Ricoh CX2 vs Ricoh G900: A Hands-On Deep Dive into Two Compact Contenders

When it comes to Ricoh’s compact cameras, you might picture solid reliability and quirky, practical designs. But how do the Ricoh CX2, launched in 2009, and the Ricoh G900 from 2018 measure up in real-world shooting? These two models mark different eras in camera tech - the CX2 aimed at everyday superzoom enthusiasts, while the G900 targets the rugged, all-weather user.

Having personally tested both extensively over varied shooting disciplines, I’m here to give you a clear, no-BS comparison, complete with the technical geek-outs and practical pros and cons. By the end, you’ll know which one suits your shooting style and budget best.

Let’s get started by looking at their physical presence and ergonomics - after all, handling matters.

Feel the Difference: Size, Build, and Ergonomics

Out of the box, these two cameras tell very different stories.

The CX2 is a quintessential “small sensor superzoom” compact - neat, pocketable, and lightweight at just 185 grams. The G900, meanwhile, adds ruggedness and a bit more heft, weighing 247 grams, with robust environmental sealing (dustproof, waterproof, shockproof, freezeproof, and crushproof). This robustness naturally is designed for field-heavy users: hikers, adventurers, and even professional inspections or industrial photography - not your average street shooter.

Here’s a side-by-side look at their physical size and grip:

The G900’s chunkier body offers a deeper grip and better button spacing for fingers that like clubs. The CX2 is sleeker and more pocket-friendly.

Above the lens barrel, the CX2’s zoom ring is smoother - a small detail, but it makes fine adjustments pleasant. The G900’s zoom is reliable but intentionally a bit stiffer, probably to minimize accidental changes when you’re out in rough conditions.

On the topology front:

You’ll notice the CX2 lacks dedicated dials for exposure modes (none available, in fact), while the G900 follows suit - neither gives you manual exposure control. Both aim at quick point-and-shoot simplicity and limit options to keep things straightforward. However, the G900 adds a few extra buttons aligned for rugged use, including an illuminated button, helpful in low light (though no touchscreens on either). The CX2's controls are sparse but intuitive.

Ergonomics verdict: CX2 for compact, travel-friendly ease. G900 for rugged handling when durability is non-negotiable.

The Heart of the Image: Sensor Size and Image Quality

One core differentiator lies in their sensors.

Both use a 1/2.3-inch sensor with identical physical dimensions (6.17 x 4.55 mm, about 28.07 mm²), which is typical for point-and-shoot superzooms but quite small compared to APS-C or full-frame sensors. A smaller sensor means more compromise in noise handling and dynamic range, limiting low-light prowess.

But here’s where the G900 flexes its technology muscles: it uses a 20-megapixel BSI-CMOS sensor - back-illuminated technology allows for better light reception, especially in dim conditions. The CX2, on the other hand, sports a 9-megapixel CMOS sensor from an earlier generation.

Here’s a summarized look:

Resolution and Detail: The G900’s 20 MP sensor captures almost double the pixels of the CX2’s 9 MP, offering notably sharper, crop-friendly images. Practical tests show you can safely print larger photos (think wall art) or crop tightly without losing much detail on the G900.

Low Light: The G900’s sensor supports a maximum native ISO of 6400, while the CX2 tops out at 1600 native ISO. Though noise is present at higher ISOs in both cameras due to sensor size, the G900’s BSI sensor and more advanced processing help it hold on to cleaner images under dim lighting.

Color Depth & Dynamic Range: Neither camera has been DxO Mark tested, but in hands-on shooting, the G900 provides more vibrant colors and better detail retention in shadows due to improved sensor tech and image processing.

Image stabilization: The CX2 uses sensor-shift (optical) stabilization, which is excellent for hand-held shooting at longer focal lengths. The G900 relies on digital image stabilization, which works well for video but is less effective for stills, especially in low-light or telephoto shots.

Viewing Your Shots: Screen and Viewfinder Usability

Both cameras lack electronic viewfinders – a nod to their compact nature.

The CX2 offers a 3-inch fixed LCD with 920k dots resolution, while the G900 slightly upgrades to a 3-inch fixed LCD with 1,040k dots.

Practically, this means the G900 screen appears marginally brighter and clearer, aiding composition in bright daylight. Neither are touch-enabled, which in today’s age is a bit of a bummer but consistent with their designs.

Menus and interface on both cameras are functional but basic, aligning with their beginner to enthusiast target demographic. The G900’s screen can be harder to see underwater or under direct sunlight but benefits from anti-reflective coating better than the CX2.

Autofocus and Shooting Responsiveness: Speed and Accuracy

AF systems between these two couldn’t be more different.

The CX2 offers only single autofocus mode using contrast detection - no tracking, no face detection, no autofocus points to select. The AF can be sluggish and hunts noticeably in low light or low contrast scenes.

The G900 embraces a more modern autofocus, featuring:

• 9 AF points
• Face detection autofocus
• AF continuous and tracking capabilities

Having tested these on moving subjects – including kids playing and small pets – the G900’s AF tracking gave me more keepers, boosting confidence for wildlife and casual sports shots.

Regarding burst shooting: Neither camera excels at speed - no meaningful continuous high-frame-rate features here - so neither is suitable for capturing fast action like pro-level sports cameras.

Lens and Zoom: Versatility in Focal Range

Lens specs define a camera’s everyday use avenues.

• CX2’s lens: 28-300 mm (10.7x zoom), aperture F3.5-5.6
• G900’s lens: 28-140 mm (5x zoom), aperture F3.5-5.5

That superzoom range on the CX2 is its main draw for travelers and casual photographers who want reach without carrying multiple primes or zoom tubes.

The G900 sacrifices maximum zoom but gains ruggedness. Its shorter range covers wide-angle to medium-telephoto, sufficient for landscapes, environmental portraits, and casual telephoto shots but won’t hunt distant wildlife or sports.

Macro focusing is close on both (1cm), enabling strong close-up shots for flowers or small objects. However, the CX2’s optical image stabilization facilitates macro handheld shots better.

Real-World Photography Disciplines

Let me break down how each camera performs in key photography areas based on hands-on shooting.

Portrait Photography

• CX2: Without face or eye detection AF, nailing sharp eye focus is tricky, especially with minimal AF points. Bokeh quality is modest due to small sensor and moderate lens aperture, but wide zoom range allows flexible framing.
• G900: Face detection AF aids focusing sharply on faces. The higher resolution sensor captures skin tones with more depth. Bokeh remains average due to sensor size but can be artistic with deliberate background blur settings.

Landscape Photography

• CX2: The 300mm zoom is less relevant here, but 28mm wide-angle engages landscapes nicely. Limited dynamic range and older sensor mean harsher tonal transitions and more noise in shadows.
• G900: Improved dynamic range reveals better detail in skies and shadows. Weather sealing plus crushproofing encourages shooting in rough conditions unseen with the CX2. Higher resolution aids in large prints.

Wildlife Photography

• CX2: The extended zoom lens helps, but slow and limited AF system limits ability to track animals in motion. Low burst rate makes capturing decisive moments difficult.
• G900: Shorter focal length limits reach but better AF tracking rate improves lock-on accuracy. Good for casual wildlife but not professional birding.

Sports Photography

Neither camera caters to sports shooters due to limited burst rates and no manual exposure modes, but:

• G900: Better AF tracking, higher max shutter speed (1/4000 vs 1/2000), and higher ISO range make it the marginally superior choice for low-light indoor sports.

Street Photography

• CX2: Compact, discreet, and lightweight, perfect for candid street shots.
• G900: Rugged but bulkier and louder (due to seals and thicker body). Not as pocketable or stealthy.

Macro Photography

Both cameras shine here with 1cm minimum focus distance.

• CX2: Optical stabilization offers steadier shots.
• G900: Digital stabilization and higher resolution give more detail, but handheld macro may require a tripod for best results.

Night and Astrophotography

Neither is ideal for astrophotography given sensor size and lack of manual control.

• G900: Higher ISO ceiling and better sensor tech produce usable images in night scenes.
• CX2: Max ISO 1600 and older processor limit low-light usability.

Video Performance and Usability

Video capabilities have come a long way between these two.

• CX2: Records only VGA (640x480) at 30fps in Motion JPEG format. Pretty much unusable by today’s standards.
• G900: Supports 4K UHD recording (3840x2160), using H.264 codec, at decent frame rates. Despite lack of microphone input or headphone jack, the clarity and stabilization make it good for casual video or documentation.

Battery, Storage, and Connectivity

The CX2 runs on a DB-70 battery (proprietary), and I found battery life limited in real use - expect to carry spares. Storage is simple - SD/SDHC cards plus limited internal storage.

The G900 uses a rechargeable DB-110 Lithium-ion battery with ~340 shots per charge, better than the older CX2 but still modest by today’s standards. It supports SD/SDHC/SDXC cards plus internal storage.

Connectivity-wise, the G900 uniquely supports FlashAir wireless SD cards, enabling remote image transfer - a huge plus for field photographers who hate cables. The CX2 has no wireless features. The G900 also includes built-in GPS for geotagging photos, handy for travel and nature shoots.

Price vs Performance: What Are You Getting for Your Money?

At the time of this writing:

• Ricoh CX2: Roughly $340, geared for budget-conscious buyers or those wanting a superzoom compact without bells and whistles.
• Ricoh G900: Around $750, aimed at professionals or serious enthusiasts needing durability and better tech.

For under half the price, the CX2 offers an accessible entry point, especially if you prioritize reach and portability over advanced features.

The G900, while pricier, packs a considerable upgrade in sensor, durability, autofocus, and 4K video - but with a more limited zoom range.

Here are their strengths and weaknesses summarized:

Who Should Buy the Ricoh CX2?

• Budget buyers or cheapskates wanting a versatile, pocketable superzoom.
• Casual photographers who want an easy, lightweight camera for travel and everyday snaps.
• Street photography fans valuing low profile over ruggedness.
• Macro enthusiasts who value optical stabilization for handheld close-ups.
• Those not needing far-reaching zoom for telephoto wildlife or sports.

When Does the Ricoh G900 Shine?

• Outdoor and adventure photographers demanding rugged gear that can survive water, dust, shock, and cold.
• Those needing better autofocus for moving subjects and face detection technology.
• Travel pros who want built-in GPS and wireless photo transfer.
• Videographers and content creators needing 4K video capabilities.
• Photographers who want better image quality, resolution, and low-light performance in a compact body.

Final Thoughts and Verdict

Comparing the Ricoh CX2 and Ricoh G900 is a bit like matching an eager budget traveler with a seasoned adventurer. The CX2 is a capable small sensor superzoom compact - easy to carry, simple to use, and with a lens giving you far-reaching zoom. It’s best for casual, daylight shooting and users who don’t crave tech bells and whistles.

The G900, meanwhile, from a newer generation, is undeniably the more advanced and rugged option. Its larger megapixel count, improved AF tracking with face detection, and 4K video capabilities place it ahead in versatility for professional, travel, and outdoor usage - if you’re willing to invest more.

Here’s the overall performance rating chart I compiled from hands-on testing across key parameters:

And for those interested in how each camera fares across popular photography types:

To wrap it up with some sample images I took with both cameras in similar conditions (daylight landscapes and close-ups), see below how the increased resolution and color fidelity on the G900 stand out:

Ricoh CX2 front Ricoh CX2 screen back Ricoh G900 front Ricoh G900 screen back

Parting Advice from a Hands-On Reviewer

If you’re hunting for a reliable, pocket-friendly superzoom camera under $400, the Ricoh CX2 won’t disappoint in well-lit, casual shooting.

If your photography leans toward rugged environments, higher resolution stills, and sharp autofocus for dynamic scenes - and you can budget around $750 - the Ricoh G900 is well worth the upgrade.

Both are niche products by today’s mirrorless and smartphone standards, but for specific use cases, they shine. And hey, if you appreciate solid engineering and Ricoh’s trademark build quality, you’ll find something to like with either. Just match your priorities carefully: size and zoom versus sensor and durability.

Thanks for reading - I hope this detailed dive helps you make the right choice for your photography journey! Got questions or want me to test other models? Just shout.