Ricoh Caplio GX8 Review

#1 GARY POGODA

Frustrating. The GX noise was already bad with 5 megapixels on its
1/1.8" CCD, and yet they cranked the GX8 up to 8 megapixels on the
same size CCD to yield an even worse noise performance. If you are
so inclined, it will be interesting to read your review for the GR Digital,
which also crams 8 megapixels onto a 1/1.8" CCD, but which is being
heralded by Ricoh as having superb image quality.

5:40 pm - Thursday, October 13, 2005

#2 Prognathous

Mark, could you add a few samples with the Sharpness setting set to Soft? Quite a few GX8 owners report that this setting results in much less noise, without any significant sacrifice in terms of sharpness/resolution (photos look good even without post-processing).

In similar fashion to the Caplio R1, where the default sharpness setting should have been Sharp, Ricoh got it wrong with the Caplio GX8 which should have left the factory set to Soft. They seem to always get the defaults wrong, but once you dial in the correct settings, the Caplios can really deliver. See this dpreview thread for typical examples (not necessarily related to the sharpness issue):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1001&thread=15411986
(warning: some very latge images, not for those using dial-up connection)

As for ISO1600, it is surprisingly useful in B&W and with some noise-reduction and sharpening in software. The results compare favorably with TMAX3200.

So Mark, how about doing some follow-up testing in Soft mode?

Prog.

7:42 pm - Thursday, October 13, 2005

#3 Prognathous

The above link seems to be broken by this site's redirect. Try this one instead:

http://snipurl.com/capliogx_samples

Prog.

7:45 pm - Thursday, October 13, 2005

#4 Mark Goldstein

OK, sure, I still have the camera so I will do a comparison test between the different sharpness settings and add it to the Image Quality page of the review.

8:55 am - Friday, October 14, 2005

#5 Prognathous

Thanks Mark!

Prog.

9:01 am - Friday, October 14, 2005

#6 Black Box Photo

If anything you are too kind about the
GX8 noise quality - going by your test
photos it is extraordinarily high even
at ISO 64 (for instance in the shot on what
looks like Hampstead Heath). However, don't
look AT the noise, look INTO it. It has
a quite unusual trichromatic structure
that adds, of itself, a quite unusual
surface beauty to many except the dullest
of dull gray shots: it's a kind of distinct
artifact resulting from a particular
reproductive process that's similar to
those which, in other forms from other
times, give a lot of early photo processes
their particular edge. It wouldn't suit
all sorts of shots or all sorts of
photographers, but it's made me consider
getting one. The Ricoh engineers may have
intended smooth surfaces to look smooth, in
which case they sure have failed big time,
but on the other hand they haven't half made
them look pretty luscious lumpy, especially
in things like foliage, etc.

12:53 pm - Friday, October 14, 2005

#7 Black Box Photo

Collotype is a process that was used for
fine art photo reproductions up to about
50 or 60 years ago. It was reputed to give
the most accurate reproduction of paintings
available at that time, but it didn't - in
fact, almost every collotype-reproduced painting ended up looing like collotypes
rather than like the original paintings.
The distinct grain pattern of the GX8 gives
its output something of the quality that
made - and make - collotype reproductions
special. See
<http://www.megalink.net/~shattenb/collotyp/collotyp.htm>

1:18 pm - Friday, October 14, 2005

#8 GARY POGODA

When Mike Johnston, in his 'Sunday Morning Photographer' column,
compared digital image noise to the brush strokes of a fine museum
painting, I had to take issue. Now, with your claims of its usefulness
for achieving collotype-ish effects, I don't know what to think.

I must admit, I have often questioned why camera manufacturers do
include ISO settings beyond a usable range. Maybe artistic purposes
is what they had in mind.

However, before you go out and buy the GX8, I was wondering if you
had investigated the possibility of using a computer program to add to
the digital noise of an image, rather than reduce it, in order to achieve
this effect.

In case you are interested, here is the PhotographyBLOG link to the
'Sunday Morning Photographer' column on noise, referenced above.

http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/come_on_feel_the_noise/

BTW, nice family. Is it yours?

7:57 pm - Friday, October 14, 2005

#9 Mark Goldstein

I have now updated the Image Quality page of the review with a look at if the sharpness settings affect the overall image quality (scroll down to the bottom of the page).

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_ricoh_caplio_gx8_6.php

10:26 am - Saturday, October 15, 2005

#10 Prognathous

Thanks for adding this comparison, I think it does more justice to the camera.

Prog.

12:28 pm - Saturday, October 15, 2005

#11 GARY POGODA

This proves the opposite about Ricoh getting the 'default' sharpness
wrong. It looks like they got it right, they just did not use a very good
sharpness algorithm.

What this really proves is that the GX8 is not a P-and-S camera. It is
a P-and-S-and-S (Point-and-Shoot-and-Sharpen).

Nice to see Mark's willingness to accommodate such requests. What
other cameras from past reviews do you still have at your disposal?

5:32 pm - Saturday, October 15, 2005

#12 Prognathous

Don't mix the concept of default settings with different software. Considering that this sharpness algorithm is part of the camera software, Medium/Normal is the wrong default. Soft is better.

Prog.

6:31 pm - Saturday, October 15, 2005

#13 Black Box Photo

GARY POGODA wrote:

> Now, with your claims of its usefulness for achieving collotype-ish
> effects, I don’t know what to think.

I wasn't quite claiming that. Rather that as collotype gives a particular
"look" to every image that was made using it, so does the GX8, much more
so than most cameras. This is not an applied "effect" but a structural
artifact of its own photographic process. Noise is a characteristic of
most processes, deriving in realistic painting - from beyond Canaletto to
past Norman Rockwell - from the surface and the brush, and in photography
from the composition of the medium (currently mostly Bayer-mosaic RGB CCD)
and its processing (through various proprietary conversion engines).

When Tri-X first appeared and enabled instantaneous, available-light
shooting of just about everything a photographer could see, it brought
with it a marked noise "problem" that upset many, but others discovered
that viewing through the noise provided a particular "look" which imposed
its own discipline and aesthetic, one that extended right down to individual
style. And sales of Dektol, a developer which enhances the clarity and
sharpness of the silver grain structure (a.k.a. noise) took off.

If I were a "graphic artist", I'd build images from imagination and apply
ad hoc "effects" as part of that, but as a "photographer" - although I'm
not at all a purist, and dodge, burn, correct verticals, level horizontals
and trim the output to match what I think I saw in the viewfinder - the
subsequent application of graphic "effects" doesn't usually do it for me.

In that context, the "look" returned by the GX8 in Mark's test shots -
e.g. in the foliage (in what I realize may be near Crystal Palace rather
than on Hampstead Heath) and in his long shots of the Thames - is quite
unique, manifesting with a "look" that noise from other cameras does not
have, and certainly something that, if it is used to inform the whole
process of what is shot and how it is shot, can make a real contribution
to a particular phase or style in a photographer's output.

If your subject is mostly new mothers and babies' peachlikes you wouldn't
want to choose a GX8, but if you are into landscapes or cityscapes then its
apparent flaws could be the basis of a whole methodolgy that makes for some
distinctive and attractive photographs.

> I must admit, I have often questioned why camera manufacturers do
> include ISO settings beyond a usable range. Maybe artistic purposes
> is what they had in mind.

I have a friend who is currently shooting a series of ladies of the night
mostly at very high ISOs settings. The noise is by many standards simply
unacceptable but she has had to accept it just get many of the shots and
has built it into a whole aesthetic of its own in the process. One could
almost view it as a commentary on the situation of the subjects. Usable
is as usable does.

> BTW, nice family. Is it yours?

Family?

6:52 pm - Saturday, October 15, 2005

#14 GARY POGODA

The point I was making about the default sharpness setting is that it
should be one that, by itself, does not appear soft, while at the same
time, by itself, does not appear sharp. Judging from Mark's images,
I would have to conclude that Ricoh made exactly the correct choice.

7:53 pm - Saturday, October 15, 2005

#15 GARY POGODA

Interesting perspective on image sensor noise; however, I do not see
what is so special about the GX8's high ISO noise, compared to every
other camera offering high ISO settings beyond what would "normally"
be considered the camera's usable ISO range.

As to the "family" question, I was referring to the family picture near the
bottom of the Main Menu page of the collotype link you provided in your
post #7.

8:14 pm - Saturday, October 15, 2005

#16 Black Box Photo

GARY POGODA wrote:

> I do not see
> what is so special about the GX8’s high ISO noise, compared to every
> other camera offering high ISO settings beyond what would “normally”
> be considered the camera’s usable ISO range.

Judging by Mark's test shots, the GX8's
starts at ISO 64 and is distinctive by ISO
100, which means that it becomes a stylistic
determinant within normal tonal ranges
(and hence at normal shutter speeds and
apertures) wheras in other cameras such
high noise levels appear only after colour
and tonal reproduction is significantly
distorted by the speed increase (at which
speeds, extreme aperture or shutter settings
are also usually involved, with their own,
characteristic visual impacts).

Re family: no, that wasn't my page - I just
Googled "collotype" for a reference for those
who aren't used to seeing it as the principle
method of fine-art reproduction, and that
particular page mentioned the "reticulation"
that produces the "inconsistent dot pattern"
characteristic of the process (and the GX8's
low-ISO noise).

10:28 pm - Saturday, October 15, 2005

#17 GARY POGODA

Seems strange to be searching for high noise at low ISOs; however,
you may be correct that the GX8 does seem to excel in that respect.

I was able to find only one camera, the HP Photosmart R817, which
appears to have higher noise than the GX8 at ISO 100. At ISO 200,
it still appears to have higher noise. But then something happens at
ISO 400, where its noise actually decreases (I think this image must
not be the correct one).

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_hp_photosmart_r817_6.php

Unfortunately, HP did not have Ricoh's artistic foresight, and restricted
the R817 to maximum ISO 400.

8:51 pm - Sunday, October 16, 2005

#18 jujubinche

"the images that it produces are some of the worst that I have ever seen"

hu :| !!

I just check samples images, and, yes, there's noise, but also VERY strong details !!
You can't compare "crop" from 8M images and "crop" from 5M images ... you can only compare entire image, and for an 300€ camera, i really don't see "the worst images i ever seen" ... i see good/average "out the camera" images with HUGE potential ..

I like having control on my image, and i prefer this "brut" noise over oil painting effect from all other camera.

But now, with your review, i don't know if i must get one ... :s

(sorry for my poor english )
ju

7:37 am - Monday, October 17, 2005

#19 GARY POGODA

Any reasonable quality camera can produce mediocre images. It is
only when you compare the same images side-by-side from another
camera, take the camera to its extremes, or look at its images close
up, that you really notice its deficiencies.

The reason for comparing 8M crops to 5M crops was to emphasize
the point that Ricoh made a bad decision by increasing the pixels of
the GX8 over the GX without increasing its sensor size. So many of
us are tempted by the higher pixel counts now being offered with the
newer model cameras.

Myself included.

6:29 pm - Monday, October 17, 2005

#20 will

well I still want one, frustrating or not: I want something to play with, but I'll probably have to wait for Christmas. Who else gives you the 28mm lens for street photos for the same price as I (what? 3-4 years ago?)paid for a 1.3Mp Olympus? I liked Angelo Smaldore's test on the Rob Galbraith site, he had fun too.

9:46 pm - Monday, October 17, 2005

#21 Reto Rechsteiner

For me the Ricoh GX8 makes too noisy pictures. Everything else would be perfekt. Is there not a firmware update? I tried a little anti-noise-program and the pictures looked much mere better. so it shoud be possible to make a better camera-software.

5:14 pm - Wednesday, November 1, 2006