Ricoh's 12 megapixel GX200 for the undecided
By Thomas Ricker 
posted June 24th 2008 6:07AM
posted June 24th 2008 6:07AM
posted June 24th 2008 6:07AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Depending on the image size this can be done at, "5fps continuous RAW shooting mode" is excellent for a non DSLR . This type of camera certainly has it's place. I've got a Canon G9 and the ability to put it in a pocket rather than lugging it is really nice.
Make everything ready to dive captain!
*Submarine sounds*
Because that's what it looks like
Thats some pretty good specs for a decent price. Shame about the design of the camera. What is up with that huge bulge at the top!?
That "Huge bulge" is the removable viewfinder mentioned in the blog post and the article.
MY NAME IS RICO
damn ugly camera, it looks cheap and flimsy
where can you buy this from in Canada?
any gray-market importers?
I have, and love, the GX100 and although it looks nothing in photos, it's a very nice thing to hold and built very well from metal and all things good quality. It makes your typical little Canon look like a child's toy when you see them together in the flesh.
I don't understand why you would make a camera that is obviously supposed to be a second camera for dslr owners and then make it completely unapealing to them by jamming 12 megapoxels into it.
Megapixels sell cameras. If they didn't, we'd all buy Sigma DP-1's. Stupid, but there it is.
Exactly. I own a GX100 (10mp) and my main gripe with it is I wish it had about 2mp less. My second biggest gripe about it is that it only shoots 1 RAW frame every 3-4 seconds so the GX200 really tears at me. Better RAW performance - check! (yea!) but more MP (and crappier noise as a result) (boo!).
Megapixels do sell cameras to the average consumer. But I can't imagine the average consumer spending $700 on a P&S camera. This camera seems like its made first and formost for photographers who want a small second camera that still gives them all the exposure controls and raw. I would think 12mp would be a turn-off to them, because they tend to be informed. Its a dealbreaker for me and thats a shame because this is the exact camera i'm looking for.
How lovely, its got a periscope...perfect for my underwater bikini hunting excursions!
BALLS!
:P
The important thing about the new, larger LCD screen is that it also has double the resolution of most other cameras. 460K vs 230K.
For comparison, the Panasonic Lumix TZ5 has the high-resolution screen, and it is stunning when compared to a regular camera.
Even better, though, is the 3" 900K pixel screen on the Nikon D300 and Sony a700.
Gee, just add a full frame sensor and $1000 to the price tag and we're in business.
http://www.nicephotomag.com
Nice!
I too have the GX100 and it is an incredibly good camera. However the RAW performance is very slow, to jump from 5seconds per frame to 5frames per second is a hell of a leap...
The 24mm wide is fantastic and macro is ridiculously good. Having the ability to customise the controls and alter things like aperture and shutterspeed WITHOUT going into menus is so nice. I have never bothered using the electronic view finder and without it the camera is (just about) comfortably pocketable... A bigger sensor with less mega pixels would be nice though...
That has to be the most ugly SLR I have ever seen, they even did better than that back in the 80s. Cool specs and price (and awesome thin-ness) but wow, that's one mingin' camera
My D200 shoots 5FPS, and that's at 10 mega pixels. Unfortunately, my guess would be that this camera probably uses around ~1 MP images in its 5fps mode, although its general RAW performance is probably improved over its predecessor.
@NZ-Miles: That isn't an SLR buddy...
We've now published our full review of the GX200.
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_ricoh_gx200.php