It is Awful Lonely in Here!

[Ancientritual]

This is a final version of the photo on page 2 using the Ricoh CX1 and Frankenstein HDR for the overall look.

[mtclimber]

My Goodness, AncientRitual-

I thought you had left the Forum. Your most recent HDR looks a bit down tone, but nice.

Sarah Joyce

[Tullio]

I bought the CX2, took about 200 pics and sent it right back to Amazon. All macro shots I took looked real good but most landscape shots (beach and such) looked horrendous. The camera was not able to retain fine details (it looks like the NR is way way too strong and smudges everything. Unfortunately, the CX2 does not offer any options as far as NR goes). It was too bad, really. I liked the ergonomics, the build and colors (when the WB cooperated). If this camera went for less than $200, it would be worth keeping it but for $314, no way.

[mtclimber]

Tullio-

I had the very same experience, and returned mine as well. The CX1 in contrast, is fairly decent.

Sarah Joyce

[Tullio]

Another good example of an old model outperforming newer ones by the sounds of it!

[Ancientritual]

Originally Posted by Tullio

Another good example of an old model outperforming newer ones by the sounds of it!

The major difference between the CX1 and CX2 is the lens. Always did like the build quality on Ricoh cameras. However, this is still a P&S camera with limitations. Far more post processing involved when compared to DSLR's.

[Tullio]

Well, this is true for just about any P&S. However, the extra processing should not interfere with IQ. Perhaps the CX3 is better than the CX2 once you knock down the NR to its lowest possible level. The problem with the CX2 is the lack of detail when shooting WA (there is plenty of detail in macro mode (or even close ups). As a result, any cropping will make the image look poor, with smudged details. I recently went to Hawaii and took many pictures at the beach. Not only the WB was way off, the sand looked more like a smooth carpet. I could not see the grains at all.

[Schaki]

Originally Posted by Tullio

I bought the CX2, took about 200 pics and sent it right back to Amazon. All macro shots I took looked real good but most landscape shots (beach and such) looked horrendous. The camera was not able to retain fine details (it looks like the NR is way way too strong and smudges everything. Unfortunately, the CX2 does not offer any options as far as NR goes). It was too bad, really. I liked the ergonomics, the build and colors (when the WB cooperated). If this camera went for less than $200, it would be worth keeping it but for $314, no way.

The neweer Ricoh CX4 have improved image stabilization and also the option NR off which preserves fine-detail better. The Ricoh CX5 and CX6 also have that NR off option but seems to use more NR by default. I think CX4 are the best choice so far.

[Tullio]

The new models sound promising. However, I seriously doubt they will outperform the Panasonic ones. I have a ZS6 and it takes beautiful pictures.

[penolta]

I have a CX5 and am very pleased with it, although I haven't used it heavily. It carries nicely in a small pouch on the belt. Shortly after the merger, Pentax came out with a camera that sounded so similar, that I thought it would be the same under a different name, but it wasn't. I prefer the feature set of the Ricoh - it is a great value for the money, more compact and less noisy than the otherwise good Panasonic FZ's I have had.