Reading mode: Light Dark

Lumix LX100 vs Ricoh GrII for low light?

Go to last post
M

MalcolmD99

Leading Member
Messages
577
Solutions
3
Reaction score
37
Hi, I am looking to replace my Ricoh GRii and am looking for a camera with as good or better low light performance that will also have a zoom lense and not be too much bigger than the GR. I believe the LX100 fits the bill but I wanted to see what other people say. The Iso is almost the same on both cameras however the LX has a wider aperture while the GR has a prime lense. It is said the iso on the LX expands by 100.

The GR dose have a larger sensor and I am concerned about the LX because it has a crop sensor. How can I know when the lx is using the full sensor?

Anyone feel they are sure which camera has better low light capabilities?

Any other camera suggestions?

I see the Sony rx100 v has a Iso that expands to iso 2500. Dose that make it a contender?

Many thanks....
 
MalcolmD99 said:
Hi, I am looking to replace my Ricoh GRii and am looking for a camera with as good or better low light performance that will also have a zoom lense and not be too much bigger than the GR. I believe the LX100 fits the bill but I wanted to see what other people say. The Iso is almost the same on both cameras however the LX has a wider aperture while the GR has a prime lense. It is said the iso on the LX expands by 100.

The GR dose have a larger sensor and I am concerned about the LX because it has a crop sensor. How can I know when the lx is using the full sensor?

Anyone feel they are sure which camera has better low light capabilities?

Any other camera suggestions?

I see the Sony rx100 v has a Iso that expands to iso 2500. Dose that make it a contender?

Many thanks....
Click to expand...
Edit: I missed the zoom lens part. The LX100 has the advantage of a faster lens, but only at its very widest. Better or worse in low light? I suspect the GR still has a small advantage.

So, what you’re after is a large sensor compact with upgraded low light capabilities? Sorry, but I don’t think there is one... Yet. Good as it is, the LX100 isn’t going to be better than the Ricoh GR, in this respect.

Alternatives? There’s the Canon EOS M-100, but I don’t see a native, fast 28mm equivalent for that, and you’ll be losing quite a bit in the handling department (though the AF should be very good). Perhaps one of the Sony A’s with a 16mm pancake (might be too wide for street). Again, handling?

If you’ve a bag of money to spend, there’s always the Leica CL plus 18mm F2.8 (or the latest T, with the same lens). Great sensor and (probably great) lens, but I’ve read mixed reviews about the handing of the thing.

Anything from Fuji?

If you like the Ricoh, you’re in a bit of a niche....

--
Regards
J
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jasonhindleuk
Blog: http://jasonhindle.wordpress.com
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2264/2257681353_3e9d9ca12c.jpg
Photos: http://500px.com/JasonHindle
Gear in profile. Oh, and caveat moron.
 
Last edited:
MalcolmD99 said:
Hi, I am looking to replace my Ricoh GRii and am looking for a camera with as good or better low light performance that will also have a zoom lense and not be too much bigger than the GR. I believe the LX100 fits the bill but I wanted to see what other people say. The Iso is almost the same on both cameras however the LX has a wider aperture while the GR has a prime lense. It is said the iso on the LX expands by 100.

The GR dose have a larger sensor and I am concerned about the LX because it has a crop sensor. How can I know when the lx is using the full sensor?
Click to expand...
They're both technically crop sensors - one APS-C and the other Micro Four Thirds.

What Panasonic does is design their lenses so that you're never using the full sensor - it's always a bit cropped in at different aspect ratios, but with the same diagonal. All photos are cropped, so you're not "losing" any quality by selecting different aspect ratios, except 1:1. But 16:9, 2:3, 3:4 - you get a similar pixel count rather than simply "cropping" from one aspect ratio.
MalcolmD99 said:
Anyone feel they are sure which camera has better low light capabilities?

Any other camera suggestions?

I see the Sony rx100 v has a Iso that expands to iso 2500. Dose that make it a contender?

Many thanks....
Click to expand...
My choice would be the RX100.

The other thing these cameras have that the Ricoh is missing is image stabilization. I have no experience with the Sony but I've used an earlier LX (LX5 I believe) and the image stabilization was top notch, easily giving me a few stops of hand holding ability. I'd be surprised if the Sony wasn't as good in this respect.
 
Thanks, I am thinking of doing a Sony with a pancake lense. This seems like the best solution. I don't know much about lenses. Is there such thing as a pancake zoom lense ...and with good image quality?
 
I am looking at the Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS Alpha E-mount Retractable Zoom Lens. It is very small. I noticed there are places selling it new for as little as $150. THis is about $100 less the the price for this lens on B&H. Do you think these super low prices indicate this is not a great lens?
 
Personally when I look at the RX100 samples it kind of looks like a p/s. The LX100 looks more like the GR, with good dynamic range and nice colours due to having a larger sensor and better lens. The RX100 I think you pay for the Sony specs, tech and the name, I would not buy one to replace a GR.
 
Last edited:
The lenses on all these cameras, even the zooms, are good enough for almost all practical purposes, in the sense that the limiting factor with any of the cameras will be the photographer's creativity and skill, not the lens. I had a Lumix LX1 for a long time, which has a pancake zoom; even that lens was pixel-level sharp.

I had an LX100 for a short time before I returned it for the GRii. The LX100 takes very good photos, including in low light. It's a heavy little brick and not as good to grip and handle as the GR. (It's not for me a one-handed camera like the GR). The LX100 images are smaller, if that matters (12 MP vs 16 MP of the GR). I think the 4/3 aspect ratio on the LX100 uses more of the sensor (12 MP) than the other aspect ratios. If you want to shoot using the 3/2 aspect ratio you have slightly less pixels, but that may not matter depending on the purpose.

I would recommend searching on Flickr to see what photos people are taking with these cameras.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the insight on this. If the LX100 is much heavier then the Ricoh this might be a deal breaker.

I love the Ricoh just not always the focal length. It would be great if they made it in two or three different focal lengths like 35 and 50. I can imagine caring more than one camera because they would still be lighter than most lenses for regular apsc cameras.
 
MalcolmD99 said:
Thanks for the insight on this. If the LX100 is much heavier then the Ricoh this might be a deal breaker.

I love the Ricoh just not always the focal length. It would be great if they made it in two or three different focal lengths like 35 and 50. I can imagine caring more than one camera because they would still be lighter than most lenses for regular apsc cameras.
Click to expand...
I agree. I have 35mm and 40mm film cameras and they fit my way of seeing better than the Ricoh. Though I get good photos from the Ricoh, 28mm is a difficult lens to use for me and makes me miss many opportunities I can get with the other cameras. It is often claimed that 28mm is good for street photography but I disagree, from outside people's personal space they appear tiny in the image; you have to basically invade their space to get a usable image. Other focal lengths are often treated as heresy by some Ricoh folks but Ricoh made both 35mm and 28mm (as well as 21mm) cameras in the 90s. A 35mm affordable Ricoh would seriously compete with the Fuji X100 series.
 
Last edited:
Olifaunt said:
MalcolmD99 said:
Thanks for the insight on this. If the LX100 is much heavier then the Ricoh this might be a deal breaker.

I love the Ricoh just not always the focal length. It would be great if they made it in two or three different focal lengths like 35 and 50. I can imagine caring more than one camera because they would still be lighter than most lenses for regular apsc cameras.
Click to expand...
I agree. I have 35mm and 40mm film cameras and they fit my way of seeing better than the Ricoh. Though I get good photos from the Ricoh, 28mm is a difficult lens to use for me and makes me miss many opportunities I can get with the other cameras. It is often claimed that 28mm is good for street photography but I disagree, from outside people's personal space they appear tiny in the image; you have to basically invade their space to get a usable image. Other focal lengths are often treated as heresy by some Ricoh folks but Ricoh made both 35mm and 28mm (as well as 21mm) cameras in the 90s. A 35mm affordable Ricoh would seriously compete with the Fuji X100 series.
Click to expand...
A GR35 would be great, especially if it had image stabilization and PDAF.

There's plenty of other 35mm fixed focal length cameras out there - Fuji, Sony, Leica - I don't know that the Ricoh would really make that many inroads into the Fuji camp. Fuji lovers are Fuji lovers & whenever I see a GR in a youtube vid, it's often in the context of Fuji gear - bigheadtaco loves his Ricoh.

Fuji releases tons of new gear each year so of course they get more talked about than Ricoh, but it's cool to see Ricoh pop up in a vid every once in a while as a "top favorite camera".
 
MalcolmD99 said:
Any 35 millimeter cameras with apsc, good low light capabilities and on par with Ricoh and as light weight?
Click to expand...
The only 35mm fixed lens compact competitor that is not hugely expensive that I know of is the Fuji X100 series (X100F is the latest one). They have a lens that is a stop faster than the Ricoh's (possibly an advantage in low light depending on the kind of photos you need to take). They do take beautiful photos. New, they are double the price of the Ricoh and they are significantly bigger, but I guess they still qualify as compact. Another, possibly cheaper, option would be a Sony A6000. It is an interchangeable lens camera so you can put a pancake prime lens on it to get something similar in compactness to the Fujis but probably cheaper (depending on lens).
 
Last edited:
I have a GR II. The APS-C sensor is just fine at picking up low light. Also have a Sony RX 100-V, with it's smaller sensor tradeoff allowing a mild tele lens in the same form factor. It is not as good in low light, even though its lens allows about a stop more light wide open. But the sensor size is what really counts.

With that in mind, look at the Leica Q. Full frame sensor, fixed lens, small package. Not as small as a GR, not as ergonomic, but still. That sensor really captures light! The Q is expensive, but if you have clients who want low-light images, it's the way to go...
 
I actually agree. The Ricoh takes beautiful photos in low light, if used right. It is terrible in Auto or Program mode; you have to manage ISO, exposure, and shutter speed yourself. And autofocus can be bad so you have to be aware of that too.

The Fuji X series have F/2 lenses, so technically you can get less motion blur by using a faster shutter speed, assuming good autofocus and all else being equal. But on the other hand the Fuji’s have a 35mm field of view, which gives more motion blur than the Ricoh’s 28mm field of view, so it’s probably a wash in that sense.
 
I own both and I would give the edge to the LX100. I also own a Sony RX100 IV and it tops both in low light. If I were you I would go with an RX100 IV or V.
 
MalcolmD99 said:
Any 35 millimeter cameras with apsc, good low light capabilities and on par with Ricoh and as light weight?
Click to expand...
Fuji X100/S/T/F, except not that lightweight.

Sony RX1/r/II for 25mm f2 full frame compactish camera. I'd buy a RX1r secondhand to be more cost effective.

I'm currently using the Panasonic LX10 as a replacement for my LX7, and as an everyday camera instead of the GR. The zoom lens is excellent, video quality is superb, and handling is pretty fast. The sensor is not the best when compared with the GR, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Fuji X100VI vs Panasonic Lumix LX100 MII
Replies
14
Views
77
YoungSheep66
Y
Edgar_in_Indy
We need a "light quotient" to replace meaningless megapixels and confusing 1/x.xx sensor sizes.
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
3K
Edgar_in_Indy
Edgar_in_Indy
J
  • Question Question
Post-Downsampling Read Noise: Sony a7 IV vs a7R V
Replies
1
Views
578
rpjallan
rpjallan
E
The dilemma of choosing Lumix S9 or Sony A7c/A7cii for photographs and video
Replies
5
Views
1K
Nazpharoz
N
K
Sony a6700 or Lumix S5ii for Video and Photo
Replies
6
Views
488
Ruedon
R

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top