Why bother for a m4/3 when you can get a GXR ?

[Harold66]

Hello everyone
Talk about missing the opportunity to stay ahead

I have been interested in the m4/3 concept from the start but never could take the plunge because of the fact that it is a system walking on crutches without the appropriate lenses

More than a year since the introduction of the first m4/3 bodies and nothing much in terms of lenses except a few entry zooms

the quality of these zooms is Ok but nothing to write home about and sizewise, they are too big for the smaller EP and GF1 bodies ( they are more appropriate for the G1 and Gh1)

the 17mm of olympus is average at best . the only two serious lenses for those bodies are the 7-14mm ( which is hard to come by and which is still a zoom) and the 20mm

Despite serious vignetting, it is a good lens . But still cheaply made with no hood , no optional OVF and no lens markings which should be a must on cameras made for hyperfocal

But all of this comes more into perspective when you look at the new GXR and makes me wonder why would anyone bother with a m4/3 when the ricoh is a much better camera already

yes , the price is higher but if you intend to use this camera a lot for serious work , the Ricoh have so much advantages over the Gf1,Ep2

More modular system
one amazing fixed focal lens right from the start
better manual focus setting
WAY better user interface
DNG format
Very well custom modes

I know that with the new sensor the Ep can produce some great images but when you look at the features of both cameras , there is no doubt about which one is the "tool" camera and which one is more like a "toy" camera

This does not mean that the m4/3 cameras are not good entry level cameras . it just shows that the competition is already ahead
Harold

--
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/haroldglit

 

[nick_webster]

If not, it is of no interest to me

Not sure how you know the Ricoh lens is amazing either - crystal ball gazing, or do you know of a reputable review ?

Nick

 

[TEBnewyork]

If you read anything by Sean Reid, he has had some interesting comments over the past week or two as he's been working with the X1. It has to do with AF speed and the refresh rate the sensor is designed for. M4/3 was built with 1/60 of a second refresh and APS-C was definitely not. This slower refresh essentially limits how good the CDAF can be and also explains why CDAF in live view isn't as good as m4/3.

Here is a public thread about the concept the discussion starts around post #217.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-x1-forum/105808-sean-reids-x1-part-2-review-6.html

It seems as though the 50mm lens/sensor will have the same current APS-c limits.

So depending on the implementation of the zone focusing (which Ricoh has generally been very good at), it will be a wait and see on performance.
--
terry
http://tbanet.zenfolio.com/

 

[KCampbell]

The GXR is really no different than a fixed lens point and shoot. Providing you're OK buying a new camera each time you want a different lens it's OK, but as a system it ensures that the investment you make in lenses will never keep pace with sensor advances.

To my mind the GXR is not a camera system, it is a series of cameras with a shared card holder and battery compartment. It's hard to think of something less relevant to what I want from photographic equipment.

Kevin

 

[kenw]

there is no doubt about which one is the "tool" camera and which one is more like a "toy" camera

I completely agree with this statement, and yet I suspect my conclusion is exactly the opposite of yours .

--
Ken W

Rebel XT, XTi, Pany G1, LX3, FZ28, Fuji F30, and a lot of 35mm and 4x5 sitting in the closet...

 

[Ehrik]

What Ricoh essentially offers is a replaceable backside to the camera.

Which may be good if you scratch the screen. Except for the fact that the backside costs as much as a whole camera body by itself!

Or if you want to upgrade the screen in the future. But as it's already 900k there doesn't seem to be that much need. Maybe if there comes technology that gives a good view in direct sunlight. But it won't be cheap so not much gained.

You are more likely to want a new sensor, perhaps with improved DR, but then you need to rebuy each lens.

The module system makes it a bit thicker than it needs to be. And there is the worry how future-proof the communication bandwidth is.

 

[Iforgetwhat8was4]

There are currently 8 μ4:3 lens out, and the 20 does have a hood...

 

[Sye68]

Hello everyone
Talk about missing the opportunity to stay ahead

I have been interested in the m4/3 concept from the start but never could take the plunge because of the fact that it is a system walking on crutches without the appropriate lenses

More than a year since the introduction of the first m4/3 bodies and nothing much in terms of lenses except a few entry zooms

the quality of these zooms is Ok but nothing to write home about and sizewise, they are too big for the smaller EP and GF1 bodies ( they are more appropriate for the G1 and Gh1)

the 17mm of olympus is average at best . the only two serious lenses for those bodies are the 7-14mm ( which is hard to come by and which is still a zoom) and the 20mm

Despite serious vignetting, it is a good lens . But still cheaply made with no hood , no optional OVF and no lens markings which should be a must on cameras made for hyperfocal

But all of this comes more into perspective when you look at the new GXR and makes me wonder why would anyone bother with a m4/3 when the ricoh is a much better camera already

yes , the price is higher but if you intend to use this camera a lot for serious work , the Ricoh have so much advantages over the Gf1,Ep2

More modular system
one amazing fixed focal lens right from the start
better manual focus setting
WAY better user interface
DNG format
Very well custom modes

I know that with the new sensor the Ep can produce some great images but when you look at the features of both cameras , there is no doubt about which one is the "tool" camera and which one is more like a "toy" camera

This does not mean that the m4/3 cameras are not good entry level cameras . it just shows that the competition is already ahead
Harold

--
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/haroldglit

If the micro 4/3 system is so bad why are you here ??

 

[elfenone]

If the micro 4/3 system is so bad why are you here ??

Fishing's good .........hook set. He already has his limit

 

[Thom Hogan]

Talk about missing the opportunity to stay ahead

Not getting enough responses in the Ricoh forum any more? Still waiting for you to tell me what the "big picture" is for the GXR, by the way...

I have been interested in the m4/3 concept from the start but never could take the plunge because of the fact that it is a system walking on crutches without the appropriate lenses

And those "appropriate lenses" would be? Just go ahead and list what's missing in your mind.

More than a year since the introduction of the first m4/3 bodies and nothing much in terms of lenses except a few entry zooms

Two entry zooms (one each for Panasonic and Olympus), three primes, and three other zooms at the moment. Plus five more announced. How's that compare against the GXR you want us all to switch to? Let's see, 2 produced-and-announced versus 13 produced-and-announced.

the quality of these zooms is Ok but nothing to write home about and sizewise, they are too big for the smaller EP and GF1 bodies

This just tells me that you haven't actually used them. The 14-42mm is actually quite good, and it's smaller than that 50mm on the GXR you seem to like so much.

Despite serious vignetting, it is a good lens . But still cheaply made with no hood , no optional OVF and no lens markings which should be a must on cameras made for hyperfocal

Uh, let's go through that one by one, Harold:

• vignetting: present on all fast lenses, and easily corrected
• hood: there is a hood for this lens, don't know where you get your info from
• optional OVF: Actually, I have two different OVFs that work quite well for the 20mm, they just don't say Panasonic on them ; )
• no lens markings: taken a close look at that Ricoh GXR you're so enamored with? Guess what, no mirror cameras aren't going to have focus markings, it seems

But all of this comes more into perspective when you look at the new GXR and makes me wonder why would anyone bother with a m4/3 when the ricoh is a much better camera already

Hard to actually dispute what you say, as the Ricoh isn't available for test at the moment. I happen to like Ricoh's UI better than either m4/3 camera's, but I also happen to like the flexibility and image quality the three m4/3 cameras I have provide. As we've discussed on the Ricoh forum, I don't see the flexibility in Ricoh's system, nor do I see the image quality in half of its offering so far.

More modular system

What does that modularity buy you versus lose you? It buys you sensor flexibility at the expense of lens flexibility. At a very high expense.

one amazing fixed focal lens right from the start

I think you forgot the "only", as in "only one..."

better manual focus setting

Hard to say, as manual focus isn't implemented yet in the preproduction units I've seen. But if you mean "ability to set manual focus by scale on the LCD," okay, I'll give that one to you, though it's yet unclear how accurate that will be (with small sensor cameras, focus can't always be driven by distance due to fluctuations in focus response due to temperature changes).

WAY better user interface

Can't really argue with you there. I like Ricoh's UI better. So far it's UI for a 50mm lensor. That's not nearly what I need or what I want, so it's like saying that your forklift has a better user interface than my van. Fine, but I don't drive a forklift...

--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (21 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com

 

[Raist3d]

Like having to buy a sensor again and again?

And if you talk about lack of lenses you only have two and only two on that camera at the moment, and one of them is a zoom saddled with a P&S class sensor.

How can you talk about lack of m4/3rds good lenses and not this, I don't understand.

At least in m4/3rds you can use an adapter to put Leica M, Canon, Nikon, Leica R, 4/3rds, Pentax lenses.

While many of those options take pocketable away, having the ability to use some of those lenses is quite useful to bring into this comparison considering the only sensor/lens combo that seems any good for pro work is a fixed prime on the GXR that will make the camera not fit in your pocket.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

 

[elfenone]

And those "appropriate lenses" would be? Just go ahead and list what's missing in your mind.

LOL Thanks for that incredibly appropriate response.
Cheers

 

[Button Pusher]

So since u4/3 is now dead in your world, does that mean you will be exclusively posting in the Ricoh forum from now on or will you drop in to taunt us every now and then? I (a Panny owner) feel inferior to Ricoh owners already and the Ricoh product isn't released.

 

[Godfrey]

If you prefer to use a system that can be used with nearly any lens made in the past 100 years, work with micro-FourThirds.

If you prefer to use a system that will always and forever only have the lens/sensor assemblies made exclusively for it, and nothing else, go for a GXR.

Really, why bother asking such a silly question?
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

 

[Aex]

If you prefer to use a system that can be used with nearly any lens made in the past 100 years, work with micro-FourThirds.

If you prefer to use a system that will always and forever only have the lens/sensor assemblies made exclusively for it, and nothing else, go for a GXR.

Really, why bother asking such a silly question?
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

I totally agree!

--
=============================
My flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/testdasi/

 

[Anfy]

... is to see such a good photographer acting like a fanboy.

Ciao!

--
Me a silly guy

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=32483228

 

[Harold66]

I have been interested in the m4/3 concept from the start but never could take the plunge because of the fact that it is a system walking on crutches without the appropriate lenses

And those "appropriate lenses" would be? Just go ahead and list what's missing in your mind.

Hello Thom

This one is easy . a large wide angle ( 24 to 28mm) lens and a portrait lens ( like between 40 to 45) with at least a 2.0 aperture

I mean these are usually two basic lenses for landscape and portrait , which are two of the most common subjects for entry and intermediate camera users
Harold

--
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/haroldglit

 

[Harold66]

... is to see such a good photographer acting like a fanboy.

Ciao!

--
Me a silly guy

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=32483228

who are you talking about ? not me I hope
Harold
--
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/haroldglit

 

[kevinparis]

here are all the lenses I have that I can use on my E-P1

http://www.vimeo.com/7743856

Oh .. and I have touched and used a GXR... Its a fine camera... but today right now it doesn't even come close to the flexibilty of M43... and most of its future potential is in the minds of the hopeful rather than on the shelves of your favorite stockist

peace

K

--
if you really must see my photos then try
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinparis2007/

 

[Harold66]

If you prefer to use a system that can be used with nearly any lens made in the past 100 years, work with micro-FourThirds.

nearly any lens ??? This is such a ridiculous statement that it does not warrant an answer
I think you should get a book about lenses for film cameras
In addition there is compatibility and compatibility
but having a lens like the zuiko 90-250mm be compatible is just rhetoric
In practicality most of the lenses you are thinking of are pretty much unusable
Harold
--
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/haroldglit