Ricoh GR IIIx + GT-2 tele conversion lens sample gallery

https://cameradecision.com/compare-size/Sony-ZV-E10-vs-Ricoh-GR-III

For a compacts with a conversion lens, quite impressive actually. The flowers and bronze statue subjects can easily become a bit dreamy with lesser optics and hold up really well here. Portraits are actually quite detailed if you look for the focus plane (didn't hit the eyes on some of these, and some of the indoor ones are a bit noisy making it hard to judge sharpness). Overall seems to be a great addition to the system.

6 months agopermalink

jackspra

The colors seem so rich but not overdone.Real nice.Liked the gallery.

6 months agopermalink

MrBrightSide

With the breathtaking advancements in optical engineering and imaging science over the past 30 years it is disappointing that all cameras aren't like this.

6 months agopermalink

Kavu

I own and love the GR IIIx...and maybe if it were my only camera, this would be a useful addition. But, like many GR owners, I value the ability to take it everywhere in my pocket...and taking away that feature (and reducing the mp on top of it) makes it less than tempting...

6 months agopermalink

tinetz

Fair point. On the other hand, for my travels I don't always want to pack my full DSLR (read: system camera and according lenses) and with my mobile phone and this adapter I can cover quite some photography situations while keeping the weight and bulk to an absolute minimum. It's not my only camera, but ever more often the one in my travel luggage.

6 months ago*permalink

tinetz

Obviously mobile phone + GR3x + adapter :)

6 months agopermalink

jaberg

The existence of the TCL doesn’t make the GRX IIIX an less pocketable or “tempting” for your purposes. It adds capability for those who find that useful and…tempting.

6 months agopermalink

Kavu

If the TCL didn't exist in current form, I would not have had that reaction. Moreover, if I bought it and put it on, it would be less pocketable.

In any event, none of that matters. What matters is I shared an opinion before running it by you. Sorry.

6 months agopermalink

dust99eye

Positive surprise. Pictures look better than I expected. I wonder about how af can keep up when shooting in practical scenarios.

6 months agopermalink

wootpile

Awesome accessory if you already have the Ricoh. Gets quite a bit larger though with the 1.5 converter. If deciding on gear, I would rather opt for the Sony ZV-E!0 with the FE 40 2.5

Because: Cheaper (ricoh combo is more expensive with the 2 required adapters) . Similar fov. More versatile body with huge lens choices. 2.5 vs 2.8. No crop 24mpx output. Substantially better battery life. Better focus, inkl tracking capabilities. Option to flip screen (or not.. it's a choice). Great video capability. Excellent built in microphone. Similar weight (GRiiiX requires mounting 2 adapters: GA-2 + GT-2) and again... vastly better battery time.

Same price, similar weight, similar dimensions (sony is narrower with lens, ricoh is thinner on the long side, similar mass area and weight.)

6 months ago*permalink

You only get a fixed focal length camera if you intend to shoot mostly the fixed focal length. Without the tele converter the GRIIIx is way, way smaller than any ilc including the Sony ZV-E!0.

The flexibility of taking out the conversion lens for that 5% where you want it makes sense. You'll be carrying a lot of bulk on your camera for that 95% of your time if you opt for the Sony. That the GR gets a bit unwieldy for those 5% tele shots should matter a lot less.

6 months agopermalink

Don Sata

Quite good 16 mp images.

99% of print applications don't require more than 12 mp.

6 months agopermalink

Ned-B

I’ve been shooting since January with my GRIIIx and the GT-2 tele lens with the contacts on the adapter taped off. To my old eyes the 60mm optical view is very sharp with hardly any vignetting and no distortion. As I do with all my GR images, I process the DNG’s using ACR and PS.

If you’re still on Instagram, I created a hashtag #nedsgt260 which shows approx 50 images shot at 60mm. There are also 3-4 test shots comparing the 40, 60 and 75mm FOV. While the file size on IG isn’t great, it should give you an idea of the type of image quality I’m getting. Cheers!

6 months ago*permalink

moinmiami

This is/was all good advice. Also, you signaling the hn-22 lens hood that screws onto the lens and makes for an excellent solution. Thanks...

6 months agopermalink

ekaton

Ricoh should "pull a Sigma". I.e. bringing a Ricoh IV with an equivalent 75mm fixed lens (50-52mm f2.4). I'd prefer to travel with three truly compact cameras, GR III, IIIx, IV rather than fiddle with adapters.

6 months ago*permalink

Goodmeme

Yes, that's a really good proposition. The cost for a full set would be high but it would make the Ricoh GR seem more like a system.

If they would first add a viewfinder to replace the big rear screen, keeping the same dimensions, I think they could steal revenue from both the fuji x100 and iphone markets, making such options more viable.

6 months agopermalink

theBitterFig

What's strange about it is the layers of hoops you have to go through to not-crop. I think it probably makes sense for the camera to default to particular internal crop (a crop to a 50mm or 71mm equivalent is baseline to the GRIIIx).

However, I think it'd be nice if the 40*1.5=60 equivalent was still an option in the menus, rather than something you need to recover from the RAW.

Overall, I'd guess the IQ with the converter is probably nicer than just using the 71mm crop, but I'd guess that for a lot of uses (small prints and the web) there isn't much of a benefit.

6 months agopermalink

Just shoot raw and you get the full image when using appropriate software.

6 months agopermalink

theBitterFig

@Lessiter - sure, that'd work if you want to shoot RAW, but how hard would it have been to throw another line in the menus, deep in the weeds?

6 months agopermalink

fotogrofur

Gallery shows it's not too bad, at least for web and small prints.

6 months agopermalink

Gary Martin

That depends; as a printer, I'm confident I could produce a good 14" x 20" from a 15 megapixel file, and I'm sure there are others comfortable with going much larger - depending on the content of the image, of course. Once it's matted and framed, 14x20 is not what I would call "small."

6 months agopermalink

deep7

I still have two or three adaptors like this from early Olympus digital and film era cameras. I often try them on other lenses and the results aren't bad at all, just like here. The thing for me would be how quickly you can clip it on. If it's fiddly, I just know I would never use it. If it clips on easily, I know I would. I had one for my Canon G1X with a close-up filter attached and used it very frequently. The option makes a desirable little camera even more desirable!

6 months agopermalink

Fujifilm X100 adapters are screw-on. It's a solid connection but I can't for the life of me understand why they didn't make it a bayonet. Inside-out with the button on the adapter lens it wouldn't take away from the elegant design of the body. As it is, I've dropped an adapter lens because it wouldn't quite catch on the threading and I thought I was safe to let go for another turn when it slipped out of my hands. :(

6 months ago*permalink

arjunmehta

I wonder if it actually crops the RAW data, or if it's just a "soft crop" that can be removed.

I know for example the Leica Q2 applies a digital crop to simulate zoom and stores the crop in the RAW, so when viewed in Lightroom or Capture One it is cropped. But the crop can be removed.

Cropping the RAW data would be very strange.

6 months agopermalink

Looks like a soft crop to me. Rawtherapee opens a wider file than the jpeg. Corners are soft though but not worse than some ship as fully working lenses.

6 months ago*permalink

(unknown member)

del..

6 months ago*permalink

Ainisru

I guess it depends on the manufacturer and intended needs of their customers. My D800 will crop the RAW which on the positive side gives smaller files (1.2x, 1.5x, or 5:4 ratio). Nikon will let you mount a APSC/DX lens and have the 1.5x crop disabled. Some lenses like the APSC 35mm AF-S f/1.8G can almost cover a FF sensor.

6 months ago*permalink

RolliPoli

Why??? :|

6 months agopermalink

Peter CS

A wide-angle converter would also make sense.

6 months agopermalink

winkalman

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm sure Ricoh would prefer you bought a regular GR-III.

6 months agopermalink

Peter CS

I like the 40mm FF view a great deal, but would also love a 24mm FF perspective via adapter.

6 months agopermalink

winkalman

Fair point. Assuming they could make a high enough quality 0.6x adapter, that would make for a really compelling travel combo.

6 months agopermalink

Someone has already tried using the wide angle adapter on the GR IIIx. It’s somewhere on the Ricoh forum. The images looked good though.

6 months agopermalink

hammarbytp

To be honest a camera with a zoom would make more sense.

Yes I understand that the Ricoh is designed around a fixed lens, but if you need to carry around and add things like this, why not just get a different camera

6 months agopermalink

A conversion lens is still a lot smaller than most ILC lenses

6 months agopermalink

The adapters are kind of nifty, but I think if you want a system camera, GR is the wrong platform. (Felt the same way about X100 adapters).

6 months agopermalink

As a GR user I agree. However... I can see that if you're really heavy biased to one fl but only occasionally even rarely feel the need for a different field of view it kind of makes sense. You get that super optimized handling and lens/camera system for almost all your shooting but can switch over to something less great to achieve those few other shots when/if the situation occurs.

6 months agopermalink

Fair point. One use I think makes sense if you are someone who occasionally wants to dabble in portraits. The 28 and even 40mm focal lengths of the GR have always been a bit wide for classic portrait framing. But as image 20 and 21 in this gallery show, 75mm works quite nicely. May not have the bg blur of a 85mm f1.8 on FF, but it looks pretty nice to me. Even with the crop.

6 months ago*permalink

Welsh

I once had a screw-on teleconverter for my Fuji X100F, but it simply became too inconvenient. Image quality was pretty good, as I remember, but it blocked the OVF quite a bit.

6 months ago*permalink

jaberg

I travel with both TCL and WCL for my Fujifilm X100v. I don’t find them to be significantly less convenient than the collection of primes I used with my film rangefinder in similar circumstances.

6 months agopermalink

Beolab

The forced cropping and the loss of resolution make this an absolute no buy for me.

6 months agopermalink

Tungsten Nordstein

I suspect that you had no intention of buying a GR iiix anyway. With or without the converter.

6 months agopermalink

Joe Bagadonuts

Not sure why it would be such a dealbreaker? This isn’t one of those “oh, the humanity’ moments. It’s a slight crop.

6 months agopermalink

It’s 16 vs 24MP. You can’t tell the difference unless you pixel peep test charts.

6 months agopermalink

Tape the contacts with gaffers tape and you’re golden. Problem solved.

6 months agopermalink

You'll probably lose lens corrections in the jpg if any are needed by not letting the camera know there's a conversion lens attached.

6 months agopermalink

crummy 24MP images are not better than good 15MP images. Ricoh knows this which is why they set it up like they did.

6 months agopermalink

VI KING

Not bad really. Worth experimenting with. The tape trick is neat if works.

6 months agopermalink

MDNL35

The cropping is quite strange. Were they not happy about the corner performance? So lets just crop it instead of improving the optics?

6 months agopermalink

Tungsten Nordstein

Perhaps they reached the limit of what can be done with tele-converters for this camera. They decided on a compromise to bring something to market that their customers would still want. No shame in that.

6 months agopermalink

Dr_J

Apparently, you can tape electrical contact under the adapter, which will make camera think no adapter is attached and thus retain 60mm equiv. focal length without in-camera cropping.

6 months agopermalink

Barney Britton

You can (I've tried it), but your edges and corners go to hell. It might work for portraits though, assuming your subject is in the middle of the frame. Or for effect if you're going for an - ahem - 'classic' look.

6 months agopermalink

bizi clop

The raws still contain the full image, here are two examples:
https://i.ibb.co/DYrbKX2/BB000575-DNG.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/0tkQPxD/BB000475-DNG.jpg

6 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

The corners look horrible. No wonder they did this. Of course Ricoh would know better for a camera they designed :-)

6 months agopermalink

bizi clop

So Ricoh is literally cutting corners? :)

6 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

With the teleconverter yes! ;-)

6 months agopermalink

MDNL35

Wow, that actually looks great if you're after a polaroid kind of look. Corners are soft, yes, but doesn't appear to have any ugly aberrations.

6 months agopermalink

I really like the results using the GR ii with the WA adapter, but the handling is much different with it attached. It isn't pocketable.

Beore I bought this adapter, I'd try cropping down to the EFL that suited the image. You retain flexibility, pocketability, and you might not lose pixels vs the adapted image.

6 months agopermalink

How would you not lose pixels when cropping? Show me how you do this black magic!

6 months agopermalink

I said "you might not lose pixels vs. The ADAPTED IMAGE.

Why did you choose to ignore that part of my statement?

If I cropped away 35% of the unadapted file, I'd be left with 15.6 mp.

Can't speak for the world of black magic, but in this one, 15.6 is generally regarded as being more than 15.

6 months agopermalink

Woah! Much anger I sense in this one. I promise that I come in peace. I know it is a rarity these days :)

Thanks for clarifying your statement. I tend to miss details in sentences. Even after reading your comment more closely, I still don’t understand how you would expect to get to 75mm by cropping and end up with more pixels than using the adapted lens. If this were the case, then surely most people would choose to crop, no? If you meant to say that if you only need the 50mm field of view, then I wholeheartedly agree that the adapter is not what you need, because it’s for 75mm, not 50mm. If you need a focal length 75mm and over, you should absolutely purchase the adapter. Anything less, crop. The decision should not hinge on resolution at all, but focal length.

6 months agopermalink

You make a smart-*$$ response to my OP without bothering to read it closely and then accuse me of anger when I point out your mistake.

I chose the words in my OP carefully. Maybe you should read them carefully before you throw out a snarky response.

As your second response indicates that you still seem unable to grasp my point, please seek help with your reading comprehension skills.

6 months agopermalink

I think we both got off on the wrong foot. It was certainly not my intent to be snarky. I simply misread your initial comment, and for that I apologize. It’s also hard to judge intent by reading text. Those who know me well know that I never mean harm. I just have a way of inserting light humor into almost everything I say, which clearly backfires sometimes! Just part of who I am.

And duly noted. I’ll crack open my Hooked on Phonics from my youth (I’m joking again fyi). Reading has always been a weakness of mine.

But back to the topic at hand, in all seriousness how would you expect to crop to 75mm and expect to have more pixels than the adapter? You can only make your argument if you crop to far less than 75mm, in which case my point was that you shouldn’t even consider the adapter because it doesn’t allow you to get a shorter focal length anyway. I hope that makes sense.

6 months agopermalink

My OP might make more sense to you if you stopped forcing your inferences onto my words.

6 months agopermalink