Exploring Pocketable Superzooms: Nikon Coolpix A900 versus Ricoh CX2 in Real-World Use

In the bustling world of compact superzoom cameras, two intriguing contenders stand out: the Nikon Coolpix A900, released in 2016, and the Ricoh CX2, a 2009 model that still holds a niche for enthusiasts who appreciate compact versatility. Having spent extensive time testing and shooting with both, I want to share a detailed, side-by-side comparison focusing on practical performance, usability, and photographic results - helping you decide which of these small sensor superzooms is the real-world fit for your style and budget.

First Impressions: Size, Ergonomics, and Physical Design

When choosing a camera, how it feels in your hands and its portability often shape your experience more than specs alone. The Nikon A900 and Ricoh CX2 both promise pocket-friendly form factors with extensive zoom ranges, but they express this goal differently.

The Nikon Coolpix A900 carries a certain modern heft with dimensions of 113x67x40 mm and weighing 289g. Its build communicates a sturdy compactness which fits comfortably for long periods - not bulky, but substantial enough to inspire confidence. The Ricoh CX2, smaller and lighter at 102x58x29 mm and 185g, feels more like a traditional point-and-shoot, perfect for slipping into a jacket pocket or small bag discreetly.

Ergonomically, the A900 sports a tilting 3-inch screen (921k dots), which enhances flexibility when shooting at odd angles or capturing overhead shots - something the fixed 3-inch screen (920k dots) of the CX2 doesn't allow.

This physical comparison tells a story: Nikon today's refinement and usability upgrades meet Ricoh’s earlier compactness and classic point-and-shoot feel. Personally, I found the A900’s balance and tilting screen more accommodating for varied shooting conditions, whether crouching for a street detail or angled macro of flower petals.

Control Layout and Handling: Intuitive or Clunky?

Handling and control improvisation define your shooting experience, especially with superzoom compacts where space is limited. Both cameras eschew viewfinders in favor of LCD reliance but differ in button layouts and exposure control accessibility.

The Nikon A900’s top controls are thoughtfully designed, with clear buttons for zoom, shutter, and access to exposure modes like aperture priority, shutter priority, and full manual. It offers exposure compensation, custom white balance, and face detection autofocus modes right from its intuitive menus.

The Ricoh CX2, being an older system, lacks shutter or aperture priority modes and doesn’t support manual exposure settings. Its top design is simpler, with readily accessible zoom and shutter buttons but comparatively fewer physical controls for advanced users.

From my experience, the A900’s control scheme encourages experimentation and creative control on the fly - ideal for enthusiasts exploring manual modes. The CX2 feels more snapshot-friendly, catering primarily to automatic shooting modes, limiting flexibility but simplifying operation for quick captures.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: More Than Just Numbers

At the heart of any camera’s image quality is sensor design, size, and resolution. Both cameras pack a 1/2.3” CMOS sensor sized at 6.17x4.55 mm, translating to a sensor area of about 28 mm² - typical for this category. However, significant processing and resolution differences set them apart.

The Nikon A900 boasts a 20-megapixel sensor, while the Ricoh CX2 comes with a much older 9-megapixel sensor. On paper, this suggests the A900 will produce higher resolution images with more detail and cropping flexibility.

In real shooting conditions, I found that the A900 delivers noticeably crisper images with better edge-to-edge sharpness. Meanwhile, the CX2’s images often show more noise at higher ISOs and lack the fine detail of the A900.

Dynamic range is modest on both, typical for small sensors, but the A900 tends to hold highlights better thanks to updated image processing technology. Low-light shooting at ISO 800 on the A900 retains usable detail, whereas the CX2 appears more muted and grainy at comparable settings.

LCD and Interface: Seeing and Navigating Your Shots

The rear LCD is your window into framing and menu navigation. The Nikon A900’s tilting 3” screen with 921k resolution offers superior visibility outdoors and versatility for creative angles. It does not feature touchscreen, which is a minor disappointment given the camera’s 2016 vintage, but its crisp display is adequate for critical evaluation.

On the Ricoh CX2, the 3” fixed screen at 920k resolution is similarly sharp but more limiting in terms of compositional flexibility, especially for low or high vantage points.

While both lack electronic viewfinders, the A900’s brighter screen and tilt mechanism enhance user comfort, especially on bright days. In my travels and street shoots, this adaptability translated to more spontaneous and confident compositions.

Zoom Ranges: Reach and Versatility in Action

Superzooms live or die by their zoom capability. The Nikon A900 stretches impressively from 24 to 840 mm equivalent (35x optical zoom), whereas the Ricoh CX2 offers a more modest 28 to 300 mm range (approx. 10.7x zoom).

To put that in perspective, the A900’s reach makes it possible to capture distant wildlife, architectural details, and stage performances without cropping. The CX2 is better suited for everyday scenarios where moderate zoom is sufficient.

During outdoor field testing - hiking landscapes and urban environments - the A900 enabled tighter framing of distant subjects with less loss of quality. Ricoh’s CX2 delivered well in wide-angle cityscapes, though I missed the extra reach when trying to photograph small details from afar.

Autofocus System: Speed, Accuracy, and Face Detection

With subjects as dynamic as wildlife or kids at play, autofocus speed and accuracy matter deeply.

The Nikon A900’s contrast-detection autofocus, enhanced by face detection and tracking with continuous AF, offers smooth and dependable performance in varied light.

The Ricoh CX2 relies on single-shot contrast detection autofocus without continuous or face detection, which means slower focus acquisition and less reliable tracking.

I conducted tests shooting moving subjects in natural light and indoors. The A900 locked focus consistently and followed moving targets with surprising precision for a compact. The CX2 sometimes struggled, resulting in missed focus or hunting, especially in lower-light interiors.

Burst Shooting and Shutter Speeds: For Action and Spontaneity

For capturing fast moments - kids, sports, wildlife - the ability to shoot multiple frames per second with quick shutter response is invaluable.

The Nikon A900 offers 7 fps continuous shooting, with shutter speeds from 8s to 1/4000s. This supports capturing sharp action sequences and handheld night scenes.

By contrast, the CX2 maxes out at 1/2000s shutter and lacks burst mode, limiting its ability to freeze rapid motion or capture a sequence of action photos.

In practical use, the A900’s burst mode was a game-changer during street photography sessions and casual sports settings, where capturing the peak expression or exact gesture is key.

Macro Capability: Getting Close and Personal

Both cameras claim a 1 cm macro focus range, excellent for close-up photography of flowers, textures, and small objects.

The Nikon’s tilting screen aids framing tight macro shots from difficult angles, and its decent image stabilization reduces blur in close quarters.

Ricoh’s CX2 also performs well in macro but lacks the flexible screen and stabilization refinements.

If close-up photography excites you, the A900’s combination of zoom, stabilization, and screen tilting gives it an edge for composing artistic macro shots on the go.

Image Stabilization: Essential for Handheld Clarity

Both systems feature optical/image stabilization but via different implementations. The Nikon A900 uses lens-based optical stabilization while the Ricoh CX2 employs sensor-shift stabilization.

In handheld shooting at telephoto lengths or low shutter speeds, I found both cameras effective at reducing blur, but the A900’s system delivers slightly steadier results during video recording and stills at full zoom. This means the difference can be critical for shoots in dim light or without a tripod.

Video Recording: Capabilities and Limitations

The Nikon A900 supports 4K UHD video up to 30 fps, with Full HD at 60 fps - far superior to the Ricoh CX2’s 640x480 resolution video capped at 30 fps.

While the A900 lacks microphone and headphone jacks, its video quality for casual filmmaking, travel vlogs, or event recording is fairly good given its class. The CX2, meanwhile, is limited to low-res, essentially outdated video capabilities.

For hybrid shooters seeking a compact that offers decent video alongside stills, the A900 is clearly more future-proof and flexible.

Connectivity and Sharing: Modern Convenience Versus Legacy

The Nikon A900 offers built-in Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and NFC connectivity - features that facilitate instant image transfer and remote control via smartphone apps. USB 2.0 and HDMI ports allow tethered use and external display.

The Ricoh CX2, designed before widespread wireless integration, lacks any wireless capabilities, relying solely on USB connection and SD card for image transfer.

This modern connectivity aspect makes the A900 more appealing to travelers and social shooters who value quick sharing and backup on the move.

Battery Life and Storage: How Long Can You Shoot?

The Nikon A900’s EN-EL12 battery allows for approximately 300 shots per charge - average for cameras of this size. The Ricoh CX2’s DB-70 battery specs are less documented, but it’s generally known to have shorter endurance.

Both use SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, with single card slots. For anyone who shoots extensively, carrying spare batteries is advisable, especially for the older Ricoh model.

Durability and Weather Resistance

Neither camera offers environmental sealing, dustproofing, or splash resistance. Both are best treated as delicate companions rather than tools for rugged outdoor challenges.

Real-World Image Samples: Comparing Picture Quality Side by Side

To illustrate these differences, I captured a variety of scenes using both cameras: vibrant street portraits, expansive landscapes at golden hour, macro flora, rapid wildlife action, and low-light interiors.

Nikon A900 front Nikon A900 screen back Ricoh CX2 front Ricoh CX2 screen back

In portraits, Nikon’s higher resolution and face detection produced natural skin tones and pleasant background blur, despite the small sensor. The CX2 images are softer with fewer fine details.

Landscape shots highlight the higher megapixel count and better dynamic range of the A900, especially when bringing out shadows and midtones without sacrificing highlight detail.

Wildlife and sports sequences show clearer focus lock and faster capture with Nikon - the CX2 occasionally misses peak moments.

Performance Summary: Scores and Strengths

Here’s a distilled overview of performance criteria from my extended testing:

Nikon Coolpix A900:

• Superior zoom reach and image resolution
• Advanced autofocus with face detection and tracking
• Strong video capability with 4K recording
• Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and NFC connectivity
• Tilting screen ergonomics
• Manual exposure modes and creative controls

Ricoh CX2:

• Smaller, lighter, very compact body
• Easy-to-use for fully automatic shooting
• Sensor-shift stabilization works well at moderate zooms
• Good 10.7x zoom range with decent image quality for its era

How Do They Stack Up Across Photography Genres?

Zooming into different photography disciplines highlights which camera fits specific creative needs:

• Portraiture: Nikon A900 excels with face detection AF and better resolution.
• Landscape: A900’s higher megapixels and dynamic range deliver more detailed landscapes.
• Wildlife: Nikon’s zoom and AF tracking outperform Ricoh.
• Sports: A900’s 7fps burst is invaluable; CX2 is limited.
• Street: CX2’s lightness is a plus for discretion; A900 better focus reliability.
• Macro: Both good; A900’s tilting screen is a usability advantage.
• Night/Astro: A900 better ISO performance; CX2 struggles.
• Video: A900’s 4K support trumps CX2 by miles.
• Travel: A900’s versatility and connectivity dominate; CX2’s pocketability wins for minimalists.
• Professional Use: Neither is truly pro-grade, but A900 is better suited for casual pro tasks.

Final Thoughts: Who Should Buy Which Camera?

My experience working with these two compacts revealed clear distinctions:

Choose the Nikon Coolpix A900 if you:

• Want a versatile superzoom capable of tackling a broad range of photography types.
• Appreciate manual control modes to explore your creativity.
• Value sharp image quality and 4K video in a pocketable package.
• Need modern connectivity for fast sharing.
• Are willing to carry a slightly larger camera for better performance.

Opt for the Ricoh CX2 if you:

• Desire a truly lightweight, pocket-friendly compact for casual shooting.
• Are content with automatic exposure modes and minimal fuss.
• Shoot mostly daylight, easy-going snapshots without advanced features.
• Need a budget-friendly option from a used or secondary market.
• Prioritize simplicity over cutting-edge technology.

Wrapping Up: My Testing Methodology and Reliability

This comparison is drawn from hands-on testing in multiple scenarios - urban street walking, nature hikes, indoor events, and travel documentary shooting. I meticulously compared exposure consistency, autofocus ease, image detail, and real-world usability alongside feature specifications.

Due to the age difference, Ricoh CX2 represents an older generation of compact superzooms. Nikon Coolpix A900 shows how technology evolved to meet the demands of hybrid shooters and casual pros.

Both are capable performers within their niches, but the Nikon A900 emerges as the more adaptable all-rounder deserving of consideration for anyone seeking an affordable travel or everyday superzoom camera in 2024.

By sharing this first-hand lens on how these two small sensor superzooms fare in everyday photographic challenges, I hope you’re equipped with clear insights to match your ambitions and shooting preferences. Whether you prioritize reach, control, or pure convenience, these cameras illustrate the breadth of compact photography options available today and yesterday.

Happy shooting!

Disclosure: I have no affiliation with Nikon or Ricoh. All testing and observations are based on personal evaluation under varied conditions and are intended to provide balanced guidance to readers.