GR User Forum
The spot for all Ricoh GR camera users
Register for free, meet other Ricoh GR users, share your images, help others, have fun!
Tell your friends about us!R10 evolved to CX1!
- Thread starter odklizec
- Start date
odklizec
PK
And this is it Cris!... "Leica is close to being bankrupt for years now" Last thing I heard about Leica is a rumour about selling it to Panasonic. I'm sure nobody here would like to hear such horror stories about Ricoh photo division?VladimirV":1hk8c6pk said:
From my discussions with Ricoh folks I understood that it's impossible for them to ask for some sensor customizations or production of their own/differently sized sensor, let's say 2/3". In other words, they fully depend on what's available on the market. And as far as I know, there is currently no 2/3" sensor produced by Sony or anyone else? I seriously doubt Ricoh photo division is powerful enough to ask or even pay a production of such specific sensor just for Ricoh cameras?
I believe that the custom sensor for Leica is slightly different thing. In any case, it's just another big sensor, which may be sold to other companies (under the different product number). There is still a demand for large sensors. But I seriously doubt there is a demand for 2/3 sensors?
In addition, I really believe that Ricoh must consider something with larger sensor at least of 4/3 size. I'm quite sure this is the direction the market with serious compact camera is going. The DP1, DP2, G1 and Olympus prototype are just first examples. I have no doubt Canon and Nikon will present very similar solutions soon. If Ricoh want to stay in game of serious compacts, at least one "large sensor" camera is a must for them. And GRD/GX line is a perfect candidate. What else than GRD deserves the large sensor? I, for one, am very surprised Ricoh did not do this yet?
odklizec
PK
Skippy":3fa235je said:
Let's rephrase my question. Would it be possible for Ricoh to just buy 4/3 sensor without joining the 4/3 consortium? Kodak still have the 4/3 sensor produced for Olympus E400 in their product list (KAI-10100). And from my experience with E400, it's very nice sensor with great color reproduction. Many E400 users would not swap their E400 for E410 or 420 just because of Kodak/Panasonic sensor difference.
I think GRD system has still a great potential, even without replaceable lens. There is still a lot of photographers who want fully featured pocketable camera without hassling with multiple lenses. And I think this is where the GRD shines. No matter how small will be the final Olympus m4/3 product, it will still be bigger and not as pocketable as GRD. Plus add the problem with dust.
So I can imagine the GRD future even without the lens mount (similar to Sigma's concept of multiple bodies with different lenses). If only Ricoh would somehow manage to put larger sensor in the GRD body and without increasing the size much, plus weather seal the body/lens, it would be a big step forward. At least in my eyes.
Prognathous
New Member
odklizec":3hd9852c said:
I don't like the R8 NR. I think Panasonic Venus IV is better:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz5/page9.asp
I'm not sure about the R7, but I did like Ricoh's hands-off NR approach in earlier models (up to the R5). It left enough room for effective NR via dedicated software like Nosieware.
odklizec":3hd9852c said:
Fuji's S100fs is 2/3". It produces very competitive high-ISO quality:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifil ... page11.asp
I'd much rather see the GX300 use this sensor than a FourThirds one.
As for the SX1, it's a very intriguing camera, but I don't think it has a chance to compete with the new Panasonic and Canon offerings. Ricoh really needs something special here, and although 4fps (until the card is full?) and two-shot HDR can be useful, I'm afraid they're not going to be enough to lure consumers away from the big names and big zooms (25-300, 28-336).
Prog.
odklizec
PK
Prog, I think the main R8/10 problem is 10MP rather than a NR as such. From what I saw, R8/10 noise reduction is more or less the same as used in R7. It just battles with much more color noise delivered by tiny 10MP sensor. Also, the R8/10 photos are overshapened and in case or R10 also much less contrast and under-saturated.
What's good on R7 (and later) NR is the color noise reduction, which kills the ugly color noise and leaves fair amount of luminance noise intact. It's especially well visible in shadows and large areas of the same color. Maybe you remember the old R7/GX100/GX200 ISO 400 test? And also R8 in Sushi Bar test speaks for R8 type of NR. Sure, R8/10 NR kills an excessive amount of details (apparent mainly in photos with grass and trees). But as of killing color color NR, R7 and later does an excellent job and I'm not afraid to say this, much better than GX200 or GRDII. I'm pretty curious about NR implementation in CX1. If they don't use the "I-smear-all-traces-of-noise" type NR from GX200 and GRDII, and apply only R7 and higher color noise reduction, the CX1 might be an excellent
As for the 2/3 sensor from Fuji, you know, anything larger than 1/1.7 would do the job. If there would be no chance for 4/3 or APSC, then I would prefer Panasonic's LX3 sensor, because aside the bad LX3 lens design, this sensor is incredible noise and dynamic range performer. During my LX3 vs. GX200 test, I had no problem using ISO1600 with this sensor, because after processing RAW, it was like ISO200 delivered by GX200! And the same apply for dynamic range. Where GX200 delivered only white sky, I was able to restore blue sky from LX3 raw! But I'm afraid, no matter how good or bad is Fuji or Panasonic sensor, it's very unlikely we would see any of them in the Ricoh camera.
What's good on R7 (and later) NR is the color noise reduction, which kills the ugly color noise and leaves fair amount of luminance noise intact. It's especially well visible in shadows and large areas of the same color. Maybe you remember the old R7/GX100/GX200 ISO 400 test? And also R8 in Sushi Bar test speaks for R8 type of NR. Sure, R8/10 NR kills an excessive amount of details (apparent mainly in photos with grass and trees). But as of killing color color NR, R7 and later does an excellent job and I'm not afraid to say this, much better than GX200 or GRDII. I'm pretty curious about NR implementation in CX1. If they don't use the "I-smear-all-traces-of-noise" type NR from GX200 and GRDII, and apply only R7 and higher color noise reduction, the CX1 might be an excellent
As for the 2/3 sensor from Fuji, you know, anything larger than 1/1.7 would do the job. If there would be no chance for 4/3 or APSC, then I would prefer Panasonic's LX3 sensor, because aside the bad LX3 lens design, this sensor is incredible noise and dynamic range performer. During my LX3 vs. GX200 test, I had no problem using ISO1600 with this sensor, because after processing RAW, it was like ISO200 delivered by GX200! And the same apply for dynamic range. Where GX200 delivered only white sky, I was able to restore blue sky from LX3 raw! But I'm afraid, no matter how good or bad is Fuji or Panasonic sensor, it's very unlikely we would see any of them in the Ricoh camera.
thelps
Active Member
There is another small update on the CX1 on the dpreview site here http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09022 ... erview.asp
VladimirV
New Member
odklizec":2r2o4dbk said:
As I wrote in my reply to you in my GX200 review thread, I don't think Ricoh can afford to keep relying to what is available on the market and stick with off-the sleft Sony sensors. If they want to stay in the game and be again ahead in the serious compacts niche, they need something better. The LX3 is more popular than the GX200 because of the sensor, the Fuji F30 sold in masses although is was a bad camera again only because of the sensor.
They already are way ahead when it comes to controls, lens quality and handling. Where they have always struggled to make an impression is image quality, this was always due to the sensors they used. In the past they had the best in-camera JPG processing but with the sensors getting worse so did their processing.
Like you I believe Ricoh needs something to bring them back ahead and this won't be an off-the self Sony sensor, nor will it necessary be a 4/3 sensor. They might have to spend some money and get a custom sensor built for them by Kodak or Sony, something that stands out. Ricoh as a company is bigger than Epson, yet Epson managed to build the RD1 years ago just to prove to Leica that it is possible. Leica still manages to produce the M8 and now the S2 with custom built sensors although they have far less money than Ricoh have and the volumes they sell of the M8 can't be very high. If these two companies can create a unique product and get custom build sensors for a low volume camera, so can (and need) Ricoh.
But yes, they need at least one camera with a big sensor and this can be a 4/3 sensor or a Sony APS sensor that Nikon also uses. The sensor is the only area where Ricoh really struggle so if they are to invest money into anything it will have to be here.
The CX1 generates a lot of interest because it has a CMOS sensor and the high dynamic range mode. So this shows that Ricoh is on the right path, let's wait what they will do for the GX and GR series.
I popped to say hello.
In regard of CX1 and the Fuji 200EXR, after analysis of the Fuji, it is more-less a little technical evolution with a lot of smoke and mirrors (like giving expensive sounding names to various features, or settings which mean nothing in particular, like setting dynamic range of 800% ). For the 200EXR they made rearanged sensor where the pixels can be addressable in two groups and all the features are then derived from that .
So any of the special feature will cut in half the image resolution where you will ultimately end up with 6megapixel image. By itself this isn't that bad, but it is 6mega that are pretty much comparable to any other 2009 camera in this price category if image is resized 50%. So it is a clever idea indeed, but do not expect wow results.
There is a czech review on internet with the actuall model and sample images I am sure Odklizec can translate it for you
In regard of CX1 and the Fuji 200EXR, after analysis of the Fuji, it is more-less a little technical evolution with a lot of smoke and mirrors (like giving expensive sounding names to various features, or settings which mean nothing in particular, like setting dynamic range of 800% ). For the 200EXR they made rearanged sensor where the pixels can be addressable in two groups and all the features are then derived from that .
So any of the special feature will cut in half the image resolution where you will ultimately end up with 6megapixel image. By itself this isn't that bad, but it is 6mega that are pretty much comparable to any other 2009 camera in this price category if image is resized 50%. So it is a clever idea indeed, but do not expect wow results.
There is a czech review on internet with the actuall model and sample images I am sure Odklizec can translate it for you
odklizec
PK
Unbelievable! Oscar here? Nice to see you here man! Guys, I'm happy to introduce you the software wizard standing behind the Dynamic Photo HDR, PhotoBrush and many other excellent programs!
Of course, you are right! All these "innovations" are more or less marketing hype. The good thing on this new Fuji is that it uses relative big 1/1.6 sensor. This, along with rearranged photo sites and traditional Fuji "not-as-smeared" noise reduction, really improves the JPEG output. From what I saw, either at dc.watch.impress, DPReview or in your mentioned Czech review, the Fuji EXR images looks good at high ISO and even in 12MP resolution mode (which cannot be said about GX200 high ISO files above ISO400).
The Fuji EXR or CV1's 12EV hype does not mean much to me as long as the camera delivers usable results. And Fuji apparently does good job here. We will soon see if the CV1 HDR mode is any good
Nice to see you here man! Guys, I'm happy to introduce you the software wizard standing behind the Dynamic Photo HDR, PhotoBrush and many other excellent programs! Of course, you are right! All these "innovations" are more or less marketing hype. The good thing on this new Fuji is that it uses relative big 1/1.6 sensor. This, along with rearranged photo sites and traditional Fuji "not-as-smeared" noise reduction, really improves the JPEG output. From what I saw, either at dc.watch.impress, DPReview or in your mentioned Czech review, the Fuji EXR images looks good at high ISO and even in 12MP resolution mode (which cannot be said about GX200 high ISO files above ISO400).
The Fuji EXR or CV1's 12EV hype does not mean much to me as long as the camera delivers usable results. And Fuji apparently does good job here. We will soon see if the CV1 HDR mode is any good
thelps
Active Member
Oscar":3efyw8tj said:
odklizec":3efyw8tj said:Unbelievable! Oscar here?
Hi Oscar, and welcome to the forum, its very nice to see someone who is behind some of the imaging software, engage on a forum. I think the 200EXR does have a market niche but I am bit perplexed that most people who understand why and how it does its HDR and high ISO noise will also know of other technologies - IMHO. Its nice to see an attempt to improve things - this drives on all designers.
odklizec
PK
I just found some first CX1 samples:
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=2337&p=8957#p8957
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=2337&p=8957#p8957
The Japanese CX1 page has been updated with a bunch more stuff -- including sample images:
http://ricoh.co.jp/dc/cx/cx1/
http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... l=ja&tl=en
Erik.
http://ricoh.co.jp/dc/cx/cx1/
http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... l=ja&tl=en
Erik.
odklizec
PK
Hehe I was just about to make an update but you were faster Erik!
I don't know like you guys, but I really like these samples! Sure, all of them were taken at low ISO. But what's important, they do not look smeared like R8/R10 photos! There is some grain visible in shadows and foliage but that's good! This grain is visible only at 100% magnification and surely nobody here will do 100% crops every other day? In other words, at least the ISO 100 photos are not smeared and then oversharpened to death! I'm now really curious about ISO400 photos.
I don't know like you guys, but I really like these samples! Sure, all of them were taken at low ISO. But what's important, they do not look smeared like R8/R10 photos! There is some grain visible in shadows and foliage but that's good! This grain is visible only at 100% magnification and surely nobody here will do 100% crops every other day? In other words, at least the ISO 100 photos are not smeared and then oversharpened to death! I'm now really curious about ISO400 photos.
waloszek
Member
Hello,
I can't remember who it was and where (I think VladimirV on dpreview...), but someone said that the china (porcellain) sample image (sample_06) with NR looks underexposed. I compared both versions and to my taste, the china looks much nicer in the original image without NR. So, I used Photoshop Elements 6* to push the NR version in the direction of the original version. Here is my result:
Small version: http://www.waloszek.de/sample_06_gw_sm.jpg
Large version: http://www.waloszek.de/sample_06_gw.jpg
My wife, who might be a CX1 candidate, liked the result!
Best regards, Gerd
*) Überarbeiten -> Beleuchtung anpassen -> Tiefen/Lichter: Tiefen aufhellen (40%), Mittelton-Kontrast (50%) <- regrettably only in German
I can't remember who it was and where (I think VladimirV on dpreview...), but someone said that the china (porcellain) sample image (sample_06) with NR looks underexposed. I compared both versions and to my taste, the china looks much nicer in the original image without NR. So, I used Photoshop Elements 6* to push the NR version in the direction of the original version. Here is my result:
Small version: http://www.waloszek.de/sample_06_gw_sm.jpg
Large version: http://www.waloszek.de/sample_06_gw.jpg
My wife, who might be a CX1 candidate, liked the result!
Best regards, Gerd
*) Überarbeiten -> Beleuchtung anpassen -> Tiefen/Lichter: Tiefen aufhellen (40%), Mittelton-Kontrast (50%) <- regrettably only in German