Scanned film from my GR1s is noticably better than the output of the GR Digital (and "pixle-peeping" isn't necessary to see the difference). So I'm sticking with the my old GR1s and saving several hundred dollars. Maybe the next time they try, Ricoh will get it right and produce a true digital successor to the GR1.
I also have a GR1s and a new GRD.
After a month of use, I must also conclude that the convenience of digital is only advantage the GRD has to offer over the GR1. Even using RAW ( and suffering those 15s write times ), dynamic range, noise and sharpness limit the GRD's usefulness under critical judgement to 8"x10" output.
A good negative on 400 ISO Fuji NPH scanned at 4000 dpi is so sharp with almost limitless dynamic range: it makes the GRD output look video like. With a light touch up of sky area grain with noise ninja and NPH is the winner in all areas.
The GRD, even at ISO 64, only wins on ease of output and X-ray damage fears.
However I'm not convinced that a 6 to 8 Megapixel DSLR with a 28 mm ( equiv. ) lens would do that much better, and would obviously be a lot larger.