Words & Photos By Nathan Allen

I’m so thankful that “DSLR quality” can now basically fit right into your pocket. In fact, though it has a few limitations, my Ricoh GR II has better image quality than any of my previous DSLRs…and at a fraction of the cost.

However, the Sony RX100 III is close behind, and is the clear winner in a few important areas. Well, each has its pros and cons. Here’s my detailed, real world comparison of these tech wonders  (it almost seems unfair to simply call them pocket cameras, right?). All sample images were taken by me.

You may be wondering why I chose to review the Sony RX100 III instead of the newest version, the RX100V. It’s because the Mk3 is the best ND Filter option for those looking to spend around the same as a Ricoh GR II. The Ricoh has come down in price, and at the time of writing can be found for just around $599 on Amazon.

Of course, the RX100 III has a wider 24mm lens than the GR II’s 28mm, but for me that was a benefit. I mostly shoot landscapes, and I suspect that *most* general consumers interested in the RX100 would also prefer the wider lens. Besides, you can always zoom to 28mm, the lens is still pretty fast @ f2.5 .

*I’m going to leave a “video” section out of this photography review, because if you’re after a pocket camera with serious video capabilities, you’re not going to find it in either of these…especially not the Ricoh. If you have the money, I say go for the RX100 V.

Build Quality – Look, Weight & Feel

Both cameras feel quite solid and well made, but I would say I like the build and feel of the Ricoh GR II better. The Sony RX100 doesn’t feel cheap, though…and is actually quite heavy for its tiny size. It’s solid as a brick.

With the Ricoh GR II’s simple ergonomics, useful handhold, and rubber grip, it’s much more DSLR like. In fact, I’ll say this right now: If you’re a picky DSLR user looking to add a killer pocket camera to your lineup, there’s no question. You need the Ricoh GR II. You’ll just have to get used to some limitations that I’ll touch on later.

One other thing to mention is the looks. In my opinion, the Sony has a more sleek and modern look. It’s not exactly screaming for attention with its small, classy logo. By contrast, the Ricoh….well…how do I put this?

It kind of looks like a toy camera from the 80s. It has no visible brand logo, and it doesn’t look particularly valuable. For my tastes & lifestyle, these are all HUGE selling points. Haha.

“The Ricoh GR is not for the image conscious; it’s for the image perfectionist.” – Nathan Allen

Size & Pocketability

This is one of the most important factors for me: Being highly mobile. I want a camera on me at all times….and yes, for me, a compact camera must be able to fit in a pants pocket. Even though the Ricoh GR II looks much larger at first glance, it is actually MUCH more comfortable in a pants pocket.

See how deceptive that is? The Sony looks much smaller, but where it counts, it’s not.

This is because the Ricoh GR II is not thicker, but instead, taller + skinnier (think smartphone shaped). For example, even though it’s quite a bit wider & taller than those old Nokia flip phones, a skinny iphone feels much better in your pocket, right?  Same concept (though of course the Ricoh is not as skinny as an iphone).

The Sony RX100 has a skinny (ish) body, but its lens protrudes a good 6mm more than the GR II, and it’s enough to feel (and see) the difference.

Sensor Size & Resolution

Let’s face it. The Ricoh GR II is just amazing in this respect. It has a full on DSLR sized sensor packed into it. It’s an APS-C (crop sensor), literally over 3 times the size of the one in the Sony RX100 III (which is already a 1-inch, and not too shabby).

However, considering the the Sony’s sensor is 3 times smaller, I doubt anybody would say the quality is 3 times less. The image quality and resolution produced by the RX100 is very impressive. Still, overall…the Ricoh GR II takes the prize.

As far as resolution, at first glance, you would think Sony’s 20.2 megapixel resolution would be a huge benefit over Ricoh’s 16.2MP.

The funny thing is…for me it’s not. This is because I shoot up to 10,000 RAW images a month, and I literally keep running out of space on my storage. Haha. It’s nice to fit that many more photos on my SD cards and hard drives, and I rarely seem to need more space for cropping.

Note* the RAW file sizes are smaller on the Ricoh, but the JPEGs are actually a tiny bit larger…

(Something I love is the built in horizon level on the GR II, I trained myself to use this for every shot, so that I don’t have to sacrifice some of my image by cropping and straightening. I believe the RX100 III has one too, but I can’t get it to display on the live screen.)

JPEG & RAW File Quality

Of course, both cameras offer full manual controls, and also RAW capabilities. As mentioned earlier, I shoot RAW, not JPEG. The Ricoh is awesome because it creates universal DNG files that recover quite a bit of detail. However, Sony’s ARW files also handle editing very well, and seem to import into my editing programs easily.

Both cameras have nice JPEG effect presets built in, and from what I’ve seen and heard, the Sony produces more pleasing “out of camera” JPEGS.

Sony’s 24-70mm Zoom vs Ricoh’s 28mm Fixed Lens

I’m one of those photographers who looked through my work and realized that 90+ percent of my photos were shot as wide as possible. I have to say, the Sony RX100 lens quality and sharpness at (all focal lengths) is quite impressive, but that comes with extra thickness in the pockets. It’s still not as sharp as the Ricoh GR II – at any focal length.

For me, the tack sharp Ricoh lens, edge to edge, in a truly pocketable body…is worth losing the zoom.

Overall Image Quality

Both of these cameras have exceptional image quality (in good lighting). I probably don’t need to say it, but the Ricoh, with its lack of an anti aliasing filter, pulls ahead with crisp, well contrasted detail across the whole frame. The RX100 III shows some softening near the edges, but much less than any comparable compact zoom that I know of. It’s still quite impressive.

I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that in some ways,  the image quality of the RX100 Mk3 surpasses even the Mk4 & Mk5!

Low Light & High ISO Performance

So far the Ricoh GR II is killin’ it. However, it’s time for the Sony RX100 to come back swinging. Low light and high (er) ISO is where this little camera shines. With a super fast f1.8 lens (a full stop faster than the Ricoh), these two cameras are not even comparable in low light. Especially handheld.

Pretty impressive, right? Just imagine how fun this camera is take out at night. Coupled with another feature I’ll get to below, shots like this in low light (without a tripod) are a breeze.

The RX100 can find and lock focus in surprisingly dim lighting, and it does pretty well with higher ISO (It’s no Fuji, though). Conversely, the Ricoh was terrible to focus in low light initially, and only slightly better after upgrading the firmware.

Let’s just put it this way: I don’t like to shoot above 400 ISO with the Ricoh, unless strictly for web use. I also might go above 1600 ISO if I’m looking for some “artsy grain” in my street photography. Bottom line: Low light is a big win for the Sony RX100.

Image Stabilization + Long Exposure

There’s no way around this – Sony also has unbelievable image stabilization. I have taken long exposure shots handheld with this camera…up to 1.6 seconds!

Sure, they may not be stellar when fully zoomed, but the images look sharp enough for web use for sure. To be able to do this handheld, it’s just incredible to me. I regularly take handheld shots at night, and limit to 800 ISO – thanks to the superb image stabilization (and a steady hand). This keeps my images as clean as possible…without needing to lug a tripod with me everywhere.

The RX100 III was the first in the series to include a built in 3 stop ND filter as well. This means I can take long exposure waterfall shots – even at noon on a sunny day! The shot below was taken handheld as well…a .8 second exposure with no tripod.

The Ricoh GR II also has an ND filter, but NO image stabilization. I keep telling myself that including image stabilization would increase the bulk of the camera, and make it less pocketable. This is how I sleep at night. Haha.

However, if you’re using a tripod, the Ricoh GR II has more long exposure options, and is definitely superior when it comes to image quality @ 100 or 200 ISO.

Minimum Focusing Distance – Macro + Bokeh

The minimum focus distance for macro is 10cm on the Ricoh GR II – twice the 5cm of the RX100. Generally, the closer you can get to the subject, the more bokeh, or blurred background you can achieve. A higher aperture (lower number) also increases the bokeh…so you’d think Sony has it in the bag.

However, the larger APS-C sensor on the GR II also allows for shallow depth of field…so an f2.8 with a larger sensor kind of works out equal to a smaller sensor with an f1.8. I call a tie, and that’s why I didn’t include any macro sample images. They both produce pleasing bokeh in close-up (macro) situations.

Sony RX100 III vs. Ricoh GR II – Battery Life

These two cameras are said to have the same battery life – 320 shots each on a full charge. In my experience, though, The Sony seems to have the advantage. I just ordered 2 more batteries for my Ricoh, so soon I’ll see if this specific battery is somehow to blame. *Update* – It’s not.

“Snap Focus” + Ability To Customize

These are areas where the Ricoh GR II simply trounces the competition. Snap focus is the ability to choose a focus distance between 1-5 meters (or infinity), and then leave it ready for action. Once you get used to knowing where and when to shoot, you really see the benefit of it.

You can take candid street photos with lightning speed, and the best part is that you can set the shutter to auto focus if only pressed halfway. In other words, a quick full press gives you your set focus distance, but if something falls outside of that distance, you can always press halfway to auto focus – and without changing any settings. Brilliant.

The Sony wasn’t designed so much with street shooters in mind, and it lacks “quick access” features like this.

*Check the “related links” at the end of the page for more of my street photography with these cameras.

As for being able to customize the camera, the Ricoh GR II truly is a photographer nerd’s dream come true. I was simply amazed at both the ability to customize, and the ease of doing so. The quick “memory” settings are especially useful when out street shooting.

There is also a unique “TAv” mode, which the Sony lacks. It’s great because it allows you to quickly change the aperture and shutter speed, while leaving the ISO in auto mode. Perfect for quickly adjusting depth of field, or for contrasted lighting or sports situations when you need to “freeze” or capture motion.

The Ricoh controls are all perfectly within reach, and incredibility intuitive. This camera is simply a joy to shoot with. To me, here it makes the Sony RX100 III menu and controls seem a bit clunky. To be fair though, I was pretty happy with the Sony before I had the Ricoh to compare it to…

 Click HERE to check out the updated Ricoh GR III on Amazon.

Sony RX100 III vs. Ricoh GR II – Final Pros & Cons

• The Sony RX100 III has a viewfinder and an articulating screen, but I would much rather it had neither, if it meant I could slip it into my pocket more comfortably. I know others are very happy to keep these features, though. Again, it is incredible how versatile and full-featured this tiny little camera is.
• The Ricoh GR series has a fatal flaw, especially for a pocket camera. It is very prone to dust on the sensor. I have probably taken 50,000 photos with my RX100, and I’ve always kept it in my pocket. Never a single issue with dust.

• This is nitpicking, but the RX100 collects fingerprints on the lens if I let somebody borrow it. I swear it doesn’t handle bright light bulbs at night very well either, unless the lens is VERY clean. (It gets that annoying “fog” halo that iphones with smudged lenses get).  The Ricoh has a deep set lens, which makes it harder to collect fingerprints (but also to clean).
• The Ricoh also has “Pinpoint AF“, which I absolutely love, and would be quite useful on a camera like the RX100 – with its super fast 1.8 lens and shallow depth of field.
• The RX100 has underwater housings available, and again, its fast lens is great for snorkelers + divers wanting to shoot in deep, low light conditions.
• Focus Ring – The Sony has a nice, smooth, focus ring. The Ricoh is missing one entirely, but I don’t find myself needing it too much, honestly.

(continued below, but I do hope you’ll consider following along with me…)

So Which Do I Choose? Both.

I believe it’s true what I read somewhere…”The best camera is the one you always have with you. The one that inspires you to take photos.” Since giving up my DSLR and buying the Sony and the Ricoh, I probably take 4 or 5 times as many photos – and I never miss an opportunity. That is priceless. I love having such inconspicuous , unassuming little cameras.

I have to be honest, though. For a second there I thought about selling my RX100 when I bought the Ricoh. I also thought about replacing it with the Panasonic LX10 f1.4.

I’m so glad I didn’t, though. I don’t think the Panasonic lens sharpness and low light capabilities can compare, even though the RX100 III is already over 2 years old. Frankly, there’s no way my Ricoh could compare to the RX100…for night shots around town, anyway.

So basically, if it’s daytime, I bring my Ricoh GR II…and I make sure my hand is steady as hell. Haha.  If I’m going out for drinks or exploring at night, the Sony RX100 III is my go to.

I believe in keeping things simple, but unfortunately there’s no one stop solution yet…I have to have both. I’m looking forward to the Ricoh GR III – with f1.8 and image stabilization…are you listening, Ricoh? Haha.

Sony RX100 III vs. Ricoh GR II Verdict: It’s like choosing between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones – I won’t do it.

Is the 28mm on the Ricoh GR II Wide Enough?

As a landscape photographer (mostly), I was really worried I would miss the wider 24mm lens for most of my daytime shots. However, I was shocked to realize that I hardly noticed the difference! Anyhow, there is an excellent (and affordable) Ricoh 21mm converter available for those who love to shoot really wide. Best of both worlds.

However, the way I’ve come to see it, photographers share most of their work on Facebook and Instagram. A very large chunk of their audiences are viewing their pictures on small phone screens.

A wider lens doesn’t lend itself too well to pictures that will be viewed on smartphone screens. Not that there’s that much difference between the 24 and 28mm lenses.

A note about the images on this page: My hosting company compresses JPEGS mercilessly, but it leaves PNG files in tact. I tried to keep these sample images as high quality as possible, so they were created with the PNG-24 format. It still skews the colors a bit, unfortunately.

As you may have guessed, they have all been edited in post processing. I just wanted to show what is possible using each camera. If you’re curious, the picture at the top (title image) was taken in the Philippines, with the Ricoh.

Which Pocket Camera Is Best For You?

In conclusion, both cameras provide exceptional image quality in a tiny, convenient package. I guess my advice is to be honest with yourself…

Are you very serious about photography AND not too self-conscious when you shoot? Are you a very technical person, a seasoned DSLR shooter, or a “pixel peeper”? If so, you’re going to need the Ricoh GR II. There is no better pocket camera in terms of ergonomics, sensor size and overall image quality. You probably won’t mind working with its limitations, given that fact.

However, if you need a sleek, versatile pocket camera with great image quality…a consistent camera that will function quickly and easily in a variety of situations (especially low light!), then you’ll love pretty much any models in the RX100 series. They are truly impressive little cameras.

Basically, the Sony does many things very well. The Ricoh only does a few things…but those few things are very important, and it does them incredibly well.

Do you own the Sony or the Ricoh (or both)?

I’m curious if your findings are the same.

Update for 2024: The Sony RX100VII & Ricoh GRIII are finally here!

– Nathan Allen

www.idreamedofthis.com

Thanks for reading, and feel free to share!

 Related Links

 My Low Light & Night Photography Tests with Sony RX100

RX100 Street Photography in Manila, Philippines

Street Photography in Singapore w/ Ricoh GR II

15 Jaw-Dropping Photos of the Philippines

Social Media

Have a question or comment? I’d love to hear from you. BTW, I’m not connected to these companies, but you can help support my work by visiting the the links to Amazon on this page.

The post Sony RX100 III vs. Ricoh GR II – Which Pocket Camera is TRULY King? appeared first on I Dreamed Of This.

By Nathan Allen

How Do They Look?

Well, I think most sane people would agree that the Olukai Ohanas are much more pleasing to the eye. They are low profile, sleek, and stylish.

The Oofos, on the other hand, are marketed as orthopedic or “recovery” thongs.

Yes, they look just as bulky and “Croc-y” as you would imagine, though I guess the design could be worse.

Still fugly enough to warrant me making a few jokes: “I just bought some rubber shoes, and now I’m going to start watching the Weather Channel and yelling at neighborhood kids to get off my lawn.”

I felt like I was wearing paddles on my feet, and not many reviews mention this, but the soles are thick. If you’re a bit short, you will love the 1+ inch of lift. I am already awkwardly tall, so I would prefer less “help” in this department. Haha.

Footbed & Sole Traction

Olukai Ohanas

Again, the Olukai Ohana sandals have been designed for water and beaches…even trekking. The grip on the soles is fantastic. I read some reviews about the inside footbed being a bit slippery when wet, but I ordered the Olukai Ohana Koa sandals (updated model?), and if this was a problem before, it’s definitely not now. Perfect grip when wet.

Oofos

The Oofos are a different story. The footbed is slick when wet, and the soles can be incredibly slippery on smooth, wet surfaces. Every time it rained I had to step ever so gingerly. My muddy jungle hikes were challenging, to say the least.

In the city, one day a downpour came out of nowhere, and I rushed the last few steps to the elevator in my building. I hit a patch of wet cement and BAM. I was on the ground. No injuries, luckily…and even though my fall put a LOT of pressure on the Oofos toe strap, the material did not break. This was after a full year of use.

That was impressive. Speaking of long lasting…

Durability

Oofos

As mentioned, I wore my Oofos for a full year before they finally gave out. Those familiar with my lifestyle know that I am constantly on the move. I hike in the tropics a LOT, and put my footwear under extreme stress. I honestly didn’t expect them to last that long.

There were many times when I was hiking trails or at the beach, and they got yanked away from my feet by sticky mud or the incoming tide. The toe strap on many other flip flops snapped in these conditions, but again, the Oofos never did.

The soles wore down over that year. Eventually I wore a hole all the way through, and duct-taped them up until my Ohanas arrived. Haha. If I can get a full year out of a pair of flip flops, most people can probably get two. I was impressed.

Olukai Ohanas

I did have higher durability expectations for the Ohanas, but they certainly have delivered. After 2 months of fairly rigorous daily use, they are still going strong, with barely any wear on the soles. Not much more to say about that. They are tough.

Comfort

Oofos

By now, you may have wondered why I ever bought the Oofos in the first place. Well, I’ll tell you why…it’s because I tried them on. Haha…seriously, it’s kind of unreal wearing a pair of Oofos. I have never experienced that level of comfort – with any shoe.

I had a knee injury some years ago, and on my long treks (especially with a heavy pack) my knee can really ache now. That literally stopped happening when I started wearing the Oofos.

They kind of feel like you’re always walking on the ground at one of those fancy kids’ playgrounds…you know, the ones with the soft, padded flooring? Tip: If you really do wear Oofos on those playgrounds, it’s double softness. You’ll be walking on clouds!

However, for some people, there is such thing as too much comfort. Many hikers / adventurers prefer more firmness in the soles, and I can see why.

Olukai Ohana Koa

After wearing my Oofos for a year, I was a bit disappointed by how stiff the Ohanas felt when I tried them on for the first time. Still, after all the glowing reviews I read, I decided to give them a chance.

The girl at the store recommended I buy a snug fit. I wear size 10.5 US,  and usually have to buy 11 if there are no half sizes. With her suggestion, I bought a 10.

You want the truth? After a week or two, I was ready to return these. My feet have never been in so much pain. I think they actually bruised the tops of my feet. I kept pushing, hoping to break them in…just like the reviewers said. It was an epic struggle.

Then, after about a month of pretty solid use, something miraculous happened. I don’t know if the “compression molded midsole” finally formed to my feet, or if I developed some tough calluses, but now they feel great. Snug and secure!

Oofos – Pros and Cons

Pros

• Ridiculously Comfortable
• About 30% Cheaper
• Lightweight
• Might Help You Get a Senior Citizens Discount at Denny’s

Cons

• You’re Wearing Boats on Your Feet
• No Traction When Wet / Slippery Footbed
• Too Comfortable For Rugged Use
• Thick Soles (Gives Tall People Extra Unwanted Height)

You can have a look at them HERE

(Continued below, but I do hope you’ll consider following along with me…I’m a photographer and wanderer, reviewing my favorite travel gear along the way)

– Nathan Allen

Olukai Ohana – Pros and Cons

Pros

• More Stylish / Better Design
• Very Good Traction On All Surfaces & In All Conditions
• Firm, Yet Comfortable Enough For Hiking & Trekking

Cons

• 30% More Expensive
• Painful Break In Period If You Want a Snug Fit
• Slightly Heavy

Common Strengths of Both

• Very Durable (Even More So For Ohanas)
• Quick Drying & No Foot Odor (Huge Plus!)
• Comfortable Enough For All Day Use
• They Do Not Mark Floor Surfaces
• Both Are Unisex (As Far As I Know?)

So, which pair is more comfortable? I guess the simple answer is the Oofos. They are, in fact, the most comfortable I’ve ever worn.

If you’re not as active (and picky) as me, go try a pair on. You’ll be amazed.

However, for my lifestyle (and unless I injure myself), I will only buy the Olukai Ohanas again in the future…especially if they last me over a year, which I really believe they will. They are some of the most expensive flip flops you can buy, but they last – and are worth it. (Update…3 or 4? years later…I’m back in California and STILL wearing these Olukai’s seasonally. Love them! )

The first time I gripped a rocky trail in them, I realized how amazing they were. Not as cushy as the Oofos, but I still have no knee pain, and they’re quite comfortable. Since they fit snug and are designed for water use, I plan on shedding the weight of my aqua shoes in my pack – and just wearing these for snorkeling, too!

Tip: If you wear a half size, go down a size instead of up, and suffer through the break in period. Otherwise you will end up with a great big floppy flip hanging off your foot (did I just write that?)

Where To Purchase

You can find more info about Oofos, Olukai, and other sandals HERE

Cheers,

– Nathan Allen

www.idreamedofthis.com

Thanks for reading, and feel free to share!

*I purchased these sandals myself after doing extensive research. If you use any of the Amazon links on this page, it costs you nothing extra + helps me continue to provide this content. Thanks!

Social Media

Have something to add? Feel free to leave a comment…

The post OluKai Ohana vs Oofos – Which Sandal is Most Comfortable? appeared first on I Dreamed Of This.