Dear Carl,

Firstly, thank you for your Ricoh GX200 review. I agree this is a very special camera. I do not normally comment on reviews. However, you made a statement a few times which I feel may give your readers a false impression. You mention on page 5:

"User Control- Advantage Ricoh GX200. All image output is controllable in the menu system, including contrast, sharpness, color saturation for each setting including 3 custom memory settings. Definitely more control over the G10 which seems to try and appeal to the more "auto" crowd in comparison."

And on page 6, in the conclusion:

"The menu system gives the photographer the most choices of control over any other compact..."

"The GX200 gives you the most control of any fully featured compact available today in the lightest and smallest package..."

Frankly, the Canon G9 has control of the ISO outside of menus, and now with the G10 exposure compensation is also external. Additionally, these two cameras provide control of other parameters in much the same way as the Ricoh i.e. through a sub-set of the main menu, not buried in the main menu options. Additionally, the Canons have optical image stabilization which is superior to the sensor based design in the Ricoh. The G9 has the best movie mode of either of the other two cameras.

What really sets the GX200 apart is its compactness and 24mm wide angle lens.

Thanks for the review!

Your welcome! Glad to do it, it was fun.

In terms of ISO, EV comp, etc yes the G10 has that covered well. However, I was refering to the contrast, sharpness, noise reduction (G10 has no choice), saturation qualities of the images (jpeg output). The G10 only gives you one color mode to change some of those settings and it is pretty buried in my opinion. So I still feel the GX200 has much more control (and easier access) to image output parameters.

Edit: As well the GX200 has fast and efficent access via icons showing on the LCD for EV, ISO, WB, etc, with one press access via a toggle switch on the back. I find both cameras just as easy to access these settings (once you get used to both).

I cannot speak for the G9 since I didn't make a direct comparison, only the G10. However, I don't like the quick time movie format and feel it is a unpopular format to use for such a good camera.

Carl

Interesting review Carl. The image quality is better than I thought. Worth a peek for folks looking for something a bit more serious compact wise.

I'm very impressed that if you are in a pinch and the rechargeable lithium-ion battery that come with the GX200 goes dead on you, you can slip in two ubiquitous AAA batteries and be up and running. I found that it even works with the higher voltage lithium batteries (not to be confused with rechargeable lithium-ion). Lithium batteries are very light weight, work in very cold conditions, and have a much higher power per weight ratio then the battery that comes with it. I have not tested it, but I suspect that two lithium cells in the camera will outlast a freshly charged lithium-ion. I carry four AAA lithium batteries with me, housed in the plastic pack they come in. These batteries are so small and light weight that I keep them, and a spare memory card in the same case that stores my GX200. I do not use the case that Ricoh sells. Mine is a little bigger and more rugged. The shelf life on lithium batteries must be ridiculously long. I have a box that reads "Use by 2022".

Thank you Ricoh for building that convenient option into the camera. Every other manufacturer would rather you buy a spare battery from them!

Dave

Carl, congrats on another great review. This is well written and enjoyable to read, the GX200 seems to have really cemented Ricoh's position as a maker of high quality enthusiasts cameras.

Seeing the side by side images of the GX200 and G10 makes me realise that Ricoh have the better idea (to my mind at least) as to what photographers want- the G10 is huge! It's slightly bigger than the G9 which was/is about as big a compact as I'd use.

Lastly, on image quality the one thing I have been consistently amazed at is the DR of the camera, it's truly impressive for such a small chip! The snow scene that you've included in the image proves this point very well as it would have been kind of tricky.

Anyone tried rechargeable AAA, decent quality NiMH Batteries with the camera? Just wondering if they are a viable back up or additional power option. I know alkaline's would not last long (they never do), but NiMH should do much better

I don't know offhand if they are a manufacturer specification or not, but they do work :) And for how long, I don't know haven't given them a thorough testing yet.

Alkaline's last for about 30-40 shots, not great but might get you through a pinch in a shoot if you really need them. To me, the best option is just to buy another DB-60 rechargeable Lithium ION battery. Why? Well they are only about $35.00, it is lighter and smaller than a pair of AAA's so you can take it anywhere with you.

Yet if you forget it, and/or run out of juice, you can just buy some batteries and slap them in there :).

C

First up, on my blog http://ricoh-gx.blogspot.com/ I posted some photos of a scene by a GX200, LX3, G10, P6000 and DP1, which may add a perspective to your review about some of the issues like corner sharpness and vignetting.

Carl, what a coincidence that I am a Minolta user for almost 20-yr + also a GX200 user for some months. I just added a post on my blog to link to your informative review here :).

As a GX200 user for some time, I wish to add the following issues:
1) Corner sharpness
Gx200 does well in this area. But its JPEGs are sort of soft indeed. Shoot RAWs for more serious shots IMO. Refer to the same-scene photos mentioned above for a comparison. Oh, the link is here: http://ricoh-gx.blogspot.com/2008/11/your-market-research-here_04.html

2) Vignetting
Agree. GX200 is very well done. Again, see those photos.

3)ISO Performance
I wish the next GX will put a faster len at f2. I don't mind the high ISO noise (well, indeed, not really complimentary over ISO 400 but PP work will handle the noise) but a faster len will help a great lot in dim shooting ocassions.

4)Start-up Time
Not slow but on some ocassions I missed the shots because of that.

5)Shutter Priority Mode
Wish the next GX will put it there even though the lack of it can be worked around in M mode.

6)Fn and M123
GREAT features I must say. Take for example I set M1 to snapshot mode and it saves lots of shots I would have missed otherwise. Also remember to put one of the Fns as M Focus -> A Focus to be able to lock the focus easily. M2 for 1:1 format in Continous B&W, Colour, B&W (colour-filtered) mode. M3 for dedicated combination for special shots.

7)Portability and Controls
200 marks out of 100. No match whatsoever. After using the GX200, I even don't miss the controls on my Dynax7, which has been known for its great control.

8) Dataless black stripe
Untill the next instalment of firmware, the RAW will show the dataless black stripe when opened in some PP software.

9)AWB
This is about G10's. I tried it in the showroom and it's AWB is ugly. Was it my fault? Dunno.

Noise-wise, I am going to post nightshots of GX200 and the other serious compacts (incl. G1's) on my blog soon for a comparison. They should give some idea about GX200's noise.

Again, great work, Carl. By the way. Pavel's ricohforum is a great place for Ricoh users. As for my Minolta D7, it is still working well; and to some of you who gave advice to me to buy a A200 in dpreview, I didn't. The A900 is what I envy.

Good light!
Nevin

Seems we agree on many of the same issues and features. :) And thanks for the link, I had a look see on your site briefly as well.

One of the custom features I have is the FN1 button set to Snap focus (hyperfocal). When lighting situations make it tough for autofocus, or I don't want to worry about the camera having to lock on prior to taking a shot, I simply press the FN1 button and bam, mostly focused sharp for most shots. I assigned my FN2 button to toggle between Autofocus and Manual focus.

Since there are literally a myriad of combinations and choices for customization for the GX, it really gives you the impression that it is a custom design, all for you. Ricoh is intelligent engineering, hands down.

Some DSLR manufacturers (er hem!) could stand to take a notice on some of the design choices Ricoh has implemented.

For the next GX, I'd like to see one of the newer generation sensors that seem to perform miracles at higher ISO's like the Canon G10s. NOT necessarily the resolution, but the performance. 12mp is plenty. Could be Canon's processing extracting out the better ISO performance, but most likely it is a majority of the sensor's design (imo). This could help sales at Ricoh a bit more too possibly in the US. I'd never use the higher ISO's but for some who live there, it would be welcome.

Carl

Thank you for your very comprehensive review. I am at the end of my second year with a GX100 and love it. Should it need replacing the GX200 will be the one.
I have exhibited A3 plus images from the 100 and it never fails to impress even alongside my A900.
One wonderful piece of design (amongst many) from the system is the new collapsable lens cap.
If you have not tried one DO IT the ad on viewfinder is also great for candids in the vertical position.

David

lack of shelf life. If they have just been charged they work. If you have been carrying a pair with you as an emergency power source when your lithium-ION runs out of power you might be disappointed. While not rechargeable, the Lithium batteries will still have a full long lasting charge, even if they have sitting idle for years. True, Lithium-Ion batteries also seem to hold their charge for a long time.

It's great that Ricoh has built the flexibility into their camera to give us all these options.

Dave

If I like the resulting JPG at all, I work with the DNG RAW image to make the final image I want. With that in mind, is there a particular settings that preserves the most information of the captured image? I'm taking about the Settings as explained on page 117 of the GX200 user Guide. To tell the truth, I just discovered that I have this option. I have been using the default Auto Levels since I got this camera and have been doing OK, but now I wonder if there a better setting and under what conditions they should be used.

Carl, what has been your experience with this?

Dave

Carl,
As always your reviews are always a pleasure to read. I have for some time looked forward to this one. It is clearly obvious that Ricoh has addressed the majority of the issues plagued by Sony, Canon, Nikon and Leica in the point and shoot world.

One thing I have noticed about the Ricoh lines are very popularity in Japan. It’s not as popular in the US. I think its because not enough major sellers carry the Ricoh Line.

As dedicated as I have been to my Leica M8 as my point and shoot camera, I am convinced the Ricoh’s supper compact size has a serious upper hand in the market. I am sold and have ordered.

Its true you can teach an old dog new tricks. THANKS!
AJ

I agree with you on Ricoh, they are more popular in Japan. In fact, Ricoh have told me that very same thing.

I am really looking forward to your impression of it AJ. I don't know of anyone personally that has bought one and not been satisfied yet. I've read dissatisfied reports on other forums, but they were limited to buyers who wanted excellent high ISO performance. Clearly, this camera is not meant for that type of crowd unless you desire a lot of grain in certain types of photos.

I'd give my right arm to borrow your M8 :)

Carl

Are you using CS2 to process the photos? If so I can tell you what I typically do to the raw file prior to finishing it up and converting it to tiff/jpeg.

Carl

Thank you Carl,

I should point out that I do not use PhotoShop to perform the the RAW to Tiff conversion. I use a Mac Application called "RAW Developer" (not made in a PC version).

I use RAW Developer to get a Tiff image very close to the final image I want. RAW Developer has a image sharping tool called R-L deconvolution that runs some kind of algorithm that, to my eye, improves the effective focus without adding noise or "grain". It also has a curve tool that I like a little better than the PS curve tool. This program then saves the image as a Tiff file and also opens PS (CS) for me where I typically use the Shadow fixer just a tad or the other PS tool as needed to get my final image.

My question was directed at finding out which of the GX200's "Image Settings" (page 117 of the GX200 Camera User Guide) preserves the most useful data so I can then manipulate that once I get it out of the camera to get the optimum photo to my eye and under my control.

My concern is that perhaps some of the GX200 "Image Settings" use Algorithms much like the ones used in JPG conversion to alter the appearance of the image. I do not want to surrender any such control to the camera, if I can do it myself. I guess I'm bit of a control freak.

BTW, "RAW Developer" knows about the GX200 and the A100-A900 line of cameras and defaults to settings optimum for the camera that took the picture. I typically need only to run the R-L deconvolution sharping tool and punch up the color saturation a tad to get an image I'm pleased with.

Dave

I've seen many review comments on different sites speaking to the optical stabilization (canon, nikon) vs the sensor stabilization, seemingly always stating that optical is better. I've mostly seen this on reviews for the A200 comparing it to the Canon and Nikon price range equivalents. I would really like to see evidence of this. This seems to be personal opinion of many, and not to say that it is wrong, it would be interesting to have a quantitve (if possible, such as how many stops better one is over the other) comparison rather than simply a qualitative opinion. In my opinion, even if the optical is slightly better (when dealing with DSLRs in this case), the in-camera sensor stabilization offers the best solution as even older high quality minolta lenses can benefit from the technology, whereas with the optical, you must have the right lenses (which are generally more expensive than the lenses without it). Has anybody seen such a comparison of the two technologies?

Carl,
To compliment your great review, I would like to point out that if readers wish to learn more about the night ISO (or DIS?)ability of GX200, I posted the message "Nightshots Comparison" here
http://ricoh-gx.blogspot.com/2008/11/nightshots-comparison-gx200-vs-g10-vs.html

As my belief is that in real life situation most amateurs (not ALL of course) shoot in JPEGs (hey YES shooting RAWs with GX200 gives better result but you need to handle the PP work) and view them not at 100% magnification, I just garnered the rightly sized JPEG nightshots. They give an overview to readers if they are looking for a serious compact about how those compacts fare in dim light. Of course, noise is just one of the aspects of the cameras and don't judge them only because of the noise issue unless you shoot 90% in dim light settings. Judge a camera by what they can do! And GX200 can do A LOT!

Nevin

I can tell you first hand that the CSC (camera shake correction) in the GX200 works noticably better than the G10's stabilzation. It cant be because of the resolution difference, because it really isn't that great of a difference. It just flat out works better compared in the same focal lengths both cameras do have in common, 28-72mm.

Unscientifically, about a stop better for the Ricoh. It works surprisingly good.

Carl

Thanks Carl, appreciate the quick reply. Would the comparison on the alpha series with the Canon and Nikon competitors be difficult to perform? I'm really curious if they are comparable and the hype of optical stabilization for Canon and Nikon is simply hype (people just being brand snobbish) or if there is truth to the claims.

Cheers, and thanks for the great reviews. I'll be posting my picture for the transport contest soon, I just have to decide on the right one. As a new Sony A200 owner (previous SLR experience was with a Canon EOS 3000), I really enjoy the site's articles. The contests are really cool, and look forward to participating.

Marc

On your question with the DSLR comparison for image stabilization-

If I were to do a comparison, I would do it in my usual fashion. I'd get out and take a lot of pictures with all 3 brands with different lenses and focal lengths etc to get a good impression. I'd need similar spec'd DSLRs with similar lenses, perhaps a cross brand like Tamron, to do some evaluations. Or even better yet would be to get a Canon or Nikon dslr with an image stabilized lens that had the same focal length, as one of the Sony models (if there are any).

Mine (evals) as you know aren't scientific. I believe you can get a very good impression to which system would work better by just using them quite a bit over a varied set of circumstances, keeping the evaluation pretty simple. I'd need the equipment to do it, and I'm fresh out of Canon or Nikon DSLR's at the moment :). Perhaps if I come across any, I'd like to do it, for fun, and to see for myself what the hype is all about. My thoughts are that the conclusion would be that both systems have advantages at various focal lengths, the neither would reign supreme over the other. Simply different designs that tackle the same issue differently, know what I mean? But I'd try it out, for sure.

How are you liking that A200? And I am glad you like the articles, nice to have contributions from Barry and Andrew here too :). Looking forward to your entry in the contest. Good luck!

Carl

This is a fine camera, I wouldn't look here if I was thinking to buy one though.

In the review I tried to explain why I thought it would be a good camera to review here: A full featured compact as a backup to our Alpha DSLRs. I'd have done a Sony which might have seemed more appropriate (yet that still wouldn't be defined as an Alpha), yet Sony doesn't make a good compact like this anymore. So I had to pick from the best of the lot.

Eric and I both like Ricoh as compacts and wanted to add something to our site here about them, we both think it is worth sharing.

Carl

Maybe we should email sony and ask

"Why don't you make a compact for more serious users"?? I cannot understand this myself, considering Sony has a strong presence in the compact market, you would think they would have something higher end. Strange, very strange..

:) And I've yet to get an answer.
It isn't like them to not email back on a subject at all so it seems a little weird they haven't. I think a successor to the V3 would be a great idea, right now.. but off hand I'd venture a rumor that Alpha is the reason they aren't doing anything. Don't want to spoil any of those sales right?

Carl

carl:
1. as usual, excellent review.

2. i really loved the sony V3, but then due to various reasons--> migrated to the GX 100 last year, which was good enough for me to get the GX200 recently.

3. benefits of the GX200 over the GX100: faster RAW write times (which is the only reason i got it), ability to shoot RAW consecutively (a few), better LCD, several improved menu features, more versatile flash options.

4. negatives of GX200 over the GX100: noise--> in reality, anything about 200 is unusable in my book, even with noise ninja (esp in color; you might get away with it in BW). the other odd / strange issue that i've noticed with the GX200 is the very marginal auto white balance performance. i can take shots in sunny conditions with a whibal and then when processing the image (DNG)--> the "as shot" color temperature can be 1500K above reality (when compared to the gray card reading). other folks have noticed similar problems and thus have reverted to using adobe's DNG profiler application to create a custom ACR profile (or something like that) for the GX200. question: is there anything else less drastic i can do to deal with this issue? (oh yea, i also would like to avoid having to take a whibal shot all the time; kind of takes away from carrying around a little camera etc...)

thanks for any comments / suggestions. harry

Thats a first. If anything the outdoor shots are slightly cool to me. Got any samples to show or something (if so please post in the Ricoh forum, I would really like to see some)?

Less drastic would be to do a manual white balance reading on a white card, and not use auto white balance if you really think it is off outdoors by that much. Honestly a bit shocked reading that.

My experience and reading on the GX on the net, all state color is very very good and very natural outdoors. Sorry disagree with your findings here.

Also, Id like to see some side by side comparisons of the GX100 vs the GX200 on a noise "negative". From what I saw of both they were about even. With resolution differences there may be some more noise perceived dunno, but they seem pretty close to me. Either way, ISO 200 is my last usable color limit as I stated also in the review, so we agree there.

Carl

I agree with you about the review of this little camera. I would like you to add the JPG settings you used for your shots. I am still trying to get good JPG straight from camara, and by the moment I only have clear that the AWB is a bit cool for my taste and the colour can be set to -1, maybe the sharpenning too.

Regards from Gsaronni

I wonder what is in store for us with the next model?

Great review, thank you