Ricoh GX100

[alfarmer]

In my recent quest to test out & find a new P&S I looked at the GX100. What do

you do when you love everything about the camera -- except the image quality? Sigh.

 

Does the GRD2 produce any better images?

 

ALF

[michael s.]

Quite a few Ricoh compact users can be <a href=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1942>found over here</a>, often participating in discussions such as the one I linked. A significant number of photos are posted there as well.<p>

 

I've used neither camera, but have seen excellent photos from both. Curious what you didn't like about the GX100 images ?

[alfarmer]

In a word: noise. My GX100 images had as much noise as those no-name, sub-

$100 "specials" at Fry's. Especially in dark areas, it was just ridiculous -- even at

ISO 100.

 

You can probably get an ok image out of the camera if you shoot raw and do a lot of

post-processing, but that's one of those things I'd prefer to avoid if possible.

 

ALF

[michael s.]

Yes, noise has been noted in several things I've read as well, and it's certainly visible in some of the photos.<p>

 

Many of the photos I've seen and liked have been street photos converted to b & w, so the noise, while still there, is perhaps less troubling. That's a matter of personal taste, of course.<p>

 

Should point out <a href=http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1013>one more forum </a> where there are many Ricoh users and discussions, and posted photos as well.

[paul.droluk]

I had one (for a short while), and would agree regarding the noise. Really a shame,

as I thought the camera was very well made and it just felt good in operation. Even

shooting RAW and PP, the amount of noise and the coarseness of the noise was

unacceptable if you make prints. If all you do is post on the web, it's probably a

great little camera.

 

I was also hoping Sigma would have gotten it right with the DP1. Another let down...

great idea, less-than execution... so I'm still in the "waiting" camp.

 

It's amazing to me that no one has yet come out with a truly pocketable camera that

provides DSLR image quality... Imagine a Nikon with the D300 sensor, RAW

capture, a really high quality fixed (maybe collapsible) =35mm f2.0 lens (even f2.8

would be fine), and a good optical viewfinder. Basically a digital version of the Nikon

35Ti. Assuming comparable quality construction, I'm ready to pay $1000.

[michael s.]

Paul said:<p>

 

<< ... <i>Basically a digital version of the Nikon 35Ti. ... I'm ready to pay $1000.</i> ... >><p>

 

And that price might not be too far off the mark. My assumption is that's one reason we <u>won't</u> see cameras like this. The Sigma DP1 is close to $800 (?) with an f/4 prime lens and no optical finder at all.<p>

 

For those interested, an extended discussion of the Sigma <a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PXHf>took place on this recent thread</a> and included comments and photos, or links to photos, from some people using that camera very effectively.

[hjoseph7]

"It's amazing to me that no one has yet come out with a truly pocketable camera that provides DSLR image quality... "

 

I guess they have to figure out a way to squeeze a DSLR sensor into a P&S. The technology is not quite there yet, neither is lag-time, but I'm sure it will get there someday. Just hope it is under $300.

[alfarmer]

I certainly don't expect 5D-equivalent images from a P&S but I do expect an expensive P&S like the GX100 to produce AS good if not better images than three year old compact technology (Canon SD700IS).

 

But as people agree, the camera itself sure does "feel" right...

[alfarmer]

I've uploaded some samples from my Ricoh GX100. These are just casual shots while out & about with my son -- exactly the sorts of shots one would take with a pocketable P&S. These images are 100% crops from each of three pictures.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7374078&size=lg

 

The top two photos are "best case" scenarios, shot at ISO 100 with plenty of light. The one on the top left was taken in broad daylight outside the Flamingo Hilton. The one on the top right was taken inside Caesar's Palace with plenty of background lights AND a flash. I don't have the originals anymore, so these are the results AFTER I ran then through Noise Ninja.

 

The bottom image is more of a "worst case" scenario, taken at ISO 400 indoors. There was plenty of light coming in from the windows, however, and it was at the smallest possible f/stop. Trust me, you don't want to see anything beyond ISO 400. :-)

 

Anyhow, that's why I sent the Ricoh GX100 back and am waiting, hoping the GX200 will be the same but with better image output. Probably a pipe dream...

 

Oh yeah, the other thing I really disliked about the GX100 and hope they fix with a GX200 is the manual lens cap. Gah -- there's no excuse!

 

ALF

[alfarmer]

Note: the bottom picture has not yet been processed in any way, including Noise Ninja.

[michael s.]

<< ... <i>These images are 100% crops ... </i><p>

 

While I know it's commonly done, and I believe I understand why it's done, I don't judge a camera -- any camera -- by 100% crops.<p>

 

If you take the 100% crop, and extrapolate, you'll get an enormous photo -- typically a size that I don't print, but even if I did, a size that should not/would not be viewed at the distance I sit from my monitor.<p>

 

For me, the better test would be an actual print (after reasonable post-processing, acknowledging that what is "reasonable" differs from person to person), sized for the kind of printing I do (approx 8 x 10 for a compact digital camera), and/or a fairly large web-sized image. The print would be preferable.<p>

 

I know the analogy breaks down, but I can't judge a smile by looking at a close-up of an eye tooth.

[alfarmer]

The images don't look all that spectacular at full-res either until NR and other things have been applied. Even at 4x6 it would be very noticable on prints. I know because I've had noisy cameras in the past with similar issues and the prints were noticably problematic.

 

The reason I believe 100% crops are an important evaluation criteria is because they show sensor problems like this. Moreover, I tend to do a significant amount of cropping to get optimal composition so my images have to be able to "take it" to at least some degree.

 

ALF

[pbizarro]

You probably don't need full-frame 35mm size sensors in compact digicams to produce better image quality. I believe there would be a good improvement with a sensor about the size of the old Canon Pro 1, and about half of the current number of pixels (5 or 6 megapixels should be enough for compact camera use). Basically, with the current state of the technology, it should be possible to do better.

 

Camera brands have been developing and investing in more megapixels and features, but the expected image quality is lagging behind. I too was a bit frustrated with the GX100, not so much because of the noise (I rarely go to ISO 400), which I can handle, but by some of issues with the implementation of the exposure modes.

 

The sigma DP1 is one step in the right direction, but it is faulted by an outdated interface and handling technology. I still have high hopes for something like a digital Leica CM...

 

In my opinion, the two best digital compacts out there at the moment are the Canon G9 and the Ricoh GRDII. The Canon is a solid camera that will not let you down, and the fixed lens in the GRDII is superb.

[alfarmer]

Paulo, does the GRDII have less noise issues than the GX100?

 

ALF

[ray .]

If you want high grade smooth pics and low noise performance, get a 5D. Otherwise

you might try to work within the limitations of the Ricoh. You can make good pictures

with any camera, even a pinhole or plastic camera. In the end I don't think the GRD is

going to be that much different than the GX100. People have made great pics with the

Ricohs. I think they really shine with black and white images that can end up being

indistinguishable from photos made with Tri-X film.

[alfarmer]

Ray:

 

I have a 5D. I also have gone through a number of P&S cameras with better noise control than the GX100. Given the price and target audience, Ricoh is under-performing.

 

I'm not even sweating noise at ISO 400, but I do require low noise at ISO 100. That's not too much to ask -- even really old P&S cameras can do it.

 

Lastly, I disagree that you can make good pictures with ANY camera. Try an Emprex brand sometime, or any number of those kids' cameras. All quite unimpressive, regardless of the photographer.

[ray .]

Anthony, to tell the truth the photos you linked to weren't shot in the greatest light. Pretty flat. P&S

cameras do have limitations with regard to noise. But then dslr's have limitations because they're big and clumsy. You can

shoot real nice pics with any of these Ricohs given the right circumstance. I can get candid shots I just can't get with a 5D because it

takes just a flick

of the wrist to put the featherweight GRD where you want it and shoot. It's fast that way~ a nifty little machine, but not perfect.