This is extracted from my posts in the DPReview Ricoh forum where I listed the results of comparing real prints from the R3 and R5 which raised the question in my mind - is there any point in having more than 5 megapixels for postcard or slightly bigger prints?
Extract 1........
Just finished the eyeballing of
the prints from the R3 - R5 test. Indoor scene of junk on a table top,
took all ISO on R3 and R5, let it do AF on its own and took pot luck
with the AF ability (a mistake, the quick AF on both R3 and R5 is a bit
flaky at times). Printed without modification using Qimage to about
5.7"x7.6" size on good photo paper using Canon iP4000 ink-jet printer. Results very close in most cases and hard to pick
between steps, but obviously easy to pick very best from very worst.
Anomalies probably due to slight AF variations upsetting the
resolution, would not be apparent maybe if printed at a more normal
postcard size. Best quality first, worst last. A few instances were
Noiseware treated and thrown into the mix. R3 at 5 megapixels and R5 at
7 megapixels. The comparisons are quite different to this list
when pixel peeping on the PC monitor, but I like to do real world tests
and print things. I offered to do the whole thing again but Noiseware
every image but my wife has told me to get lost as she already
developed a headache from that choice process. In the end I see no real advantage in having the 7
megapixels of the R5, the 5 megapixels of the R3 does very well. I just
wish that Ricoh had kept improving the images they could get from 5
megapixel CCDs instead of mucking about with 6, 7 etc megapixels or
wherever they are headed.
2. R3 100 ISO
3. R5 100 ISO
4. R5 64 ISO (possibly a slight AF error, but that's real life)
5. R3 400 ISO Noiseware filtered
6. R5 200 ISO
7. R3 400 ISO (6. and 7. very close indeed)
8. R3 200 ISO (now that's odd, maybe more AF weirdness)
9. R3 800 ISO Noiseware filtered
10. R5 400 ISO
11. R3 800 ISO
12. R5 1600 ISO Noiseware filtered (11. and 12. very close indeed)
13. R5 800 ISO
14. R5 1600 ISO
Extract 2.......
This time took a new series of
shots, same junk subject, heavy tripod and 2 seconds shutter delay.
Everything run through Noiseware at default setting, and printed with
Qimage at 4"x6" on the nice old Epson PictureMate with the pigment inks. Again some minor anomalies due to the usual possible
AF inaccuracies, but that's real life. An important shot should have 3
shots at least to make sure everything is OK. Throughout the range of the 17 prints there were
great difficulties telling which was better than the next, many were so
close it was hard to call. No magnifiers, just Lyn's eyesight in good
daylight. But one stood out as the very best, clearly better
than the next one in the list. And here's the winner (rustle, rustle,
opens envelope....) Each step was very hard to call and there was much
to and fro decisions but clearly the best was way better than the
worst. If I didn't have the others to compare to in the set, then I
would accept any of them as OK postcard prints, even the ISO 1600 shots. The standout was the R3 64 ISO that Lyn said seemed
to be two steps ahead of the next one, whereas all the rest were apart
maybe one or half a step each in quality if you get what I mean. The first pass through had the 7 MP R5 100 ISO
better than the R5 64 ISO again, but further checking against the other
sets put it back in order, but it was very close to call. #2. There's some doubt that R5 64 ISO is better than
R5 100 ISO, so it doesn't hurt to run the R5 in Auto ISO mode most of
the time. #3. It really doesn't matter if I use 5 MP or 7 MP
mode in the R5, the results are really the same at the size I will
normally print. #4. If you want a shot then don't be afraid to use any ISO setting, just make sure it's exposed properly at that ISO.
The R5 shots at ISO 64, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 at 7 megapixels
The R5 shots at ISO 64, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 at 5 megapixels
2. R5 64 ISO at 5 MP
3. R5 64 ISO at 7 MP
4. R5 100 ISO at 5 MP
5. R5 100 ISO at 7 MP
6. R5 200 ISO at 7 MP (6. very close to 5.)
7. R5 200 ISO at 5 MP
8. R3 100 ISO at 5 MP (odd and out of place maybe due to AF error)
9. R3 200 ISO at 5 MP
10. R5 400 ISO at 7 MP
11. R5 400 ISO at 5 MP
12. R3 400 ISO at 5 MP
13. R5 800 ISO at 5 MP
14. R5 800 ISO at 7 MP
15. R3 800 ISO at 5 MP
16. R5 1600 ISO at 7 MP
17. R5 1600 ISO at 5 MP
#1. If I want quality in daylight I stick with my R3 at 64 ISO.
In all cases the R3 and R5 were set to Colour = Neutral, Sharpness = Normal, no exposure compensation.
Maybe my mind will change with further tests and real world use, but so far I see no point in the R5 over the R3 unless you need the better video mode of 640x480. The people who very early slammed the R3 for bad noise performance were quite silly and missed how good this camera is as the images clean up beautifully with Noiseware or Neat Image leaving excellent detail. That is unlike some opposition cameras that have over agressive noise cleaning in the camera and the result is horrible plastic looking images.
There is absolutely no point in posting scans of prints here as there is no substitute to looking at the prints. Even pixel peeping is very misleading and will not show the same differences as the prints do.