Ricoh CX2 Comments

Author Cliff Smith
Published 28th Sep 2009
Manufacturer Ricoh
Price £260.87 (Exc VAT)
as reviewed £300.00 (Inc VAT)
Latest Price Click here
Build Quality Score 9 for Build Quality
Features Score 9 for Features
Image Quality Score 9 for Image Quality
Value Score 8 for Value
Overall Score 9 for Overall
Ricoh CX2
award recommended

Comments for Ricoh CX2

« Read the Full Article

comment PK Son said on 29th September 2009

Seems like a very nice P&S to carry around! I would like to see the tilt-shift gimmick in action though, sound like a really cute feature!

comment Steven Frankel said on 29th September 2009

If only they had an electronic finder similar to the Panasonic G1's built-in, or even an accessory electronic finder, this would be close to perfect!

comment purephase said on 29th September 2009

Thanks for this review Cliff

I was waiting to see if this would add enough to make me pay the premium over the CX1, and I'm not quite convinced. You're going to get a massive discount on the old one now that this is out, and it still has most of the benefits of the CX2 as far as I can see. I think that's where my pennies will be going!

comment bwaadass said on 29th September 2009

No HD video? To me that seems a suprising omission given this is becoming something of a standard feature on even sub-£170 cameras (Pentax P80). Am I missing something? Is HD video on a compact camera for some reason not worthwhile/desirable (due to battery/capacity/quality constraints)?

comment Noodles said on 29th September 2009

HDR: For those people who want to make their pictures look like a mushy, lurid, watercolour mess. This effect has become even more cliqued then fisheye and lomo. If I see one more picture of an interior of a cathedral with eye burning bright orange, brown and reds and I think I'll scream..

Nice camera apart from that though, Ricohs have always have a wonderful understated design.

comment smc8788 said on 29th September 2009

@Noodles - You must have only seen some bad examples of HDR, then. I hate blanket statements where people proclaim HDR as some kind of Devil worship, when in reality it's just another photographic tool. I've seen people lavish praise on photos they didn't even recognise as an HDR, then when they find out they go back and try and justify how horrible and 'unnatural' it looks.

While it's quite tricky to get right, an HDR composite can offer a much truer image and appear far more natural than a single exposure where the dynamic range of the camera cannot capture the same amount of detail as a human eye can in difficult lighting conditions.

If you don't like bright colours then you need to learn to turn the saturation down a notch! ;)

comment Noodles said on 29th September 2009

@Smc8788 - You're right, I have seen some good subtle examples, used when it would have been otherwise impossible to get acceptable shots from using standard methods. And I have used them myself for this purpose. For example, interior shots to keep in window detail, and architectural shots on those hellishly overcast british summers, to prevent blown out skies.

The trouble is, and the cause of my HDR hate, is that the good images are completely swamped and near impossible to find in amongst the super saturated, eye watering shots of things that don't need to be HDR'd, like peoples pets, cars and many landscapes. Flickr is just awash with orange buildings and foaming seas, the people there simply HDR absolutely everything, regardless if it's needed or not. It's kind of like me meeting a prospective client with a portfolio of just fisheye shots, it will get old very quickly unless you only use the method for it's best purpose.

comment Robin said on 29th September 2009

Having read this review brings me to the question what is the use of bying compacts like the LX-3 (which I own) or a Fuij ER200 with these bigger 1/1,6" sensors compared to this excellent performing CX-2. With other words 1/1,6 sensor do not make any sense!!!!!

comment Bailey's_Coffee said on 29th September 2009

@Noodles - some of what you refer to on Flickr is often down to people using a 'recipe' to polish their turds... no photos.

1) Boost saturation
2) Boost contrast
3) Sharpen the sh*t out of the image
4) Tweak levels using histogram to extract every last detail out of the bright/mid/dark sections.
5) Sharpen again.

The result, as you say, looks pretty artificial... perhaps the photographic equivalent of silicon implants and fake orangey tan?

comment Bagpuss said on 29th September 2009

@Cliff - comparing this against the Panasonic TZ7, which would you say takes the better picture?

comment cupoftea said on 30th September 2009

Do the CX1/CX2 come with manual controls? I'm considering this as my first camera, and I want something to learn on which I won't grow out of too quickly.

comment Frank said on 30th September 2009

Must echo Steven Frankels' wishes, in fact I actually don't understand how a camera can be described as point and shoot, without a viewfinder.

comment Cesare said on 23rd October 2009

Hi Cliff, it's an omission or the CX2 does not have the memo sound clip (to add a memo to the shots for example when in travel you need to memorize the name of one person, one location , one monument, square etc...).
Once more I see that one important plus (in my opinion) : the remote control is completely forgotten

Add Your Comment

add comment Add your comment

You must be logged in to comment. Login or register here.