• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Gx200

C

Chris Kresser

New member
Sean,

Thanks for your excellent review of the GX200.

One thing that wasn't clear to me is how the noise levels of the GX200 compare with the GX100. I know that you said the GRDII has a one-stop advantage approximately at higher ISOs (800 & 1600), but I wasn't sure where the GX100 fit in there.

Like yourself, I'm disappointed that Ricoh raised the megapixels. I'd be very happy with a 6 MP camera with a much better signal-to-noise ratio, but I'm skeptical we'll ever see that again.

- Sigh -

Chris
 
S

Sean Reid

Moderator
Hi Chris,

Thanks. Actually, I did discuss that in the article. Considering results in both the GR2 and GX200 tests, I think that the noise levels of the GX200 are similar to those of the GX100 through ISO 800 and slightly higher at ISO 1600 (which isn't a particularly flexible ISO for either camera).

Best,

Sean
 
C

Chris Kresser

New member
Oops, sorry I missed that.

I agree that ISO 800 is a serious stretch for the GX100 (and the GX200, it seems). I wonder if anyone will ever listen to the small but vocal minority clamoring for a 6-8 MP compact digital with a low signal-to-noise ratio. Perhaps it's simply a matter of economics and they can't afford to produce such a camera because they don't anticipate enough buyers?
 
S

Sean Reid

Moderator
Hi Chris,

You mean a high S/N, right? I think it may be more difficult to market a camera with lower MP res. even though that is, as you know, what I also favor.

If you're mostly shooting at ISO and under, what the GX200 will give you (compared the the GX100) is speed.

Cheers,

Sean
 
C

Chris Kresser

New member
Yeah, I did mean high S/N. Oops again.

It's funny because on just about every photography forum I've been on I see a call for compact cameras with lower resolution. But I guess that does not represent a large enough market to cover the production costs of such a camera. Although, to me, it doesn't seem like the production costs would be that high if they just took an existing body (i.e. GRD/GX) and put a lower res. sensor in it.

I know you've had conversations with Ricoh in the past, Sean. Has this topic ever come up?

Chris
 
S

Sean Reid

Moderator
Chris Kresser said:
Yeah, I did mean high S/N. Oops again.

It's funny because on just about every photography forum I've been on I see a call for compact cameras with lower resolution. But I guess that does not represent a large enough market to cover the production costs of such a camera. Although, to me, it doesn't seem like the production costs would be that high if they just took an existing body (i.e. GRD/GX) and put a lower res. sensor in it.

I know you've had conversations with Ricoh in the past, Sean. Has this topic ever come up?

Chris
Click to expand...

Hi Chris,

They read my reviews (including people from engineering) and this is a topic that might lead into some follow-up discussions between myself and Ricoh.

Cheers,

Sean
 
W

Wouter Brandsma

New member
While my GX100 is still at the Ricoh service repair I momentarely use a Fujifilm E900. It is 9 megapixel camera with RAW mode. At ISO 100 the RAW files are noisier than those of the GX100 at ISO 100. Despite the fact that the Ricoh has more pixels. I was pretty much suprised by it.
I am not saying that more is better, but it was something I didn't expect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top