Ricoh CX3 vs Samsung HZ35W: A Detailed Head-to-Head for Compact Superzoom Enthusiasts

When perusing the world of compact superzoom cameras from the early 2010s, two models often surface in discussions among enthusiasts looking for pocket-friendly versatility coupled with respectable image quality: Ricoh’s CX3 and Samsung’s HZ35W (also known as the WB650). Both cameras debuted on the same day in mid-2010, targeting casual photographers desiring long zoom ranges without the bulk or complexity of DSLRs or mirrorless models.

Having spent dozens of hours testing both side-by-side in varied real-world scenarios and scrutinizing their technical merits, I’ll unpack how these two superzooms stack up across the most critical facets. With a mix of field shots, lab-inspired evaluations, and usability studies, I aim to shed light on which camera is best suited to distinct photographic needs and styles. This isn’t about a popularity contest but a nuanced exploration grounded in hands-on experience.

Compact Cameras with Big Zoom Ambitions: Size and Handling

Right out of the gate, physical ergonomics and layout often dictate comfort and shooting confidence - especially for all-day travel or spontaneous street snapshots.

Here’s where the Ricoh CX3 and Samsung HZ35W start to diverge. The CX3 measures a compact 102 x 58 x 29 mm and weighs 206 grams, making it more pocketable and travel-friendly. The HZ35W, while still compact, is noticeably chunkier at 107 x 61 x 28 mm and 245 grams - an extra 40 grams you can definitely feel when casually carrying it.

I found the CX3’s slim, rounded body fits seamlessly into my hand and coat pocket, perfect for minimal-stress street photography or travel walks where bulk is the enemy. The HZ35W offers a marginally larger grip, which can appeal to shooters preferring a bit more hold stability, especially when reaching for those extended telephoto shots.

Turning to control layout, the top-plate designs reveal some telling differences. The HZ35W features dedicated dials and buttons for shutter priority, aperture priority, and full manual exposure modes - luxuries for those who want creative exposure control in-field. The CX3, by contrast, opts for simplicity with fewer physical controls. Exposure modes like shutter or aperture priority are absent, focusing more on fully automatic or basic manual focus settings.

In use, the CX3’s streamlined interface reduces confusion for casual shooters but may frustrate enthusiasts who crave granular adjustments. The HZ35W’s richer manual controls provide tactile confidence to photographers that want to fine-tune settings without diving deep into menus.

Sensor Tech and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Both cameras share the same sensor size – a modest 1/2.3-inch chip measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm with an active area of 28.07 mm². However, the CX3 employs a BSI-CMOS sensor, while the HZ35W uses a CCD sensor. That differentiation alone leads us to some important practical image quality consequences.

From experience and sensor theory, the CX3’s BSI-CMOS sensor generally offers better low-light sensitivity and faster readout speeds, resulting in less noise and quicker autofocus in dimmer environments. The HZ35W’s CCD sensor, while known for more pleasing color rendering and slightly higher sharpness under ideal lighting, tends toward higher noise at ISO 800 and above.

Resolution-wise, the HZ35W boasts 12 megapixels (4000 x 3000 max resolution) versus the CX3’s 10 megapixels (3648 x 2736). On paper, the Samsung’s higher pixel count could deliver more detail, but in practice, the difference is marginal, especially since the smaller sensor struggles to resolve more information without amplifying noise.

Real-world image tests show both cameras performing adequately for social media, prints up to 8x10 inches, and casual nature shots. The CX3’s superior noise control at ISO 400 and 800 offers an edge indoors or around dusk - common problem areas for compact superzooms.

Viewing and Image Review Experience

Handling the camera’s rear interface directly impacts how easily we can compose shots and verify results on the go. Both models sport a fixed 3-inch rear display but differ in resolution and refresh rates.

Ricoh CX3’s screen shines brighter with a higher resolution (around 920k dots), delivering crisp, vibrant previews. This sharpness aids in manual focusing efforts and framing, especially in bright conditions. Conversely, Samsung’s display works at a lower 614k resolution and suffers from a slightly sluggish refresh rate.

Neither camera offers a viewfinder of any kind, which is a trade-off for the compact form factor and reasonable cost. Consequently, bright daylight shooting can be challenging, mandating steady hands and good LCD visibility.

Autofocus Systems: Speed, Accuracy, and Tracking

Autofocus (AF) is a cornerstone for any camera, especially for versatile superzooms that tackle subjects ranging from portraits to wildlife to sports. Both cameras rely on contrast-detection AF given their sensor and processor designs, but with notable differences in implementation.

The Samsung HZ35W is equipped with face detection and AF tracking capabilities, which enhance subject locking, particularly for portraiture and casual action photography. It also supports continuous AF for live view - allowing some dynamic focus adjustment during recording or burst sequences.

Ricoh CX3 lacks face detection or AF tracking, relying on a more basic contrast-detect system with multi-area autofocus. It only supports single AF locked before exposure, which can lead to focus hunting or misses with moving subjects.

In practice, I found the Samsung HZ35W’s AF decidedly more confident in capturing faces on bustling streets and moderately fast-moving subjects, though neither camera delivers the speed or precision of contemporary mirrorless or DSLR systems. Slow AF remains the primary limiting factor between these two.

Zoom Range and Lens Characteristics

Superzoom cameras live and die by the range and quality of their lenses. The Ricoh CX3 features a 28-300 mm (equivalent) zoom lens with a 10.7x optical zoom ratio. The aperture ranges from f/3.5 at wide angle to f/5.6 at telephoto. Meanwhile, the Samsung HZ35W pulls ahead zoom-wise with a longer 24-360 mm equivalent (15x optical zoom) paired with a slightly faster f/3.2-5.8 aperture.

In the field, the HZ35W’s longer reach enables photographers to frame distant wildlife or sports action more comfortably. The Ricoh’s wider 28 mm at the short end offers a bit more room to capture landscapes and interiors without stepping back.

One standout for macro enthusiasts is the Ricoh CX3’s superior minimum focus distance - down to 1 cm - enabling extremely close-up shots with exceptional magnification. The HZ35W only gets as close as 3 cm, limiting ultra-tight framing.

Both lenses employ optical image stabilization, but the CX3 uses sensor-shift stabilization while the HZ35W utilizes optical lens-based stabilization. In practice, both provide roughly 2-3 stops of shake reduction, making handheld telephoto shots feasible, though neither replaces a tripod for critical sharpness.

Real-Life Photo Samples: Matching Specs to Results

No comparison is complete without assessing images that both cameras capture in identical conditions.

Ricoh CX3 front Ricoh CX3 screen back Samsung HZ35W screen back

The images above highlight subtle yet meaningful differences. Portrait shots from the Samsung HZ35W exhibit warmer, more saturated color tones with decent skin tone rendition and a hint of natural bokeh. The Ricoh CX3’s rendering is cooler but arguably more faithful to reality, with punchier details on hair and eyes despite the lack of face detection autofocus.

Landscape captures show the Samsung’s higher resolution provides finer detail when cropped but at the cost of slightly elevated noise in shadow areas versus the CX3’s cleaner gradients. Low light images demonstrate the CX3’s CMOS sensor advantage, with less ISO grain and swifter shutter speeds.

Macro shots taken with the Ricoh reveal its superior close-focus ability, offering artistic compositional creativity. The Samsung’s images remain decent macro performers but are held back by the minimum focusing distance.

Video Recording: Capabilities and Limitations

Videography, while secondary on superzoom compacts, influences versatility for casual users.

Both cameras offer 720p HD video at 30 fps (and other lower resolutions) stored in the Motion JPEG format. No 1080p or 4K recording exists, which aligns with their 2010 launch era.

Samsung adds 15 fps options and a 60 fps mode at 320x240, which may appeal to those wanting slow-motion effects or faster capture at low resolutions. Ricoh’s video supports timelapse recording - a nice tool for creative shooting that Samsung lacks.

Neither camera includes microphone or headphone jacks, restricting sound input control and monitoring. HDMI output on the Samsung HZ35W aids video playback on external screens, an advantage missing on the CX3.

Video autofocus is sluggish and prone to hunting on both models, with Samsung’s face detection slightly smoothing transitions. Overall, these cameras offer decent casual video functionality but won’t satisfy demanding videographers.

Battery Life, Storage, and Connectivity

Battery performance on compacts significantly affects day-long use without packing extras.

The Ricoh CX3 uses a DB-100 lithium-ion battery, while the Samsung HZ35W relies on SLB-11A batteries. Both cameras do not have official CIPA ratings available, but in controlled use, the Samsung reported slightly shorter endurance - likely due to a larger sensor and screen power draw.

Storage-wise, both use SD/SDHC cards, but Samsung also supports SDXC for higher capacity cards - useful for longer video sessions. Neither camera offers dual card slots.

Connectivity options are basic. Samsung surprisingly includes built-in GPS, great for geotagging travel shots - a feature missing from Ricoh. Neither model has Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or NFC, underscoring their vintage status.

USB 2.0 is the common physical data transfer port, with Samsung adding HDMI output for playback convenience.

Build Quality, Weather Resistance, and Durability

Both cameras embrace lightweight plastic bodies without weather sealing or ruggedization. This limits their suitability for harsh outdoor or professional use but fits their casual photography ambitions.

The Ricoh CX3's more compact frame and minimal protruding parts feels stylish yet modestly protected, while the Samsung’s bulkier body may be slightly more robust but still vulnerable to dust and moisture ingress.

Neither model is shock, freeze, or crush proof, so treat them gently, especially on adventures or wilderness shoots.

Performance Ratings and Genre-Specific Strengths

Using cumulative user testing and performance metrics from real-world shooting sessions, here is an overview scorecard aggregating overall and genre-focused scores.

And a breakdown of their suitability across photographic genres:

Portrait Photography: Samsung HZ35W edges ahead with face detection autofocus easing eye-focus and better bokeh at fast apertures.

Landscape Photography: Marginal gains to Ricoh CX3 due to cleaner ISO performance and a wider wide-angle zoom start.

Wildlife & Sports: Samsung HZ35W’s longer zoom and AF tracking help, but both are limited by low burst rates and slow AF.

Street Photography: Ricoh CX3’s smaller body, faster operation, and closer macro focus make it ideal for discreet, creative shots.

Macro Photography: Clear win for Ricoh CX3 thanks to 1 cm focusing capability.

Night/Astro Shooting: Neither excels, but CX3’s BSI-CMOS sensor reduces noise more effectively.

Video Capabilities: Rough parity, with Samsung slightly better for playback and GPS-tagged clips.

Travel Photography: Ricoh CX3’s compactness and battery efficiency offer an edge for light travel packers.

Professional Work: Neither camera competes in this arena due to limited manual control, no RAW support, and basic build quality.

Distilling the Differences: Choose Based on Your Priorities

The Ricoh CX3 and Samsung HZ35W both serve niches in the ever-evolving compact superzoom space, but their design philosophies and capabilities set them apart.

• Opt for Ricoh CX3 if you value:

  • Pocketable size and light handling
  • Cleaner images in low light and night scenes
  • Macro or creative close-up photography
  • Simplicity and a sharp rear LCD screen
  • Slightly better image stabilization via sensor-shift technology

• Opt for Samsung HZ35W if you need:

  • Longer zoom reach for distant subjects
  • More creative exposure control with manual modes
  • Face detection and autofocus tracking for portraits and casual action
  • Built-in GPS for travel geotagging
  • HDMI output for better playback and connectivity

Both cameras occupy an affordable, around $300 price bracket in today’s used market, making them attractive entry points for enthusiasts on a budget or as secondary cameras for trips.

Final Thoughts: Reflecting on a Decade-Old Competition

Testing the Ricoh CX3 and Samsung HZ35W a decade after release allowed me to appreciate both cameras as snapshots of their era’s technology and design trade-offs. Neither competes with modern mirrorless or premium compact cameras, but their unique combinations of features and handling choices still provide lessons in camera design and user priorities.

These two cameras demonstrate how sensor technology, lens choices, and user interface philosophies create distinct user experiences, even within the same price and size class. While the Ricoh CX3’s BSI-CMOS sensor and superb macro ability attract creatives prioritizing image quality and portability, Samsung’s richer manual control and longer zoom appeal to advanced enthusiasts seeking more control and reach.

If you find yourself captivated by crisp cityscapes or delicate flower details, Ricoh will serve you better. If chasing wandering wildlife or exploring manual exposure intrigues you, Samsung might become a loyal companion.

Whatever your choice, remember to pair these cameras with good technique and a creative eye, because it’s not always about megapixels or features - sometimes, the best photos come from knowing your tool’s quirks intimately.

Thanks for reading this detailed comparison of the Ricoh CX3 and Samsung HZ35W. If you have questions about practical usage scenarios or want testing tips for similar cameras, feel free to reach out. Happy shooting!

Image Credits:

• size-comparison.jpg
• top-view-compare.jpg
• sensor-size-compare.jpg
• back-screen.jpg
• cameras-galley.jpg
• camera-scores.jpg
• photography-type-cameras-scores.jpg