Ricoh Caplio GX-200 soon

I wouldn't get excited. I have the GX-100 and, although the images are fine and the digital interface is great, it is not what I was expecting. There is, as always, NOTHING that even remotely comes close to what I am used to with my Leica M6, or even an old Yashica rangefinder. Somehow I tried to get the GX-100 to be like one of these cameras, and I only get disappointed. It is too light and electronic, the lens is too slow (so forget about low-light without flash), there is no latitude (so highlights are always blown out), the lens has no way to mount a filter on it so you need a stupid ring-adapter, etc., etc., etc.

Why is it that it always seems like "One step forward, ten steps backwards"?
 
Justins, thanks for your breef preview. I'll not forget my TRIX film, but this one can be great fellow abroad with family and company. 24-72 mm zoom is perfect for travel, I think
 
Looks good - continuous RAW plus the lens cap option make it attractive. Can see it replacing my Contax TVS if not my GR1v. Just depends if its pocketable...
 
I wouldn't get excited. I have the GX-100 and, although the images are fine and the digital interface is great, it is not what I was expecting. There is, as always, NOTHING that even remotely comes close to what I am used to with my Leica M6...
Click to expand...

Why were you expecting a $400 digital P&S to be like a Leica M6? :confused:
 
Having recently snagged myself Rod Fung's GRD II; all I can say is, I'm pretty impressed - I don't know about the GX series from Ricoh though.

Dave
 
And even more pixels. It is already very noisy as it is now.
If they'd reduce the pixels to 6mp I'd buy the new one. I will now stick with the the GX100 which a bought a few weeks ago and do like a lot.

cheers,

Michiel Fokkema
 
The Canon G9 is impressive. My Ricoh GX-100 disappointed me from the start. I could just never warm-up to that camera.

/T
 
The GX100 is a very capable camera if you stop griping about what it's NOT and learn how to use it.

2511221073_6153363138_o.jpg


GX100 with '21mm' lens. (.6x Super-8 wide angle adapter at 35mm setting.)
 
Why were you expecting a $400 digital P&S to be like a Leica M6?
Click to expand...

No, but I was expecting something close to my $8 45-year-old Yashica Lynx 5000 or Fujica. These are much better to use hand-held in low-light.
 
Kevin,
I'm glad you like yours. I do not like mine. Anything else you' d care to tell me about that I should like? Milk? Spinach? Cream of Wheat? :p

/T
 
I have to agree w/ Tuolumme, especially after the pic Kevin posted. It is sharp, but my goodness, everything but the odd highlight here and there is the same shade of gray. Which is digital in a nutshell.
 
The claims you make for the G9 are absurd, particularly the one about it nearly being the equal of the Leica M8. Use whatever you like, but try and stick to the facts.
 
kevin m said:
The claims you make for the G9 are absurd, particularly the one about it nearly being the equal of the Leica M8. Use whatever you like, but try and stick to the facts.
Click to expand...

And thank you for telling me about my absurd claims. I need to know that so I know what to think of myself. :p

/T
 
kevin m said:
Why were you expecting a $400 digital P&S to be like a Leica M6? :confused:
Click to expand...


GX100+viewfinder used to be selling $699 just few months ago, but the price had slipped down so fast!!!! If Ricoh resumes the GX200 price to $699 again, it is definitely not worth it!
 
Jan, thanks, but I think DP1 is overworked concept. Too much engineering and too small output. Ricoh guys are smart
 
I just like how the images came out on Michael Reichmann's informal test. I thought the camera did very well. However I'd never turn down the Ricoh.
 
myoptic3 said:
I have to agree w/ Tuolumme, especially after the pic Kevin posted. It is sharp, but my goodness, everything but the odd highlight here and there is the same shade of gray. Which is digital in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

Totally silly and demonstrably false. That's less-than-ideal lighting in a nutshell. I've seen three orders of magnitude more pictures like that on film than digital (because it's been around three orders of magnitude longer :p ).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom