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.

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.

Field Notes: Dumaguete – June 2025 (X100VI vs GR III)

Dates: Monday 16th to Wednesday 18th June
Location: Dumaguete, Philippines
Conditions: Harsh sun, golden hour, low light, pre-dawn
Cameras: Fujifilm X100VI and Ricoh GR III
Use Cases: Street photography, travel shooting, daily carry evaluation

Monday 16th June – First Impressions

Shooting started casually at the port in Dumaguete, with late-day light and a few frames in harsh midday sun. Later, I walked the boulevard in low light conditions.

• The Ricoh GR III feels significantly smaller — not just technically, but in actual use. It’s the one I instinctively grabbed when stepping out of the car while waiting for the ferry.
• It’s a genuine everyday carry. The X100VI is also light, but feels more like a deliberate photography tool.
• The GR III’s lack of viewfinder makes it harder to compose in harsh sun. The screen isn’t bright enough.
• In poor light, I preferred the Fuji’s colour rendering. Skin tones and ambient tones felt richer.
• Fuji’s autofocus was noticeably faster, and moving the focus point was quicker too.
• I didn’t really connect with the boulevard this evening, but my daughter enjoyed photographing the dogs — which was honestly the highlight.

Plan for tomorrow: Stick to one camera at a time to avoid distraction.

Tuesday 17th June – Autofocus & Handling Tests

• The GR III feels slightly slower to power on due to its lens extension, but both are relatively fast.
• Fuji’s autofocus is clearly faster. I still need to test face detection more extensively.
• In low light, neither camera nailed candid moments — I switched to:
  • Manual Focus on the Fuji
  • Snap Focus on the Ricoh
• Snap Focus is quicker than MF on the Fuji but takes practice. GR III really struggles with movement, but Snap Focus helps if you learn it.
• Colour rendering differs:
  • Ricoh skews green
  • Fuji skews magenta
• Image quality is comparable overall, but Fuji performs better in low light from what I’ve seen so far.
• The viewfinder on the Fuji is a big help for composition — personal preference, but noticeable.
• I’m more comfortable with Fuji’s menus, but Ricoh’s are logical and don’t slow me down.
• 28mm vs 35mm: In a few cases, 35mm felt slightly tight. Both focal lengths work for street.

Wednesday 18th June – Ergonomics, Battery & ISO

• Mainly shot with the Fuji this morning.
• X100VI’s LCD fogged up briefly from condensation (room air-con). Cleared quickly, but worth noting.
• The GR III badly needs a tilt screen. Compositional flexibility is limited, especially in harsh light.
• Battery life comparison:
  • GR III: Dead after ~2 hours
  • X100VI: Still had 3/4 battery under same use
• With the Fuji, I can make finer compositional decisions — I think the viewfinder helps me lock in.
• Saw minor lens flare on the Fuji when shooting into the sun — likely due to the UV filter (needed for weather sealing).
• Changing settings is faster on the Fuji. Dials, Q menu, and overall layout make a difference.
• I can handhold the Fuji at much slower shutter speeds:
  • Fuji: 1/2 sec
  • Ricoh: 1/15 sec
• High ISO performance is better on the Fuji — ISO 3200+ is visibly cleaner.

What I Still Need to Test

• ND filters on both cameras in bright conditions
• Face and eye detect tracking on the X100VI
• More structured low light comparison — same subject, same moment
• Side-by-side JPEG and RAW comparison

Selected Images from the Field