-world difference between the GR III and GR IV is autofocus.

In daylight, it’s meaningfully better.

On a playground in Dumaguete, I took my daughter Sofia out and was pleasantly surprised. With a little intention and timing, the GR IV could reliably pick up her face when she paused or wasn’t moving quickly. Eye detection is now usable. Not great, not perfect — but genuinely usable in bright light.

The caveat is simple:

It still won’t track motion.

Kids running? Forget it. Subjects moving unpredictably? No chance. The AF system is faster and more confident than the GR III, but it cannot handle action.

Snap to Focus

The GRIV also adds a snap to focus priority mode on the PASM dial which allows you to quickly switch to that mode when you need to fire off shots quickly on the street and can’t rely on the autofocus. It’s just about the only camera that I can think of that offers this and for genuine, from the hip street shooters, it’s an incredibly useful option. Simply set your focus distance, aperture and fire off shots without waiting fo the AF system to lock focus. The depth of field will take care of the rest and hopefully result in getting shots that even the fastest AF systems would miss.

At night, the reality returns quickly.

In a dim Mexican restaurant the GR IV struggled badly. The camera hunted, failed to lock onto my family consistently, and the auto white balance jumped around unpredictably. If you shoot RAW it’s manageable, but JPEG shooters will want to set white balance manually in mixed light.

The contrast with the Nikon Zf + 40mm f/2 I had used the night before was eye-opening — that setup nailed everything instantly. The GR IV simply isn’t built for that.

Image Quality — Cleaner, Sharper, More Refined

Ricoh hasn’t reinvented the sensor, but files from the GR IV look slightly more modern and polished than those from the GR III:

• Cleaner shadows
• Better noise handling
• Sharper corners
• More consistent rendering at wide apertures

It’s subtle, but welcome — and enough that if the GR III and GR IV were the same price, I’d take the GR IV without hesitation.

Ergonomics, Battery Life & Handling

• Rear buttons: meaningfully better — far easier to use by feel.
• Start-up time: noticeably quicker.
• Battery: a single battery now lasts most of a day.
• Screen: still too dim for bright Philippine sunlight.
• Weather sealing: still missing, although Ricoh claims improved dust sealing. For an everyday carry camera weather sealing should be standard, esepcially as owners cant clean the sensor due to its fixed lens design.
• Included storage: The Ricoh GRIV includes 53gb of internal storage, something I wish all manaufacturers would do as it’s a life saver if you forget your memory card.

The GR IV is a more pleasant camera to live with… just not the leap forward many of us hoped for.

Where the GR IV Fits — A Second Camera That Can’t Be Replaced

This camera fills exactly the same role for me as the GR III did.

It’s not for action, kids running around, fast movement, or night photography.
It’s not for complex tracking or decisive-moment unpredictability.
It’s not for low-light restaurant moments with family.

But that’s not the point of the GR series.

The GR IV is a daylight, travel, street, always-with-you camera. It’s the one you slip into your pocket when everything else feels too much. It’s the camera that lets you enjoy photography again without thinking about gear. It’s the only genuinely pocketable APS-C camera with full manual control and image quality you’d actually want to print.

And because of that, even with its flaws, it’s a camera I enjoy taking out.

See the latest price for the Ricoh GRIV here.

GR III vs GR IV — Should You Upgrade?

If you own neither:

Buy the GR IV.
It feels faster, cleaner, and simply more modern. The battery life alone is worth the difference.

If you own the GR III and use it daily:

A soft yes.
You’ll appreciate the speed, the daylight AF improvements, the cleaner files, and the better battery.

If you own the GR III but don’t use it constantly:

Save your money.
The GR IV doesn’t enable new types of photography. It just does what the GR III did — but better.

I’ve been shooting with the Ricoh GRIV for around a year now. I bought it when I lived in the Philippines but have continued shooting with it since I moved to the Scottish Highlands. I recently wrote an article on who I think should buy the GRIV.

If you hoped for a huge leap:

You may be underwhelmed.
Six years on, the GR IV is still limited in the same situations the GR III was. For a more detailed comparison, I put the Ricoh GRIII against the GRIV.

Strengths

• Best-in-class portability and image quality
• Faster AF in daylight with usable eye detection
• Clean, refined image quality
• Sharper corners than the GR III
• Much better battery life
• Improved rear buttons
• Faster, more responsive operation
• Still the ultimate “always with you” camera

Weaknesses

• No weather sealing
• Screen too dim in bright sun
• AF still weak in low light
• No action-tracking ability
• Auto white balance unreliable indoors
• Price increase not reflected in the scale of upgrades

Who’s It For?

The Ricoh GR IV is for photographers who value presence over perfection — people who want a camera that asks nothing of them but to notice the world more.

It’s for travellers, walkers, street photographers, parents who want something light while chasing kids (but not photographing them running), and creatives who want a camera that fits in the pocket of shorts without bulging.

It’s not a replacement for a modern mirrorless system.
It’s a companion. A visual notebook. A camera that’s always there when your “real” camera isn’t.

Buy it for what it is, not what you wish it could be.

Who Should Not Buy the Ricoh GR IV?

The Ricoh GR IV is easy to romanticize on social media, but in reality, it is a highly specialized tool. It is not a “do-it-all” camera.

You should probably skip the GR IV if:

• You photograph children or pets: It struggles to track moving subjects effectively.
• You shoot primarily indoors or at night: Autofocus and white balance can be inconsistent in low-light, high-contrast environments.
• You want a versatile “all-in-one”: It lacks weather sealing and features a fixed lens; it does not offer the flexibility of a modern mirrorless system.
• You expect cutting-edge AF: Its autofocus, while improved, is not on par with the latest high-end mirrorless cameras.
• You need it to be your only camera: Unless you are fully committed to its constraints, it is best used as a secondary or niche companion.

Ultimately, the GR IV works best when you accept it for exactly what it is: a portable, simple, and high-quality camera that prioritizes size over versatility.

Final Verdict

The Ricoh GR IV is a clear improvement over the GR III: faster, cleaner, more polished, and undeniably nicer to use. If the two cameras sit at similar prices, take the GR IV every time.

But the truth is simple:

This should have been a bigger upgrade.

The autofocus improvements are welcome but it’s still not quick to focus compared with other cameras. The lack of weather sealing and the dim screen feel a little outdated. And the price jump is hard to justify for existing GR III owners. It’s also getting very close in price to the Fuji X100VI.

Yet despite that, the GR IV is still one of my favourite cameras to carry. It’s imperfect, but unique — and still the only truly pocketable camera that delivers such good image quality.

If you understand its purpose and accept its limitations, the GR IV is an exceptional tool. Just don’t expect it to be something it was never designed to be.

Read More

If you’re looking for more context on the Ricoh GR series, you might find these articles helpful:

• Ricoh GR III vs GR IV — Full Comparison
• Ricoh GR III Review
• Fujifilm X100VI vs Ricoh GR III

Frequently Asked Questions — Ricoh GR IV

Last updated: May 20th 2026
I’ve continued to carry the GR IV with me since moving to Scotland when I want a high-quality camera but don’t want to haul larger gear around.

When I heard the Ricoh GR IV announcement, I immediately jumped onto Ricoh’s website to see what had changed. I was excited — I imagined what they might have done with this latest iteration, because let’s be honest, the GR series is unique, but the GR III is starting to show its age.

A new tilting rear screen? Oh for sure. Maybe they’d finally weather-seal it too. And I kept wondering: what else could they possibly add to what is already the best true pocket camera?

Then I checked the details… and re-checked them, thinking I must have missed something.

If you’re comparing the Ricoh GR IV to the rest of the market, you may also want to read my guide to the best compact cameras for travel photography, where the GR series has consistently ranked near the top. I also compared the Ricoh GRIV against the Fuji X100VI.

Six years. Six years for improved AF, slightly better battery life, and a small rearrangement of the rear controls. I was sceptical about those claims, because let’s be honest — every camera claims these improvements and they don’t always translate to much in real shooting.

Still no weather sealing. Still a fixed screen. No resolution bump. No brighter aperture. Surely the GR IV was dead on arrival with such a small list of tangible upgrades. And at that price, you’re edging dangerously close to Fuji X100VI territory. Thanks, but no thanks, Ricoh.

But as a few weeks passed and I got over my initial frustrations, I kept wondering about the GR IV. What would actually improve my GR III in a way that matters to me? I don’t want it any bigger, so the f/2.8 aperture is the compromise needed to keep it pocketable. Do I really need weather sealing? I’d like it, sure — but the camera is small enough to slip in my pocket if the heavens open. Head to my full review of the Ricoh GRIV for more details.

I’m in the Philippines where dust is a real issue, but I’ve not personally had a problem with it on my GRIII so far. And let’s be honest: dust spots usually show up when you stop down to f/11 and beyond, and I rarely do that on the GR III.

So partly for my own peace of mind, and partly because the website has grown to a point where enough people will care about this comparison, I bit the bullet and bought one. I’ve now been shooting with it for about six weeks — at home, on errands, on a couple of trips to Dumaguete — and in this article, I’ll give my honest, frank opinion on whether it’s worth upgrading from the GR III.

Size & Handling

On paper, the GR IV is almost identical to the GR III. The GR III weighs 257g, the GR IV 262g, and the dimensions are essentially the same at 109.4 × 61.9 × 33.2 mm. In the hand, that translates to a camera that feels virtually the same — in the best possible way. It still slips easily into the small cargo pocket on the front of my favourite trousers, which is exactly why I use the GR cameras so much. They’re the only cameras I own that feel genuinely pocketable.

That pocketability changes how and when you shoot. Last week in Dumaguete, Sofia wanted to go to the little playground in the apartment complex we were staying at. I slipped the GR IV into my pocket without even thinking about it. While she played, I took it out and started experimenting with compositions and colours, and ended up getting shots I simply wouldn’t have otherwise — because I wouldn’t have taken any of my other cameras. And she got longer at the playground because both of us were entertained.

Ricoh have clearly decided not to mess with the core GR philosophy, and I’m glad. The size, weight, and overall feel remain familiar, but the GR IV has a slightly more refined character to its handling. The biggest change is the switch from the GR III’s soft, slightly mushy rear dial to the new dedicated buttons on the GR IV. At first they felt a bit awkward, simply because my muscle memory was tied to the GR III. But after a short time, they started to feel like a genuine improvement. The buttons give a clear, tactile click, and exposure compensation is now quicker and more precise — a firm press in either direction and you know exactly what you’ve dialled in.

The GR IV doesn’t feel like a different camera, but it does feel like a more mature one. Same footprint, same concept — but a bit more refined in the places that matter during real use. Are those upgrades worth it if you’re a GRIII owner, absolutely not. IS the GRIV a nice camera to handle, yes.

Startup Speed

The GR IV boasts an improved startup speed which, I think is one of the most underrated features in a compact camera — or in any camera used for street and candid photography. But in reality, the Ricoh GR III already had a fast startup time, on par with the Fuji X100VI as I noted when I compared the two cameras.

Yes, on paper the GR IV starts up quicker, but the real question is: does startup time ever make you miss shots? And for both the GR III and GR IV, I’ve never found that to be the case. Both are quick.

I always appreciate improvements, but in this case it’s one that’s only noticeable in spec sheets and not something that makes a difference in real shooting, at least not for how I use the camera. So while it’s a nice upgrade to have, in reality it’s irrelevant.

Autofocus (The Big Upgrade)

In my field notes on the Ricoh GR IV, I mainly shot the camera in the same way I shoot the GR III, and because of that, I didn’t fully appreciate just how much of a difference the improved AF speed would make. With the GR III, I’m well aware that the AF isn’t quick. Unless I point it at areas with a lot of contrast, it struggles in dim light. And if I want to shoot people, I cannot rely on face or eye detect. When I say I can’t rely on it, I mean it’s so bad it’s basically unusable. I’d use the touch screen to focus on a face or do a quick focus-and-recompose. I adapted, slowed down, and accepted that some types of shot just weren’t realistic with the GR III.

After using the GR IV more extensively, I can say the AF speed increases — and the improvements in face detection — are the single biggest and most meaningful upgrade the GR IV has. It’s still not lightning quick, and it’s not infallible in the way a Sony A7 IV is, for instance, but it is finally usable. It won’t pick up faces as quickly or at such an angle as my Nikons, OMs, or even my Fujis, but once you learn how it behaves, it becomes something I actually use now — and it works well. A slight sidestep or a small adjustment to reveal more of the face usually does the trick, and once it locks, it’s accurate and fast enough that you get the shot most of the time.

These improvements also change how the GR IV competes in the wider compact camera market, which I explore in my guide to the best compact cameras for travel photography.

At night or in low light, the difference in focus speed is honestly night and day. The GR III really struggles with hunting; the GR IV is in a different league altogether, allowing you to focus reasonably quickly on your subject. But it’s not just these edge cases where the AF is noticeably better — it’s faster, less hesitant, and more accurate in every scenario.

This is the one area that, on its own, can justify the upgrade if you shoot like I do: people, family, candid, travel, and street photography. Is it worth the cost if you already own a GR III? Only you can answer that, because it depends on how much you use your camera and what you shoot. But the difference is not marginal.

Image Quality

The GR III gave me image quality I was always happy with. The lens was sharp in the centre, dynamic range was decent, and although low-light performance wasn’t on the same level as my Fuji X100VI, I never really expected much low-light ability from an f/2.8 compact anyway.

The new GR IV is said to have better image quality — and it does. The lens is sharper into the corners, but what I really notice is that the files just look cleaner. They have more clarity and feel more lifelike. When I edit the files in post, they seem a little more malleable, even if the differences aren’t huge.

The GR IV images do look sharper into the corners than the GR III, but I think the overall improved look is a combination of the new lens, the new sensor, and the improved image pipeline and processing inside the camera. Low-light performance has improved too, but again — at f/2.8 on an APS-C sensor, this isn’t a camera you’d buy for low-light performance in my opinion. It will get you by in a pinch though. ISO 6400 is my limit with this camera (the same as the GR III), but I have to do noticeably less post-processing on the GR IV files to get them looking clean.

The increased resolution is an absolute nothing-burger. It’s only there because Ricoh moved to a new sensor and that happened to be the pixel count. But that’s perfectly fine, because I’ve printed up to 30×20″ from my GR III and I know the GR IV will print even better.

I don’t think the image-quality improvements justify buying the GR IV if you’re already a GR III owner. But the files do look sharper, cleaner, and have more micro-contrast and bite. Combined, those subtle changes give an overall more pleasing look.

Battery Life

Battery life is one of those improvements brands claim with virtually every new camera, and quite frankly, I’m always sceptical. I assume they massage the numbers or the difference is so small it’s meaningless. I assumed the same with the GR IV (which uses the 1,800 mAh DB-120 battery) and in fact I asked my dealer to send me two spare batteries when I bought it. Unfortunately they didn’t have any, so I’ve been stuck with just the one.

Based on my experience with the GR III (which uses the 1,350 mAh DB-110 battery) I thought this was going to be a major issue. The GR III would start giving me low-battery anxiety after about an hour and a half of walk-around shooting, even when I diligently turned the camera off between shots. I planned my trip to Dumaguete specifically to shoot the GR IV, and I was genuinely worried the battery life was going to hinder me.

In reality, the battery life on the GR IV is genuinely much improved. I took it to Dumaguete on the Monday and shot for 30–60 minutes that night. The next day I carried it with me when we visited a forest resort and shot for another hour or two. Then I had the playground session with Sofia, which added about another 30 minutes of shooting. I didn’t charge the camera throughout the trip, and when I got home it still had a little power left.

That’s a big improvement. I could never have gotten through that trip on one battery with the GR III — I couldn’t even have gotten through a single day. It’s not worth upgrading purely for battery life, of course, because GR III batteries are cheap, but it is the second most significant improvement on the GR IV in my opinion.

Is It Worth the Upgrade?

If you’re trying to decide between picking up a GR III while it’s still available or going straight to the GR IV, you could be forgiven — after reading everything above — for thinking the GR IV simply isn’t worth it. And if you already own the GR III, or if you shoot slowly and methodically, set up street scenes, and wait for the decisive moment, the decision is a bit harder.

All I can tell you is this: the GR III is a camera that requires you to adapt to its nuances and annoyances. It will still get the job done most of the time, but you have to work around it. The GR IV — not through any one single upgrade, but through a combination of faster AF, better battery life, improved responsiveness, and a more refined control layout — is a camera you no longer need to jump through hoops to shoot with. You don’t need to adapt to the camera anymore. You just pick it up and shoot.

The autofocus is the single biggest improvement, and it makes the GR IV far more usable and far more enjoyable. Less frustration, fewer missed shots, and more confidence to shoot the way you want to shoot.

Yes, the price of the GR IV has increased compared to the $1,100 I paid for my GR III, but GR III prices have climbed as well, so the gap between them isn’t as big as it might seem.

If you’re happy with your GR III and only shoot it occasionally, then you’re probably better off keeping your money and spending it on something else. But if you want a compact camera that’s genuinely pocketable, and you want at least half a chance of getting in-focus shots of family, people, and anything that moves faster than a snail, the GR IV will make you happier, make the whole experience smoother, and ultimately give you photos that simply aren’t possible with the GR III.

I just wish Ricoh had found a way to integrate a tilting screen.

Ultimately, if and when I get back to Scotland next year, I’ll almost certainly sell my GR III and keep the GR IV. It’s simply a more enjoyable camera to bring with me.

A quick note of thanks to Henry’s camera photo for helping me get hold of the Ricoh GR IV quickly. They’ve been my dealer of choice since moving to the Philippines, and their support has always been excellent. This isn’t a sponsored review — just genuine appreciation for the great service I’ve consistently had from them.

My full Ricoh GRIV review.

Ricoh GRIV vs GRIII

You can see the latest pricing for the Ricoh GRIV here.

Field-tested in the Philippines across travel, street, family days, harsh sun and low light. This review is from real use — not spec sheets.

Quick Specs

Affiliate note: Some links are affiliate links. I may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. It helps keep this site free.

Why the GR III Still Hits even in 2026

It disappears in your pocket — and that changes your photography. At 257g, the GR III is I a camera I would grab without thinking. It looks like an old tourist compact, which is its superpower: people ignore you. That invisibility allows you to capture candid moments and lets you work close at 28mm without changing behaviour. The Ricoh GR series are truly pocketable, unlike the Fuji X100VI and that changes how you carry and use the camera. I tested the Ricoh GRIII vs the GRIV, and found that the GRIV, while better, isn’t a huge upgrade.

If you want more flexibility than a compact camera, here’s my guide to the best interchangeable-lens travel cameras

Handling & Controls

PASM done right: I run front dial = aperture, rear = shutter, press-for-ISO, and use the rear dial for exposure comp in A mode. You also get two well-placed Fn buttons, plus C1–C3 on the mode dial that can point to any of six stored presets. The UI feels designed by photographers — everything is where you expect.

Autofocus: Not great but has two Genius Workarounds

AF is fine for static scenes but can lag with movement/low light compared to modern systems. I mostly select a point manually — face detect is there but really isn’t up to much.. The solution for fast shooting is in two Ricoh-isms:

• Snap Focus: instantly fires at a preset distance (0.3m → ∞) when you fully press the shutter. Add aperture for depth-of-field coverage and you’re faster than AF.
• Infinity Focus: hard-locks to infinity with a DOF scale — handy for landscapes/night city scenes.

Metering That Protects Highlights

Highlight-Weighted Metering is brilliant: it protects bright areas so you don’t blowout skies or reflective surfaces. More brands should copy this (Nikon already does).

Image Quality

APS-C 24MP files are clean, detailed and print beautifully at A3+ and up to 30×20″ on my Canon 44″ printer. Ricoh colour leans a touch green, but it’s easy to remove that with a little white balance tweak. The lens is sharp wide open in the centre, it softens in the corners wide open; stop down a little and it bites. Low light is usable to ISO 6400, but the grain looks more digital than Fuji’s latest sensor. Still: entirely workable and I’m happy with people shots when exposed right at ISO 3200, 6400 at a push as long as I don’t pixel peep.

JPEG Colour & Recipes

Ricoh’s Positive Film is a favourite for punchy travel colour. The GR ecosystem has great community recipes (I use a Leica-ish one for bright sun, although I’ve customised it by removing a littel green). If you enjoy SOOC JPEGs, the GR delivers — as flexible as Fuji in real use.

IBIS, Battery & Screen

• IBIS: 3-axis stabilisation helps for static subjects but it’s not competitive with other brands at this point in time.
• Battery: plan for 2 hours of active shooting. I carry two spares or a USB power bank.
• Screen: sharp and responsive but fixed and not super bright in tropical noon sun. A simple flip screen would be perfection here.

Reliability & Weather

No weather sealing. Keep it in a pocket or small pouch if you’re near spray/sand. I’ve been fine so far, but dust-on-sensor stories exist — part of the tradeoff for the size and retractable optics.

Best GR III Setup (Fast Start)

• C1: Street quick – A mode, Snap 1.5m, f/8, Auto ISO (100–3200), Highlight-Weighted, +0 to +⅓ EC.
• C2: Low light people – A mode, AF-S centre point, f/2.8–4, Auto ISO (100–6400), Multi metering.
• C3: Travel colour – A mode, AF-S, f/5.6, Positive Film recipe, Auto ISO (100–3200), Highlight-Weighted.

Tip: Learn to judge 1m / 1.5m / 2m by eye and you’ll barely miss a shot with Snap Focus. It’s the GR way.

Who It’s For

• Everyday carry shooters who want a real camera that lives in a pocket.
• Street & travel photographers who favour 28mm’s immersive perspective and getting close.
• Parents who want honest family moments without the intimidation of a big camera.

Reasons to Buy or Skip in 2026

Buy it if you want a genuinely pocketable camera with very good image quality. Just don’t expect it to match recent cameras in terms of autofocus speed. It’s still a quick camera to operate with a fast start up time and if you don’t rely on the autofocus, it enables quick reactive shots for street photography combined with Snap to Focus.

Don’t buy it if you rely on usable autofocus for people shots, candid moments or night time photography.

Alternatives

• Ricoh GR IIIx — Same body with a 40mm-equivalent lens. Better for people/portraits; my daughter uses one.
• Fujifilm X100VI — Costs more and isn’t pocketable but delivers IBIS, 40MP, a viewfinder, better autofocus and richer ergonomics. See my X100VI vs GR III comparison.
• Ricoh GR IV — Newer, pricier but AF, battery life and general speed in use are improved.

Verdict

The GR III isn’t about specs — it’s about showing up. If it lives in your pocket, more days become photo days. Seven years on, it still delivers the same unique combination of an APS-C sized sensor and genuine pocketability. That’s why it is currently commanding a premium on the used market in 2026. The question becomes: Will you shoot enough to justify paying more for the newer GR IV?

For a run down of the best compact cameras available in 2026 read this article next.

FAQ

Is the GR III weather-sealed?
No. Treat it like a premium compact: pocket/pouch it near sand or spray.

How’s startup time?
Fast. Despite the retractable lens, it’s effectively as quick to shoot as larger compacts in practice.

Best battery strategy?
Carry two DB-110 spares or a small USB-C power bank. Expect 2–3 hours of active use per battery.

Can I use film recipes?
Yes — the GR has a healthy recipes community. I use Positive Film variants and a Leica-ish sun recipe.

GR III vs GR IIIx?
Same body; pick GR III for immersive 28mm scenes and travel context. Pick GR IIIx (40mm) if you lean toward people/portraits.

Field Notes: Ricoh GR III and Fujifilm X100VI — Twin Lakes & Street Shooting

Date: Wednesday 18th – Thursday 19th June 2025
Location: Dumaguete & Twin Lakes National Park, Negros, Philippines
Gear Used: Ricoh GR III, Fujifilm X100VI

Wednesday — Ricoh GR III Focus

Prioritised shooting the Ricoh tonight. I’m enjoying the 28mm focal length and the ridiculously compact size considering it houses an APS-C sensor. The autofocus isn’t lightning fast, but it’s accurate enough in most cases. The lens is sharp from wide open, and I find myself consistently using a Leica picture recipe for its warm, vivid tones.

The ability to save five custom settings, with three easily accessible via the C1–C3 dial, is excellent. Honestly, for the size and stealth, the few compromises are worth it. People barely notice I’m shooting — unless they’re photographers. Several togs actually asked about the GR.

I did notice some quirks. On Sofia’s GR IIIx, the settings seemed to get a little confused — for example, I couldn’t change the aperture in Av mode until I restarted the camera. Will need to run through her setup again. Snap focus distance and infinity focus options are brilliant — Ricoh clearly thought about photographers when designing this camera.

Thursday — Rainforest Boat Ride and Family Time

We visited Twin Lakes National Park — the only remaining rainforest on Negros island. This was more about bonding with Sofia than photography, but I brought both the X100VI and GR III along.

While paddling across one of the lakes, I tested face and eye AF on both cameras. Fuji did better here; the Ricoh struggled to lock onto the boatman’s face. However, I found the 28mm equivalent on the GR III much better suited to this kind of setting. The X100VI’s 35mm field of view felt a little too tight for several shots I had in mind.

In terms of image quality, it was nearly a draw — both delivered great results. The decision came down more to focal length and context than technical performance.

Thursday Evening — Street, Sunset, and Sofia

Used both cameras again in the evening. I’m not leaning strongly toward either — it really depends on the focal length I want for a particular shot. Captured an image I’m really happy with: a fisherman casting out to sea at dusk. It was a single decisive moment and the Fuji nailed it.

More importantly, Sofia ended up taking more photos than I did — she’s become fascinated with photographing dogs. It’s been amazing seeing her passion develop. I’m just happy to be along for the ride (and carrying the dog treats).

Filed: June 23, 2025 — Field-Tested and Documented by David Fleet

The full article comparing the X100VI vs the GRIII is now published.

Last updated: January 2026: Since writing this article, I’ve bought the Ricoh GR IV and published both a Ricoh GR III vs GR IV comparison and a full GR IV review. The GR IV is now my preferred pocket camera, and you can also see how it compares to the Fujifilm X100VI here.

Even so, I still think the GR III is worth considering while it’s available — especially if you can pick one up at the right price.

The Fujifilm X100VI and Ricoh GR III both offer compact bodies, fixed lenses, and excellent image quality — but which one is actually better to use?

Field-Tested in the Real World

I’ve been using both the Fujifilm X100VI and Ricoh GR III extensively for nearly a year, across a wide range of real-world scenarios. They both feature in my best small cameras for travel article. If you want more flexibility than a compact camera, here’s my guide to the best interchangeable-lens travel cameras

Most recently, I shot with them side by side during a multi-day trip to Dumaguete in June — testing them in harsh light, low light, and fast-moving situations. Everything in this comparison comes from hands-on use, not spec sheets — from candid street moments to everyday travel photography.

By the end, you’ll know which of these high-end compacts is the better fit for your shooting style.

I have also put the X100VI against the OM Systems OM-3 if you are interested in a small, compact interchangeable lens camera.

Specifications Snapshot

What These Cameras Are — and What They’re Not

The Fujifilm X100VI and Ricoh GR III have both developed something of a cult following — and for good reason. With compact bodies, high-quality APS-C sensors, and the simplicity of fixed lenses, they’ve become go-to choices for everyday carry, travel, and street photography. I recently featured both in my roundup of the best compact travel cameras for 2026 —

But while they share similar goals, they approach them in very different ways.

Fujifilm leans into a premium feel and a feature-rich experience, including their signature hybrid electronic/optical viewfinder. Ricoh, on the other hand, strips things back to the essentials — delivering a minimalist, pocketable camera that does exactly what street photographers want, without distraction.

Both cameras excel when you want to travel light, stay discreet, and capture candid moments as they unfold. They’re not designed to replace your interchangeable-lens system — they’re built to complement it. These are the cameras you carry when you don’t want to haul a bag full of gear, but still want to be ready when the shot presents itself.

How I Use These Cameras — And Why I Own Both

I bought the X100VI first. As a long-time X100 series user — starting with the T, then the V — I already knew what I was getting. I use the X100VI when I want to go out specifically to take photos, but I also want to keep things simple. No lens changes, no indecision about focal length — just a camera that lets me focus on shooting and being present. If you’re deciding between the latest model and the previous one, I’ve written a full X100VI vs X100V comparison to help you choose.

When I want inter-changeable lenses I use the Fuji X-T5. See how the X-T5 compares to the X100VI.

So why did I buy the GR III just a month later?

Actually, I bought both the Ricoh GR III and GR IIIx at the same time — not just for myself, but to share photography with my daughter. The GR is the perfect size for her to carry without strain or fuss, and my intention was to encourage her to explore her creative side alongside me. We can both grab a Ricoh, slip it into a pocket, and head out together to capture shared moments.

It’s become more than just a tool for photography — it’s become a way to connect.

Some of the links below are affiliate links. If you buy something through them, I may earn a small commission — at no extra cost to you. This helps support the site and keeps content like this free.

Real-World Differences — X100VI vs GR III

Let me break down the key differences between these two cameras from actual use.

Portability and Handling

The X100VI is compact, beautifully built, and clearly premium — but it’s not truly pocketable. Unless you’ve got unusually deep coat pockets, you’ll likely carry it on a strap. I use the Peak Design Slide Lite and sling it across my back when I want to keep things light. At 521g (with battery and card), it’s certainly light enough for all-day carry, but it’s still a camera you bring when photography is a focus, not an afterthought.

Its physical size — 128mm x 74mm x 55mm — makes it feel small compared to any interchangeable-lens camera, but unlike the Ricoh, it won’t disappear in your jeans or jacket pocket.

So what do you get in exchange for that extra size and weight?

First, a more substantial grip. While both cameras are great for one-handed use, the X100VI also allows for more comfortable two-handed operation thanks to its larger body and better balance.— especially with the right accessories. (I’ve detailed these in my X100VI Accessories article). Once set up, it’s genuinely comfortable to carry all day, even without a strap.

Despite its retro styling, the Fuji is also discreet. I’ve found it rarely draws attention on the street or changes people’s behaviour — except for the occasional photographer who clocks it and follows me just to marvel at the fact I actually have one. It’s still nearly impossible to find in stock.

Controls and Customisation

This is where the X100VI shines.

You get physical dials for shutter speed, ISO, and aperture — which makes changing settings fast and intuitive, and lets you see your setup at a glance. There’s also a generous helping of custom function buttons, allowing near-total control over your shooting experience. While it lacks a D-pad unlike some Fujis, I’ve never found that limiting. You can still map all your essential functions to buttons or swipes and get to everything you need quickly.

In contrast, the GR III takes a minimalist approach — and that changes how you use it. It’s genuinely pocketable at 257g and 109 x 61 x 33mm, and that size difference impacts not just how you carry it, but when you bring it.

How the Ricoh GR III Works in the Real World

As Sofia and I waited at the port for our boat to Negros, we decided to jump out of the car and brave the scorching heat to see if there were any photo opportunities. Without even thinking about it, I grabbed my Ricoh, and she grabbed her GR IIIx.

The GR III doesn’t scream “photographer.” It looks more like an old compact camera a tourist might have carried before smartphones took over. And that’s its superpower — no one notices you. No one reacts. You blend in. Only fellow photographers really understand what this tiny, unassuming camera is capable of.

The Ricoh uses a PASM dial setup with a front dial, a rear command dial, and a small selector switch. Honestly, as much as I enjoy the physical dials on my Fuji cameras, I’m perfectly happy using PASM — as long as it’s well implemented. And in Ricoh’s case, it absolutely is.

You can customise which function each dial controls. I have my front dial set to aperture, the rear dial to shutter speed, and the rear command dial to ISO (which requires a quick press of the ISO button to activate). In practice, though, I most often shoot in aperture priority mode and use the rear adjustment dial for exposure compensation. It’s fast, intuitive, and well-suited to the GR III’s shooting style.

There are also a couple of genuinely useful function buttons — one at the rear, which I currently have set to crop mode (yes, the GR III lets you crop in-camera), and another on the left side of the body, which I use to change picture profiles on the fly.

Custom settings are another area where Ricoh has nailed the implementation. The C1–C3 positions on the PASM dial can be linked to any of six stored custom presets, letting you assign your three favourites for quick access. It’s efficient, logical, and genuinely helpful in the field.

Honestly, the Ricoh feels like it was designed by photographers for photographers — and it shows in the little touches and the way it works.

While I have more experience with the Fuji menu system — which I’d rate as okay (not great, but certainly better than something like the old Olympus menus) — I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the Ricoh GR III’s UI. Despite being less familiar with it overall, I find that when I go looking for a setting, it’s almost always exactly where I expect it to be. That says a lot about the logic and simplicity behind Ricoh’s menu design.

That incredible size does come with a few compromises worth considering.

For one, there’s no viewfinder — and while you can buy one separately, I haven’t bothered. To me, it defeats the purpose. It adds bulk and complexity to what should be an effortlessly minimal setup.

The 3″ fixed rear LCD (1,037,000 dots) is crisp, with pleasing colours, and works well in most conditions. But in harsh sunlight — something we get a lot of here — it can be difficult to fine-tune compositions. Reflections and screen glare sometimes make it hard to see clearly, and the screen just isn’t bright enough to overpower direct sun.

Another area I’d love to see improved (hopefully in the upcoming GR IV) is the addition of a tilting screen — something similar to what you get on the X100VI. A simple flip-up and down design that stays flush to the body would preserve the minimalist feel while adding real versatility.

Are these flaws dealbreakers? Not for me.

But if I were travelling only with the GR III, I’d have to adjust the way I shoot in certain situations — especially in bright light or when framing from low or high angles. It’s not about limitations, but knowing how to work around them.

While we are comparing the two, we must mention battery life. While neither camera has the best battery life around, I have found that the Fuji’s 1250mAh NP-W126s lasts significantly longer (a full days shooting for, 1 hour before and after both golden hours, with 3/4 level left) compared to the tiny 1350 mAh DB-110 found in both the GRIII and GRIIIX which lasts for around 2-3 hours of shooting. If you’re planning on buying the GRIII , I’d suggest two spare batteries to get you through a day.

Focus — Ricoh GR III

Both of these cameras offer a full suite of autofocus options, including face detection, but it’s worth noting that the GR III was released in 2019 — and its AF system reflects that. While it’s capable of handling still subjects and simple scenes reasonably well, it’s not on par with more modern systems.

In practice, I find it perfectly acceptable for most static shots. Where it tends to struggle is in low light or when subjects are moving. Face detection is present, but after a few real-world attempts, I gave up and returned to manually selecting the focus point — which tells you all you need to know.

That said, don’t let this be a dealbreaker. In most everyday scenarios, it holds its own just fine. And Ricoh has implemented a couple of incredibly smart features that go a long way to making up for any limitations.

Snap Focus and Infinity Focus

The GR III includes two standout tools: Infinity Focus and Snap Focus — both of which are incredibly photographer-friendly.

• Infinity Focus is exactly what it sounds like: it locks focus at infinity, and displays a helpful depth of field scale based on your current aperture.
• Snap Focus, however, is the star. This feature lets you predefine a fixed focus distance — 0.3m, 1m, 1.5m, 2m, 2.5m, 3.5m, 5m, or infinity — and instantly trigger it by fully pressing the shutter button in one go. The camera switches to manual focus at the preset distance and fires immediately, bypassing the need to wait for autofocus.

Not only is this incredibly fast and reliable for street photography, but the GR III also displays the approximate depth of field for your selected aperture, helping you visualise what will be in focus. If you regularly shoot subjects at, say, 2 meters, you can set the snap focus at the appropriate distance and alter your F-stop to ensure your depth of field covers your subject. It allows you to react quickly and without relying on auto focus.

It takes a bit of practice to judge distance by eye, but once you’ve dialled it in, Snap Focus becomes one of those features you can’t believe other manufacturers haven’t adopted.

Highlight-Weighted Metering

Another small but incredibly thoughtful touch is Ricoh’s inclusion of Highlight-Weighted Metering, alongside the usual Multi, Centre-Weighted, and Spot options. It prioritises highlight retention, helping you avoid blown-out skies or bright surfaces — perfect for high-contrast scenes or dramatic street shots where you want to play with shadows.

Again, this is one of those simple additions that shows Ricoh truly understands photographers. I wish more brands would follow their lead here.

Focus — Fujifilm X100VI

The X100VI doesn’t offer the same clever tricks as the Ricoh — there’s no snap focus or highlight-weighted metering — but what it does offer is a significantly more modern and capable autofocus system.

Autofocus on the X100VI feels fast, reliable, and well-suited to the kind of candid, real-world shooting this camera excels at. I often hear criticism online about Fuji’s AF performance, but in my experience, it’s more than good enough for its intended purpose. Is it as blisteringly fast and sticky as Sony’s latest offerings? No. But it’s quick enough to shoot street scenes, travel moments, and portraits with confidence.

At f/2 using face and eye detection, I’ve found the hit rate to be very high — especially in well-lit conditions. No, it won’t track someone’s head from 200 metres away as they race toward you on a motorbike at 200 mph, but for normal use? It does the job well — and it’s clearly a step or two above the Ricoh.

Where I’d switch to snap focus on the GR III when there’s fast movement in the frame, with the Fuji I’d simply trust the autofocus to handle it. Even in low light, while the performance slows down a little, it’s still noticeably better than the Ricoh and remains generally reliable. I’ve also never experienced the “false positive” AF lock issues that some people report with Fuji.

Manual focus is another area where the Fuji has a clear edge.

Thanks to the larger body and lens, it’s easier to get your hands where they need to be for manual operation. The X100VI also includes a depth of field scale, focus peaking, magnification, and a helpful digital overlay when using the EVF — all of which make manual focusing genuinely usable if you ever need it.

That said, the focus ring is still a fly-by-wire design, so it’ll never match the feel or precision of a true manual focus lens — like those on a Leica or a dedicated MF system. But compared to the Ricoh, it’s noticeably more usable and far more confidence-inspiring when you do need to switch to manual.

Overall, the X100VI wins the focusing battle quite easily. It’s faster, more reliable, and more flexible — even without the clever tricks found on the Ricoh.

Startup Time

Given that the Ricoh has a retractable lens, you might expect it to be noticeably slower to start up — but in practice, that’s not the case. I’ve tested both cameras side by side in real-world conditions, and their startup times are virtually identical.

At first, I thought the Fuji was a fraction quicker, but after testing further, I’ve found that not to be the case. Both cameras are responsive enough that neither feels like it slows you down when grabbing a quick shot.

Image Quality

Both cameras are using APS-C sized sensors although of different generations. Let me be frank here, the difference in image quality between sensors of 5 years ago and now are minimal. While the X100VI uses the latest 40mp X-Tranz V sensor, it doesn’t leave the 24mp sensor of the Ricoh for dust. Performance is very similar with a few small caveats.

The X100VI does allow you to crop into photos more while retaining more usable resolution. However the difference between a 40mp and 24mp image is less than you may think. Honestly, it’s virtually a non factor to real world photography.

Both the X100VI and Ricoh offer bright fixed lenses but the Fuji outdoes the Ricoh with its 23mm f/2 lens vs the Ricoh’s 18mm f/2.8. This gives the Fuji an advantage in two areas, creating shallow depth of field thanks to both the larger focal length and brighter aperture, and secondly its low light perfmance. Its not just the lens that helps the Fuji to do better in low light, the newer sensor and possibly Fuji’s magic X-Trans sauce give me noticeably better results in low light than the GRIII. The noise is finer and less digital looking on the Fuji which particularly shows when photographing people. 6400 on the X100VI looks as good as 3200 on the GRIII.

Both lenses are sharp wide open and get a little sharper when stopped down. If my photos arent sharp, its not the cameras fault it’s mine.

While image quality is a factor when considering these two compact cameras, for me it is not as significant as the choice of which focal length you prefer. I have generally gravitated towards the 35mm (equivalent) focal length for my story telling persepective but in part I think that was due to lack of skills. The 23mm lens on the Fuji is more forgiving of compositional errors due to the field of view giving less coverage and therefore less to think about in your frame. You can focus in on the subject more, throw the background out of focus a little more and not worry as much about the distortion that can present itself in wider focal lengths.

However, as I have used the GRIII more and more I have found myself to like the 28mm (equivalent) focal length just as much as the 35mm (equivalent). I enjoy the challenge of using it, i enjoy the immersive feel, the ability to engulf the viewer within your frame and draw them in as well as the way in which it forces me to consider layering. I feel that 28mm (equivalent) is enabling me to grow as a photographer and ultimately, thats my desire. The choice of focal length is completely subjective but I would just give these thoughts for consideration. If you air on the side of shooting people then the Fuji is likely a better focal length choice (or the GRIIIX, article coming soon). If you enjoy capturing more of the surroundings, layering compositions and immersing yourself in the scene, 28mm might well be your choice. Neither is better, theyre just different and one of the reasons I keep both cameras. I discuss the differences more in my recent Fuji 18mm 1.4 vs 23mm 1.4 comparison.

Colour Rendering and JPEG Profiles

How each camera renders colour is also worth discussing. While colour can be tweaked in post, it’s still interesting to note the differences between the two — especially since both of these cameras will appeal to photographers who enjoy shooting JPEGs as well as RAW.

Fuji is well known for its film simulations, and in my experience, that reputation is well-earned. I don’t use all of them, but the ones I do use — particularly Classic Chrome and Acros — are genuinely excellent and give images a distinct, often nostalgic look straight out of camera.

That said, Ricoh isn’t far behind. One of my favourite colour profiles on the GR III is the Positive Film preset — it’s vibrant, punchy, and really well-tuned for street and travel shooting. While the two brands approach colour rendering differently, Ricoh also offers a great deal of control and flexibility.

Both systems also support a thriving recipe-sharing community. With Fuji, you can draw on the massive library of custom film looks from Fuji X Weekly, while Ricoh users can turn to Ricoh Recipes for an equally impressive selection. I have the apps from both on my iPhone, and they make it easy to load new profiles and experiment with different aesthetics.

Lately, I’ve been using a custom Leica-inspired recipe on my GR III that I particularly enjoy in bright sunlight. If there’s interest, I’ll share it in a future post.

So for those who like to shoot JPEGs, I don’t think either camera will disappoint. Both produce excellent out-of-camera colour, offer meaningful ways to customise the look, and provide a satisfying creative workflow.

As for RAW files — they’re very similar in overall quality and flexibility. The only consistent difference I’ve noticed is that Fuji tends to skew slightly towards magenta, while Ricoh leans a little green. Neither is problematic, and both are easy to correct in Lightroom.

Which One Should You Choose?

I hate to sit on the fence — it’s not in my nature — but the truth is, both of these cameras hit the mark as high-quality tools that allow you to focus on your photography above all else. And for me, that’s the reason I rate them both so highly.

That said, their use cases are slightly different — and we shouldn’t forget that the GR III is currently about 50% cheaper than the X100VI.

But let’s forget about price for a moment.

I use the Fujifilm X100VI because I care about how a camera feels in the hand, and how it either encourages or discourages me from shooting. Yes, I want a certain level of technical performance — but the experience matters just as much. And the X100VI delivers that in spades.

Its design, its finish, the physical dials, the optical/electronic viewfinder — everything about it feels purposeful. It offers both technical excellence and simplicity. It removes distractions. It removes indecision. And it gives me everything I need, and nothing more, when I head out for photo-centric trips and travels. The 35mm-equivalent focal length lets me shoot wide or tighten in for more intimate moments — without ever feeling limited.

So if you like to shoot with intention, and enjoy that immersive photographic experience, the X100VI won’t disappoint.

The Ricoh, on the other hand, takes simplicity and size to another level. If you genuinely want a pocketable everyday carry camera — or photography is part of your trip rather than the focus of it — the GR III is the clear choice. It fits in your pocket. It’s light and discreet enough to bring anywhere — even when you’re with family or on the move. And if you don’t end up using it that day? No big deal — you’ll hardly notice it was there.

If you prefer a wider, more immersive field of view, often find yourself in tight urban spaces, or tend to photograph scenes that include people rather than portraits of people, then the GR III — even six years into its life cycle — is still more than capable, and still competitive with modern offerings.

And here’s the real truth: there’s no wrong choice.

These two cameras are so good at what they do that there’s a genuine argument for owning both — or even going the GR III + GR IIIx route. They’re small, capable, and discreet. One’s always with you. The other turns a trip into a creative session.

And the best part? You could buy both the GR III and GR IIIx — and your wife, husband, or partner would never even notice. To the untrained eye, they look identical.