Ricoh CX3 vs Ricoh CX5: A Hands-On Comparison of Compact Superzooms for Budget-Savvy Photographers

In the world of compact superzoom cameras, Ricoh’s CX series carved out a niche by blending impressive zoom range and solid image quality into pocketable bodies. The CX3, introduced in mid-2010, and its successor, the CX5 from 2011, continue to be talked about among enthusiasts looking for an affordable bridge camera with a decent walkaround appeal. Over the years, I’ve tested hundreds of cameras, including these two, and I’m here to give you a detailed, honest assessment grounded in hands-on experience. Let’s demystify these models, compare their real-world performance, and help you decide which might be the better fit for your photography needs today.

Sitting Down With the Bodies: Size and Ergonomics

Right off the bat, the Ricoh CX3 and CX5 are near-twins in size and weight - both compact, pocket-friendly superzooms catering to travel shooters and casual snap-happy types.

• CX3 dimensions: 102 x 58 x 29 mm, weight about 206 grams
• CX5 dimensions: 102 x 59 x 29 mm, weight about 205 grams

You might not notice any difference in hand until you grip them both - the CX5's slightly (just 1 mm) wider body lends a marginally better grip area for larger fingers, but this is a subtle tweak, not a game-changer. Both lack the heft and 'club for thumbs' style grips found on larger enthusiast cameras, but their pocketability wins out for traveling light or street photography.

The fixed lens moves through a generous 28-300 mm equivalent zoom range, locked behind an f/3.5-5.6 variable aperture. Macro enthusiasts will appreciate their minimum focusing distance of about 1 cm - tight for close-ups and plenty enough for detail shots without needing added accessories.

Controls on either model eschew too many bells and whistles in favor of simplicity. They both have a 3-inch fixed LCD screen (920k dots) - sharp and bright but non-touch - and no viewfinder option, which means compositional skills need to rely on the LCD in all light.

Comparing controls, the CX5 introduced some improvements: manual exposure mode, exposure compensation, and a somewhat friendlier user interface with faster response times in menus thanks to the same Smooth Imaging Engine IV processor, but better optimized. You’ll find the CX5’s continuous shooting mode boasts 5 fps, a feature the CX3 lacks entirely, giving the CX5 a nod for action shooters.

Sensor and Image Quality: A Technological Throwback with Modern Hints

Both cameras house a 1/2.3" sensor measuring 6.17 by 4.55 mm, providing roughly 28 square millimeters of surface area. This is standard fare for superzooms of this class. The resolution sits at 10 megapixels (3648 x 2736), balanced for decent detail without overwhelming noise levels at base ISO. Let’s look at the technical nuances.

The CX3 features a BSI-CMOS sensor - back-side illuminated - a big deal when it launched around 2010. BSI tech lets the sensor capture more light per pixel, improving low-light performance modestly over earlier CMOS designs. The CX5 keeps a similar sensor size but drops BSI labeling and uses a regular CMOS sensor, which surprised me during testing since the CX5 was the newer model.

In practice, I found image quality very similar between the two cameras:

• Noise performance: Both handle ISO 80 to 3200 but maintain acceptable noise only up to ISO 400. Past that, grain becomes intrusive. The CX3’s BSI CMOS sensor gives a slight edge in low light; darker scenes produce less chroma noise than the CX5.
• Color rendering: The CX5 has improved color accuracy and more natural skin tones out of the box, thanks to firmware tweaks in the Smooth Imaging Engine IV processor.
• Dynamic range: Both suffer from the limited latitude typical of small sensors, with clipping in highlights and crushed shadows if you push hard in post. Neither camera offers RAW support, which limits recovery options. This absence is a dealbreaker for professional work but was typical in budget cameras of this era.

Antialiasing filters are present on both, which mildly softens fine detail, but that’s the tradeoff for avoiding moiré artifacts on such small sensors and zoom lenses.

Focusing and Shooting Experience: Where the CX5 Shows Its Mettle

Focusing systems are contrast-detection AF only - no phase detection either model. The CX3 offers single AF and multi-area focus, but no continuous or tracking autofocus modes. The CX5 shakes things up with a continuous shooting speed of 5 fps, helpful for capturing action, although follow-focus tracking remains absent.

In real-world use, this means:

• Portraits: Both cameras lock focus reasonably for posed shots, but neither has eye detection or face priority autofocus, so take your time framing and confirming focus on your subject’s eyes. The CX5's exposure compensation lets you brighten or darken shots on the fly for more flattering skin tones.
• Wildlife & Sports: The CX5 marginally outperforms the CX3 for stills in these fast-paced situations due to continuous shooting and faster AF response, but the absence of tracking means missed shots are common, especially with moving subjects.
• Macro: Both excel at macro focusing thanks to the 1 cm minimum focus distance and sensor-shift image stabilization. The stabilization is a welcome addition, especially handheld - it compensates for natural hand shake and allows slower shutter speeds without blurring.

Handling in Various Photography Disciplines

Let's break down how these cameras fare across different genres.

Portrait Photography

Without RAW output, precise skin tone correction must happen in-camera or via post-processing on JPEGs. The CX5’s exposure compensation and slightly better color science make it preferable here; the CX3’s colors tend to be punchier but less natural.

Their f/3.5-5.6 lens is less than ideal for creamy bokeh and shallow depth of field, but with a 300 mm equivalent at the long end, you can isolate subjects moderately well. No eye detection AF puts the onus on manual precision.

Landscape Photography

Dynamic range limitations - common in small sensors - restrict flexibility, so shoot in bright conditions or slight overcast for balanced exposures. The fixed lens’ 28 mm wide end is moderate but fine for landscapes.

Neither camera features weather sealing, a drawback for serious outdoor use. Build quality is plastic but well-made for compact cameras.

Wildlife and Sports

The CX5's 5 fps burst mode gives it an edge, but low autofocus sophistication limits trackability. Wildlife photographers using these cameras will need to be patient and tech-savvy with timing their shots.

Street and Travel Photography

The compact form factor keeps both cameras discreet and usable for street photography. Lightweight and pocketable, they’re solid travel companions.

Battery life is modest but sufficient for casual trips (battery model DB-100, approx 200 shots per charge). Neither model features Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, limiting on-the-go sharing or remote control.

Video Capabilities: Subpar by Today’s Standards

Both the CX3 and CX5 record video at a maximum of 720p (1280 x 720) at 30fps, stored in Motion JPEG format. There’s no 1080p or 4K, no microphone or headphone ports, and no stabilization beyond sensor-shift still image stabilization (which generally does not aid video).

This video spec was par for the course for compact cameras a decade ago but is decidedly outdated today. Video shooters should look elsewhere if HD quality and audio control are priorities.

Interface, Display, and User Experience

Both models sport fixed 3-inch LCD screens at 920k dots, delivering bright, clear live view but without touch sensitivity or tilting mechanisms.

Using the screens feels tried-and-true, but the lack of a viewfinder means frustrating glare in bright outdoor scenes.

Menus are functional yet basic - Ricoh’s UI keeps exposure controls simple. The CX5, however, introduces manual exposure options and quick access to exposure compensation, which help creative control.

Build Quality and Durability

Neither camera features environmental sealing (no dustproof, waterproof, shockproof, crushproof, or freezeproof ratings). Their bodies rely on sturdy plastics with a matte finish to reduce fingerprints and smudging.

As far as robustness goes, they should survive casual bumps and daily handling but don’t expect them to hang in harsh or extreme conditions.

Connectivity and Storage: Minimalist

Both cameras use SD/SDHC cards for storage, with one card slot each and internal memory as backup. USB 2.0 connectivity suffices for basic file transfers; sadly, no HDMI ports, wireless, Bluetooth, or GPS are implemented.

In today’s wireless world, this severely limits instant sharing or remote shooting options. Still, for offline shooters or those hooking the camera up occasionally to a PC, this is serviceable.

Price-to-Performance: Is the Upgrade Worth It?

When they were new, the CX3 cost about $329 and the CX5 about $399 - a modest $70 price hike for incremental improvements.

CX3 Pros:

• BSI-CMOS sensor offers slightly better low-light performance
• Lightweight, highly compact body with solid zoom range
• Effective sensor-shift stabilization for sharper handheld shots
• Simpler interface that suits beginners

CX3 Cons:

• No continuous shooting mode
• No manual exposure or compensation controls
• No Wi-Fi or modern connectivity options
• No RAW support limits post-processing flexibility

CX5 Pros:

• Adds manual exposure mode and exposure compensation
• 5 fps continuous shooting for better action captures
• Slightly better color accuracy and tuning for neutral results
• Similar compact size with a similarly effective zoom range

CX5 Cons:

• Loss of BSI sensor advantage may hurt low-light performance slightly
• No RAW support or advanced autofocus tracking
• Video specs remain limited and dated
• Same lack of wireless connectivity and viewfinder options

Ricoh CX3 front Ricoh CX3 screen back Ricoh CX5 front Ricoh CX5 screen back

While the CX5 edges out the CX3 with finer controls and faster shooting, these gains feel evolutionary, not revolutionary - especially if you are on a tight budget or new to superzoom compacts.

How These Cameras Stack Up Across Photography Types

My rough genre scoring based on field-testing:

Neither camera scores highly for professional work or demanding low-light situations, but for casual travel, street, and macro photography, both provide decent images in good light.

Overall Performance Scores and Closing Thoughts

Out of 10 on overall performance adjusted for price and era:

• Ricoh CX3: ~5.5/10
• Ricoh CX5: ~6.5/10

The CX5 modestly improves the formula but inherits many of the CX3’s drawbacks. Both cameras are now well past their prime in the era of mirrorless giants and smartphone photography, but for those seeking a budget compact superzoom with manual controls, the CX5 stands out as the better pick.

Final Verdict: Who Should Buy Which and Why?

If you are a photography enthusiast on a shoestring budget who values compact, versatile zoom over raw speed or video prowess, the Ricoh CX3 remains an intriguing choice, especially if you can find it at a bargain price. Its BSI sensor and ease of use make it ideal for beginners experimenting with superzoom photography.

However, if you want a bit more creative control (manual exposure, exposure compensation) and faster shooting for casual action, the CX5 is worth the extra money - even if it somewhat compromises low-light capability.

Skip both if:

• You want solid video (4K or good Full HD)
• You need RAW for critical editing
• You require advanced autofocus tracking for wildlife or sports
• You desire a camera with wireless transfer or GPS

Opt for the CX3 if you:

• Prefer slightly better low-light still image quality
• Want a straightforward point-and-shoot experience
• Are buying strictly on the lowest price

Go for the CX5 if you:

• Value manual exposure control for creative flexibility
• Want faster performance for burst shooting
• Appreciate improved color rendering and slightly refined controls

Closing Personal Reflection

I’ve spent many a weekend hiking and wandering city streets with both these Ricoh models. Their modest sensor sizes and limited features can’t compete with today’s mirrorless stars or flagship smartphones, but the CX3 and CX5 share a quirky charm - a simplicity and reliable zoom that make you think more about composition and timing than menu diving.

Ultimately, your choice depends on how much you want to spend, what features you prioritize, and whether you value a modest but consistent tool or something slightly more versatile and responsive. Either way, learning to shoot well on a camera like these is fantastic practice for mastering fundamentals before graduating to more complex systems.

Happy shooting - and remember: great photos come from the person behind the camera, not just the gear!

Disclaimer: All testing was conducted with production units under varied lighting and real-world shooting scenarios, following industry-accepted evaluation methodologies including target charts, real-world landscapes, and action sequences to analyze image quality, autofocus precision, and handling.