Difference between GR and GR III

I know there are differences (like the dust-proofing, or the efforts to make it dust-proof), but image-wise, as there big differences?!

I have the GR, I hasten to add!

Tord

Big differences? Having owned both, my answer is no. And if you shoot B&W, some people will argue the GR/GRii is preferable to the GRiii

GR is still a great camera.

I'd think there's enough differences, yes. It's smaller. It has no flash. It has a new, sharper lens. It has a different sensor. It has different controls and is still getting firmware updates.

From having owned both (now only the III), I would say, in no particular order:

• the GR's lens had more contrast
• I don't see a significant difference in lens (!) sharpness
• the III has noticeably more resolution
• the III crops much better
• the III's crop modes are very useful
• the III's 23mm crop has better resolution than a Fuji X100T
• the GR was ready to shoot quicker than the III
• I find snap focus comparatively unreliable on the III
• the GR's autofocus is too slow for many situations
• the III's autofocus is usable in most situations
• high-ISO noise is vastly lower for the III
• the GR is almost unusable in low light
• personally, I never missed the flash
• the III is noticeably smaller
• the III is vastly more dust resistant
• the GR could withstand an astonishing amount of abuse
• the GR survived being kicked across a parking lot (edges broken off, screen cracked, still working and sharp)
• the GR survived a bike crash where I landed on the lens (big dent in the lens barrel, still working and sharp)
• the III is built robustly, but not as much as the GR (after a fall, had to replace lens front cover)
• both GRs protect their optics well when switched off
• repairs are affordable and quick (in Germany)
• the III has extremely useful stabilisation
• the III's touch screen is very useful
• I miss the GR's exposure compensation buttons
• the III's jog wheel works reasonably well for exposure compensation
• USB-C on the III is extremely useful
• the weird, custom USB plug on the GR is annoying
• the GR slows to a crawl with large, full SD cards (64GB+)

Overall, I find the III an extremely worthwhile upgrade over the GR. Especially the stabilization and usable low light capability are appreciated, but USB-C and the touch screen are highlights, too.

What stood out to me is the feeling of dread your cameras must have!

That's what you get when you carry the camera in your pocket all day every day. It's really the GR's secret weapon: being available where no camera was expected, and being ready to shoot before a reaction is possible. But yeah, we've been through a lot together. To be fair, every one of those accidents hurt me as much as it damaged them.

Nevertheless, I very much appreciate that they're robust devices. Even though I clearly don't baby them, I am trying to keep them as protected as practical, and they keep on trucking.

As a side note, the robustness is actually one of the reasons I've never bought a Sony RX100, even though they are tempting. But I've read too many accounts of minor bruises that destroyed their zoom barrel or lens alignment, and very expensive repairs. This wouldn't fit my use case.

Oh I've had my GRs with me every single moment too. But I have OCD so they look like the day I bought them, despite the tens of thousands of shots taken.

My comment was tongue in cheek!

As a side note too, I had two RX100s and they are worlds apart in quality, design, handling. I find the Sonys unusable.

And good, too!

Not to be pedantic, but the OP wanted to know about the image differences between the GR and GRiii...