Resized for web, 1200 pixels wide, and quality 10 in CS2. Other than that what you see is what you get.

NR-off, ISO-100. Auto WB, Aperture Priority Mode

Sample 1-Macro Mode (corner of the GX200 Manual, could have got closer)

Sample 2- Black and White Mode, -1 sharpness, contrast even -0-

Sample 3- Color (nothing much special here), sky is pretty clean of blue noise even at ISO 100, no clipping.

Not much special about the test images, but what I can tell so far is that the GX200 is capable of very good image quality at the lowest ISO's. Prints to 13x19 are going to be detailed. And thats just the jpegs. I will play more this weekend with it, in raw etc, and see what it really is capable of.

Don't know how many of you might be interested in a compact. And I know it isn't a Sony (please don't scold me), but I just couldn't relate to what Sony had to offer under the DSLRS, at all. My V3 is getting dated, finally but is still a camera I would bring with me without hesitation. But the Ricoh just flat out outperforms it in usable features internally. The fact that you can attach a LCD Viewfinder, or an Optical Viewfinder (if you can find one) trumps the Sony too.

Since Sony is so focused on Alpha, I don't think they will offer or compete in the compact segment for quite some time. The P/S line is a good lineup but I wanted something more advanced than that. H50 too big, UI too un-intuitive, no raw, no real wide angle (under 30mm). Oh well!

So anyways, If there is genuine interest here, I can do more of a real review if you prefer, just let me know (I might just do one anyways for Ricoh, they deserve a hand).

Carl

hehe...
But seriously.. I think one must keep an open mind when it comes to these types of purchases. I am a loyal Sony user I am however not married to them. I think Sony has done a fairly good job with the dslr line and with you I think the compact side has not moved forward enough to justify buy one (h50). Its you money and your use that should dictate any purchase. Makes me think of a line from the movie "Tommy Boy" when it is selling brakes to one guy and the buyer makes a commit about the competition and the warranty and Tommy comes back with a line something like : you can put crap in a box and put a warranty on it but in the end you still have a crappy product. Not to say Sony is crappy but to stay loyal and not use sound judgment is not a winning formula. My 2 cents.... Can't wait to see and hear of the results..

Happy Shooting
Kevin

Hi there

A full review would be nice. I am very interested.

I am still doubting whether to buy the gx200 or the GR D I.

Do you also have got the Ricoh GR D?

I just bought into Ricoh for the first time, I've always only had Sony equipment (in the digital age). So I just picked up the R8 and GX200. I might have a GX100 to compare as well (not mine but possibly available). Other than that I leave it to Ricoh to help us out (only have so many of our own funds for camera equipment, everything comes out of my (our) pocket). I hope to get one soon, however.

Carl

Looks interesting..

What scares me with some of the Ricoh cameras, is well...these stories of dust on sensors, gear problems on the lens, rubber grips falling off, and a good few of them, on DP. Did have a pal who went through 3 R6's, with problems. Maybe its not so bad as it sounds.

I tried a GX-100, and it was pretty nice, DR was a problem though..so I decided to pass. Wonder if this one is any better? I see its £400 odd over here, you can get a sony SLR for a lot less ;-)

I've also heard Ricoh is pretty good to work with as well, but I dunno. Guess I'm going to find out. Eric has a GX100 so he can chime in when he gets a chance. I never got a chance to see his raw files so I don't know what the DR is capable of.

My impression in just a few images is that the DR is better than I expected (from such a crammed small sensor), but I am not looking for A200 DR either to be honest. Price, well, yeah... not as good as the A200, yet this is a completely different segment of camera.

It also out specs the A200 internally, quite a little marvel honestly. The digital level feature is, well... "tits" (pardon the expression, it isn't mine I just borrow it). The LCD on the back same size but more rich detail. Two custom buttons (I put B/W on the top button so I can have instant access to custom B/W settings). And much more.

However, I completely separate the two cameras. The A200 is (imo) the best IQ Sony has come up with yet. I have grown to like it more than the A700 (by a hair), don't know if is the CCD or what. Not to say that the A700 doesn't have its advantages in IQ over the A200, it certainly does. And I seem to flip flop here so don't take me for being in stone on it.

For what I want it personally for (compact light system for long hikes and bike rides), it will do just fine. I want to dive into the RAW files this weekend after I get some image sale chores completed (and another surprise for the site here). Ill keep this thread updated looks like there is at least some interest although I'd like to see a little more to pull out a full review.

Time is a commodity nowadays more than ever, I have to allocate it carefully :).

Carl

P.S. an interesting conclusion to the GX200 on the net : http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_ricoh_gx200_6.php

You actually might find these features interesting. Seems Ricoh is more accommodating to the b/w photographer than most others.

It has two B/W settings.

One normal B/W setting with 5 way settings available for contrast and sharpness (not bad, and all I'd expect, normally)
And
A B/W (TE) setting that gives you the above and 5 color filter settings as well, sepia, red, green, blue, purple. It also adds a "color depth" setting, 5 way adjustable when you want to get creative with duotone.

You can also correct image distortion for the w/a lens, and standard lens in camera :) Thats pretty cool.

I am very interested in the B/W output of this camera, especially in Raw. Lots of settings to play with, including a full off on NR, image sharpness and contrast etc... I'm hoping I can achieve some good results out of camera with the amount of control the GX offers.

Carl

Hopefully the build quality is better with these models than with the Caplio -series, they're one of the worst cameras by the material quality I've seen, just like Bfitzgerald just wrote a little bit earlier.

Well I have not had much time with ricoh cameras, so I wouldn't want to make too many comments. I do see some very neat things, yes the raw is something that is nice, optics are looking good..from my brief play. Some ricoh owners appear to be moaning a bit on the jpeg side (see dp for soft jpeg comments), but then with raw, you can bypass that anyway. I agree there is a market for a compact camera, with a nice WA and some decent features. Sometimes I tire of carrying a bag of stuff too ;-)

Post some b&w shots when you get the chance carl..I see some owners use that square format too, and the filters etc. And there are some fine photos on the ricoh forum. Though as ever, one wonders if that is down to the photographer..rather than just the camera! But keep posting stuff, I wont dismiss it yet, I have some interest in it, even if it is a tad pricey for a compact.

Carl, i would like to see a full review of the GX200 as well. And guess what: I just ordered the GX200
hoping it can fulfill my needs - i need something small delivering good PQ.
Had the DP1 for two weeks - no doubt a nice and good camera - but
not versatile enough.
So i'll stay tuned waiting for your critics and praises on the GX200.
Thank you.

Bob

We'll see what I can get together then :)

This thought just occured to me as well when thinking why I ended up buying a GX.

There is no coincidence that Canon, Nikon, Sony have hardly any compact cameras in the "current" category that support Raw format. Canon has the G9, but isn't that all? Or did I miss something from Nikon?

I haven't checked on all the manufactures yet, but there are only a handful that still do. Ricoh and Panasonic/Leica/Olympus are the only ones that come to mind.

Funny, and Canon, Nikon, Sony are all after each other in the DSLR segment.

Too coincidental?

Cropped on top and bottom from a jpeg, processed on laptop color probably off.

Carl

Very nice Carl, colors look good on my mac. nice and rich color and I like the silhouette of the forward range..
Nice
Kevin

I need to get this laptop calibrated, only, there is only so much you can do with a laptop monitor (they seem inferior for PP work compared to a good CRT).

Good to see at least it seems nice on your end :).

Cant believe I got that shot going 70mph on the fwy, hehe.

Carl

This is very good for almost flying....:) Rich as in nice and vivid and not over processed.
Happy Shooting
Kevin

Just had a chance to look at it on my CRT, not too shabby (color). Has a nice mood to it.

Appreciate the feedback.

Carl

Carl,
I would leave it as is. A slight lack of blue can sometimes add a little drama to photos taken in late afternoons or early morning. Almost like darks in black and white film. Occasionally shadows prevail in photos and add what I call mood to photographs . As you already know, the whole point of photograph is to paint with light! The photo is good, very good. Realistically nice silhouette of mountain ranges need to be taken a little dark to keep from blowing the highlights in this photograph, witch you did fantastically. The lights in this photo are absolutely on target.
Color is pretty darn close!! Looks good from my viewpoint. True precise monitor calibration is important especially if you are going to do print or any submissions with print, or digital transfer via Internet. I highly recommend Apple with color calibration software from Datacolor or Gretag McBeth and Photo shop CS3. Bit map algorithms are a little different with Apple, {just a little}, than the PC monitor calibration. (Hope this does not start a war with PC owners). <{:-)~:::::::::

I had heard a few months back that Ricoh was coming out with a new (GX-200) to replace the previous 100. You have the first post on this camera as far as I know. I am quite interested in what Ricoh has done with digital. I have but one Ricoh camera, Ricohflex VIIs. A twin Lens Reflex (TLR) in 6X6 format, which I occasionally use and produces phenomenal images.

I came very close to picking up the GX-100 but opted to go an entirely different rout. Earlier this year I picked up a slightly larger camera in size, and opted to spend some serious money on the Leica M8 w/ 50mm f/1.0 and 90mm f/2.0. (And yes the wife had a cow). LOL (This is not exactly a point and shoot camera but much smaller than the Alpha w/vertical grip).

I look forward to your final assessments on this camera. I seriously want one of the GX200 but I will wait for your final review. Of all the Point and Shoots out today, it is my hopes you can convince me to invest into Ricoh once again.

Thanks for serving up this review.
I look forward to more!!!
AJ

Glad you like the photo.

A brief history for you why I decided on Ricoh- I have been wanting a small compact for quite some time with a w/angle lens, full featured control, and preferred raw (although an X-Fine jpeg setting or Tiff would have been the minimal). Sony hasn't had anything in this category Raw the size I wanted since the V-3 (pity), which I have actually. But I wanted a bit more resolution, a better LCD (V-3's is 2.5" but only 115K pixels), and some neat new modern features and actually a bit smaller than the V3. The lens on the Ricoh is top notch, hardly any barrel distortion (no field use issues at all), sharp, no light falloff or vignetting. Perfect! A true 24mm wide angle (16mm APS-C) for landscapes was a major selling point, although 28mm would have fit my bill.

Since Sony isn't committed to the compact segment in the same way it used to be, I had to look elsewhere and considered a review here of another brand for those who want a compact for similar reasons to the Alpha DSLRs they already have.

My opinion is that the GX series cameras are what serious compact shooters are looking for. Light (238 grams), fully featured (and more!), comfortable, well built, excellent screen yadda yadda. They seem to be committed to this segment. Therefore they seem to me to be about the best out there when compared to the competition (G9 is nice but bigger and heavier, Pana LX2 is nice, no EVF or OVF options-questionable processing/smearing of images). So although those 3 are close, I believe the GX is the most versatile and complete package.

Ultimately, I'd still like something with a larger sensor and keep it at 10mp and under in at 3:2 format, but it will do for now quite well. I will need to use it for at least a couple of weeks extensively so I can get a better "footprint" from the new brand/model (for me), so I can be more objective in the review.

Solid first impression though!

Congrats on that Leica btw, price has always kept me away from it but it doesn't mean I don't lust after it! I'd be scared to take it out of the house.. perhaps in the same way as a pristine Red Barchetta :).

Carl

As I continue to get to use and get to know the GX200, I will share my notes openly here (as I do sometimes prior to publishing a review).
So far I have noted-

-Jpegs are very good at low ISO's, best to set camera to "soft" settings and keep NR off. Also when possible back off sharpness -1
-Dynamic range better than expected, especially on Raw files

-1/2000th max shutter speed should be 1/4000th in my opinion

-Raw write times are about 2 seconds, completely acceptable for a compact

-DNG format nice to work with in CS2

-Color generally not over saturated in "normal mode"

-Auto White balance is decent indoors

-Macro mode is superb

-Hunts for focus at full telephoto and has a hard time locking on to anything but very pronounced high contrast subjects
-Manual focus mode is excellent

-Digital Level feature is excellent, w/visual only/visual w/sound/ sound only confirmation (on all the time now for me).

More to follow! Got a couple decent shots already building up.

Carl

Hi Carl,

This looks very interesting and your first impressions make for good reading. The Ricoh cameras seem to be tapping a semi-niche in the market. As you say the G9 is bigger and weighs more. The macro mode is one of the strong selling points on the Ricoh cameras- 1 cm at the wide end. So far the posted samples seem nice, especially like the landscape you posted as the colours on that are great.

Cheers,
Andrew

so far so good (want to save some enthusiasm and criticism for the review)... the G9 would be much better if it had wide angle, and Canon has to know that. The days of sticking the same ol same ol design are gone unless there is a good reason for sticking.

Interesting going from one extreme (dslrs) back to compacts. At least this is a good mission to ride out. I think every photographer would like to have a capable and impressive compact camera to rely on once in a while.

Carl

Carl,

I couldn't agree more about the G9. The lack of wide angle is a real pain, especially as I'm coming from a DSLR with a Sigma 10-20mm ;-) If they gave it a sharp 28mm wide angle all would be sweet, but alas it's not the case.... G10 maybe...

Andrew

Macro and Sepia shots

Sepia processed from a raw file, to jpeg resized.

Plenty of DR in the images, and plenty of detail. ISO 100 shots first two, 64 for the 3rd.

Well, sounds like you like the GX-200 better than the DSC-V3. How is it purely from an image quality viewpoint?

I am still debating when to take the V3 and when to take the A100, when I go to certain places. Noone pays the V3 any attention, but the A100 with that large 17-50/2.8 gets noticed. Plus it's really heavy. And won't fit in my pocket.

IQ in high ISO V3 wins I suppose.

The wide angle really sells the Ricoh to me, the extra resolution and features and 2.5 aperture are all icing on the cake :)

C

I found a thread on dpreview (can I mention that here? ;-) ) where they were arguing about the merits of DSLR vs. P&S. And as much as I love the IQ of my DSLR (I really like the A100), it's hard to argue with the size of my V3. The IQ isn't bad either. If you need to squeeze the best out of it, there is a RAW mode that is worth using.

no worries :)!

Yep up to a certain point its hard to say one is better than the other.

I'd only say that bigger prints look better, and you much more control and speed over the final outcome vs. a p/s.

No question there are compromises with a compact, I mean, thats kinda what it is all about! But, when you need to go minimalist, and still retain IQ that passes your own final exam (just), I think that is when you grab your p/s. A simple day out, not much thought, a lightweight set up w/90% of the final IQ of a DSLR. Thats saying somethin'.

V3 is a great cam, such a pity it doesn't go wider, or have just a bit more resolution.

After using the GX200, it makes it difficult to go back to it (in low iso's). I'll keep it around though, no way I'm getting rid of it, ever. I'll find a niche spot for it. Raw files are good to 13x19 processed correctly, the meat and potatoes of my sales (size).

Carl

Looks pretty good Carl..

What happened to the R8 though?? (ebay!)

Any samples of those b&w filters??

R8 is on reserve, anything with full manual control this cool gets the priority :)

Working on getting to know it, ill include some filter shots in the review, or may just post some for you.

Looking at the grain in raw thinking "hmmm, I wonder if Barry would like the grain pattern here?" I think you might actually. If you don't mind shooting low ISO, it is much like ISO 200-400 on the A200 at 64-100. But breaks up at 200, and isn't my style at all at 400.

The look of the images is intriguing though, processed differently than Sony, more.... artistic in nature.

My only real gripe now with it is the autofocus at telephoto's, it seems to have trouble locking, but darned if I cant get it to duplicate the problem... yet. Good thing it has a great MF/snap focus option.

C

Not completely happy with the color of the first try (done on a non-calibrated laptop), I wanted to finish this shot up. Processed from a jpeg (I will be shooting everything in raw now), it came out ok. I resized the image larger for printing if it is a requested image. If it were a raw file I would be ecstatic, but nevertheless I am happy. Single shot, not a doubled/tripled pano.

Here is a larger and newly processed version of the shot I took before.