The Amazing Ricoh CX1

[Ray]

I've long wondered why manufacturers of P&S cameras do not exploit the inherent advantages of the smaller format, using imaginative design to deliver better image quality.

What are the advantages, apart from the obvious size and weight factors? Specifically, tremendous depth of field at wide apertures and fast shutter speeds. But why does everything else have to be slow? Slow autofocussing might be a technological limitation of the small sensor. I'm not sure if this is true, but it might be. However, slow frame rates and limited autobracketing functions have surely nothing to do with the small size of the sensor.

I notice that the recently announced Ricoh CX1 has addressed some of these issues. It has a frame rate of 4 per second (faster than my Canon 5D) and the ability to autobracket 2 different exposures and merge to HDR in-camera to produce a single image with a potential 12 EV of dynamic range. Wow!

It also boasts a feature which should appeal greatly to Bernard Languillier. The CX1 can apparently shoot a rapid 7 shots of any scene with automatic varied focussing. The idea is to enable one to choose the shot with the best and most accurate focussing, but the implications are obvious. One can save all 7 shots and merge with Helicon Focus to produce a staggering DoF. I think Bernard might soon be selling his D3X on ebay. (Just kidding, Bernard   ).

[Peter_DL]

Interesting.
Raises the mark e.g. for the next Canon G.

Peter

--

[Ray]

Interesting.
Raises the mark e.g. for the next Canon G.

Peter

--

Indeed! I wonder if people will complain there is no RAW output. The CX1 also performs a type of 'recovery of highlights' which appears to be similar to ACR's approach, ie. reconstruction of the blown green values from the surrounding red and blue. After such in-camera processing of the RAW data, including merging to HDR, it is presumably not possible to provide a RAW output.

The autobracketing of focussing should allow for unprecedented DOF in macro shots. The greater DoF inherent in the P&S camera has always been particularly useful with macro shots. The CX1 might be able to capture macro shots now with a DoF and sharpness that are not possible with any other camera.

I like the fact the camera is also much lighter and more compact than the G10. Some commentators on the internet seem to rejoice in the fact the CX1 has only 9mp, but the fact is the CX1 sensor is smaller than the G10 sensor. Providing more than 9mp on the 1/2.3" sensor would have resulted in smaller and noisier pixels than those of the G10.

[thierrylegros396]

After such in-camera processing of the RAW data, including merging to HDR, it is presumably not possible to provide a RAW output.

Why not, the RAW recorded pixels are independant of the processing or subject to a different processing.

In some DSLR, RAW datas are processed before being recorded.

Thierry

[dalethorn]

If they're doing this without sacrificing resolution, that would be great. I noted one recent design listed at DpReview that attempts to control noise in some cases by resampling at half the normal resolution. Software can do miraculous things, so there's always hope.

[Ray]

Why not, the RAW recorded pixels are independant of the processing or subject to a different processing.

In some DSLR, RAW datas are processed before being recorded.

Thierry

Well, I don't know about this, Thierry, which I why I said I presume it's not possible. You might be right, but I've never heard of data being subject to so much processing before the RAW file is written. If we were to assume that it actually is possible, one might then wonder about the usefulness of such a RAW file after in-camera processing has already extracted a huge 12 EV of DR from the scene by merging 2 shots and reconstructing highlights.

[Guillermo Luijk]

Indeed! I wonder if people will complain there is no RAW output. The CX1 also performs a type of 'recovery of highlights' which appears to be similar to ACR's approach, ie. reconstruction of the blown green values from the surrounding red and blue. After such in-camera processing of the RAW data, including merging to HDR, it is presumably not possible to provide a RAW output.

Merging different exposures doesn't invalid RAW output. In fact RAW output would be the easiest step in the process, the difficult part is to code a nice tone mapping.

The other feature (G interpolation) could be more tricky to let us stay in RAW, since it would probably mean to adapt all highlight values.

Is it clearly indicated that the camera will have no RAW output?

BR

[Ray]

Merging different exposures doesn't invalid RAW output. In fact RAW output would be the easiest step in the process, the difficult part is to code a nice tone mapping.

Coding a nice tone mapping is what Ricoh claims to do. Is it possible to code a nice tone mapping and also provide a RAW output of that nice tone mapping? That's what I'm doubtful about.  

The other feature (G interpolation) could be more tricky to let us stay in RAW, since it would probably mean to adapt all highlight values.

According to the following Dpreview quote from their article, G interpolation appears to be a default setting which cannot be turned off.

'This feature will appeal to customers who are very particular about image quality. It helps to suppress white-out and expands dynamic range by up to 1EV compared to previous models. And it's always active,' says Hongoh. This is in contrast to many existing dynamic range expansion technologies that limit the available ISO range (and can result in increased noise), or reduce the camera's performance when engaged.