Why is Ricoh GRDIII so Expensive?

Right on Najinsky. People need to listen to more John Prine......

Unhappy Unhappy....... You have no complaint
You are what your are and you ain't what you ain't
So listen up Buster, and listen up good
Stop wishing for bad luck and knocking on wood

Najinsky said:

anodyne2 said:

All the talk about speculation leaves me at a loss. I bout the A-12 because it works for me now.

Click to expand...

Member said:

I do suggest someone buy based on where a given system is on the day they need it, roadmaps get folded, tucked away and forgotten.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Much of the discussion and debate on this forum over the last year (and there has been much of it!) has been about the way the Sensor is built in with the lens.

For me it's a complete non-issue. The A12 produces wonderful results now, and will do so for-ever until it breaks or I lose it.

Also, as a glass collector for my Canon DSLR, I do understand that those who want to collect glass that they can move with them from body to body as technology progresses. But the GXR is not that camera. It is not intended to be that camera and it's a shame some people refuse to see it for the camera it is and instead choose to bemoan it for the camera it is not. At least it keeps the forum busy (well, in Ricoh forum terms at least!)

-Najinsky

Click to expand...

Yep, makes sense - I pushed the idea that every GXR + module is a different camera and we should look at it that way - it turns the whole paradigm of body and lens on its head.

The basic idea is you buy the box and although the module can come off it shouldn't do so because it is a complete camera in itself.

So if they are all different cameras then that does not stop us looking for the back+module combination that suits our purpose. This does not mean that we might collect modules like we used to collect lenses. More that we just buy the precise set ups that we might actually use.

We have been happy to relegate the old all-in-one cameras including back, sensor and lens as technology moves on - perhaps we now have a choice of just relegating the module to the nether drawer or simply taking the advantage of the discounts offered to pick up another "cheap" back. At the very least there is a consistent control interface hat once learned will be second nature.

Ricoh has been working to the pinnacle of good ergo-dynamic control and a brilliant lcd - why now reinvent it with every new model?

Now that there firmware is very mature and useful - why re-establish its complexity in every new model either?

So we are all right to our point. No point in buying what we don't need and no point in collecting lens modules. However the problem that it will take a while to cover the bases of every sensor/lens combination module that might be desirable means that some will find their camera nirvana before others who will just have to wait (perhaps endlessly) and that is the whole nub of the question.

I doubt if my super-fast 85mm aps-c is about to appear real soon.

The removable module is a manufacturing convenience for Ricoh to be able to make many types of cameras to the one basic design and not to be seen as an excuse to build unnecessary module collections.

If you get a dslr back and apply lenses you have a certain type of camera and provided the lenses are reasonably proficient then you get a consistent set of results. But the GXR is a different kettle of fish. The small sensor cameras do very well for their specification but you can hardly slot them into the same category as the aps-c ones as the difference is simply too great to thus categorise. The small sensor cameras are a completely different approach and thus become different animals altogether.

--
Tom Caldwell
I am always trying ...

I think Tom is right here, and while I was initially reluctant to come onboard with the GXR concept I'm coming around to it. For me the key is thinking of the different modules as different cameras and the body as just an accessory common to all, like a detachable viewfinder.

When looked at like this the value proposition becomes a little different, especially in large sensor category. For the upcoming 28mm module, the combined cost of body and lensor is likely to be around $1300 Australian dollars, whereas the competitors are either slightly cheaper (Sigma DP1, $899) or much more expensive (Leica X1, $2600). Even the Fuji X100 is rumored to be around $1300, although nobody really knows what it will come in at.

Some have made the case that it was stupid for Ricoh to lock the sensor and lens together, as you have to buy a whole new assembly if you want to upgrade to keep pace with sensor developments. Well, in the case of these other cameras you also have to upgrade the lens to get a new sensor, but with these you also have to upgrade the rest of the camera.

The other option is of course micro 4/3, but I think they are actually a different category. To me, these are really smaller versions of a DSLR, whereas the GXR is more of an APSC fixed focal length compact camera which happens to have the option of being used as a small sensor compact.

--
Please check out my photos at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drmark/

Ciao Marco,

Marco Italy said:

Hallo,

I like a lot the ricoh grdIII (snap shot and fixed focal length) and really I wonder to buy one in the next few month but I find it too much expensive for what it offers.

The new Fuji X100 is really a pro camera and it is not so far from the GRDIII price.
Do you agree with me or not?
Hallo from MIlano.

Click to expand...

You'd never think the GRD over priced if you ever used one! Its a beautifully engineered camera, with a lens to die for. As a long time Fuji shooter I have no doubt that the X100 is going to be good, but I don't see why it should take anything away from Ricoh? IMO they aren't competing products at all, 2 very different tools in every way...

--
david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk

mark finn said:

I think Tom is right here, and while I was initially reluctant to come onboard with the GXR concept I'm coming around to it. For me the key is thinking of the different modules as different cameras and the body as just an accessory common to all, like a detachable viewfinder.

When looked at like this the value proposition becomes a little different, especially in large sensor category. For the upcoming 28mm module, the combined cost of body and lensor is likely to be around $1300 Australian dollars, whereas the competitors are either slightly cheaper (Sigma DP1, $899) or much more expensive (Leica X1, $2600). Even the Fuji X100 is rumored to be around $1300, although nobody really knows what it will come in at.

Some have made the case that it was stupid for Ricoh to lock the sensor and lens together, as you have to buy a whole new assembly if you want to upgrade to keep pace with sensor developments. Well, in the case of these other cameras you also have to upgrade the lens to get a new sensor, but with these you also have to upgrade the rest of the camera.

The other option is of course micro 4/3, but I think they are actually a different category. To me, these are really smaller versions of a DSLR, whereas the GXR is more of an APSC fixed focal length compact camera which happens to have the option of being used as a small sensor compact.

--
Please check out my photos at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drmark/

Click to expand...

Mark we are obviously dancing the same jig.

I went off and bought myself a Samsung NX10 from no disloyalty to Ricoh but simply because none of the GXR "cameras" provided anything that I needed. Not initially sure but now firmly sure that the NX10 is simply a low end dslr in miniature. It is no direct competition to any Ricoh product - likewise the plethora of other EVIL type cameras are heading down the same track. Merely giving the familiarity of the initial slr or rangefinder concept in a smaller package.

So I can have fun and relive the years of my youth living dangerously with manually operated old lenses recycled onto a faux mini slr. Much fun but perhaps this would not be such an adventure if it were not cheap and the business was serious. It does bring a smile to my face and I am actually learning the basic photogaphy skills that I never had time to learn before and the same skills that modern cameras have rendered obsolete.

So back to the GXR. What it is about is a common interface developed once. Easier for Ricoh to manufacture and easier for a user to become used to.

However we have different cameras in every module. Broadly classified we might say 1) aps-c sensored primes and 2) small sensored zooms. But no one in their right tree is going to fit a small sensored zoom on his camera and imagine that he or she has just upgraded their aps-c prime to a similar capture-possible zoom version. It is a completely different camera "type". Slap a zoom lens on a regular dslr and relative performance of the lens aside you are still capturing a similar type image on the sensor.

Of course there is a capability of swapping modules and this can and should be done if any user so desires. I own dslr and compact cameras and mix and match to suit. There is nothing inherently wrong in swapping a module to get a different camera. But a "module collection" as such makes less sense than a "lens collection" for a dslr (type).

It is necessary though to be able to visualise and understand just what a camera is about. As usual Ricoh is in a niche of its own and that niche defies exact comparison. We had best shake this multiple module proposition out of our heads. Sure we can do it is we wish but I think a better realisation is to buy fewer cameras (aka "lenses") more suited to our precise needs and if Ricoh does not make the exact need then buy another make (wash your mouth out). My Samsung does not conflict with any Ricoh and it is as bog-simple but powerful knockabout camera after the style of the original GRD as the GXR and GRDIII are sophisticated complex. If you count each module as a separate camera then Ricoh already market more models than they have done for many years. That is the very point. If one of the old type was good enough, and only enough, then there is an alternative here today.

--
Tom Caldwell
I am always trying ...

Tom Caldwell said:

However we have different cameras in every module. Broadly classified we might say 1) aps-c sensored primes and 2) small sensored zooms.

Click to expand...

Totally agree with what you're saying Tom. I started off viewing it as a mini-alternative to the DSLR, but the GXR as I see it now isn't competing against DSLRs at all - but every single other camera type on the market. So far the categories are three - 1) fixed prime APS-C sensor as per the (Foveon) Sigma DP2 or new Fuji X100, 2) 1/1.7" sensor with zoom as per the Lumix LX5, Canon G12 or Nikon P7000 and 3) 1/2.5" sensor with mega-zoom compact lens as per all the general compacts such as the Powershots, Coolpix, Optio etc etc.

Basically all three main tiers of the non-DSLR camera categories are covered by the single GXR and its modules. With the A12 (50 or 28mm), S10 and P10 modules you've basically got the same/similar specs as pretty much every single other camera out there, all in the one camera body with same interface/firmware. I think this is quite an amazing feat with just 3-4 modules.

But there's more. With the soon to be M4/3 lens module, the fourth more recent non-DSLR camera category of the non-APS-C interchangeable-lens compact will be covered as well. And then with the new APS-C zoom module, the fifth and final category of mirrorless interchangeable-lens mini-DSLR like the Sony NEX or Samsung NX will be covered as well (in combination with the A12 modules).

That's it. Nearly every camera type currenty available in the entire non-DSLR camera market - all available in just 4-5 Ricoh GXR modules. Depending on your needs. As you say each module is its own camera category, totally unlike an 'interchangeable lens' camera. And as you say as well, not everyone is going to need/want every module (except 'collectors'), just as they don't need/want every type of non-DSLR camera out there. There is simply no other camera that even comes close to this concept.

Since year 2000, I have used around 15 cameras, including Panasonic, Fuji, Canon, Sigma bridges and compacts, Nikon and Pentax DSLRs, a Leica M8, and Ricoh GX100 and GR3. I have been happy with most of it, I made nice pictures, and have seen significant improvements year after year. But for some time now, it is obvious that the only improvements I need are on my side, I need to develop my skills, and perhaps some talent. My cameras and lenses are able to produce everything I could ask.

So six monthes ago, I decided to stop buying and changing gears, and to focus only on making photographs.

I kept two cameras : Nikon D700 and Ricoh GR3, which are for me amongst the bests in their categories.
D700 is a top, most people admit that.

For me the GR3 is an equivalent in its category. It is always in my pocket, always ready, very easy to use, especially the snap. I get what I have never got before, for that reason. Believe me, Leica is far away. On top of that, IQ is really good, it allows good 12-18 inches prints. I do not need more.

I have used several other expert compacts, specially Panasonic, Canon, Fuji, for me no one can compare. That is the reason why it is expensive.

Marco Italy said:

Hallo,

I like a lot the ricoh grdIII (snap shot and fixed focal length) and really I wonder to buy one in the next few month but I find it too much expensive for what it offers.

Click to expand...

Yes, obviously most people do. Ricoh is a bit overpriced, however, I found good deals for the GRD III on ebay UK. (Search for yourself, I cant recommend the seller, never dealt with them.)

Also it may make more sense to go for a GXR with the new 28mm module. Not sure Ricoh will ever release a GRD IV, so the series might be dead now.

Anthony

I had noted mention of the M4/3 adapter mount before in respect to the GXR.

This is interesting because the legacy lenses being put on various EVIL type cameras at the moment are mainly cheap(ish) re-cycled quite old 35mm film format lenses designed to go on slr cameras.

Because the 4/3 sensor is smaller than the aps-c sensor the lenses can be made smaller. There are also adapters about that will convert the 4/3 designed lenses on to the M4/3 mount.

The M4/3 lenses and for that matter the 4/3 lenses as well are all relatively modern lenses with no aperture control and auto focus. They are obviously good and are equally obviously not a cheap solution for a lens collection.

For Ricoh to offer a M4/3 mount with full working capability we might expect them to have to be part of the 4/3 consortium and as far as I know they are not. Furthermore if they made a M4/3 mount with aps-c sensor they would be a direct competitor to the other members of the consortium leveraging themselves on their stock of lenses. Otherwise the M4/3 mount would have to have an aperture ring built in and manual focus - not a good look to so dumb-down an expensive lens when you could just buy an Olympus or Panasonic body and get the full technical use that the lenses provided.

The other factor is the design requirement of a mount to take these lenses on an aps-c image circle. I presume that it can be done.

The logical answer is to go the whole hog and fit a 4/3 sensor to go with a regular M4/3 mount. This makes them a full card carrying member of the 4/3 consortium and requires a full change of direction for Ricoh as one might wonder why they had not done such a thing at an earlier date.

--
Tom Caldwell
I am always trying ...

I still like Ricoh glass better. The Olympic choices are not so great, not bad but not up to the A12 or GRD3 quality as far as I have read.

Also, if there is an adapter why not make it one with more choices than the M43, this is one of the shortcomings of that system as it is in the GXR, but as we all know not to the same degree. I think I would rather manual focus if it was a short movement unlike what I have to do with the GXR now in Manual....but time will tell. I don't want to spend the money of M Lenses but am perfectly willing to manually focus if need be for good glass. Of course I cannot afford Leica Glass, but I know there are many other good lenses that use this mount.

Joel Stern said:

I still like Ricoh glass better. The Olympic choices are not so great, not bad but not up to the A12 or GRD3 quality as far as I have read.

Also, if there is an adapter why not make it one with more choices than the M43, this is one of the shortcomings of that system as it is in the GXR, but as we all know not to the same degree. I think I would rather manual focus if it was a short movement unlike what I have to do with the GXR now in Manual....but time will tell. I don't want to spend the money of M Lenses but am perfectly willing to manually focus if need be for good glass. Of course I cannot afford Leica Glass, but I know there are many other good lenses that use this mount.

Click to expand...

The trouble with using lenses with adapters is that unless they are fully functional they involve a compromise. In the case of legacy manual lenses some might think the compromise is ok but only as long as theses lenses are cheap.

Or perhaps the lens is something exceptional that could not be had otherwise.

If you put a modern expensive lens on an adapter and lose some of its functionality I guess you are wasting money.

So I think that if Ricoh went haring off making less than smart adapters for the GXR then not only would they still be expensive because of their construction but they would effectively dumb-down the lens you just bought.

There is also the experience of the small neat NEX being fitted out with bazooka launcher lenses. We would all hate to see that happen with the small neat GXR.

However I suppose if Ricoh joined the M4/3 consortium then the adapter would be fully usable with all M4/3 lenses and by definition would also take all the rest of lenses roaming around the marketplace that can be fitted to a M4/3 adapter. Oh woe!

I would be surprised if Ricoh were to do a u-turn now and support the M4/3.

Maybe the Rioch M mount module might happen - it makes more sense - the mount would be to take modern manual lenses made for that mount and we can be assured that these are of high quality. Fitting a quality new manual lens on a GXR makes sense. Retro-fitting bazookas does not.

The M4/3 is not likely to happen simply because it would shoot Ricoh future module production in the foot and the other M4/3 guys might hardly be interested in a new consortium member.

However fitting expensive esoteric new manual M mount lenses on the GXR would not get in the way of future Ricoh GXR modules and would tend to enhance the make in the eyes of the camera buying public - much like I was trying to suggest elsewhere - only in this instance it would not require tooling up for anything more than a dumb adapter to an aps-c sensor properly driven.

I liked the idea of a PK mount adapter initially but I am now of the belief that it makes sense to provide an adapter to quality new manual lenses rather than the 30 year old recycled bangers being thrust on other EVIL type cameras including my NX10. The NX10 is simple, straight forward, and made for such work, and it suits such toil gracefully. The GXR is too petite and well supported in firmware to be made into a tractor.

--
Tom Caldwell
I am always trying ...

Doesn't an adapter make the lens bigger just by being there? Doesn't it degrade the quality of the IQ? These are things that bother me about adapters.