nostatic
New member
With my dslr setup now stabilized and LBA under control (well, as soon as the Pentax 35mm ltd macro shows up), I'm seriously pondering getting a Ricoh for street and macro use. The DLux3 works well for both of those, but it seems like either the GRD2 or GX-100 is a different tool that may lead me different places (as the 16x9 has with the DLux3).
The GX-100 is kind of a direct overlap of the DLux3 (not as much tele zoom though), so that kind of makes me lean towards the GRD2. I'm a bit worried about working at only one focal length (although the 40mm add-on helps) but also wonder about lack of image stabilization. I'm spoiled now, as the DLux3 has it as does the K20d. I tend to shoot available/low light, so I often am pushing that envelope. I've done the experiment with both cameras and know that it helps quite in many instances.
So for GX-100 owners, do you find the image stabilization useful? And for GRD2 users, does the lack of it bother you?
The GX-100 is kind of a direct overlap of the DLux3 (not as much tele zoom though), so that kind of makes me lean towards the GRD2. I'm a bit worried about working at only one focal length (although the 40mm add-on helps) but also wonder about lack of image stabilization. I'm spoiled now, as the DLux3 has it as does the K20d. I tend to shoot available/low light, so I often am pushing that envelope. I've done the experiment with both cameras and know that it helps quite in many instances.
So for GX-100 owners, do you find the image stabilization useful? And for GRD2 users, does the lack of it bother you?