|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Columbia, IL
Posts: 347
|
![]()
This is a final version of the photo on page 2 using the Ricoh CX1 and Frankenstein HDR for the overall look.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#72 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
|
![]()
My Goodness, AncientRitual-
I thought you had left the Forum. Your most recent HDR looks a bit down tone, but nice. Sarah Joyce |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
|
![]()
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.
__________________
Tullio |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#74 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
|
![]()
Tullio-
I had the very same experience, and returned mine as well. The CX1 in contrast, is fairly decent. Sarah Joyce |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#75 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
|
![]()
Another good example of an old model outperforming newer ones by the sounds of it!
__________________
Tullio |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#76 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Columbia, IL
Posts: 347
|
![]()
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#77 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
|
![]()
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.
__________________
Tullio |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#78 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#79 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
|
![]()
The new models sound promising. However, I seriously doubt they will outperform the Panasonic ones. I have a ZS6 and it takes beautiful pictures.
__________________
Tullio |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#80 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California USA
Posts: 5,206
|
![]()
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.
__________________
. . If life brings you lemons, you can make lemonade. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|