GXR: The big point to me

NoTx · Nov 10, 2009

Hmm. So Leicas aren't used commercially anymore? I know, personally I have done weddings with Contax Gs with film, with an M6 along for the ride. The thing you aren't getting is that Ricoh has been a professional camera maker for years. This looks to me like their attempt to make a comeback. Like the old film GRs.

And being these do shoot fast enough, and have (or should have) a silent shutter... if they can make lens/sensor combos that will work, they could be a photojournalist style wedding photographers dream camera.

inde said:
inde said:

NoTx wrote:

Click to expand...

Photographer on cheap commercial project (like a wedding's) needs a camera which:

reliable,

fast,

has a good JPEG engine,

has a full line of lens, expensive and cheap,

usable on high ISO.

That's why commercial workhorses are Nikon DSLR.
All small cameras like EP-1/2, GF-1, GRX etc. are not for business.

--
Rob aka NoTx...
-Film: Fuji GX680, Leica M6TTL, Contax G2, Contax G1
-Digital: Olympus E1 x2

Billx08 · Nov 10, 2009

MarkB56 said:
the correction and clarification.

The idea of a modular sensor is appealing, if I can reuse my lens collection. But if I buy a new sensor with each lens, it seems like I'm buying a new camera with each lens.

And these lenses might not retain their value as well as traditional lenses, since after a few years their sensors wouldn't be close to state of the art. If any of the modular lens+digital guts packages contain "pro" glass, maybe they'd need to have upgradeable sensors. Then you might end up buying not one but several "cameras" for each lens.

Pangloss · Nov 11, 2009

Hi Thom,

Thom Hogan said:
...

The thing that makes the camera body expensive is the LCD (thank goodness they put a 900k dot one in there, but even that's going to look out of date in a few years).

Another thing that makes the camera body expensive is the fact that it is made of magnesium alloy. Apart from Ricoh I don't think anybody else makes compact cameras using magnesium, which is extremely expensive, as you probably know.
Cheers,
--
Andrew
Enjoying my LX3!

Prognathous · Nov 11, 2009

Thom Hogan said:
Thom Hogan said:

If they can sell at least a hundred thousand of these, I bet we will see third part lens mounts made by somebody.

Click to expand...

This is the one potential saving grace for Ricoh that I see. If (and that's a huge if) they'll license the mount design and communication, we'll see an entrepreneurial startup appear that does the Lens Kit right. But why would Ricoh do that? There's not a lot of money in just selling US$549 bare bodies, is there?

No, but there can be a lot of money in licensing royalties or in selling their own sensor-only mount units. They can probably partner with Sigma to get the protocols and specs of each of the major mounts.

From then on it's mostly a matter of developing the right mounts and asking a reasonable amount of money for them. I'd happily pay $300 for an A-Mount unit. Do you think there's not enough profit left for Ricoh in selling me a $550 body, $440 zoom lens (their own) and a $300 mount? Heck, I'm also using a FourThirds DSLR, so they may be able to sell me another $300 mount for that.

Prog.

Iliah Borg · Nov 11, 2009

NoTx said:
Now as a photographer I see a great benefit to this idea. You only need to be used to one body. It sounds like a minor issue, but it really isn’t.

Is it right that when Ricoh comes up with a better sensor and I need this improvement I'm supposed to buy multiple new lens modules instead of one single camera body? If so, it really does not sound to me as a minor issue but rather as a seriously wrong design decision.

--
http://www.libraw.org/

Pangloss · Nov 11, 2009

Where the Ricoh engineers are really thinking out of the box is that they are wrapping the lens and sensor in a sealed module, and the lens is optimized for the sensor. Also keeping the same high-quality body is what every DSLR user wants, because of the learning curve with new cameras/UIs.

I think Ricoh took a daring approach to the upgradeability game and I am quite willing to buy into their system, not having any previous investment in lenses from other manufacturers.
--
Andrew
Enjoying my LX3!

Thom Hogan · Nov 11, 2009

Prognathous said:
From then on it's mostly a matter of developing the right mounts and asking a reasonable amount of money for them. I'd happily pay $300 for an A-Mount unit.

The problem with your idea is economics. The most costly part in a camera is the sensor. The imaging ASIC, ADC, and memory also tend to combine into a high cost component. The lens? Not so much, especially when they're simple designs (standard prime or regurgitated zoom).

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

Thom Hogan · Nov 11, 2009

Pangloss said:
Where the Ricoh engineers are really thinking out of the box is that they are wrapping the lens and sensor in a sealed module, and the lens is optimized for the sensor.

Apparently, you've drunk the Ricoh Marketing Kool Aid. Please explain to me what "lens is optimized for the sensor" means.

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

TMacaw · Nov 11, 2009

...... I hear and comprehend the critique, but if small, high IQ cam is required, then wher to now?? Foveon (DPx seemed like an alternative) is at least a larger sensor.

EP-1 is small or not in the hands of the user ... and larger sensor. OR do you argue in support of newer, higher quality small 1/1.7 sensor solution?
I think there needs to a positive option in the critique.

If GRD III is not the preferred choice, then what? If GRX_S10 now outperforms GRD III (don't really know) then 24-72 range is a plus.

Just need the yin for the stated yang.

Tom B

Prognathous · Nov 11, 2009

Thom Hogan said:
The problem with your idea is economics. The most costly part in a camera is the sensor. The imaging ASIC, ADC, and memory also tend to combine into a high cost component. The lens? Not so much, especially when they're simple designs (standard prime or regurgitated zoom).

How much do you think a lensless APS-C unit should cost to leave Ricoh enough margins to make it worthwhile their efforts?

Prog.

Koenigstiger · Nov 11, 2009

Well, I agree with you. But if (and I mean IF) Ricoh produced their own sensors, we could imagine (and I mean IMAGINE) more diverse combos, such as a panoramic wide-angle (e.g. 5:2 ratio), 20 mm. equivalent, with 12-14mp. Or a square format B&W portrait lens/sensor combo, à la Hasselblad.

This is mere speculation, I know, as Ricoh is not going to announce anything similar. Also because they do not manufacture their sensors, and developping a specialised sensor for each possible format / module would cost far too much (even for Sony). So in the end Ricoh is stuck with "classic" sensors, or in any case sensors produced for normal cameras. Which spoils all the system's potential innovativity.

Leaving it very expensive though: for a classic "normal" 50mm with 2:1 macro (=average, less than real macros) + body + evf we spend as much as for a Nikon D300... or an Ep1 + Pana 20/1.7 + Ricoh GX200... Mmmmh, I answer is: next please!

Thom Hogan said:
Apparently, you've drunk the Ricoh Marketing Kool Aid. Please explain to me what "lens is optimized for the sensor" means.

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

--
Se potessi aveeeere... mille euro al meeeese...

Iliah Borg · Nov 11, 2009

Pangloss said:
the lens is optimized for the sensor.

Can you demonstrate this?

Pangloss said:
Also keeping the same high-quality body is what every DSLR user wants

By no means keeping the same body is what I want.

Pangloss said:
I think Ricoh took a daring approach to the upgradeability game and I am quite willing to buy into their system, not having any previous investment in lenses from other manufacturers.

Not having previous investments in lenses really puts you into the position to talk about what every DSLR user wants.

As far as their daring approach, it is doomed.

--
http://www.libraw.org/

Prognathous · Nov 11, 2009

Iliah Borg said:
As far as their daring approach, it is doomed.

Would you feel the same after they introduced the rumored K-mount unit (lensless) supporting all those Pentax pancake lenses? What about if they introduced another unit supporting FourThirds lenses? Leica M-mount? The possibilities are endless and the effort required to develop such units is relatively low.

Don't be so quick to judge. It's just the beginning.

Prog.

Pangloss · Nov 11, 2009

Thom Hogan said:
The problem with your idea is economics. The most costly part in a camera is the sensor.

Thom,

This is absolutely not the case for any recently-launched camera I can think of, from the humblest P&S to the most sophisticated DSLR. Fixed costs and development costs represent a greater % of costs than any individual component or subsystem. Also:

1/2.5" ~~1/1.6" sensors in P&S and bridge cameras cost less than the imaging engine and electronic subsystem, even not counting firmware development costs, and less than the LCD and associated driving circuit.~~
In top of the line DSLR cameras the magnesium alloy body halves and mechanical components making up the body add up to more than the cost of the sensor.

Thom Hogan said:
The imaging ASIC, ADC, and memory also tend to combine into a high cost component. The lens? Not so much, especially when they're simple designs (standard prime or regurgitated zoom).

In P&S cameras with even the simplest zoom lenses, the lens as a subsystem is much more expensive than the small sensors used.

--
Andrew
Enjoying my LX3!

Thom Hogan · Nov 11, 2009

Prognathous said:
How much do you think a lensless APS-C unit should cost to leave Ricoh enough margins to make it worthwhile their efforts?

We have lensless complete DSLRs that have sold for less than US$399. Granted, those companies have higher volume, but this is part of Ricoh's problem: you have to go far above and beyond in order to charge above and beyond.

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

Thom Hogan · Nov 11, 2009

Pangloss said:
This is absolutely not the case for any recently-launched camera I can think of, from the humblest P&S to the most sophisticated DSLR. Fixed costs and development costs represent a greater % of costs than any individual component or subsystem.

Generally, you have three different "cost" scenarios that you use within product development. One, which accounts for R&D, is mostly an ROI analysis. At the other end is the per-unit variable costs that I'm referring to. This actually gets back to part of my argument about what Ricoh is doing. If they were opening this up to other developers, they'd be better off (more ROI) in my opinion. Without that, they're in that rock and hard place location, where their volume really doesn't justify the R&D and fixed costs.

Pangloss said:
1/2.5" to 1/1.6" sensors in P&S and bridge cameras cost less than the imaging engine and electronic subsystem,

True at the moment for most compact cameras. But not all. Indeed, this, too, may be a motivation for Ricoh: to spread standardized ASIC costs across more products. Hard to say, though, as it looks like they have a split ASIC, which also has to increase costs.

Pangloss said:
In top of the line DSLR cameras the magnesium alloy body halves and mechanical components making up the body add up to more than the cost of the sensor.

Nope. Can't reveal sources, but I have a parts cost list from one maker that says otherwise.

Pangloss said:
In P&S cameras with even the simplest zoom lenses, the lens as a subsystem is much more expensive than the small sensors used.

Yes and no. I've seen cost lists both ways. I was careful to say "simplest" in my comment, and I'll stand by it.

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

Thom Hogan · Nov 11, 2009

Koenigstiger said:
Well, I agree with you. But if (and I mean IF) Ricoh produced their own sensors, we could imagine (and I mean IMAGINE) more diverse combos, such as a panoramic wide-angle (e.g. 5:2 ratio), 20 mm. equivalent, with 12-14mp. Or a square format B&W portrait lens/sensor combo, à la Hasselblad.

Ah. That would indeed be interesting, though I'm not 100% convinced worth it as you describe it. A slit scan pano camera would indeed be a match between sensor (strip) and lens (rotating), though.

Koenigstiger said:
So in the end Ricoh is stuck with "classic" sensors, or in any case sensors produced for normal cameras.

This would indeed be the reason why I think Ricoh has to license the interface.

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

Prognathous · Nov 11, 2009

Thom Hogan said:
Prognathous said:

How much do you think a lensless APS-C unit should cost to leave Ricoh enough margins to make it worthwhile their efforts?

Click to expand...

We have lensless complete DSLRs that have sold for less than US$399. Granted, those companies have higher volume, but this is part of Ricoh's problem: you have to go far above and beyond in order to charge above and beyond.

So my $300 MSRP is reasonable enough. Ricoh has lower volume, but it doesn't need to include the mirror box, viewfinder, LCD, body controls and other components that are already in the GXR body itself.

Prog.

Thom Hogan · Nov 11, 2009

Prognathous said:
Would you feel the same after they introduced the rumored K-mount unit (lensless) supporting all those Pentax pancake lenses? What about if they introduced another unit supporting FourThirds lenses? Leica M-mount?

Can't speak for Iliah, but I would feel the same. It would also make me a bit mad if I had drunk the original Kool Aid and bought the 50mm APS unit.

Prognathous said:
The possibilities are endless and the effort required to develop such units is relatively low.

An even lower cost possibility is to just produce a mirrorless camera that can accept virtually anything through a inexpensive lens adapter (e.g. exactly what you can do today with a m4/3 camera and are likely to be able to do tomorrow with at least two mirrorless competitors I know of that are coming).

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

Thom Hogan · Nov 11, 2009

Prognathous said:
So my $300 MSRP is reasonable enough.

No, it's not. Ricoh doesn't have enough volume to make back R&D and fixed corporate costs at that price. That was why I pointed out higher volumes. Ricoh is making perhaps 200k units a year when some of their competitors are making 20m units a year. That's two orders of magnitude to make up. Ricoh won't be the low cost leader. That's actually one of the problems with this innovation from them: it's going to be one of the high cost products on the market with not all of the advantages of the lower cost ones.

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

GXR: The big point to me

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts