noise, a privelege from Ricoh?

[lucridders]

Hello, I am new to this forum and I was buying a few months ago the GX100. I have to say that I was buying because I found lots of good critics on the internet about Ricoh. Now that I have it a few months, I have to say that the weekness of this camera seems to be for a lot of people the reason why they buy it. I have several complains:
1- Noise is at an unacceptable high level and has nothing to see with a film grain as sometimes mentioned on the internet. This is noise in maybe the most worst level I ever saw.
2- Sharpness is missing, or you need to take a picture where you can not notice it. There is that much noise that nobody can find a good algoritm to make those images sharp. It seems they they need to look around a little bit to other manufacturers!!!!
3- The software is missing quite a lot of tools that you do not understand why they do not put this in the camera. Per example the bracketing for EV. This is settable at 0.3? Why not up to 2 so that HDR can be used!!! So we have lots of small issues missing in this camera.
4-EVF = very bad. Do they use this themselves while testing a camera. I do not think so otherwise they have to discover it themselves quite soon. They use a separate EVF = good idea in fact. But why not using an EVF that is a little bit bigger????
5-Ricoh seems to be the company who is doing the most new firmware of all. This says a lot about the testing they do in advance!!! = No testing. When on the otherhand making new firmware, it is all the time that kind of new firmware that is not giving you more control over the settings or similar things. Just a few stupid adjustments that you can miss in fact.
6- Wobbling lens. Do not tell me that this is normal. Yes it is normal when you make things in the cheapest way. Do not also tell me that this is not affecting the picture quality regarding sharpness!!!
7- Flash is worthless. Is it in the year 2007 still impossible to make a flash that is controlled by the camera si that over-exposure is eliminated??? You have a good strong flash but you can not use it right away, untill you change the EV with even 2 stops???? Whats the difference between normal flash and soft flash, seems that it is not quite different in the tests I made!!! So, again an example that cameras where not tested before selling.
So, I have still a few other points (at least 10) but this will bring us to far. Anyhow, this is a camera that is below average and far below. I saw also a topic here from a consumer that is also asking to put lots of things more in the firmare. I have to say that he is completely right.

Also some good things:
1- Build quality is very good
2- some good and nice controls to make it easy while taking pcitures.
3- good strong flash, but not possible to use as it is overexposing the pictures all the time.

Conclusion:
All advertsing about this camera is just overacted. Could be a good camera (when studied first as it has to be) but in the way they sell it now, it is not a camera of 2007!!!

I found that Ricoh was selling a new camera, the R7 They advertised with a new processing engine making less noise. To see if it was correct, I bought one and I have to say that this camera with the so called new engine is making noise also as no other brand. So, in the future, I stop buying from Ricoh untill they solve those major problems.

I will go on by using my old sony 717, is 5Mp but working much better.

 

[forward]

I have been using compact digital cameras for quite a while and decided on the Canon G2 for my
first purchase. That was a couple of years ago. The camera at that time cost S$1,300.00 and it is
a 4 megapixel camera with RAW facility. It was one of the best in terms of output in colour.
What attracted me to the camera is its 3x zoom and the movable screen for that special angle shot.

When I heard about the GX100 with its viewfinder, super ultra wide angle and a standard 24mm f/2.5
lens and a 3x zoom I was overwhelmed and bought it after reading good comments not only from
seasoned digicam users but from pro photographers claiming that it's a good backup camera to their
DSLR because it's a 10 megapixel with RAW capability.

It is almost three months now and I have shot more than 3500 images already. I find that despite its
imperfections I still find that this is one of the best 10 megapixel camera for my style of shooting. It
is much smaller than the Canon G2, G3, G5, G6, G7 or the G9. Photographers find that the ultra wide
angle attachment itself and together with the standard 24mm f/2.5 is worth every bit of money we
pay for. The above is my humble opinion as an end user.

 

[lrcphoto]

Hi ..
I would agree with forward's take on the GX100. I've been shooting for many years and still do b+w medium format stuff. I got a couple of Olympus dslrs a while back but decided I wanted a point and shoot for vacations etc. Did a lot of reading/research and settled on the GX100. Sure, above iso 200 noise can be a problem but in general this is a great little camera with a superb lens (if you keep it below 50mm and f5.6). I've shot about 500 photos in 2 months and have yet to see any significant chromatic aberation or purple fringing (!!!) even in very high contrast scenes. This little lens handles things better than my "semi-pro" (expensive, but not the most expensive) dslr lenses!
I shoot raw and have been experimenting with different converters. As far as noise goes the best performer (certainly for chroma noise) is the Capture One 4 public beta. The others I've tried (Lightroom, Raw Therapee, Lightzone) seem to smear (particularly high iso) chroma noise. The results I get at iso 800 for example are similar to pushing a 400asa b+w film to 800asa in terms of "grain" with Capture One. Hey, print one of those and people think its art !
I tend to fix luma noise in post processing and then often selectively (e.g. skies only). Either Noise Ninja or Noiseware do a good job there. I also often do selective sharpening for print and in many cases I feel people oversharpen digital images - I hate halo's - and of course this accentuates the noise.
I've just returned from a 2 week vacation. I took the dslr outfit and the GX100. Shot 300 or so pix (between 80iso and 800iso) and the dslrs didnt make it out of their bag. Stick with it, play with different software and techniques, and you may end up loving this little camera.
Regards, Roman

 

[luis patricio]

noise, a privelege from Ricoh?

Yes, and i like it!

PS - You have a "Buy, Sell & Trade" section in this forum! Brand change is always an option! Good luck!

 

[lucridders]

It seems that after writing my opinion about the GX100 everybody is thinking that I do not like this camera. No, in the opposite. The only thing I do not aree is the way of working that all camera manufactureres are doing and I give you some examples:
-When iso 400 is not usable, why putting it as an option to use.
-When the best is up to F5.6, why allowing than more settings.
I think we have to change our mentality regarding the digital cameras made now in general. When I have a camera that can can work up to F22 it has to do his job, same for ther settings.
I know very well that whe you compare the GX100 to others, it is surely one of the best cameras. But still I do not accept some behaviors in it.
So, people, do not think I do not love the GX100.

 

[forward]

It seems that after writing my opinion about the GX100 everybody is thinking that I do not like this camera. No, in the opposite. The only thing I do not aree is the way of working that all camera manufactureres are doing and I give you some examples:
-When iso 400 is not usable, why putting it as an option to use.
-When the best is up to F5.6, why allowing than more settings.
I think we have to change our mentality regarding the digital cameras made now in general. When I have a camera that can can work up to F22 it has to do his job, same for ther settings.
I know very well that whe you compare the GX100 to others, it is surely one of the best cameras. But still I do not accept some behaviors in it.
So, people, do not think I do not love the GX100.

I am glad you clear the misunderstanging. Now let me see if I can be of help in the areas you mentioned.

When iso 400 is not usable, why putting it as an option to use.

When almost all of the other brands are giving the consumer the options of going to higher ISO, one has to
do so in order to compete effectively. If you don't need the high ISO, you don't have to use it, but when you
really need it, it is a bonus that the camera has it. Moreover there will still be a large number of consumers
that will find the higher ISO very useful in their style of shooting especially in high grain effect. In the film
days, many seasoned black and white shooters preferred the grainy effect which you can find it almost
similiar in digital form (noise) in the GX100. Consumers can opt not to use the higher ISO if they don't
need it. The higher ISO thingy is a must for most of the top DSLRs and currently the game is to go as high
as ISO6400 or even higher. In the film days photographers have even managed to reach ISO12800 through
using special pushed processing using certain film developer.

When the best is up to F5.6, why allowing than more settings.

The optimum aperture of any lens is two to three stops from the biggest aperture. When the lens largest
aperture is f/2.8 then the optimum aperture will be f/5.6. If the largest aperture of the lens is f/4 then the
optimum aperture is f/8. The advantage of having a lens with bigger aperture is the ability to capture
scenes in very low ambient lighting conditions using the camera handheld. The larger aperture will allow
handheld photography at higher shutter speed. For example one can shoot a decently sharp picture
hand holding the camera at 1/8 sec at f/2.5 or f/2.8. But if you lens is only f/5.6 your shutter speed will
be 1/2sec and you will be getting a blurred picture if you handhold your camera.

When you work with small aperture like f/16, f/22 or even f/32 only small amount of light can enter the
lens. You will have to use a tripod because the exposure will be long. The smaller the aperture you use
the longer you will have to expose the subject in order to get a correct exposure. Sometimes in
large format photography aperture like f/64 is often used and the exposure time can be 15 minutes
or longer.

With the GX100 or GRD once you add a polarizing filter and shoot in manual mood using very small aperture
in a very low light condition you will find the exposure is exceeding one or two seconds you will have to
use a tripod too. But with a larger aperture the exposure time will be shorter. If the exposure time
is above 1/4sec one may crab the shot quickly with hand hold photography.

The behavior that most consumers find annoying in the GX100 is that the lens seems not to be in a fixed
position and for this Ricoh will have to give us an explanation. But the quality of the lens even at wide
aperture is beyond my expectation.

 

[lucridders]

Yes, I agree, lens is very, very good compared with lots of camera brands on the market.

 

[lucridders]

I was doing more tests with the GX100 and I have to say that noise above iso 800 is really unacceptable has nothing to see with a grain as some people will call it. I would suggest that when a manufacturer can not handle iso 800 or more, to just take away those functions.

 

[forward]

I was doing more tests with the GX100 and I have to say that noise above iso 800 is really unacceptable has nothing to see with a grain as some people will call it. I would suggest that when a manufacturer can not handle iso 800 or more, to just take away those functions.

It would be more of interest to us if you can kindly post pictures of your tests.
Ricoh may want to go away from what Canon is doing. They are following what serious photographers
want in a camera. The fact that pro photographers got this camera as a backup is good enough to prove that
higher ISO availability is important in certain shooting situation especially in low light condition.
What do you think folks?

 

[lucridders]

I will put some samples, so that you can see them.By the way, do the test yourselves and post them, so that I can see the results you have. But the fact that lots of people, using dslr are buying as back up is not a sign that it is good. Is more a sign that those people are realising that indead the dslr cameras as they are now, are also pretty imperfect. So, why loading your back with all this gear when the difference is that small or to have plastic looking images with a dslr. Than we do not talk even about the post processing they have to do before they have an acceptable picture!!!When I take a film as before, I have to say that not one regular dslr can compete with it and I had some in the past but sold them and I am quite happy somebody else was buying them . On a forum like this I would like to see reality, not saying good things about something because you own it (lots of people are still doing so). And I agree that Ricoh is not worser than others, but this is not a reason to accept it!!! One of the main problems in digital cameras is simply the coonversion from anaolgue to digital and whta you see here, they still use 10 or 12 bit = the cheapest converters they can find. We build daily machinery with the latest technology, so called hig-tech. I have to say that even in our industry, not one of the most sophisticated system can compete with any old completely mechanical machine. The reason we and other people are not doing it anymore is quite simple, asking high prices for a product that in fact is costing much less than pure mechanical products.

 

[odklizec]

I'm sorry lucridders, but I have to disagree with you regarding the noise. Both GRD and GX100 produces well usable images up to ISO400 and in many cases (and especially if you shot in RAW) even at ISO 800! There are many samples at this forum and around the Internet. You just have to understand that the small sensor cameras ARE noisy, no matter how good denoising algorithm they use. Fuji's super ccd used in "Fxx" range is the only sensor, which beats the other small sensor cameras. But on the other hand, the "F" range bodies and feature set is far below the GRD/GX100 or any other prosumer compact camera. Not to mention poor CA handling and very limited wide angle.

You keep telling that the amount of Ricoh noise is unacceptable. But what's worse? Too much noise (which you can easily improve using a 3rd party denoiser) or the lack of noise at a cost of details? Please, look at this comparison (100% crops)..

As for me, I would gladly live with that amount of noise produced by GX100 at ISO400. The waterpaint-like result from LX2 is really horrible. For me personally, the in-camera noise reduction is much worse enemy than noise.

Now please look at this gallery (and there are much more examples like this)..
http://2038.cc/archives/
Many pics in this gallery were taken with ISO800. Do you still think the high ISO images produced by Ricoh are unacceptable? Yes, they are noisy, but without the noise they would look only half as good as they look now! So if you are an artist, you can turn the noise in your favour

In short, the noise problem is not about Ricoh, but about sensor makers and laws of physics. We will see what will bring us the new CMOS sensors for compact cameras, announced by Canon and Sony. But if they want to sell the cameras for masses, they will always have to make a price/reliability compromises. There is nothing me or you can do with that (except stop buying new cameras ).

 

[lucridders]

read what I wrote: RICOH is not worser than the rest (even the opposite). But it does not mean that you have to agree as customer when they write "low noise". I complain this for every brand of camera. I should never buy a GX100 when it was not good at all. In one word, the digital camera stuff is nowadays as with new cars = nice packagings, but lots of time empty at the inside. (To give you an example, I was recently winning a dispute with some brand for cars and was showing them step by step what they told in advertising and what you have in real, result was that they returned me 6000 Euro back with the condition that I would not talk about it!!!) I agree also that it can be used up to 400, but above I should remove it when I was Ricoh . You also talk about physics, it seems that most of the camera people do not know how physics are working. They do not realise that nowadays technology is available to do what they advertise. Now it seems the opposite with lots of brands = what they advertise is just what you will lots of time not find in the stuff you buy!!!

 

[lucridders]

I am happy that I was reading that the GRII would have less noise and as they compared, the 400Iso on the new GRII will have the same noise as 100 iso on the GR. Good news finally and I hope that they do the same with an upgrade for the GX100. People who are liking this kind of noise as the GX100 is producing are better in my opinion to take a brush and start painting their images instead of taking them with a camera . On my last travel to Egypt I had lots of pics that are good, but due to high noise levels in the sky they are not usable. I was looking again in my collection of pictures taken with film in the past, and I can not find pictures with that amount of noise in it. Lets hoep Ricoh will do something to make this better. I was doing a mail and sample pictures to them already.

 

[nibsco]

6- Wobbling lens. Do not tell me that this is normal. Yes it is normal when you make things in the cheapest way. Do not also tell me that this is not affecting the picture quality regarding sharpness!!!

Hi! New member here.

When you check the wobble you find that spring loading centres the lens. I imagine that a certain amount of play is designed-in for the sake of reliability. If the tolerances of such a mechanism (which I admit I have never seen) are too precise there is always a danger that dirt might eventually cause it to lock up. Does that make sense?

Very useful site by the way.

I've only had my GX100+DW6 a short while. Currently troubled by very low light levels here on the Isle of Skye!!