Fujifilm X100F vs. Ricoh GR III: Which is better for you?
 |
The Fujifilm X100F and Ricoh GR III are two very different cameras, but they’re broadly aimed at the same audience – camera-savvy enthusiast photographers who want a high-quality compact camera without sacrificing manual control or sensor size.
As you’d expect, the X100 and GR lineups each have a hugely loyal user base, built up over several years, and upgrades come slowly. But with the recent launch of the Ricoh GR III, and the continuing success of the X100F (with no signs of it being replaced any time soon) this seemed like a good time to compare the two models, to help you decide which one better suits your needs.
Focal length
 |
Let’s deal with perhaps the most fundamental difference between these cameras first – the Ricoh GR III offers an equivalent focal length of 28mm, whereas the Fujifilm X100F provides a 35mm equivalent medium wideangle. Which of these focal lengths suits you better is of course down to personal taste, and your preferred style of photography.
As a very rough, casual comparison, 28mm is a loose proxy for a human being’s widest field of vision, whereas 35mm more closely matches your field of attention. As such, 28mm is great for images where you need to fit more in, or provide more context for your subject. Being slightly tighter, 35mm is more of an everyday ‘do everything’ focal length. It’s wide enough to make framing pretty easy for casual snapshots, but not so wide that your subject gets lost in the frame.
Verdict: Tie (depends on preference)
Adapters
 |
But wait – it’s not quite as simple as all that. While the X100F and GR III offer native equivalent focal lengths of 35mm and 28mm, both can be paired with adapters to increase their lens’ versatility further. Fujifilm’s $ 349 screw-in WCL-100 II 28mm adapter is excellent, and increases field of view with very little image quality penalty. Another adapter, the TCL-100 II (also $ 349) can be used to magnify the lens’ effective focal length to 50mm. You might find that sharpness drops a little when the 50mm adapter is used (especially at close focusing distances) but if you enjoy shooting at 50mm, the added versatility might make the resolution penalty worth it.
Meanwhile, the GR III can be paired with the GW-3 wide converter ($ 149, plus adapter ring) to take its native 28mm equivalent lens all the way out to 21mm. We haven’t used the new adapter yet but performance of the older GW-2 adapter for the GR/II was excellent, which is encouraging.
The downside to adapter solutions for both cameras is that they add considerably to the size and weight of the cameras, not to mention additional cost.
Verdict: X100F wins for the added versatility of 28mm + 50mm equiv. converters.
Lens speed
 |
Aside from their native focal lengths, another key differentiator between these two cameras is the speed of their lenses, expressed in terms of their maximum apertures. The Fujifilm X100F offers an F2 maximum aperture (equivalent to ~F3 in full-frame terms) while the GR III’s lens is slower, at F2.8 (~F4.2 equiv).
The difference in maximum aperture has a couple of important effects. For one, you’ll have more ability to blur backgrounds and isolate your subject from the faster lens of the X100F, aided also by its longer focal length. You’ll also be able to shoot at lower ISOs in lower light with the Fujifilm without resorting to a tripod. On the other hand, the wider lens of the GR III, and its stabilized sensor (more on this in a minute) mean that the low-light disadvantage is somewhat mitigated (assuming static subjects) and you may not need a tripod except in very dark conditions.
Verdict: Tie. Too many variables.
Stabilization
 |
Ah yes – about that. Perhaps the most impactful upgrade to the GR III compared to its forebears is the addition of sensor-based image stabilization, which allows hand-held shooting down to at least 1/10sec without any trouble, assuming normal conditions (i.e., you’re not shooting from a helicopter or standing outside in a strong gale).
The addition of stabilization mitigates the limitations imposed by the GR III’s relatively slow lens when it comes to low-light shooting, and allows for creative options like creatively introducing blur (from flowing water, traffic, people walking by, asteroids striking the earth, etc.). The Fujifilm X100F has no such system, either optical or sensor-based, which is a major plus point in favor of the Ricoh.
Verdict: Ricoh GR III’s in-body stabilization means more options in low light.
Sensor
 |
As a casual glance, the sensors in the Fujifilm X100F and Ricoh GR III look like they could be the same. And in fact, at a hardware level that might actually be the case. Both provide 24MP worth of resolution and on-sensor phase-detection autofocus pixels, and image quality is broadly comparable. Image quality is also in line with many of the best 24MP APS-C cameras on the market when it comes to Raw detail and dynamic range.
The difference is in the filter arrays. Ricoh uses a conventional bayer-type filter array, whereas Fujifilm uses its own proprietary X-Trans design. If you’re a JPEG shooter, there’s a definite – albeit subtle – advantage to X-Trans when it comes to critical detail retention, across most of the X100F’s ISO sensitivity range. And the X100F is well-suited to JPEG shooting, thanks to its suite of excellent Film Simulation modes, which replicate the look of classic Fuji film emulsions. We’re less enthusiastic about the JPEG output from the GR III, particularly in terms of color.
On the other hand, the more conventional design of the GR III’s sensor means that its Raw files play rather better with third-party Raw converters than those from the Fujifilm. While the difference isn’t massive, and Capture One deserves a mention as one of the software suites that actually does a great job. It might make a difference if you’re a Raw shooter with (for example) an established Adobe Raw workflow.
Verdict: Ricoh GR III’s more conventional Raw files are more flexible.
Body size
 |
The Fujifilm X100F is styled after the classic rangefinder cameras of the 1960s and 70s, and it’s around the same size as a Canonet or Yashica rangefinder (if you’re old enough to remember either). It’s a small camera, and will fit comfortably into a jacket pocket or handbag but it won’t slip into a shirt or trouser pocket. You’ll probably need either a hand strap or conventional neck strap to keep it secure when shooting.
On the other hand (no pun intended), despite having a sensor-based stabilization system built into the body, the GR III is an impressively small camera. Compared to the X100F, the GR III is genuinely shirt-pocketable, and when turned off it takes up remarkably little space in a pocket or bag. Annoyingly, the GR III lacks proper strap lugs so it won’t accept just any conventional strap, but the slim (included) hand strap is probably all you’ll need. Obviously if you enjoy shooting with a viewfinder attached, the GR III becomes a lot less compact, which leads me on to my next point….
Verdict: Ricoh GR III is genuinely pocketable.
Viewfinder
 |
…the GR III does not have a built-in viewfinder, whereas the X100F does. And in fact, the X100F’s viewfinder is one of its best features. Unique to Fujifilm, the X100F features a ‘hybrid’ finder which can be switched between a high-resolution electronic view, and an optical view with exposure and focus information overlaid. Personally, I use the X100F almost exclusively in EVF mode, but a lot of photographers swear by the immediacy of the optical view. Impressively, the X100F can offer a version of the classic rangefinder focus aid by overlaying a portion of the live view feed in the optical finder. It’s hard to describe in words, but works well if you’re a fan of manual focus.
With the GR III, on the other hand, you don’t have the same options. While simple optical finders can be attached (and Ricoh will sell you one, for quite a lot of money) you miss out on in-view focus or exposure information, and there’s no option to add an external EVF.
Verdict: Fujifilm X100F’s built-in hybrid optical / electronic wins by a mile.
Flash
 |
Another thing missing from the GR III compared to the X100F (and in fact previous GR models) is a flash. Possibly for internal space reasons, possibly for battery life reasons (or a combination of both) Ricoh deleted the internal flash on the GR III, and own-brand external flashguns add considerably to the size of the camera. The Fujifilm X100F on the other hand features a small built-in flashgun. It isn’t the most powerful in the world, but is useful for low-light social photography and fill-in purposes when shooting in daylight. And both cameras have leaf shutters, allowing flash synchronization at very high shutter speeds.
Verdict: The Fujifilm X100F wins.
Touchscreen
 |
What Ricoh’s engineers took away with one hand, they gave back with the other – in a significant upgrade compared to older GR models, the rear screen is touch-sensitive, and can be used to quickly place the AF point, and scroll through / zoom in to captured images. Some traditionalists might be tempted to disable the touchscreen (and the camera’s physical controls are there to take over if you’d prefer to go that route) but we’ve found that the addition of touch sensitivity makes a positive impact on the GR III’s handling experience.
The X100F is a more control and dial-heavy camera, and offers a conventional, non touch-sensitive screen. Whether this makes a huge difference to your purchasing decision is as much about personal preference as anything else, but with the camera held out away from your eye, it is easier to quickly position a focus point by touch on the GR III than it is with the AF joystick on the rear of the X100F. If you’re typically a viewfinder shooter, the lack of touch-sensitivity on the X100F might not bother you all that much.
Verdict: The Ricoh GR III’s touch-screen does make some key operations easier.
Control interface
 |
The Fujifilm X100F is the fourth in a line of X100-series cameras which really set a template for the X and G-series mirrorless cameras that came later. A key part of the appeal of the original X100 was its (for the time) novel ‘retro’ styling, and every subsequent model in the lineup has shared a consciously old-fashioned hands-on design philosophy, with physical dials for key exposure settings, alongside the usual modal buttons and rear controls.
Arguably, you don’t really need all those dials, and personally I think the X100F is over-endowed with control input points. I haven’t used a physical shutter speed dial since the Nikon F4, so when I shoot with the X100F, mine stays locked to ‘A’, but some people swear by it. And they look great, which I suspect is part of the point. The downside to the X100-series’ distinctive styling is that the cameras do tend to attract attention. Be prepared to be asked, ‘is that a Leica?’.
Control interface (con’t)
 |
The GR III on the other hand offers a simpler, more subtle, less cluttered control interface which arguably better suits its specifications. A simple exposure compensation toggle on the rear doubles as a modal control for quick access to key shooting settings, and a dial on the upper right of the top-plate serves as the main input for exposure settings. Meanwhile, a lockable exposure mode dial provides a simple (and visually clear) means of moving between PASM and automatic exposure modes. As as already been mentioned, the touch-screen on the rear of the GR III helps to simplify some actions, like setting the AF point and navigating through captured images.
In the end, the choice comes down to two things – how you like your cameras to work, but also how you like them to look.
Verdict: Personal preference (but the Ricoh GR III is more streamlined).
Battery life
 |
This one is pretty straightforward – while neither offer spectacular stamina, battery life from the X100F is pretty ok, whereas battery life from the GR III is decidedly less ok. Both cameras will probably get you through a day of shooting without any issues, but we’d be much less confident about leaving the house without a spare battery for the GR III. One of the most welcome upgrades in the X100F over its predecessors was a more powerful battery, and its CIPA rating compared to the GR III speaks for itself (390-330 shots compared to 200).
In reality, in a single shooting session with minimal image review, both cameras should be able to capture a lot more shots per charge than the CIPA figures suggest, but there’s no escaping the fact that the GR III’s battery is on the skinny side.
Verdict: The Fujifilm X100F wins with roughly twice the battery life of the GR III.
Movie mode
 |
Arguably, neither of these cameras is really suited to serious movie shooting, but of the two, the X100F is a far more convincing video camera. While not spectacular, its maximum video resolution of 1080/60p is fine, with a good degree of control over exposure. Focus is AF-C or manual only, but it’s still usable, and there is a socket for an external mic.
The GR III on the other hand offers a very thin video feature set. Although it also boasts 1080/60p resolution, exposure is locked to ‘P’ and there is no option for adding an external microphone.
Verdict: The Fujifilm X100F is the better of the two (but neither are great).
Summing up
 |
So which of these two cameras is best for you? Aaaaaaall together now: It depends.
Obviously that’s the answer – that’s always the answer! You know how this works by now. If you value compact size over the convenience of a viewfinder, go for the GR III. If you’re one of those people that just doesn’t ‘get’ 28mm for some reason, go for the X100F. If you like to shoot a lot in low light but you don’t carry a tripod, the GR III is a better choice. If you want the camera to shoot video, frankly I think you’d be mad to consider either of them, but in a pinch the X100F is the less terrible of the two. Etc., and so on.
At the end of the day, both are excellent cameras with their own strengths and relatively few serious weaknesses. They’re just different. If you have the money, there’s actually a pretty good argument to made for buying both the X100F and the GR III, and using them alongside one another. Both cameras together will still take up less space in your bag than most mirrorless ILCs with a zoom lens.
Ultimately, you’re a grownup. You know what you like, and you know what you need. You’ve got this! Feel free, as always, to share your thoughts in the comments and let me know if I missed anything!
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
