Easily one of the most peculiar looking digicams we've seen, the
GX200 picks right up where the
GX100 left off and aims to fill the pockets of those not quite ready for a DSLR. Design wise, reviewers couldn't help but fall in love. Despite the curious build, critics found it to be "a joy" to hold and operate and not quite a burden in their left cargo pocket. When it came time to view results, however, the tone quickly shifted; put simply, the 12-megapixel sensor / processing combination was deemed "poor," once again substantiating
the belief that more megapixels
isn't always better. To be fair, the EVF and monitor were among the best they had seen, and some of the other minor details were really impressive, but the lackluster image quality easily overshadowed those flashes of brilliance in the grand scheme of things.
[Thanks, RTT]
posted Jun 25th 2008 11:29AM
I briefly looked through the review on their site. I had to laugh at the irony that the pictures of the camera that they were reviewing, were so poorly taken.
How much credence can we give to a reviewer of cameras who can't even take a decent shot with their best efforts?
Yes, Jamie Harrison started reviewing at TR and often more than not, the images in the review seem to have a lot of compression artifacts and the reviews in general seem to be rushed. To compare, take Cliff Smith's (another TR camera reviewer) reviews.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2008/02/19/Nikon-D300-Digital-SLR/
Design-wise it looks like one of those cheap Eastern Europe-made medium format film cameras from back in the 70s.
Yeah, but does it take a picture when you press the button or does it wait for 2-5 seconds to do so? That's all a camera needs to do at it's core!
Let's just give it it's own official category along with the gx100: point-and-shoot DSLR, aimed at amateur photographers.
I'm not the only one thinking this
But am I the only one thinking "Amateur" looks like a funny word....?
So, urm, how the fuck is this an SLR? You do know what an SLR is, right? If anything this would be considered a bridge camera, between a point & shoot and a DSLR, like the Canon G series (only one that came to mind).
yes...i meant it as a bridge between the two, not a literal half and half of point-and-shoot and DSLR
how is this supposed to compare to a real DSLR or SLR for that matter?
I guess looking beyond literal meanings is a bit too much
Wow, the noise at 800 was completely unbearable!
Eye-catching like the Elephant Man. That thing hit every twig falling off the Ugly Tree.
Lets get this straight.
All other factors being equal...
More pixel locations = More noise = Ugly pictures
Huge ugly pictures that fill your memory card really fast!
For better image quality, improve the PHYSICAL size of the sensor.
This site breaks it down:
http://www.6mpixel.org/en/
Or the quality of the sensor...
I think this camera range has plateaued a little. I own the GX100, which is awesome iso400 and below and the difference between the gx100 and gx200 seems minimal. A 12mp that has more noise?
I'm looking forward to the GX300 speeding up the RAW file write time and APS-C sensor!
It looks like they did add a better/larger RAW buffer to this (it says something about a 5 raw file burst mode). But yeah, I own the GX100 and I would be happier if it had 8mp.
The summary here doesn't really do justice to the review's conclusions, IMO. If you read the article and look at the sample images, you'll see the camera was praised for color rendition and tonality and got a good review for noise and detail for ISO 64 and 100. At ISO 200, things were borderline good, turning less so at 400 and failling apart by 800. Poor high-ISO performance does not equal poor image quality in general. Indeed, the included raw support means that it may be possible to shoot at higher ISO vaues and take advantage more more sophisticated software (such as Neat Image and Noise Ninja) to control noise and keep it at least on par with competing compact cameras.
Condemning the per-pixel noise that goes along with higher resolution is also a bit misguided since lower-resolution cameras can't shoot at 12Mpixels for comparison, obviously. Rather, it would make more sense to take the full-res shots for what they are and to compare against the competition only after a proper downsizing that also happens to reduce per-pixel noise in the process. That, or judge based on prints of a given size so that the size of the noise grain scales down appropriately with increase image resolution, rendering it less visually objectionable.
I don't own any compact camera these days, but I can see how this camera could be interesting as a compact go-everywhere camera for a DSLR owner not able to bring his/her larger camera around all the time.
Condemning the per-pixel noise that goes along with higher resolution is also a bit misguided since lower-resolution cameras can't shoot at 12Mpixels for comparison, obviously.
You can up-res a smaller shot to 12MP in Photoshop and compare them or down-res the larger shot. Either way, the image shot on the lower resolution sensor will look better.
What we DSLR users are really waiting for is something with an APS-C sized sensor and a fast (2.8 or better) prime lens that will fit in my pocket. Rangefinder if necessary.
who cares about shitty pics, its got a friggin periscope!!
LOL!
Eye get it! It's a pun because of the viewfinder! Very punny, Mr. Murphy. You are a card and should be dealt with.
Seriously... Stop that. Now.
it looks "retro" and "clunky" bordering on "ugly"
It reminds me of my old Ricoh TLS-401....
Two view finders, one for eye level, and one for waist level. You would turn a knob on the side of the pentaprisim to switch from one one to the other.
We've just reviewed the GX200...
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_ricoh_gx200.php
What few people realize is that the add-on viewfinder on this device is literally an eye catcher. There is a trail of documentation pointing back to the Kanamits as the original developers of this concept. BEWARE: ONLY USE THE LCD SCREEN UNLESS YOU WANT THE TALL GUY FROM MOONRAKER TO EAT YOUR EYES.