GXR and why I think most people are missing the BIG picture

The announcement of the new RICOH GXR system has brought an unusual activity on the Ricoh forums as well as on other small camera forums here on dpreview & elsewhere on the worl wide web.

There seems to be a vast amount of disappointment and unrealistic reactions. Much has been said as to what the system could be, or should be or whatever but it became pretty obvious to me that most of the people who are here are missing the big picture

I guess that having said that , I’d better explain myself :

First, I think that it is important to acknowledge the need in ANY industry of smaller players which bring a lot of fresh ideas compared to big players who tend to bring out a lot of boring and “me-too” products.

I consider Ricoh to be the most innovative company of the last 5 years in the small digital camera segment. Whether you agree or not, I think it is at least fair to say that smaller companies like Ricoh, Sigma, Olympus have shown more initiative than Canon and Nikon in this small digital camera market.

I think the GXR is a GREAT concept which has a huge potential proving that Ricoh can find the resources to develop it fully AND quickly.

It seems fair to say that the biggest critic (in addition to the price of the system) against the GXR seems to be this idea of making the lens and the sensor as one, hence propagating the idea of a somewhat “disposable sensor” (more on that later).
I think this approach is completely wrong
Maybe it is easier to understand what were the options of Ricoh:

Let’s say that Ricoh had just an announced a system with interchangeable lenses. The first question is what sensor size should they have choose. If they had stayed with the 1/1.7” sensor it would have been just adding to their GX/GR line and not much of a news. More importantly the Image quality limitations of those small sensor- (despite technology progress made over the last 10 years) are real and would become more obvious at a time where the competition is boiling with large sensors in small cameras (sigma DP, but more importantly the M4/3.

Had they gone the route of using an APS-sized sensor it would have been pretty much impossible for Ricoh to keep current two lines of cameras using different sensors.
This is true also from a retail point of view.

I think the GXR concept allows Ricoh users to have an evolving line of products using both small and large sensors in small cameras and being able to use whichever fits better the job at end

The small sensors do better when extreme portability is key, when extended DOF with hyperfocal possibility is important (like street photography) and simply for those who do not need high iso or who do not make large prints

When a coat pocket camera is small enough, when smaller DOF or higher ISO is needed, there comes the bigger sensor

Speaking of sensor, I would like to point out that, IMHO, one of the smartest move by Ricoh would be to use the Fuji 2/3 sensor, which would have the huge benefit to allow for

Significantly higher image quality than the GX/GR sensor and still allow extended DOF and small size

I don’t have unfortunately any clout at the Ricoh Company but I strongly believe that this should be the next module to bring along with serious fixed focal lengths and built in IS

I have seen several people wishing for a FOVEON sensor but that does not make any sense to me. While the sensor technology allows some great resolution at low iso, the resolution of the sensor is very LOW (too low compared to what’s available at the competition) and having to use a specific and complex RAW platform is the opposite of Ricoh philosophy and its dng.

Furthermore Sigma does not seem to be able to make any progress in updating its foveon sensors and I don’t believe in the future of this technology –(feel free to disagree)

Perhaps, the most ILLOGICAL criticism that I have read here and there is people complaining a bout why they can’t mount their pentax or M lenses on the new Ricoh

I am the first to complain when manufacturers cut the customers options in terms of batteries, accessories, and lenses you name it…

But frankly as long as Ricoh propose enough options soon, why should they do that

I mean when Sony and Canon bring their new small camera system, nobody is going to complain that such and such lenses cannot be mounted

I have several lenses in M mount that have not been a ble to use. It would be nice to be able to use them again but I think that in reality it is a wishful thinking

I have followed very closely the m4/3 system – being an Olympus user for my DSLR cameras- but in addition to the fact that the system today despite having 5 cameras has almost no real lenses, tests made with M lenses mounted on it have PROVEN that such a combination does not really bring the best results.

Today, most people who buy these “small cameras with larger sensors’ are people who are interested enough about photography that they are likely to have several cameras.

For most recent cameras, I will argue that there are bigger differences in the way that these cameras operate that there is in their image quality

Choosing a camera depends of course on one’s budget and the camera’s features but the user interface should play a BIG part in selecting one camera versus another

As for me, I have been a photographer for 25 years and I have used many film cameras.

When I look at what’s available today as a “take –anywhere” small digital camera, Ricoh GX/ GR (and now GRX) system is the ONLY one that makes sense to me.

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

(continued from above)

Sure the canon G10-11 , the Sigma Dps, Panasonic and Olympus M4/3 offer serious image quality but some of their shortcomings are so big that they don’t make sense for me and that Only Ricoh would do.

This is where I would submit that being able to keep the same user interface while switching lenses AND sensor sizes is well worth a premium.

Every medium -format or leica M user knows very well that a certain continuity in handling the camera is key in guaranteeing the long term success of any camera system

There is much more to day about the GXR adavantages but I am afraid that this post is already rather long. So I will post a second part if this one generates enough interest and feedback.

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

Seldom have I seen so many discussion and new forum topics as with the GXR. The system and its potential has been with me constantly for the last 3 days. More than that, I have pre-ordered a GXR-S10 and I am very exited about it.

I have had 43 different camera models for the last decade, including the Olympus E-P1, Sigma DP1, Panasonic G1, and the Ricoh GR Digital II. The latter served me more than well in almost any occasion and I came back to a small camera every time.

I am a lazy pixel peeper but despite the theoretical 'advantage' that a DSLR (or DSLR like camera) brings, the most important thing is that you DO take hat picture.

Bottom line: bought the E-P1 (or G1, or DP1...) for that 10% of the occasions that a bigger sensor would indeed be nice, but I left the camera at home the other 90%. So, another GR Digital II came in and I was happy again for that 90%.

As for the GXR-S10: for 90% of my pictures this will be a wonderful camera, with 24mm lens. Small sensor but IQ on par with (or perhaps even better than) the Gr Digital III. And for the other 10% I will buy the A12 unit or whatever will come with fixed lens and APS-C (or similar) sized sensor. A 28mm or 35m fixed unit would even be better but I'll gladly buy the A12 unit when the funds are there.

I have learned that it takes quite some time to getting used to camera. The GXR will allow me to change 'camera' without having to learn new tricks.

The more I think of this concept, the better it gets. Can not wait to get the GXR.

I'm jealous! They weren't offering two for the price of one by any chance?

Harold,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the GXR and dispelling some of the unrealistic expectations and criticisms we have witnessed in the past two days.

I would dearly like to embrace the GRX system, it is either the GRX/S10 or a GRD III, but am a little concerned by the higher price -- given my circumstances, I shouldn't even be looking at cameras. LOL

Unlike those people who seem to buy a new camera every five minutes, my purchases are for the long haul, so it makes sense to me to get the latest in technology, even if it only retains its cutting edge for a matter of months. That is one of the reasons why I am leaning a little more toward the GRX rather than the GRD III, although there are other trade-offs to consider.

I don't know if I constitute sufficient interest for you to continue with the rest of your thoughts on the GRX but I for one would welcome them.
--
http://calvininjaxfotos.wordpress.com/

Harold said

""I have followed very closely the m4/3 system – being an Olympus user for my DSLR cameras- but in addition to the fact that the system today despite having 5 cameras has almost no real lenses, tests made with M lenses mounted on it have PROVEN that such a combination does not really bring the best results.""

OK take you to task on a couple of things

1)No "real lenses"? Zuiko Digital lenses have a lot of the bases covered... and are usually rated very highly in lens tests - 7-14, 12-60, 50-200 50mm Macro, Leica 25/1.4 all very good.... and thats before we talk about the Super High Grade lenses

2) M Lenses may not give the same 'look' on micro 4/3..(they actually don't always give the same look on a M8 as they do on a M9 or indeed film - but they actually do perform pretty well and retain some of their signature. Check out my flickr pages to see some examples taken with a Noctilux and a Summicron over the last couple of days

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

Calvin Palmer said:

Harold,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the GXR and dispelling some of the unrealistic expectations and criticisms we have witnessed in the past two days.

Click to expand...

you are very welcome , Calvin

Calvin Palmer said:

I would dearly like to embrace the GRX system, it is either the GRX/S10 or a GRD III, but am a little concerned by the higher price -- given my circumstances, I shouldn't even be looking at cameras. LOL

Click to expand...

Me neither
and something tells me that this is not just you and me

Calvin Palmer said:

Unlike those people who seem to buy a new camera every five minutes, my purchases are for the long haul, so it makes sense to me to get the latest in technology, even if it only retains its cutting edge for a matter of months. That is one of the reasons why I am leaning a little more toward the GRX rather than the GRD III, although there are other trade-offs to consider.

Click to expand...

I have the same thinking as you when it comes to purchasing cameras

Calvin Palmer said:

I don't know if I constitute sufficient interest for you to continue with the rest of your thoughts on the GRX but I for one would welcome them.

Click to expand...

I will let you know when my second post is ready

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

kevinparis said:

Harold said

1)No "real lenses"? Zuiko Digital lenses have a lot of the bases covered... and are usually rated very highly in lens tests - 7-14, 12-60, 50-200 50mm Macro, Leica 25/1.4 all very good.... and thats before we talk about the Super High Grade lenses

Click to expand...

you are talking about 4/3 lenses here . I have several of the lenses you mention. But while it is technically feasible to mount on micro 4/3 bodies , the weight , size and focus system makes them pretty much unusable on a regular basis on these smaller bodies and kill whatever size advantage the m4/3 system is supposed to have

kevinparis said:

2) M Lenses may not give the same 'look' on micro 4/3..(they actually don't always give the same look on a M8 as they do on a M9 or indeed film - but they actually do perform pretty well and retain some of their signature. Check out my flickr pages to see some examples taken with a Noctilux and a Summicron over the last couple of days

Click to expand...

Thanks for the offer. I am sure you can get OK performance but I have see enough serious reviews on lens sites to know that in most cases , you don't get the quintessence of what the lens can do on a film M camera
Harold
--
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/haroldglit

Don't get me wrong. I won't debate the system or the price, but I'll voice concern over the cartridges. While many will see value in the current cartridges, I'm only looking for IQ. I don't want a printer or small sensor. So this is either a excellent standalone 50mm camera or it's a gimmicky mess. Again, just my opinion. I'm not the target audience if that is their mission. I am their target if there is a good number of APS-C cartridges on the horizon.

Buying a DP1 was easy. Either you liked it or you didn't, right then and there. Guaranteed lens/sensor, and it would never be more/less. Take it or leave it. See the value or don't. Everything it was, was laid out on the table for you to see. I didn't have to worry about the future of Sigma's SA mount to buy a DP1.

But with the GRX, it's a system with many branching futures. Some of them bright, but none guaranteed. It could be a great modular APS-C camera, or it could sell out to the toy crowd. (Ricoh has a slide in the posted presentation about popularity of the Nintendo DS webcam and toy cameras; so you know they're looking closely).

webshark3 said:

Don't get me wrong. I won't debate the system or the price, but I'll voice concern over the cartridges. While many will see value in the current cartridges, I'm only looking for IQ. I don't want a printer or small sensor. So this is either a excellent standalone 50mm camera or it's a gimmicky mess. Again, just my opinion. I'm not the target audience if that is their mission. I am their target if there is a good number of APS-C cartridges on the horizon.

Click to expand...

But for that audience (I am in that group too), Ricoh's decision to go for "all-inclusive" cartridges rather than interchangeable lenses makes less sense - surely, the sensors and electronics for, say, a 28mm (equiv.) lens don't have to be different from a 50mm lens?

The proprietary design - and thus being totally dependent on Ricoh for lens lineup and pricing - may give some potential adopters a pause. At this point the one lens they have indicated they may develop next (a superzoom) is also designed for a smaller sensor.

--
Misha

Harold, good thoughts on this new camera....I can see many uses and the small sensor of the S10 does not bother me at all, especially after seeing the shots on dpreview. i know most shots are focused on the A12 which seems outstanding, that would not be my first lens as I want the widest angle I can get...while the GRD is still a contender I will wait to handle this one before deciding...I am a bit apprehensive that it will be as large as the E-P1 even with the S10 but I will have to have it in my hands to know. And I would like to hike with it on my belt and not take a bag, but time will answer my many questions. Price, yes this can get pricey but so can a GRDlll and a GXR with an S10 lens unit. For the first time I am excited about a VF, something I have not used in many years, but this one seems to be a very good answer. Not a small camera (I never say pocketable since I would never put any camera in my pocket, but maybe not wearable either, this will be important to some degree. I did not hate the E-P1 totally on size but I did like the size of the GRDlll so much more...never handling a GX I am not sure what the difference will really mean...but this is interesting and I can only hope when I get this in my hands it fits and I want it......time will tell, but I seem to say that in many posts these days.

harold

point taken re lenses for micro4/3... i misread your original post as to pertaining to the whole 4/3rd system. Agreed that the micro 4/3 range is limited... I suspect that the problems of producing fast and compact wide angle primes is a major technical hurdle that no-one has yet crossed due to some pretty fundemental issues

regarding leica lenses... well it seems that even leica cant get all of the quintessential quality of their lenses on a digital camera... i wouldn't hold out hope of other manufacturers doing it in the near future

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

Thanks Harold for your wise words - I agree with your sentiments.

Because the GXR has been so different it has raised a lot of comment - not the least because potential users did not really understand what it was about.

In my own opinion it is neither a big compact nor a substitute for a conventional replaceable lensed camera. But it is also both. This is the cionundrum.

Of course those like myself looking on with varying amounts of modern lenses wedded to the existing dslr formats immediately jumped to the conclusion that a three-part sytem that would provide sensors optimised to their lens format and lenses wouold be a very good extension. If only that they could get noise free operation, the Ricoh interface, and a slightly smaller body format. Efforts on my part to point out these virtues must have bored more than a few people I expect.

The idea remains an idea and will not go anywhere unless the owners of the sensor/mount formats co-operate in a big way. However it seems that the idea of separate sensor in the cartridge is made in heaven for combination with a proprietory lens mount and one that did seem logical to me. This prospect has been done to death and if it happens, then it happens.

The prospect of a m4/3 cartridge or 4/3 cartridge seems the least logical of the sensor/mount cartridge idea simply because the micro4/3 companies have the most to lose by co-operating with this and the fact that the GXR is pretty well in micro4/3 format size anyway.

The other viewpoint is that the GXR also happens to be the replacement for the GX200. I presume the larger size/weight/entry-price is only a necessary compromise to enable a body that will fit an aps-c cartridge lens. Consequently there might be room to fit a faster zoom lens on the same sensor/cartridge format at a later date.

My opinion is that the GXR is a camera of chameleon like qualities with a common back the camera-cartridges can make the package into quite characterful packages with versions tailored by user preference. I draw the line of distinction at the idea of the dslr-user-like use where there is a bag of support lenses and other gear. I am imagining just a camera and cartridge to personal preference and not a multitude of sensor/cartridges to be clicked in an out with gay abandon. Some may use the system this way and will be happy to do so I suspect most will simply make their own camera.

It has no combination that fits my needs at present - maybe some day?

--
Tom Caldwell

The design does make sense for them. There's a significant number of GR user who upgrade GR > GR2 > GR3, not to mention GXs. Those groups alone would justify a small-sensor cartridge-based system.

Tom Caldwell said:

I am imagining just a camera and cartridge to personal preference and not a multitude of sensor/cartridges to be clicked in an out with gay abandon. Some may use the system this way and will be happy to do so I suspect most will simply make their own camera.

Click to expand...

That's an excellent way to look at Tom. I myself could only see owning it with one or 2 APS-C lenses. I find it hard to ever picture the system as something like this in the future:

Joel

If you were a bit closer I would loan you my GX100. Sounds like it would suit you well. The GX is just slightly bigger than the GRD and was a little hampered in use until the ingenuity of Ricoh came up with the LC1 self opening lens cap. I finally bought one of these caps recently and it is as 'trick' as everyone whohas had one has reported. What a great idea. It is on the GXR300 as well - but might now be standard.

The GX series was quite portable and belt wearable. The new camera has gained in size a fair bit - mainly depth and weight - the areas least acceptable for going on-belt. This kills the GXR300 as a belt-wearable camera completely for me.

On the other hand I am wary of trying to guess where Ricoh might next venture - my success record is not very good. But applied logic tells me that as Ricoh will only have the CX model as its zoom-belt-wearable then they might focus some thought on what the CX might be when it reaches CX3. Thoughts are that the sensor might be further upgraded. The existing cmos seems pretty good but I am not sure it is exmor r standard - if it is I stand corrected - however the CX seems to only lack raw file capability and a hot shoe.

If Ricoh go raw + exmor r + hot shoe + k920 (equivalent) evf I guess that combination would be quite irresistable (to me at least). Have I left out something? 10x optical zoom? - oh, it has that already. GRD interface? mmm - in my opinion the CX interface pips that of the GRD just by a short nose.

Yes, and the packaging of the CX is pretty good as well.

However such a camera has to be a very big competitor to the new pricey GXR300 and that fact alone might be enough to keep the CX range (slightly) "crippled".

--
Tom Caldwell

Gosh! there are three lenses there I have not got - must ring my broker ... (smile)

--
Tom Caldwell

My guess is that Rioch cannot force their users to upgrade their GX models to the GXR300. No manufacturer can dictate buyer's choices (obviously).

For those that still need compact the LX3/4 might start looking more attractive.

Ricoh however might make the CX series closer to the slot vacated by the GX model - however by doing so they risk losing some potential market for the GXR300. Howeevr a CX3 with raw and hot shoe evf would make life more difficult for the likely LX4.

A do-able versus marketing dilemma.

I guess we just await developments. No need to rush.

--
Tom Caldwell

hello

Just looking at your thread , I am pretty sure that some of you don't mean the same thing when using the word cartridges. I thought this was a pretty accurate word when describing what Tom had talked about in previous posts BEFORE the GXR was released, I mean when He thought that part of the lens would be in the body , a little bit like the prototype shown by pentax

I think now that we have the GXR DNA so to speak , it is better to speak of modules .
Just my two cents

Also Ton , why do you continue to call the new camera with S10 GXR 300. I think it might be confusing for people who did not own Ricoh previously

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

All Ricoh cameras are relatively long-haul cameras. No matter which one.

My GRD for instance is five years old and only just showing its age (technology wise only) compared to the advances made by the GRDIII.

Physically and oprerationally the GRDI shows little for it and will continue to be a rewarding camera for some time.

The GRDIII is a much more refined camera in sensor, firmware, lcd and operational facilities. However the basic concepts of the GRD model remain. The company does not make any of its cameras for fashion or short term planned obsolescence purposes.

Likewise I still use my R4 as a knockabout camera - this camera no longer looks like its descendent CX models but the first principles remain much the same.

The GXR holds no interest for me in its present incarnations but there is no doubt that in buying one anyone who finds value in the exoperience they offer will not be disappointed.

--Tom Caldwell