Home / Cameras / Camera / Ricoh R10 / Test Shots - ISO Performance

Ricoh R10 - Test Shots - ISO Performance

By Cliff Smith



Our Score:


Over the next few pages we show a range of test shots. On this page the full size image at the minimum and maximum ISO settings have been reduced to let you see the full image, and a series of full resolution crops have taken from original images at a range of ISO settings to show the overall image quality. These ISO test images are shot indoors using reflected natural light for maximum consistency.


This is the full frame at minimum ISO. This shot was taken indoors using reflected daylight from a window. As you can see the automatic white balance has made a bit of a bish.


At 80 ISO there is plenty of fine detail and colours are nice and clear, but there is a haze of granular noise across the whole image.


Results at 100 ISO are about the same.


Slightly more noise visible at 200 ISO.


At 400 ISO the image quality is a lot worse, with bad distortion in both the red and green areas, and a lot of noise plainly visible.


Quality is worse still at 800 ISO.


Terrible image quality at 1600 ISO.


The same inaccurate white balance is visible in this full frame at 1600 ISO.



February 12, 2009, 3:00 pm

I'm a great fan of this series (succession) of cameras. Not being convinced that an ever-increasing pixel count brings any real advantage for normal shooting, I've stuck with an R4, with 7 megapixels. As a small, pocketable device, it's incredibly versatile. I've even used it for copying old photographs by daylight, and it does a very good job. My first Ricoh was its only 110 model, and this had a stunningly good f 2.8 lens, capable of sharp (if of course grainy) b/w enlargements up to full-plate. One or two were successfully used in a book I wrote.

Billy Rubin

February 12, 2009, 3:20 pm

I bought the R10 last October to replace a Ricoh RR30 which had given good service over six years. I agree with the review, it does have issues with noise and occasional odd white balance errors (in a series of images every now and again I'll get one with a bad blue colour cast). To be honest if I'd waited for the reviews I wouldn't have bought the camera. It's not all bad, in good light it performs well and even night shots are acceptable as can be seen on my Flickr page http://www.flickr.com/photos/7...


February 12, 2009, 4:51 pm

Cliff, you wrote "Why Ricoh didn’t switch to the excellent 1/1.75-inch sensor from the GR Digital II is a mystery." Is it? With a larger sensor, which is indeed physically better suited for low noise and/or high ISO, they couldn't have squeezed a 7.1x zoom into a body that small. However, Panasonic has proven with the TZ5 and the FZ28, that it is possible to obtain a reasonable balance of noise and detail even out of a 1/2.3 inch / 10 MP sensor, if you combine a high-quality sensor with clever processing. (Would be interesting, what Panasonic processing made out of the Ricoh sensor and vice-versa...)

Greetings! theimer


February 12, 2009, 9:27 pm

No viewfinder, , , again.

Must be a goverment edict for compacts, I can't believe the manufacturers just operate a 'Simply not an option' sort of consumer service.

Peter Smithson

February 14, 2009, 12:35 am

I had the R6. I loved the zoom range and the ultra compact body. The menus were well designed and it had a lot of features for such a small camera. I don't think it's fair to compare it to the excellent TZ5 as that is just a bit too bulky to put in your pocket and forget about. It's not an ultra compact. I did sell my R6 due to the grain - especially noticeable on overcast days. Fine for holiday snaps (in the sun!). Got a Fujifilm f100fd now which has a decent zoom and much better sensor.


April 30, 2009, 4:28 am

I think this camera has something special by not being perfect, a collecters item for artistic users, I made a download of pics of its competitors in another review site and the ricoh came out best for me.

comments powered by Disqus