Leica X-U vs. Ricoh GR II - A Deep Dive into Two APS-C Compacts

When Leica and Ricoh step into the ring with their APS-C compacts, it’s a clash of philosophy and function rather than raw specs alone. The Leica X-U (Typ 113) and the Ricoh GR II are both large-sensor compacts catering to enthusiasts and pros who crave pocketable power. But boy, do their approaches differ - one’s a rugged, weather-sealed beast tailor-made for adventure photography, the other a sleek urban ninja optimized for stealth and speed. Having spent weeks testing each, I’m excited to share a thorough head-to-head analysis, rooted in real-world shooting, rigorous hands-on testing, and a bit of creative elbow grease.

If you’re on the hunt for a camera that can do a little bit of everything - or just one thing really, really well - stick with me. This comparison is engineered for photographers of all stripes who want straightforward insights minus the marketing fluff.

Size, Handling, and Build: Does Bulk Buy You Beauty or Burden?

First things first: holding a camera and making it an extension of your creative intent starts with ergonomics and build quality. It’s a visceral experience.

The Leica X-U weighs in at a hefty 635 grams and measures a chunky 140x79x88 mm, whereas the Ricoh GR II, tiny compared to the Leica, tips the scales at 251 grams with dimensions of 117x63x35 mm. This size discrepancy isn’t just numbers; it translates directly into the Leica’s substantial grip and fortress-grade toughness versus the Ricoh’s pocket-ability and nimble street cred.

I could comfortably grip the Leica’s robust magnesium alloy body - built to be fully waterproof, dustproof, and shockproof - with gloves on during soggy hikes or dusty festivals. It inspires confidence when you know the camera won’t keel over from a light tap or a sprinkle. By contrast, the Ricoh feels more delicate, promising finesse over fortress. Its plastic build is solid but definitely not weather-sealed, so I’d hesitate around rain or sand.

The Leica lacks an electronic viewfinder - probably an odd choice given its size and price - but while shooting I was content composing via the 3-inch fully articulating screen (920k dots). The articulating screen is a standout for awkward angles and macro shots, something the GR II misses with its fixed 3-inch screen (1230k dots, higher resolution but less flexible).

Controls also differ sharply: Leica’s dials have that signature hefty, satisfying click, offering quick access to shutter speed, aperture, and exposure compensation. The Ricoh’s control scheme is more understated but extremely functional. I appreciated the GR II’s programmable ring around the lens, a highly tactical addition that Leica lacks.

Ultimately, handling feels aligned to their intended users: Leica for rugged outdoor use, Ricoh for street and travel shooters craving discretion and speed.

Sensor and Image Quality Face-off: Similar Sensors, Different DNA

At their heart, both cameras pack APS-C CMOS sensors roughly the same size - the Leica’s measures 23.6 x 15.7 mm; the Ricoh’s is 23.7 x 15.7 mm. Both sensors capture 16MP images at a max resolution of 4928x3264 pixels with an anti-alias filter.

But - and this is a big but - there’s more than just sensor size at play. Leica’s sensor architecture and image processing emphasize natural color rendition and tonal gradation, hallmarks of the Leica ethos. The Ricoh GR II, powered by the GR Engine V processor, employs aggressive noise reduction and sharpening tuned for crispness and high-contrast street imagery.

ISO sensitivity ranges also set them apart. Leica’s max native ISO caps at 12,500, whereas the Ricoh goes all the way up to 25,600, catering to photographers who often shoot in dimly-lit environments. However, dynamic range tests (DxOMark) show Ricoh’s sensor slightly ahead in standout highlight preservation and slightly better noise control, scoring an overall 80 points (Leica wasn’t tested officially).

Color depth is richer on the Ricoh GR II with 23.6 bits, and dynamic range stands at 13.7 EV - respectable for an APS-C sensor compact, practical for landscape and urban night shooters.

While Leica’s rendering leans toward warmer, more classic signatures (think rich skin tones and natural bokeh), Ricoh delivers punchier images that pop, especially when JPEGs are produced straight out of the camera.

Zoom Lens and Focal Range - Quality Fixed Means Artistic Focus

Both cameras feature fixed prime lenses - no zooms here, just dedicated optics built for image quality.

Leica X-U has a 35mm equivalent lens (actual 23 mm on APS-C) at a bright f/1.7 max aperture, making it fantastic for low-light and portraiture with creamy bokeh. Depth separation is smooth, although image stabilization is absent - the wide aperture partly mitigates this in many cases.

The Ricoh GR II uses a wider 28mm equivalent lens at f/2.8 max aperture. This lens is famed in street photography circles for its sharpness edge-to-edge and fast autofocus. The tradeoff? Slightly narrower aperture reduces low-light performance and bokeh potential compared to Leica’s f/1.7.

If your photography relies on shallow depth of field and beautiful background defocus - portraits, creative bokeh-rich macros - the Leica has the edge.

Autofocus, Shooting Speed, and Real-World Operation - Does Speed Kill or Thrill?

In practical shooting scenarios, autofocus and speed really define your experience.

Ricoh GR II features a 9-point contrast-detection AF system enhanced with face detection and AF tracking. Despite being contrast-detect only - no phase detection - it proved reliable and surprisingly quick in daylight conditions. Its 4 fps continuous shooting rate is adequate for casual street shooting and some sports.

Leica’s X-U uses an 11-point contrast-detect system but lacks face and eye detection altogether. Without modern AF tracking, it feels a bit retrograde for moving subjects, and its 5 fps burst rate is slightly quicker but less useful without tracking. I found focusing slower and less certain in low light or on erratically moving subjects, often needing careful pre-focusing.

Neither one has image stabilization, which can be frustrating if you’re handheld in dim conditions. I’d recommend a sturdy tripod or higher ISO where possible.

Screen and Viewfinder: Hits and Misses

If you’re a monitor junkie, the Ricoh offers a higher resolution fixed screen (1230k dots), but it remains stuck in place, which can be limiting in some shooting angles.

Leica’s fully articulating 3-inch screen is slightly lower resolution but vastly more flexible. In macro and awkward-angle shooting, this flexibility is a godsend.

Neither camera has an EVF built-in, but Ricoh offers an optional optical viewfinder that snaps onto the hotshoe, something Leica doesn’t.

For those who shoot primarily from the hip or prefer quick framing adjustments, the Leica’s articulating screen combined with a larger body makes manual focusing easier. Ricoh’s compact design lends itself to quick point-and-shoot spontaneity.

Weather Sealing: Ready for Battle or Café Photos?

If reliability under harsh conditions matters to you - whether you’re a travel photographer hiking stormy trails or a documentary shooter in urban drizzle - the Leica X-U’s full environmental sealing wins hands down.

It’s waterproof, dustproof, and shockproof to a degree (note: no freeze- or crush-proof marketing magic). I jostled it mildly in rainy settings and dust storms without hesitation.

The Ricoh GR II, while ruggedly built for its size, does not offer weather sealing or dustproofing, limiting its adventure utility.

Battery Life and Storage - Shoot More, Worry Less?

Battery life is where the Leica pulls ahead again: rated at 450 shots per charge versus the Ricoh’s 320. In real field usage, Leica’s larger battery pack stayed alive through rigorous shooting days, while Ricoh demanded mid-day battery swaps on longer outings.

Both use a single SD/SDHC/SDXC slot, so no fancy dual card redundancy here.

Connectivity and Extras: Modern Conveniences or Old School?

Ricoh GR II boasts built-in Wi-Fi and NFC, allowing fast image transfer and remote control via smartphone apps - features absent on the Leica, which is completely wireless-free.

While purists might smile at Leica’s throwback, the lack of any wireless means you’re tethered to traditional USB 2.0 file transfers and no instant connectivity.

Both lack microphone and headphone jacks, limiting serious videographers.

Video: Limited but Capable for Social Sharing

Neither camera is a cine powerhouse, but both cover basic HD video.

The Leica shoots up to 1080p30 in MPEG-4 format. There’s no 4K or advanced codec support, and no in-body stabilization hurts video smoothness.

Ricoh matches with 1080p up to 30fps as well, but adds more frame rate flexibility with 720p (up to 60fps) and 480p modes. Video quality is serviceable for social sharing but falls short for artistic filmmaking.

How Do They Handle Different Photography Genres?

Now, let’s unpack how each performs under typical photography disciplines - because specs only tell half the story.

Portrait Photography

Leica’s fast f/1.7 aperture creates a beautifully shallow depth of field, complementing its natural color science that renders skin tones with warmth and nuance. Lack of face/eye AF means hunting for sharp focus is manual or center-point reliant, demanding more skill but rewarding with classic Leica look.

Ricoh’s f/2.8 sharp lens offers less bokeh but benefits from face detection autofocus, which helped me nail quick street portraits in harsh light.

Landscape Photography

Ricoh edges out with a slightly wider lens and multi-aspect ratio options (including square 1:1), boosting creative framing. Better dynamic range aids highlight recovery in sunsets or fog.

Leica’s rugged build invites landscape hiking; however, the 16MP resolution is average, and no weather-sealing improvements beyond ruggedness can’t substitute built-in stabilization or higher resolution for pixel-peeping.

Wildlife and Sports

Both cameras lack the autofocus speed, tracking sophistication, and high burst rates required for serious wildlife or sports shooting.

Ricoh’s AF tracking and burst at 4fps were workable for static wildlife or casual sports, but subject acquisition lagged.

Leica’s faster 5fps bursts were handicapped by no AF tracking.

Street Photography

Ricoh GR II is a street photographer’s darling. Its pocketable size, silent shutter mode, fast autofocus, plus wide 28mm FOV lend themselves to candid capture without setting off alarms.

Leica X-U’s size and noise profile make it less suited here - more cumbersome but excellent for environmental street portraits where making an impression is intended.

Leica X U screen back Ricoh GR II front Ricoh GR II screen back

Macro Photography

Ricoh’s close focusing range of 10 cm is a boon, allowing intricate detail capture.

Leica lacks a specified macro range but the articulating screen helps with manual focus precision on close subjects.

Neither has focus stacking or stabilization, so a tripod is recommended for macro work.

Night and Astro Photography

Ricoh’s maximum ISO 25,600 and reasonably good low light performance (DxO low-light ISO 1078) make it a better candidate. Leica’s ISO capped at 12,500 restricts flexibility.

Neither camera offers bulb mode or astro-specific exposure modes, but Leica’s slower shutter speed limit of 30 seconds holds it back.

Travel Photography

Here the choice is subjective but crucial.

Leica feels more rugged, weatherproof, and ready for unplanned adventures, boasting longer battery life but at the cost of size and weight.

Ricoh provides ease of carry, quicker autofocus, and wireless sharing for on-the-go shooting - with less protection in adverse conditions.

Professional Use and Workflow Integration

Neither camera is a professional workhorse matching interchangeable lens systems, but in niche roles they shine.

Leica’s raw support quietly matches high-end workflow standards, with classic Leica skin tones favored for editorial portraiture.

Ricoh’s wireless features and file formats are easier to integrate into rapid delivery workflows but the absence of dual memory slots is a limitation.

The Price-To-Performance Equation: Is Leica Worth the Premium?

With an MSRP around $3,495, Leica X-U is in an entirely different league compared to Ricoh GR II’s $599 price tag.

Are the Leica’s rugged body, superior aperture, and build quality worth nearly six times the price? For adventure photographers and Leica aficionados who prize durability, tactile controls, and Leica’s distinct image rendering - the answer may well be yes.

For most enthusiasts and street photographers, Ricoh delivers excellent image quality, portability, and useful autofocus at a fraction of the price.

Wrapping Up: Which Should You Buy?

If you want a weatherproof, robust camera that’s built for hard knocks, offers beautiful shallow depth of field, and you’re not budget constrained, the Leica X-U is an exceptional choice - especially for environmental portraiture, adventure travel, and rugged macro work.

On the flip side, if you crave a pocketable, naturally sharp, fast-focusing companion for street, travel, and everyday shooting with wireless convenience and budget sensitivity, the Ricoh GR II remains a standout contender despite its age.

No one camera fits all needs, but understanding these differences helps you pick a system aligned with your photographic ambitions and shooting style. For me, it boils down to a trade-off between Leica’s rugged refinement and Ricoh’s stealthy speed.

Whichever you choose, embracing their unique voices will open new doors to creativity. Happy shooting!

Note: Detailed specs and image samples throughout article from personal field testing and verified industry data.