#1 Prognathous

Mark, thanks posting this interesting review.

One thing that I couldn't find, is an evaluation of the image quality in typical usage (e.g. 8x10 prints). Have you printed any of those samples? If so, how would you describe the image quality of the prints?

Prog.

1:49 am - Wednesday, December 14, 2005

#2 Ngat

Well that settles it, then.

Poor quality photos, huh? What a shame. I was looking forward to this one too, with its excellent technical features, I was hoping that the picture quality would at least be average - but you say it's below average, huh? What a damned shame.

2:53 am - Wednesday, December 14, 2005

#3 GARY POGODA

That ties up all the loose ends for me ... except for one ... okay two.

If you still have possession of the R3, could you possibly check if its
3 megapixel setting (2048 x 1536) reduces the image sensor noise,
as was claimed by Ricoh for the R2?

I would also like to settle (once and for all) whether 2 AAA batteries
can be utilized in place of the R3's DB-60 Li-Ion. (BTW, are you any
good with a soldering iron?) :)

6:42 am - Wednesday, December 14, 2005

#4 jujubinche007

Sample photos in section "photo" quality are bad bad !!!
There's shake on the nightshot (!!!), the second flash portrait is out of focus ...
Come on, this little camera is not a nikanon, but it deserves a fair review ..

(again sorry for my bad english )

9:06 am - Wednesday, December 14, 2005

#5 Prognathous

Gary, downsampling makes noise less visible, that's a fact of life. However, this "trick" is is only useful what interests you is looking at 100% crops, rather than actually using the images. For *printing*, the 5MP image will still look better than one resized to 3MP.

The R3 can only be powered by DB-60 batteries or AC (with an optional adaptor). There's no AA or AAA support in this Caplio.

Prog.

9:19 am - Wednesday, December 14, 2005

#6 Ngat

A quote from Imaging Resource regarding their sampling methods:

"Testing hundreds of digital cameras, we've found that you can only tell just so much about a camera's image quality by viewing its images on-screen. Ultimately, there's no substitute for printing a lot of images and examining them closely. For this reason, we now routinely print sample images from the cameras we test....."

8:37 pm - Wednesday, December 14, 2005

#7 GARY POGODA

Thanks, Prog. I was hoping to see how good the R3's downsampling
algorithm really is.

9:59 pm - Wednesday, December 14, 2005

#8 Prognathous

Ngat, I agree with Imaging Resource, but judging by your first comment in this thread, it seemed to me that you did reach a conclusion about the R3 real-life quality merely from viewing 100% crops, am I wrong?

Gary, even if the in-camera downsampling algorithm is fine, I don't see the point in shooting 3MP with a camera that's capable of 5MP. I mean, 3MP is fine for many needs, but it may still be insufficient for the occasional larger print. In my opinion, 5MP~6MP is optimal for most users. Go igher (with a given sensor technology) and you basically only get more noise. This seems to be the case here. The 5MP Caplio R3 has more noise at ISO64 than the 4MP Caplio R1. Ricoh should have used a more advanced sensor, but even the one that they did eventually put into the R3 is sufficient for typical enlargements.

Prog.

10:11 am - Thursday, December 15, 2005

#9 GARY POGODA

Prog, the question was really more academic than practical. It would
be interesting to see how the internal downsampling to 3 megapixels,
prior to the application of JPEG compression, compares with computer
noise reduction algorithms being applied after such compression, both
in terms of effectiveness and preservation of image detail.

7:33 pm - Thursday, December 15, 2005

#10 Mike

Does the review based on the original firmware or after updating it to ver 1.24? and with the newer version 1.27, depending on the result, the review need to be revised. I, myself, haven't update to the new version yet, but will do it tonight.

9:28 pm - Thursday, December 15, 2005

#11 a_aa

@ Mike: I'm curious - have the firmware updates you have done had any significant effects on the image quality?

@ Mark: Depending on Mikes response, it can be very important to know wich firmware version you performed your review on...

12:51 pm - Saturday, December 24, 2005

#12 CCOX

Anyone has done the firmware upgrade?
It seems that this firmware correct a lot, can you confirm this guys? (Otherwise this R3 is a REAL disapointment :()
Cheers,
CCOX.

4:48 pm - Monday, December 26, 2005

#13 Dave

Hi, have owned the R3 for a couple of weeks now and used it extensively. Compact and real value for money camera. Cheap considering its packing wide angle, 7x zoom and image stabilisation. Only downside to the camera is the slightly noisy pictures. However, can be kept to a minimum by keeping the ISO at 100 or below. Been using it to take photos for my blog. See for yourself the picture quality at http://kooshlog.blogspot.com

5:03 pm - Monday, December 26, 2005

#14 Gavin

I was really disappointed to read this review too. What can you recommend as an alternative? What I really liked the sound of on the R3 was the hige zoom range. Does any other compact come close?

2:59 pm - Monday, January 16, 2006

#15 GARY POGODA

Gavin, no other compact comes close without the same amount of
noise, so you might as well get the full 7.1x zoom.

There is a new camera, the Kodak EasyShare V570, which has a 5x
zoom range (23mm fixed, PLUS 39 - 117mm zoom), and from early
indications, has well managed noise, much better than the R3.

See my comment #20 in the "Take My Wife's Digital Camera" thread.

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

8:27 pm - Monday, January 16, 2006

#16 Gavin

My current camera is an Ixus V3 - pics are OK but have limitations. My main gripe with it is only 2x optical zoom. Maybe I don't need 7x, but I would like at least 5x. Based on this, what else would you recommend?

8:29 pm - Monday, January 16, 2006

#17 CCOX

Hey Dave, all photos from your blog are taken with the R3?

cheers.

8:35 pm - Monday, January 16, 2006

#18 GARY POGODA

Gavin, without exception, ALL of the high-zoom ultra-compacts use a
1/2.5" CCD, and each has received poor review ratings for excessive
noise. The Kodak EasyShare V570 is the ONLY ultra-compact which
has high-zoom and a 1/2.5" CCD but does not suffer from high noise.

The V570 has a fixed 23mm lens PLUS a 3x zoom lens (39 - 117mm)
which gives a total 5x zoom range. That is the best you can do unless
you are willing to accept excessive noise, in which case, you might as
well go with the R3.

8:57 pm - Monday, January 16, 2006

#19 Gavin

Gary (sorry to go on...!) is it worth considering something a little less compact? Is the increase in quality that much better when you move up to something like a Sony Cybershot?

11:16 pm - Monday, January 16, 2006

#20 Gavin

The Canon A620 is really catching my eye now....great picture quality, decent zoom, loads of pixels, and the ability to add lenses surely makes it a winner?!

9:43 am - Tuesday, January 17, 2006

#21 nick in japan

Gary.. Where is the IS? With the noticable grain above 100, you gonna be sorry! Looks like a little silver brick, and that low resolution LED looks like a left-over from the 2000 models! Yikes! Gotta get serious Son!

10:14 am - Tuesday, January 17, 2006

#22 nick in japan

AND... where is wide angle! OH! Forgot , you can buy some extra lenses to tote along!! Sorry!

10:16 am - Tuesday, January 17, 2006

#23 Gavin

Nick, were your comments for me or Gary?

10:32 am - Tuesday, January 17, 2006

#24 GARY POGODA

Gavin, I think Nick was commenting to you.

The advantage of going to a slightly bigger camera is that most use
the 1/1.8" CCD, which has less noise, provided it does not have too
many pixels. At 8 megapixels, you have about the same noise as a
5 megapixel 1/2.5" CCD, 7 megapixels is better and 5 megapixels is
better still.

The Canon PowerShot A620 is an excellent camera, as is the A610.
If you don't need the extra megapixels of the A620, the A610 will be
a little less noisy.

The exception to the rule of "less megapixels is better" is the Fujifilm
FinePix E900. At 9 megapixels, on a 1/1.6" CCD, it is very low noise.
Like the A610 and A620, it is 4x zoom and uses AA batteries, but the
advantage of the E900 is that its lens goes to 32 mm at the wide end,
as compared to 35 mm for the A610/A620. The E900 is also quite a
bit more compact than the A610/A620.

The biggest drawback of all three cameras is the small, low resolution
2.0" LCD, although the A610/A620's LCD is flip-out & twist.

It all depends what features you want most, and do not expect to find
a "pocketable" camera with all the features you want.

10:38 am - Tuesday, January 17, 2006

#25 Gavin

I see the A620 as an excellent compromise - reasonably compact, good pixels for everyday use, but when I want to take some serious pictures it has manual override and the option to add lenses, thus giving a much greater zoom range than any compact camera. The review I have read is http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_a620-review/index_pfv.shtml

10:52 am - Tuesday, January 17, 2006

#26 GARY POGODA

It all depends on your intended use. If "pocketability" is important to
you, then the A620 is not so appealing with its native 1.9" body depth,
and then add to that the length of the accessory lenses. And, as Nick
pointed out, it has no IS, so how useful will a telephoto accessory lens
be, unless you also intend to use a tripod. If that is the case, now you
are talking about some serious equipment lugging, so you might even
do better with one of the larger, all-in-one digicams with 10 - 12x zoom
and IS included.

It all depends on your intended use. If you plan to do a lot of computer
post-processing, then maybe one of the noisier cameras would not be
so bad, since the noise can be easily removed. The R3 with 7.1x zoom,
the Panasonic LX1 with 4x zoom, or the Samsung L55W with 4.8x zoom
come to mind.

It all depends on your intended use. Since I absolutely want in-camera
red-eye removal in an ultra-compact size with 5x zoom, the new Kodak
EasyShare V570 is starting to look like the best camera (for my wife).

The most important thing in deciding on which camera to buy is to know
your intended use.

11:29 am - Tuesday, January 17, 2006

#27 nick in japan

GOMEN Gary!, I thought that sounded like you, and thought that you were considering , yet, another camera for your wife! Sorry 'bout that.

11:29 am - Tuesday, January 17, 2006

#28 GARY POGODA

No, I've been psyched on this new Kodak EasyShare V570 for a good
24 hours now, and I think that is a record. :)

11:36 am - Tuesday, January 17, 2006

#29 nick in japan

Like I mentioned somewhere recently, Kodak has impressed me since the 265 I had. A great company, with alot of good R&D that has had proven, quality stuff in the camera line. I'm sure your wife will love it, millions of us that read your comments are very anxious to get seious feedback on your impressions, it may make-or-break the company, that's for sure!
Actually, I'm a bit suprised that a company hasn't offered you a birthday gift for your wife, as kinda a promotional thing, maybe the answer to that is that they all know that meeting your stringent standards would, indeed , be a BIG gamble... maybe NEXT year when a CMOS ultra compact hits the market!

12:01 pm - Tuesday, January 17, 2006

#30 GARY POGODA

That would be funny if a camera company did that. I think I would be
ethically bound to return any such gift, now that I have contributed an
article to PhotographyBLOG. :)

Speaking of which, did you read my comment #20 in that article. It has
a link to an Imaging-Resource review of the V550, which uses the same
CCD as the V570. I would like to know what you think of their evaluation
of the V550's CCD noise.

12:48 pm - Tuesday, January 17, 2006

#31 nick in japan

For some reason beyond my abilities, I cannot get "Imaging-Resourse" to open up, sorry, I went to another review and was impressed! A night shot that is probably the best I have ever seen in a compact. I can see why you are sold on this sensor's abilities. Now all we need is that sensor made into the 16X9 size and put into the LX-1's replacement!
There is an obvious difference between this Kodak sensor and everyone else's!

2:24 pm - Tuesday, January 17, 2006

#32 GARY POGODA

That is good to hear, as I know you have a very critical eye.

I don't know why you could not get to the Imaging-Resource reviews.
Did you click on the links in my comment #20 of the "Take My Wife's
Digital Camera" thread, or did you type the URL in yourself? If it was
the latter, trying clicking on the two links in my comment #20.

The first link in the comment is to an excellent V550 review, while the
second link in the comment is to an excellent V570 preview.

Here is a link to comment #20 of the "Take My Wife's Digital Camera"
thread.

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

6:06 pm - Tuesday, January 17, 2006

#33 GARY POGODA

I am posting this comment in several PhotographyBLOG threads, the
ones where I have spent considerable time over the past few months.

As you know, I've been searching for a camera for my wife's birthday
coming at the end of January. I was looking for an ultra-compact with
a high zoom and minimal red-eye. Some of the cameras I considered
were the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1, the Samsung Digimax L55W, the
HP Photosmart R817, the Nikon Coolpix S4, and the Ricoh Caplio R3.

Unfortunately, all of these cameras were eliminated for one reason or
another, but mostly for their high image noise. It was only at CES that
a camera debuted which caught my eye, the Kodak EasyShare V570.

The V570 is a dual lens, dual CCD, ultra-compact. One lens is a fixed
23mm while the other is a 3x zoom (39 - 117mm), for a 5x total zoom
range. Both lenses are of the folded-optics variety. The V570 also has
two 1/2.5" 5 megapixel CCDs, which do not seem to be plagued by the
excessive noise of similar CCDs. Its in-camera red-eye removal is also
quite good.

If you are interested in reading more about the V570, or about its CCD
noise characteristics (as per a review of the V550 which uses the same
CCD), then check out the links in my comment #20 of the recent "Take
My Wife's Digital Camera" thread (written by yours truly).

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

The camera is not ordered yet, so any feedback you can offer would be
greatly appreciated. I would feel better if the camera had been reviewed
by our own Mark "The Noise Sleuth" Goldstein.

7:34 pm - Tuesday, January 17, 2006

#34 Alex B

Hi guys

Let's get back to the Ricoh R3 !

What about the new firmware 1.28 ?
Heard that it reduces the noise extremely.

Did somebody update his firmware to 1.28 ?
I am very eager to hear the results.

I am looking for camera with at least these features:
- wide angle
- compact
- price max 375€ (=450$)
According to me ;) Ricoh R3 is the only one that fits this description (untill now).

Greetz

9:47 pm - Friday, January 20, 2006

#35 GARY POGODA

Alex, I think you heard incorrectly. The only way v1.28 could reduce its
image noise would be to restrict the R3 to ISO 64. :)

If you have not done so already, you should check out comments #402
and #403 at the other R3 thread. It might firm up your interest in the R3.

http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/ricoh_caplio_r3_announced/

8:52 pm - Saturday, January 21, 2006

#36 Alex B

Gary

Thanx for the link.
I have two main questions!

1_______________
It did not make me any wiser.
In smaller size (like on will's website)the pictures look great! But when you enlarge them: noise.

Dammit Ricoh: such a great camera but the noise...

I could live with the noise, but how hard is it to apply noiseremover on images? I mean i don't want a day's work just removing the noise. Is there somekind of batch that you can just let run?

2__________________
I downloaded the manual.
What about the "slow shutter"-function? I heard that there is a ability to put in a maximum shutter time.(1/8, 1/4, 1/2) "Limiting shutter release speed".
Is it comparable to shutter priority-function?

What about the LONG TIME EXPOSURE



Greetz
Alex

11:02 am - Monday, January 23, 2006

#37 GARY POGODA

In regard to your question #1, you are right. I think I may be trying
just a little too hard to justify purchasing the R3 (for my wife).

6:55 pm - Monday, January 23, 2006

#38 Mario

http://www.epinions.com/content_217558847108

Interesting review of the R3 here...

I'm feeling a bit weak..I'm starting to consider this camera now.............

7:30 pm - Wednesday, January 25, 2006

#39 GARY POGODA

I know what you mean, Mario, but after reading that excellent review,
I am more inclined to wait for firmware update v1.33, or at least until
after PMA in February.

8:45 pm - Wednesday, January 25, 2006

#40 Mario

You're probably right, Gary.

There is just one thing I think we should be aware of - Comparisons - It always get us into trouble. I remember buying a big screen tv and agonised over comparing the pictures of TVs side by side. Took a while to decide on one. But after purchasing one and viewing it on its own, the quality looked great and I didnt know why I fussed over it.

Same with cameras. I think some of these ultra compacts produce quite good photos. But if you took the same shot with an SLR.. wow, the ultra compact shot looks quite bad.
So dont compare! lol

Have you checked out the C6 review at steve's digicams?
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/c6_samples.html
I really like the quality of the SANY0030 shot in natural light I believe. Even at full crop. SANY0034 looks noisy with the flash, but actually isnt too bad. It looks bad in comparison to SANY0030. But if it was the only picture to look at, and without comparing to something, I doubt it would have looked that bad.

The C6 is really compact and I believe takes decent photos and very good video.

Ultra compact still cameras take pretty good photos and ok video.

6:49 am - Thursday, January 26, 2006

#41 GARY POGODA

I read the C6 review, but not very seriously since the HD1 had already
been announced with its 10x zoom, 2.2" LCD, and high-definition video.

7:44 am - Thursday, January 26, 2006

#42 nick in japan

Gary.. Off subject, but something has been bugging me! A couple years ago, a breakthrough technology called Universal Visual Format was being developed, with the main players being Fuji, Kodak, Nikon and Canon. The sensor was supposed to be 35mm frame sized and a cheap storage system was touted, something like $5 US per gig. I wonder what has happened in that area?
Seems like the writing procedure was different than the present digital system and was supposed to last a long time due to the RAW storage, writing real large files.
Any info as to this secret stuff? We certainly need some-kind-of breakthrough in the compact camera line, maybe this UVF is being developed as the "next-best-thing", huh?

8:42 am - Thursday, January 26, 2006

#43 will

Check out my actual photos of Brasil through the lens of my Ricoh Capilo R3:
http://greeneternity.planetnomads.com/r3_brasil
The site is flash based to save me some time. It includes most of the EXIF info and the original sized photo if you wish to download it.
All but 2 photos were taken without tripods, on manual setting of ISO 64, with image stablization on, vivid color, auto white balancing, normal sharpness and no flash. Firmware 1.27 was used for this trip. Let's see whatelse? All photos were post processed using Photoshop CS2 (as I do with all my photos) "ctrl + shift + l" fuction which auto levels the picture.... to be honest, it didn't make a whole lot of difference.
You can find other photos on http://planetnomads.com (unlimited photo storage) and also click the following if you want to buy the "Best of Brasil" calender I made for only $14.99. http://www.lulu.com/content/223860

Will


Will

2:54 am - Sunday, January 29, 2006

#44 Alex B

Can somebody explain me this:

I downloaded the manual.
What about the "slow shutter"-function? I heard that there is a ability to put in a maximum shutter time.(1/8, 1/4, 1/2) "Limiting shutter release speed".
Is it comparable to shutter priority-function?

What about the LONG TIME EXPOSURE ? (something else?)

Greetz
Alex

11:05 am - Monday, January 30, 2006

#45 Will

Alex,
I can help you with LONG TIME EXPOSURE.
All settings, including most manual settings has auto aperature and shutter management. When I was using my camera, the max shutter time it went on customized manual setting (vivid color, AWB, ISO 64, no flash) was @ 1 sec. Using additional settings, you can manually set your exposure time at 2s, 4s and 8s intervals. Those were the only 3 options in addition to "no" long time exposure, which is automatic. On few photos in my above "review" you can see I set shutter / exposure interval to 2s and 8s.

Hope this helps.

Will

5:33 pm - Monday, January 30, 2006

#46 Prognathous

An excellent review of the R3 can be found here:

http://snipurl.com/ThomasJhou_R3_review

Unlike other reviews (including the one posted here on photographyblog.com), this review actually bothers to compare image quality and noise with another camera - the much acclaimed Canon S60. The results, both in low and high ISO, speak for themselves. The R3 has obviously suffered a bad name for no good reason (other perhaps, than being a Ricoh).

A must read for anyone interested in this camera.

Prog.

10:29 am - Wednesday, February 1, 2006

#47 Alex B

Hi

Will, very nice pictures indeed.
I am willing to live with the noise, but how hard is it to remove the noise by software?

Is it a lot of work? I odn't to spend a whole evening just removing noise.
E.g. taking pictures with less light => noise will be more visible. If you take 100 pictures, is it possible to do this automatically? And how good is the result? (every picture is unique...)

Which programs are used for this?
Greetz

1:54 pm - Friday, February 3, 2006

#48 will

Alex,
When I run all my pictures through Photoshop CS2 only, it doesn't really remove noise, it just automatically auto levels the photos... i.e. if it is over exposed, it makes it darker, or if it is under exposed, it contrasts more, sometimes adds more color, but also more noise... sometimes, this feature of photoshop post modification photos actually less desirable... to be frankly honest, most of the photos displayed changed very little after filtering it through photoshop, especially the daytime photos.... 100 photos takes me about 2-5 min total... to do manually... i don't know of an automatic way of doing it, if anyone does, please let me know too ;)

Will

9:35 pm - Friday, February 3, 2006

#49 nick in japan

Photoshop 7 and CS2 are NOT automatic ANYTHING, they are both wonderful, powerful tools that are capable to do just about anything in the right hands. What they cannot do is turn poo-poo into a diamond!
Using various modes within the programs will yeild great results, but yes, it takes time. Both are considered professional tools and I wouldn't be without them, CS2 preferred.
If noise is a problem in a picture, that one specific area must be addressed, ensuring the good parts of the picture are not affected. There are programs that will attempt to remedy a specific problem area, automatically, like a camera, or printer/scanner that has built in software, firmware that attacks red pixels in the redeye problem areas. A general softening of an entire image will lessen the noise problem, but that automatic fix to the entire picture may not be desirable.
Some cameras have their firmware program to address noise, and it can be adjusted, I suspect it is just a slight softening mode tho.

11:39 pm - Friday, February 3, 2006

#50 giorgio

Hi, I just discoverd this discussion. Very interesting, as I have a big interest in the R3.
Let's get back to #34: Has anybode made the upgrade to firmware 1.28 (or 1.29 in the meantime)? What's the experience, any noticeable improvements?

Giorgio

12:03 pm - Wednesday, February 15, 2006

#51 rui

Hi, I’m looking for the same about some time now. It’s been difficult to filter all the “noise talk” in all of those DC forums, and be aware of the Leica/Ricoh/Panasonic/etc user’s fight…:-S
but you will find some info if you're patient enough. Give a look to this message: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1001&message=16822419
I hope you’ll find some answers there, and check R30 comments to, in #10 I made a few questions to Gary and Nick that might interest you: http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/ricoh_caplio_r30/
Good luck!

8:55 pm - Thursday, February 16, 2006

#52 Frank

You have tested the Ricoh R30? it is better of the R3 as noise? Thanks

4:01 pm - Friday, March 3, 2006

#53 Paul

Alex, noise ninja is an amazing peice of noise reduction software that can be used as a photosop plugin.
Will, you asked if there is an automatic way to process your photos through photoshop. I think maybe the batch processing would achieve what you want. Just create tha actions you want to carry out through the actions panel, then run it through the "File/Automate/Batch" menu.

9:32 am - Saturday, March 25, 2006

#54 Paul

Personally I never use the auto levels or any automatic features. I always set levels, contrast etc manualy, it takes longer but I feel the results are much better. A batch processing is not suitable using manual settings unless you want the same settings applied to a number of images.

9:37 am - Saturday, March 25, 2006

#55 will

Paul,
I don't either. The automatic features of Photoshop is automatic and not much you can do to specify what you'd like to correct.

WC

3:32 pm - Saturday, March 25, 2006

#56 rui

Frank, sorry for the delay, I didn’t test any of them until last week, when I received my R3, but it seems to me that R30 is the R3 camera with a shorter zoom. And without IS, IMHO don’t see a chance for better image quality there.
About R3, so far so good, I’m satisfied with the results. I’m having fun exploring all the features as possible. And having a lot of work to, reading the manual (comes printed, not only in the cd, and fit’s in a pocket), testing and comparing results, and starting to learn PP basics. Without “Photoshop” yet, I do what I can with other’s, but I try to catch the better and natural shot as possible. But I will appreciate all the info that it’s been posted here about photo processing, thank you guys!
Until now, I’m pleasantly surprised with most of the results but, being my first digital camera I don’t have anything to compare with…
The only thing that I don’t like is the noisy zoom/focus mechanism, it’s almost impossible to not be noticed, so you will find some difficulty if want to be discrete. With animals to, they will notice your presence, but may be great if you want to interact with a curious animal like a cat.
The flash is very poor indeed, so I’m trying to work in interiors with the slow sync feature and having excellent results, even without a tripod, but only with still objects (or people if you like blur images…).
For the price, I never expected to have a DSLR quality, and R4 will/must be better, but I’m satisfied and only regret to not have purchased this camera 3 months ago.
I just hope I did give you the right idea, and sorry for misspellings, It’s very difficult to me to write in English…

5:55 pm - Saturday, March 25, 2006

#57 rui

Alex
I read your question about R3 “slow shutter"-function and I’ll make it again. Can somebody explain this feature, please.
Thank you.

Rui

9:41 am - Saturday, April 1, 2006

#58 rui

Alex, it’s simple, if it is the “SLOW SHUTTER LMT”:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1013&message=17855128
Have fun

4:47 pm - Sunday, April 2, 2006

#59 Guy Parsons

More is found on Slow Shutter Speed and other R3 issues at my randomly updated Ricoh R3 page...
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/photo/r3-01.html

2:27 am - Saturday, July 15, 2006