Ricoh R5 Photos

#1 Prognathous

I gone over the pictures and I must say I'm no longer worried about the image-quality of the R5. The quality is good enough for my needs, though the typical pixel-peeper who would look at those pictures at 100% would probably think otherwise. Sure, it’s easy to complain about the lacking per-pixel sharpness (especially in the shots that suffer from motion blur or camera shake…;-) and noise at ISO 400 isn’t that pretty when you analyze it under the microscope, but to me these aren’t in any way deal-breakers. For starters, let’s keep in mind that this is a 7MP camera, which means that one needs less magnification when printing. Also, the noise at ISO 200 is quite insignificant in my opinion, easily removed in pp (try 0,0,15,85 in Noiseware for a very GR-D-like look).

The samples don't include ISO 800 and ISO 1600 shots, but frankly, I don't really mind how these are going to come out. My low-light plan simply doesn't require high-ISO, unless it’s a last resort in a dim outdoors scene. Details here:

http://snipurl.com/ricoh_low_light

I'm sure that with careful handling, the R5 would provide excellent results. If you look at the upper-right *corner* of picture 22 you'll be amazed by what this lens is capable of. Most similar cameras have lenses that are very blurry at the corner, especially when using a short focal length and the wide-open aperture.

I think the camera is worth its price merely for the magnificent combination of decent 28-200 lens in a pocketable body, and the same is true of course for the R3 and R4. Personally, I don't really need more than that, but I’d still pick the R5 over its predecessors as it does have a few worthwhile improvements.

I'm going to get an R5 soon, as these samples (well, at least the more carefully shot ones) sure make this decision even easier.

Prog.

8:20 pm - Tuesday, September 5, 2006

#2 GARY POGODA

I have to admit, Prog, I took a look at Mark's images earlier today and
I was impressed with, not only their noise performance, but also purple
fringing. The thing that worries me about the noise performance is that
it may be due to overly aggressive in-camera noise reduction. It wasn't
easy to tell from the photos so I figured I would wait for Mark's analysis
before going out on a limb. Obviously, you were braver than I was.

8:50 pm - Tuesday, September 5, 2006

#3 Malcolm Ferguson

As I am on the lookout for a pocket size to avoid carting around my lump of an FZ10 I had a look at a couple of the pics, the news billboards and the postcards, I have to say they are awful, the fringing is horrendous, when compared with he Canon A700 they are rubbish, why anyone would buy one is amazing not to mention the lack of a viewfinder, taking a pic with the arms hanging and quivering out in the breeze must be the most idiot way of taking a snap imaginable.
Still looking but I see the A710 IS is near and it has a multiplier available so maybe my quest may be over.
Cheers

9:09 am - Sunday, September 10, 2006

#4 GARY POGODA

Malcolm, I would agree with your observation about the R5's lack of
a viewfinder but I did not think its purple fringing was that bad (when
compared to the R3 and R4).

I would also agree that the Canon PowerShot A710 IS is a far better
choice, especially if you do not need the R5's 28mm wide lens, or its
1" thick ultra-slim body.

11:22 am - Sunday, September 10, 2006

#5 Prognathous

Malcolm Ferguson wrote:

> I have to say they are awful, the fringing
> is horrendous

I don't see any "horrendous fringing". What I see is very much inline with what other small-sensor digicams produce in similar situation. The fringing is very obviously better than the highly acclaimed Fuji F30. In addition, the corners are clearly sharper than most other P&S cameras, especially in the wide end of the zoom where the corners are usually a blurry mess. No in this case.

> when compared with he Canon A700 they are rubbish,

Not they're not. Far from it. I've seen pictures from the A700, and there's not a single aspect in which the Canon is significantly better. If you think otherwise, feel free to post comparison shots of the same scene, using the same parameters.

> why anyone would buy one is amazing

It's not amazing at all when you factor in the features, price, image-quality (from such a small sensor), size and performance. Other than Ricoh’s own R4, nothing else comes close. The only other small-sensor cameras with image stabilization and a 28-200 lens are Konica-Minolta's discontinued A1/A2/A200, and these where huge in comparison (4 times heavier, 8 times larger). What Ricoh has accomplished with the R3/R4/R5 is no less than a technology marvel.

> not to mention the lack of a viewfinder

The optical viewfinder is useless anyway. It is tiny, suffers from parallax, and to make matters even worse - it has terrible coverage which prevents the user from composing properly and is especially limiting when using the "wide" end of the lens. You can set the A700/A710 to 35mm (which is already not wide at all), but since you only see 80% of the picture you can only compose as if you have a 45mm lens.

As for using the LCD, the daylight issues are quite simple to work-around. Just up the brightness of the LCD to the maximum (a single press on the R5) and shield the LCD with your hand. It's really not very difficult.

> taking a pic with the arms hanging and
> quivering out in the breeze must be the
> most idiot way of taking a snap imaginable.

There's no doubt that whoever holds a camera like that is an idiot. However, those of us that have a clue know that one has to tuck his elbows against his ribs to get a steady hold. I suggest that you try it sometime.

> Still looking but I see the A710 IS is near
> and it has a multiplier available so maybe
> my quest may be over.

I don’t know what multiplier you’re referring to, what I do know is that the A710 has a horribly pixelated LCD screen (115K) and no 28mm wide-angle lens. To me it's a complete non-starter. I'm going to order the R5 tomorrow

Prog.

5:11 pm - Sunday, September 10, 2006

#6 Thierry Bordet

Hi all,
i am in the search for a longer zoom camera very compact, people seem to complain about the quality of the ricoh R5, i looked at the pics on the page and they look fine to me, i am no expert though. But you did not show any low light samples, are they that bad.
My main goal is sports photography in the mountains and sea (rock climbing, skiing surfing sort of stuff) and i am trying to find a camera with a nice zoom, but also that can fit in a coat pocket (so smaller than the canon A700 series) at the moment all i have seen is the Ricoh R5 or the olympus Mju 750, but i cannot find reviews for that one... can anyone help me. I am going to morrocco in 3 weeks....
So, in the end, is the Ricoh R5 recommended or not?
thanks

10:06 am - Wednesday, September 13, 2006

#7 GARY POGODA

Thierry, as one who recommends that you ALWAYS read the reviews
before making ANY camera purchase, if it were me, I would take my
chances with the Olympus 750 over the Ricoh R5. Here's why.

1. LENS - The main thing that is attracting you to the R5 is a 7x zoom
lens in an ultra-compact body, but for your intended use, its telephoto
end of the zoom is more important, so while the R5 zooms to 200mm,
that is NOT a significant advantage over the 180mm zoom of the 750.
Unless a review of the 750 were to show a serious lens flaw (which is
highly doubtful, based on previously reviewed Olympus models), then
for your intended use, the lenses of the two cameras are fairly equal.

2. BODY - Another feature attracting you to the R5 is pocketability. An
Olympus 750 is just as pocketable as the R5, if not more so, and you
don't need a camera review to see that.

3. NOISE - Worst case scenario for an unreviewed camera, the image
noise of the 750 could NOT be any worse than that of the R5, and will
likely be better due to its slightly larger pixel size (a 1/2.3" CCD vs. a
smaller 1/2.5" CCD for the R5). For noise, the two cameras are (as a
worst case scenario for the unreviewed 750) fairly equal.

4. WEATHERPROOFING - For your intended use, weatherproofing is a
much needed feature. What good is it to have a full-featured camera
if one splash from the surf renders it useless. For its weatherproofing
(one highly regarded and extensively reviewed Olympus feature), the
750 is a hands-down winner over the R5.

I think the Olympus 750's advantage of weatherproofing COMPLETELY
outweighs all of the other slight advantages or disadvantages for the
two cameras. If you're still nervous about buying an unreviewed 750
(which you have every right to be), then buy an already reviewed 3x
zoom weatherproof camera such as the Olympus Stylus 700 or 810.

Tough decision. Good luck with whatever you decide!

5:18 pm - Wednesday, September 13, 2006

#8 Thierry Bordet

Hi Gary,
thanks a lot for the info. I found a review for the olympus 750, and it seems to have a problem with the exposure in high contrast situation, which might be quite often the case. I guess it can be solved by taking a few pics of different exposures and mixing them in photoshop (can't remember what the techinque is called).
I still have 2 weeks so i will wait until last minute to see if any more reviews come...

thanks..

5:44 am - Thursday, September 14, 2006

#9 GARY POGODA

If you are talking about Gavin Stoker's 750 review at Computeractive,
he has openly admitted that he is a 'more critical' reviewer than most,
and the fact that he rates a camera 4 out of 5 stars says a lot. FYI, he
also rated the Canon Digital IXUS 800 IS (a.k.a. PowerShot SD700 IS)
4 out of 5 stars in his PhotographyBLOG review.

The good news is, if his Olympus 750 review is out, other 750 reviews
will be forthcoming shortly.

2:30 pm - Thursday, September 14, 2006

#10 GregL

Where are the low-light photos? I'm a bit surprised. I do hope that he gives some decent scope to exploring the camera's ISO 1600 abilities, or maybe they were so dire that there wasn't any point.

1:45 am - Thursday, September 21, 2006

#11 andreas

can anybody point out to me the main differences / improovements of the R5 over the R4?
Is the new Imaging Engine really better / lower in noise?

3:46 pm - Friday, September 29, 2006

#12 GARY POGODA

Less purple fringing is the main image quality improvement over the R4.

4:15 pm - Friday, September 29, 2006