Ricoh GR vs Nikon Coolpix A vs X100S (with [shoplink 12534 ebay]WA converter[/shoplink]): Check the whole comparison here at mikekobal.com: “my personal preference: 1) Fuji, 2) Nikon and 3) Ricoh.” But judge by yourself. I’ll just post the ISO 3200 comparison shots.
And if you want to see Mike’s shot make the flickr explore page click here.
PS. Only three DEMO X-E1 with 18-55 zoom lens are now available at ebayUS for $1.100! Act fast, click here and save $300 (find this and more deals at dealsrunner).
image courtesy: Mike Kobal
8 Responses
I must say the coolpix A is very very sharp. I wasnt thinking about this camera at all and pretty much snobbed it when it came out, but i am considering it more and more now
costs $250 more than GR, slower AF, why even consider it? Sharpness is overrated unless you crop like crazy or need huge prints.
I just checked the images at ISO 3200 of the Nikon and Ricoh, and the Nikon is shot at F4 while the Ricoh at F2.8.
I’d look at the image samples from other sites, like imaging-resource.com where they are more careful with their tests.
The lens of the Ricoh wide open is much better than the Nikon wide open. MUCH better. Sensors are mostly similar, though I do prefer the Nikon by a bit, especially the JPEGs.
Milan, this was only a high ISO comparison, not a lens/aperture test and since the A only goes to a max shutter speed of a 1/2000 I had to adjust the aperture, I should have mentioned it to avoid confusion. My bad.
I would take this with a grain of salt. The Nikon pics are taken at F4 so they look a bit sharper but with more noise. Is he comparing the jpg of the x100s to the raw files of the Nikon/Ricoh, or is it jpg all around?
Oops, I see he said they are all ooc jpeg.
…all ooc jpeg.
Which should have been stated in the Rumor Posting. Tss tss.
Now looking forward to the raw iso comparison.
Much better the Ricoh and Nikon pics…fuji as usual, very bad highlight clipping …