GX200 vs. GX100 ISO test

[odklizec]

OK guys, I finally finished this long time ago promised ISO test Sorry for delay!

All photos taken at f4.3 and 28mm, exposure compensation set to 0, contrast/color depth = 0 and reduced sharpness to -2. DNG file converted to TIFF (using dcraw with these command line switches -w -q 3 -f -T).

As you can see in below crops, GX200 DNG files are sharper, less hazy and contains more details. On the other hand, they are noisier, which is a real problem from ISO800 and above. As for JPEG, it's hard to say something positive about GX200 JPEG. The GX200 JPEG files are simply overprocessed. These crops clearly show how conservative is the GX100 noise reduction and JPEG processing. The amount of noise is more or less the same in ISO80-400 shots. The NR is a bit stronger from ISO400 and above, but definitely nothing that destructive as you can see in GX200 crops. Also, the GX200 now uses significantly stronger sharpening (even with Sharpening set to -2). It's a pity, because GX200 DNG files are visibly sharper than GX100 files. So there is definitely no need of such strong sharpening in JPEG.

I can imagine that Ricoh engineers must have a strong headache optimizing the GX200 NR for increased amount of noise coming from 12MP sensor. This is another good example that increased MP count is not the best way of evolution. I personally don't care about JPEG and not much about noise. However, the GX100 sensor is a clear winner in this match. I really hope that Ricoh will follow the Panasonic's initiative and stop the silly MP war. Less is often more and GX200 is a very good example of this old truth.

ISO_64_80.jpg (262.79 KiB) Viewed 16888 times

ISO_100.jpg (273.81 KiB) Viewed 16843 times

ISO_200.jpg (296.77 KiB) Viewed 16787 times

ISO_400.jpg (316.65 KiB) Viewed 16743 times

ISO_800.jpg (341.2 KiB) Viewed 19256 times

ISO_1600.jpg (380.19 KiB) Viewed 19201 times

ISO_64_80_2.jpg (271.37 KiB) Viewed 16307 times

ISO_100_2.jpg (275.57 KiB) Viewed 16153 times

ISO_200_2.jpg (285.93 KiB) Viewed 16053 times

ISO_400_2.jpg (293.93 KiB) Viewed 15966 times

ISO_800_2.jpg (323.51 KiB) Viewed 15862 times

ISO_1600_2.jpg (361.93 KiB) Viewed 15778 times

Source DNG files can be downloaded here:
GX200 DNG (use 7zip to extract the 7z files, MAC users should have to use one of >these<)
gx200_64.7z
gx200_100.7z
gx200_200.7z
gx200_400.7z
gx200_800.7z
gx200_1600.7z

GX100 DNG
gx100_80.7z
gx100_100.7z
gx100_200.7z
gx100_400.7z
gx100_800.7z
gx100_1600.7z

[Prognathous]

Thanks for taking the time to shoot this very interesting comparison Pavel. The results are pretty much in-line with Sean Reid's review of the GX200. The new model is better than the GX100 at low ISO, but very noisy at high ISO. So noisy in fact, that I even have doubts about its usefulness in B&W.

I was quite enthusiastic about the GX200 when it was released. It was very encouraging to discover that Ricoh listened to users and fixed most of the original GX100 shortcomings (lack of RAW buffer, non-constant aperture, external lens cap), but when the high ISO results were published it was clear the removal of the phase-detect AF sensors was not the only regression. The release of the LX3 only convinced me that I shouldn't rush to buy the camera just yet.

Prog.

[odklizec]

I'm still not sure if the removed phase detection AF is good or bad thing? I found it not as reliable and precise as CCD based AF so I don't miss it that much (except its cool look). The manual focus is still the best and most reliable option (at least for me). Of course, it's slower to manually set the proper focus, but because of huge DOF, one can easily use two or three focus positions for all-day shooting and without risking unsharp images. Yes, it requires some time to learn how to live with the manual focus, but it's worth to spend time with MF. If nothing else, you will get lightning fast camera with zero shutter lag.

But I agree about GX200 noise. Such excessive amount of noise makes the images less editable and it's visible even at low ISO values. I rarely shot above ISO 400, so noise is not that big problem for me. However, the choice of 12MP sensor has not been a very good move. I really hope that the next GRD will not have the same 12MP (or even more MP) sensor! That would be a big disappointment for me.

[Wouter]

Without the kind of test you conduct, excellent work Pavel by the way, I had come to pretty much the same conclusion too. I also noticed that the lower ISO images (RAW files) are much noisier, seriously limiting my post processing. I simply can't do the things with the RAW files of the GX200 what I did with the GX100 files.
And as a matter of fact I am starting to use the jpegs more often now, instead of the RAW files. I got excited because of the speed improvement, but seriously disappointed by the usability of the RAW files.

[Nevin]

A very good job done. Thank you very much for the devotion and time too.

The GX200 images are more sharpened but I would prefer them to GX100's for those below ISO400. For the higher ISO images, the GX100's are better but not by much and still not good enough. My younger brother's GX100 produces more hazy and softer results in general. And I can't bring myself to say that I prefer those images of its. Surely, the high ISO areas are not ideal in both cameras.

Just wonder if turning the sharpening to the lowest will rectify the problem in GX200. As an aside, I have also found that GX200's jpegs are not really less good that raws... and Ricoh is still to provide fw to kill that black stripe in raws.
Nevin

[paulyrichard]

I think the JPEGS at low iso's are awesome with this camera. I hope i'm not bein' fooled.

[odklizec]

You are welcome guys!

Nevin, this test has been done with Sharpening set to -2 both in GX100 and GX200. The in-camera Sharpening does not have an impact on RAW so it's just a JPEG problem. What I really don't understand is why it's so strong in GX200? From all photos I did with both cameras, the GX200 RAW files are definitely sharper than GX100 files. So there is no need of such strong sharpening in GX200?

I found the GX200 RAW files perfectly usable between ISO64 and 400. ISO400 requires a bit more work, if one don't want pronounce the noise much. Unfortunately, the ISO800 and ISO1600 is less usable now, especially for color photos. But both high sensitivities are more or less OK for BW. However, I would still prefer the old GX100 CCD in GX200 body

I'm sure, Ricoh will provide a solution for black stripe in DNG, along with some other bug fixes It's just a matter of time.

[bpjod]

Pavel: a big thank you for making the originals available. I've downloaded and printed them all (on A3) using exactly the same settings in Lightroom 2.0 and I'm astonished at how much more detail the GX200 captures (look at the sack the ficus pot is in and the woodgrain on the desk in lower left corner!). It's almost as though the GX100 photos are out of focus, but I don't see any plane in sharp focus so I don't think that's the case.

I notice the GX100 photos are also about 1/2 stop faster shutter speed and about 1/2 stop underexposed. Strange the difference in metering. I notice this 1/2 stop difference allows for more shadow detail in the GX200 (look at debris in the ficus pot) but with no extra blown highlights. The dynamic range seems pretty similar but maybe slight edge to GX200.

As for the ISO comparison, in prints of the same size I give the edge for ISO 64-200 to the GX200. ISO 400 shows the GX200 to definitely have more colour noise, but also more details. I have a slight preference for the GX200 at ISO 400. By ISO 800 the noise is fairly objectionable in both, but moreso in the GX200. By ISO 800 I'm preferring the GX100 images. ISO 1600 wouldn't be usable for colour work in either case, but the GX200 is significantly worse.

Out of curiosity I also printed B/W images of the ISO 800 files. Here I do prefer the pop that the extra resolution and detail in the GX200 images brings to the image. Colour noise isn't an issue now of course, but there is still a little more noise in the GX200 image. In addition, I prefer the way the grain looks on the GX100. That said, on the balance I slightly prefer the GX200 images in B/W at ISO 800.

This makes it tough to decide whether or not to upgrade from the GX100. I was hoping for more usable ISO 800 colour images for indoor photos of the kids without flash. Otherwise the GX200 is a pretty compelling package, I especially desire the RAW buffer. Hmm... How long until the GX300?

[blue_quartz]

Hmm... How long until the GX300?

Probably if and when Ricoh jumps onto the micro 4/3rds camp? Come on, I'm sure that has to be on someone's camera fantasies!

[stud]

The GX200 images are more sharpened but I would prefer them to GX100's for those below ISO400. For the higher ISO images, the GX100's are better but not by much and still not good enough. My younger brother's GX100 produces more hazy and softer results in general. And I can't bring myself to say that I prefer those images of its. Surely, the high ISO areas are not ideal in both cameras.