Ricoh Caplio GX100 or the S95 - Low-light Photos

[draka]

This is a somewhat hypothetical question because I am currently not in the market for a digital P&S, but has anyone compared low-light photo IQ from Ricoh Caplio vs the Canon S95? The Canon has a larger sensor and is newer, but the Ricoh has an intervalometer. Both shoot raw (the S95 - .cr2 and the Ricoh - .dng). The Ricoh goes from 24-72mm, f/2.5-4.4, whereas the S95 has a larger aperture and goes from 28(I think)-~100mm..

Typical applications may be star trails, sunsets/rises..

 

[gavinlg]

The GX100 is pretty old, and super noisy above iso200, whereas the s95 has a much more modern sensor, and can go up to about iso800 without much IQ loss. S95 also has a much faster lens.

 

[jimmy2thou]

I second that. The Ricoh GX100 and even GX200 simply don't do low light. I had both and anything above ISO 200 was not good. With CHDK on the S95 you can have an intervalometer as well, if that was needed.

 

[mugent]

I used to have the GX200, high ISO was awful, the worst I've ever used by a long way. Never used the Canon, but I'd bet a lot of money it's better.

The Ricohs are nice to use, good build, but quite dated.

Best,

MT

 

[umcelinho]

All the above are right. On iso 400 the GX100 is already quite noisy, even if you process the raw file in LR3 (which btw improves iso1600 shots considerably!).

I had simultaneously a GX100 and a LX3, and ended up using the LX3 more because the image quality was better and the lens was a bit faster, even though the GX100 is 9876 times more well thouht overall and had the best handling on a compact i've ever seen.

I hope Ricoh makes a 24/21mm f2 GX300 with a newer sensor that has a good noise level at iso 400 at least (one can only dream)... I'd buy one!

 

[cidereye]

Add me to the list of a firm NO for the GX100 as well.

I owned a GX200 & a Canon G9 at the same time and as much as I loved the Ricoh the dire ISO performance and oodles of digital noise in the files made the camera unbearable at anything over ISO 200 and for low light indoor shots, forget it! The G9 was light years ahead even back then then so you can be assured the highly rated S95 will be way better than that as users will no doubt attest to.

 

[nightfly]

How does this change if you compare the GRDIII to the S95? GRDIII sensor is much improved and less noisy than the older ones, right?

 

[draka]

Thanks everyone! This was helpful.
@jimmy2thou: The last I checked, the Canon S95 chdk was still beta. I should probably muck around chdk, but have you used it?

I am also considering the new Oly XZ-1 vs S95, is there a strong opinion one way or the other on low-light IQ?

 

[jimmy2thou]

Hi

@Nightfly. I currently own the GRD III. I sold my S90 to get it. The low light performance is much improved, similar to the S90. Plus now I have the great Ricoh interface & handling again. It's a joy to use!

@draka. I tested chdk on the Canon S90, it to was beta and it worked perfectly. The only think for me was that it seemed pointless, as the S90 shoots raw and has a lot of features anyway. Just not an intervalometer. One other interesting thing was a script to trigger the camera when lightning strikes. I never got a chance to test it though. 🙁

As for S95 vs XZ-1. They are two very differently sized cameras. If size isn't an issue, from what i've seen, I would go with the XZ-1. Images look good and you have F1.8 at the wide end and F2.4 at the tele compared to the S95's F2 wide and F4.9 tele. That's quite a difference in low light. The XZ-1 also has a hot shoe and the ability to add a very nice evf if you should want to. The biggest negative i've seen for the XZ-1 is slightly harsh noise reduction on the jpegs, but if you shoot raw wouldn't be an issue.

I hope this helps,

James

 

[draka]

Thanks James! That was helpful. I need to plan my budget for a serious compact purchase 🙂