GX200 is here!

[Chuck A]

I completely understand the reluctance to RAW processing as it can be intimidating. But just play and have fun with it. Don't take it too seriously and realize that it will take time, like all things do, to learn. Guy is right though, a workshop really helps. Even a friend who can help is great. I don't know how many times I had to ask people how to do simple things in PS. Also, search online, there are alot of free tutorials for PS and other programs. They have helped me alot.

There are many times that using RAW can make post processing easier. Especially if you have a photo with a difficult white balance or short dynamic range. Having said that, JPG processing nowadays has gotten pretty good. Very often the JPG looks just fine. It depends on how picky you are. The biggest problem that I have with in-camera JPG processing is in the area of noise reduction. Most small sensor camera just go too heavy on the noise reduction. The GRD and the GX100 are exceptions when it comes to this. That is why I finally decided to move in that direction. I would much rather see noise/grain than smeariness. But I shoot mainly B&W so the "grain" isn't as objectionable. It appears that the new Ricoh processing engine does add some extra smeariness to the JPGs at higher ISO. Even with the adjustable noise reduction. And from what I have read Ricoh will not turn it off completely. They basically say that if you want it off just shoot RAW.

I just purchased a GX100. My budget was low and I knew that if I was going to go for the GX200 I would have to wait at least until this time next year to afford it. There should be a few used 100's at decent prices surfacing with the announcement of the GX200. A good time to try one out if you haven't yet.

The GX100 is a great little camera. Fun and very intuitive to use. It actually begs to be used. Not too many cameras have done that to me. Funny how a office machine company like Ricoh can make a tool with better photographic controls than the likes of Canon or Nikon. The G9 is nice but Ricoh just has it up on them with their intuitive controls, lens, removable VF, etc. The step zoom is a particularly genius idea. I have been working with primes for many years and it fits me perfectly.

Here is the gratuitous flower shot from my first few shots with the GX100. My clematis is looking particularly nice this year. Good luck and great shooting.

[Joan]

Beautiful clematis, Chuck.

I am bowing under the RAW pressure here, guys. ;-) Probably will buy Aperture soon.

[Chuck A]

Originally Posted by Joan

Beautiful clematis, Chuck.

I am bowing under the RAW pressure here, guys. ;-) Probably will buy Aperture soon.

No pressure here Joan. Just have fun.

Thanks, this particular clematis is my favorite.

[praktinafan]

Digilux 2 . the difference

100% crop JPG

100% crop RAW
Whole picture:
Less colour spotting, better "grain", more detail. You will prefer RAW. because it is better to use than ever.

[VladimirV]

Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso

Dumb question does this shoot both at the same time

It does shoot both at the same time since it needs the jpg for the review and from the specs Ricoh did not seem to have changed it.

[PeterLeyssens]

Yes !

I ordered myself a GX-100 about three months ago, but I've broken my leg just as the camera arrived in the shop and I haven't been able to go and collect it since. I was getting a bit nervous recently, for several reasons. One is that I'm leaving on a holiday on July 26th and I would really like to test drive the camera before that, so that I'm used to it by the time I leave. Another reason was that I wasn't sure the shop actually kept my camera for these three months. Third, I was hearing stuff about a GX-200 So, I decided to give them a call.

It turns out they have still do have a GX-100 with my name on it in the shop. Then, about the GX-200. There wouldn't be any problem to replace my original order with this new camera at all Great service !

Now, my only worry is that the GX-200 may not be available before the middle of July. But I convinced the guy to keep my original order for the time being so that, when it gets tight, I can still go and collect the GX-100 that has my name on it.

The main reason I'd pick the GX-200 is the raw buffer and the better LCD. The new "tri-lens cap" could be a nice bonus, too. Frankly, I'm not worried about image quality. If they could find a 10mp sensor 2 years ago that was sufficient by most forum members' standards, the brand new 12mp will probably be in the same league, as technology has moved on. Also, I'll be shooting RAW+JPG all the time and decide afterwards if the JPG is good enough, so I'm not worried about the exact processing engine they're using. So as far as I'm concerned, this is a very desirable upgrade !



Peter.

[Guy Mancuso]

It sounds like one to me so far. This narrowed my choice for a small sensor camera. i have been just sitting on the sidelines (Rare for Me) just seeing what to get. This looks better everyday as we talk about it and learn more.

[VladimirV]

A review from PhotographyBLOG: http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_ricoh_gx200.php

At the moment the GX200 seems like the better option than the GRD II. Best is to get a GRD I and the GX200 .

[Joan]

Originally Posted by praktinafan

Digilux 2 . the difference

100% crop JPG

100% crop RAW
Whole picture:
Less colour spotting, better "grain", more detail. You will prefer RAW. because it is better to use than ever.

Thanks for the comparison, and of course you are 100% right. I went back and processed some of my raw files from NYC, and they do look great after bumping up the contrast and adjusting levels. It's nice to look at the jpegs as a reference for getting the "look" I like, but with the higher level of detail afforded by the raw files. I'll keep working at it!

So, enough hijacking here, back to the GX200!

[Lili]

Originally Posted by VladimirV

A review from PhotographyBLOG: http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_ricoh_gx200.php

At the moment the GX200 seems like the better option than the GRD II. Best is to get a GRD I and the GX200 .

Ahhhhh...I have the GRD I already, things like this don't help me avoid the temptation

[Guy Mancuso]

I think I am going to get one before the end of the summer. I want something to play with that is small. Resistance maybe futile at this point.

[Lili]

Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso

I think I am going to get one before the end of the summer. I want something to play with that is small. Resistance maybe futile at this point.

"Your resistance is futile, you will be assimilated to the Ricoh Collective!"
Sorry Guy, channeling my inner Geek


Seriously, at the this point the GX200 or the seductively discounted GX100 tempt me greatly...

[Bob Yanal]

Originally Posted by Joan

Hi Guy,
I hear you loud and clear, and I know that best practice is to shoot raw ... maybe I just need better PP skills to get my raw files to look as good as the jpegs from the 2 cameras I mentioned. I'm pretty sure you can shoot both simultaneously with the GX200, someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

I've been trying out various RAW converters and haven't settled on one yet. Aperture and Lightzone are my 2 favorites. For some reason Lightroom is difficult for me to figure out. I guess I need to save up for one of your workshops and let you teach me how to use it!

Joan - At risk of being thrown off this forum, I'm going to agree with you: I haven't found RAW to be preferable to JPEG (I use a Ricoh GX100 - which, by the way, when you shoot RAW you also get a JPEG, whether you want one or not).

Whenever I've put my RAW images through post-processing (usually in Lightzone) AND have applied the same pp to the jpeg that was also taken at the same time, I don't see the difference.

Also, there's something I don't understand. Some people speak of "recovering" blown highlights in RAW. But my understanding of a blown highlight is an area of a photo where there is no information, hence no information to recover.

Bob

[wbrandsma]

Bob, not every colorchannel will likely be overexposed so there will always be some information in the RAW file to recover the blown highlights. Besides that the RAW file contains more information because it has a higher bit depth than the jpeg.

[Guy Mancuso]

Originally Posted by Bob Yanal

Joan - At risk of being thrown off this forum, I'm going to agree with you: I haven't found RAW to be preferable to JPEG (I use a Ricoh GX100 - which, by the way, when you shoot RAW you also get a JPEG, whether you want one or not).

Whenever I've put my RAW images through post-processing (usually in Lightzone) AND have applied the same pp to the jpeg that was also taken at the same time, I don't see the difference.

Also, there's something I don't understand. Some people speak of "recovering" blown highlights in RAW. But my understanding of a blown highlight is an area of a photo where there is no information, hence no information to recover.

Bob

Bob what are you trying to do get a free workshop invite.

Just kidding, someone had to give you a hard time. The truth is sometimes when the stars and planets align just right all is okay. When there not than trouble starts and Raw can save your day.

[Player]

Originally Posted by Bob Yanal

Joan - At risk of being thrown off this forum, I'm going to agree with you: I haven't found RAW to be preferable to JPEG (I use a Ricoh GX100 - which, by the way, when you shoot RAW you also get a JPEG, whether you want one or not).

Whenever I've put my RAW images through post-processing (usually in Lightzone) AND have applied the same pp to the jpeg that was also taken at the same time, I don't see the difference.

Also, there's something I don't understand. Some people speak of "recovering" blown highlights in RAW. But my understanding of a blown highlight is an area of a photo where there is no information, hence no information to recover.

Bob

Bob, I'm still here, so I think the chances of you being thrown-off are pretty remote.

A leap in thinking that has to me made is that we need to realize once-and-for-all that RAW is superior to in-camera JPEGS, regardless of the experiences and results of individuals. It is a fact, and that's it. Once that truth becomes second nature, we can begin to look for solutions to less than stellar results. And believe me, the problem isn't the RAW file. It's just a data file that you can do whatever your skills and knowledge will allow you to do. The problem is finding the tools and methodology that allow you to mold your RAW files into whatever you visualize them to be, or want them to be.

I hope this doesn't sound like a lecture because I'm hardly an expert; I'm just trying to relate what I've learned so far, and what I feel is rock solid information.

[Guy Mancuso]

Let's start a thread on this, maybe great info and more in depth explanations to this so it maybe understood better. I will start one in the Image processing section. Sound good.

Here we go http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2436

[TEBnewyork]

Agree on a thread but a little tidbit first. Both the GRD and Digilux2 put out good jpegs and I don't think anyone is saying don't use them if you like them. However if it is practical to shoot both, it is always nice to have the RAW file a)in case you didn't nail it as well as you could have b)you want to do something different with it later c)if software changes out in the future and your ability to process it again and do more with it becomes reality.

[VladimirV]

Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso

The truth is sometimes when the stars and planets align just right all is okay. When there not than trouble starts and Raw can save your day.

The stars and planets align just right most of the time with the GRD I, GX100 and LC1 in my experience but never seem to align at all with the GRD II . Although the stars and planets seem to favor the GRD I most .

[kai.e.g.]

I'm still lurking here, and I'm glad I sat on my hands until now. The fast RAW in the GX-200 is just what I hoped for (actually more than I'd hoped for, given the 5-shot buffer), so this camera is in my near future.

[TEBnewyork]

Originally Posted by kai.e.g.

I'm still lurking here, and I'm glad I sat on my hands until now. The fast RAW in the GX-200 is just what I hoped for (actually more than I'd hoped for, given the 5-shot buffer), so this camera is in my near future.

However,
I'm staying tuned as I hear there are some other goodies being announced in the near future that might make us drool (not Ricoh).

[kai.e.g.]

Originally Posted by TEBnewyork

However,
I'm staying tuned as I hear there are some other goodies being announced in the near future that might make us drool (not Ricoh).

Aha! I do like goodies! I'm in no huge rush, so I'll stay tuned.

[pollobarca]

The LC1 is on sale Amazon Japan at 1500 yen or 10 euro.
Its 19,95 gbp in UK!

rgds

paul

[kai.e.g.]

Well, you had me going there for a moment or two... I thought you were talking about the Panasonic LC-1 (aka Leica Digilux 2), and I already had my credit card out!

Mind you, I like the lens cap, too ;-)

[TEBnewyork]

Originally Posted by kai.e.g.

Well, you had me going there for a moment or two... I thought you were talking about the Panasonic LC-1 (aka Leica Digilux 2), and I already had my credit card out!

Mind you, I like the lens cap, too ;-)

So did I!!!! I was so confused by this post.

[pollobarca]

Danone make LC1 too...


I should have been more specific but the thread is GX200....

[kai.e.g.]

I refuse to buy 2nd-hand yoghurt from Ebay!

Yes, yes, it's GX-200 thread, but it ended with hints of new things on the horizon from other manufacturers, and then your post about dirt-cheap LC1's being dumped on Ebay seemed to fit somehow with that line of thought (for a moment only, mind you).

[pollobarca]

Amazon and not e bay. Whats wrong with cheaper original lens caps anyway?
I just wish pixmania will have this price,you can bet that here in Italy it will be at least 39 euro. Lets face it its only a bit of plastic with 3 spings, real hi-tec ! But a brilliant idea all the same. I'm going to try to get this lens cap from japan , hope it gets dumped on me.
I am also looking forward to seeing the GX200 at citiwide on e bay. They've already reduced the price of the GX100 with EVF. Now costs 20 euro less than I paid in december.

all the best

paul

ps LC1 is made by Nestle' not Danone-sorry for the error.......

[kai.e.g.]

Originally Posted by pollobarca

Amazon and not e bay. Whats wrong with cheaper original lens caps anyway?

ps LC1 is made by Nestle' not Danone-sorry for the error.......

Ah, I'll buy used Danone yoghurt from Amazon and near-mint Nestle yoghurt from Ebay, but not the other way around under any circumsances!

I agree with the European prices - very maddening. Thank heavens for (fairly frequent) visits from relatives from the USA & Australia!

http://flickr.com/photos/sotome/2636...7605966575506/
lots of good fotos here by the gx200,quality looks pretty good to me,what do you think of the DR? all the best,Neil.

[Lili]

Originally Posted by nei1

http://flickr.com/photos/sotome/2636...7605966575506/
lots of good fotos here by the gx200,quality looks pretty good to me,what do you think of the DR? all the best,Neil.

Detail is excellentt, DR I am not so sure about.
Diffcult to judge, exif does not tell me enough, there are some blown highlights but that could be user error

[Jan Brittenson]

Originally Posted by TEBnewyork

I just don't understand with programs like Lightroom and Aperture etc. why you would shoot jpegs these days.

I have a little Canon Selphy 730 printer. It's a little 6x4ish dye sub with PictBridge that will run off a battery. Retractable mini USB cable that plugs straight into the camera. It's perfect to bring to a party or event and make prints for people on the spot. The GX100 can print directly to it, but only from JPEG. The solution here though, for me, is to shoot an intermediate size JPEG alongside the RAW. My JPEG settings are adjusted for the printer. I always shoot both since in the situations where I'm likely to have the GX100 I'm also likely to want to give people prints or JPEG files on the spot. Most people don't expect much, and a 1-2MP JPEG is plenty. If they want more I can always email the good stuff later.

I suspect though, that the GX200 JPEGs will be just fine for small prints like this.

I would certainly never shoot only JPEG...

I know it's sacrilege, but I would really have loved to have PictBridge in my Leica M8 as well.

It seems that the higher iso settings are not so good but thats unavoidable I would have thought.Im wondering if the optional finder had been made b&w and to a higher resolution it might have been better recieved. Neil.

[Prognathous]

I wouldn't worry about high-ISO. Using RAW, it's possible to get image quality that is no worse than any other small-sensor digicam. For better quality, you'll need to use a DSLR anyway.

http://imapnet.com/boren/GX200_HighISO/
(check out the files at the bottom of the page for high-ISO images downsized to DP1 file-size).

Prog.

This is probably very stupid but could the ricoh,eg,be adapted to be a b&w camera where every sensor is just measuring intensity instead of working in groups of three to guage the colour.Wouldnt that make a super quality b&w camera; sorry if this is rediculous,just out of interest,Neil.
Im used to carrying around two cameras,an M4-2 for B&w and an m6 for colour(Im going to start using the m6 for b&w as it hardly gets used)so taking a couple of ricohs for a walk would be no effort at all.

[Arch]

It seems like one of the most interesting, if not revolutionary, features of the GX200 has been somewhat overlooked: the in-camera distortion correction. If it really means barrel distortion correction, as I suspect and hope, it makes the GX200 the ultimate architecture compact camera in the market (as the GX100 has been until now). The electronic lever doesn't harm, either.

Some Nikon compacts have had in-camera correction for a while, but none of them have RAW. Maybe the new P6000 has both?

If anyone already has a GX200, I would be very pleased to hear how its distortion correction works in practice. How much does it affect the viewing angle? Any increase in file size, like in barrel correction software?

[naoip]

Hi all....

Deposit paid,pick up the GX200 on friday hopefully

[edslaughter]

Arch,

My GX200 just came. According to the manual, Distortion Correction doesn't work with RAW or the JPEG recorded with RAW. There are other caveats:

-Distortion correction may change the angle of view.

-DC won't apply if conditions don't warrant it, even if enabled.

-DC won't work with continuous or movie shots

-DC doesn't show up when you review shots on the LCD.

I just did a very quick and dirty test shooting a wall at 24mm f.l. I did two JPEGs, one with, one without distortion correction. DC really did straighten out the "barrel" distortion at the edges. I made no accurate measurements, but to the casual glance things are nice and straight.

As to file size, the DC jpeg was actually slightly smaller than the uncorrected one, but since I wasn't using a tripod the images weren't exactly the same so I don't think I can draw any conclusion--other than that the difference, if any, was small.

Since I shoot only RAW I'm not likely to spend much time with further experiments.

Regards,

Ed

[Arch]

Thanks a lot for the info, Ed!
A shame that the GX200's distortion correction doesn't work with RAW. It is also very strange, since DC is a feature for advanced photography, which means RAW. Luckily there are simple, well working and inexpensive software around, such as LensFix and PTLens, which are camera and lens specific (unlike the PS DC filter). GX100 is included in both.

[naoip]

Picked up the GX200 early its in my mitts ...

Impressed with the new features,build quality seems the same as the GX100..Just a tad nervous about the info ive been reading about the noise...Will get out and take some pictures tomorrow..

I was wondering if Tom's advice about the Ricoh R8, would work for the jpeg on the GX,this seems to be getting the more negative comments....

I loved the Grd I and kind of regret selling it,but i found a lot of my pictures were blurry...I tend to take candid stuff (wing and a prayer)with it set to snap,and i'm moving as i take the shot,so i'm hoping the anti shake will kick in with the GX,were see..

On another note its as loud as the GX100 imo..

And dumb me i thought the new lens cover was inbox,but in the UK its a extra, not sure if thats standard??

[naoip]

Ok now i'm going to look a total nut,i took the GX back on the 30 day guaranteed return plan...

It was a great camera but the truth of it is,whyyyyy did i sell my Grd

Jessops here in the UK are still selling the last few for £190...So the GRDi is back in my hands,and to be honest it feels perfect,what was i thinking

I couldn't afford both,due to a laptop purchase,so the GX had to go..I replaced my laptop with a black Asus Eee 900,nice combination with the Grd