Amazon Kindle Unlimited Offer: 1-Month For FREE!

Latest Camera Comments

Latest comments, thoughts and reaction to our recently reviewed Camera Equipment, including the Ricoh Caplio R6.

Duncan_E
Zander, the ISO1600 test is pretty much what you'd expect from a compact at this setting.

Mike - you're being a little mischievous, the needs of compact users are different from DSLRs so this is taken into consideration when scoring and assessing. The key fact is that the images were noisier than expected at the lower ISO settings, but it was fairly well controlled going up the range. The portrait mode was what lost the camera points, because it performed reasonably well in other areas and had a number of otherwise very good features.

Tcoat - I don't consider this a bad review as such, more a good camera with a couple of flaws. As for previous reviews... all our camera reviews are now standardised, covering the same tests and being reviewed in the same way, so accurate comparisons can be made. The R4 was reviewed under the previous regime...

Made by Duncan_E on 8 May 2007 11:12AM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

Tcoat
I don't understand why the R6 has done so badly, especially regarding noise, and CCD shift mechanism, when your previous test of its predecessor, the Ricoh Capilio R4, came through with flying (saturated) colours?
I purchesed an R4 based on this review - difficult to find any many other reviews on the R4.

Made by Tcoat on 7 May 2007 4:14AM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

RipleyExile
Wow, look at all that noise at iso 1600!

Made by RipleyExile on 4 May 2007 10:27AM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

User_Removed
Ricoh Caplio R6 - Images are noisy
Ricoh Caplio R6 - Portrait mode too soft
Ricoh Caplio R6 - Flash fairly weak

Not very good then Duncan!

Wink

Made by User_Removed on 3 May 2007 5:17PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

Duncan_E
Both cameras feature the same focal length shift so you can discount that. The bodies are identical so you can discount that as well. It's a fairly simple choice. If you are mostly shooting landscapes or in the studio where the light can be controlled, or you need a faster shooting speed I'd buy a D200. If you are mainly shooting outdoor portraits or weddings, I'd go for the S5. The prices for both are pretty good.

Made by Duncan_E on 3 May 2007 2:20PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

flash783
Q Using discounts I have sourced the Nikon D200 and Fuji S5 pro (body only) for 775 and 939 respectively. Which of the two would you recommend for the prices stated? ie does the Fuji warrant paying an extra 164 for technically a lesser chip and focal length shift (turning my 24-200mm lens to a 36-300mm) although it does profess a wider dynamic range...? My photography has a wide subject base with the occasional wedding thrown in for friends etc. Really confused as to what to buy! Any help is appreciated.

Wayne

Made by flash783 on 3 May 2007 10:58AM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

Duncan_E
Yes, the more you crop the less data you have to print with, then the bigger you print, the cruder or softer it will look. This applies to all cameras. However, i would point out that the output from the S5, in terms of detail and sharpness is not the same as you would get from a standard 6Mp CCD that was interpolated to 12Mp. This is much better - thanks to the honeycomb design of the CCD array meaning that that there are more surrounding pixels to sample from to create the interpolated ones.

Made by Duncan_E on 2 May 2007 10:39AM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

Johndouglas1538
Thanks for your review on the S5 PRO I have been considering this camera and the D200 nice to see the comparisons
John Douglas

p.s. Does the fact that the S5 Pro has 6million real pixels have any bearing on printing at A3 size if you were cropping the original print]
e/mail john.douglas1538@btinternet.com[/b]

Made by Johndouglas1538 on 1 May 2007 12:36PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

hivewasp
The image with the Nikon was taken from further back to counter the effect of the 1.5x crop factor caused by its smaller sensor.

Crop Factor = the camera crops the central part of the lens image circle. By moving the camera back you are nullifying the comparison.

If you take both pictures at 50mm f/8.0 with similar lenses; you take them at the same distance. It doesn't matter if you have a wider field of view on the 5D's full frame; that's because the circle is not cropped. You are only interested in a 100% crop comparison anyway so that extra part of the image circle is not even kept. And you're not even comparing the whole surface of either sensors.

That crop factor is a pain for comparisons; it was already hard to compare APS-C sensors to film; but now Full frame vs APS-C is not much easier; sensor size influences depth of field; distance as well... they're different formats; and not comparable.

You don't compare a 50mm lens at f8 on a 6x6 camera to a 50mm at f8 on a 35mm camera. The exact same reasons you don't apply here as well. You can't have an accurate mathematical comparison by only multiplying distance.

Made by hivewasp on 28 Apr 2007 12:56PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

Duncan_E
Well it's in the EPZ shop for 1519, so not quite a grand more. The key advantage is that the full frame CMOS chip means no focal length shift. Also, it's a genuine 12Mp resolution, but this is a CMOS chip rather than CCD. I haven't tested the 5D so can't comment on the dynamic range, but i can testify to just how useful the S5 is in those kind of conditions.

duncan

Made by Duncan_E on 26 Apr 2007 4:18PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply