GR III vs GR II

[Steve Boykin]

If anyone has both cameras I would appreciate your opinion. I have a II. It sadly now has dust on the sensor. I have been looking at the III. The thing is I like to shoot 4 X 3 whenever possible. For some reason the III doesn't have this option. Also, I'm not sure that the increase in megapixels is worth an extra $400. You can buy a new II for almost $500 now.

Thanks!

Steve Boykin

 

[Pete Askew]

I was just looking at the III yesterday. However, I think I can resist even though I really liked the first and the II. I need a viewfinder these days and the one on the Sony is so much more effective than the add-on one for the GR.

 

[Steve Boykin]

I was just looking at the III yesterday. However, I think I can resist even though I really liked the first and the II. I need a viewfinder these days and the one on the Sony is so much more effective than the add-on one for the GR.

I can live without a viewfinder, but I am not sure I want to pay $899 for a camera without one. I would probably be more likely to buy it if it was say $699. I will admit it's pretty impressive getting that size sensor in such a small camera. But $899 is too much. I recently got a used X70. In many ways it is a better camera. It's larger for sure but the tilting screen is a real plus. I don't know why Fuji didn't continue with that model. It's really well made (same build as the X100). I think they completely missed the plot by not putting in an ND filter though.