GXR system

Thanks for the reply. I'm not one who calls an egg an orange even though it plainly is an egg, so you won't find disagreement from me about the state of high sensitivity performance in the GXR at present. It could be better, and if the system lives on past what has been delivered to date, it is reasonable to expect that it will be better.

That said if there was a vote I'd be more interested in expanding the dynamic range or picking a faster processor and memory buffering system such that the camera could come up to competitive responsiveness as compared to say the Sony NEX. I'd be willing to accept almost any full frame sensor in a M mount module, even one as dated as in the M9 (not going to happen) with its own ISO limitations, simply because full frame (or other features) are more important to me.

I wish I knew more about the A16 zoom module and its high sensitivity noise performance but I don't; if it lacks, maybe that points out to the need to improve both camera unit and body simultaneously. I assume that low noise performance has as much to do with sensor design as the back end in-camera processor. And in fact some cameras I've owned that do well at higher ISO settings in truly poor light do muddy detail all on their own before the image leaves the camera.

Ultimately though it is what it is and for me at least there is no alternative at present.

To me the most important question is not about any one capability or failing but whether Ricoh is going to carry on the GXR with new iterations of body and camera units. I don't think any of us know that answer.

Meant to add: I'm not fixated on upgrades or comparisons with other cameras. It is hard to compare one camera to another unless only one aspect of a camera is important to you. Once you start looking at multiple dimensions one needs to look at trade-offs.

If noise was my primary issue, then I should still be shooting an X100 or NEX. My X100 delivered good image quality and offered better high sensitivity noise characteristics, but that camera frequently got in my way, and it wasn't responsive shot to shot, and being a fixed lens camera, was inflexible but at a relatively high price. I've kept a good deal of my work from the X100 and once in a while look back at the images and can see how working quickly in a changing lighting environment cause me grief with that camera. Silent shutters and a switchable ND filter sounds like a great idea but the control implementation on the camera was such that it was a pain to use. No thanks, I'll take a focal plane shutter than can operate at full rated speed at any aperture.

I owned and sold a NEX-5N which does offer better high sensitivity capabilities and is far more responsive shot-to-shot, the latter trait being one I'd rank higher on a list of priorities, for me , than noise performance. But it wasn't comfortable, for me, to shoot and did not treat some of my lenses very kindly and that is my main criteria.

Before I bought the GXR I was well aware of all its characteristics; honestly I can't think of a single thing that surprised me, other than how comfortable I felt using it. Whatever trade offs I made in moving to the system have been compensated in other dimensions. The move was worth it to me.

I do understand that one mans poison is another mans nectar though. Others would not give up a NEX or X100 for a GXR because for them the move wouldn't make sense.

The other point I wanted to make is even though as naturally curious and interested I would be in what lies next for the Ricoh GXR system, should the unthinkable happen and Ricoh announces the GXR is dead as a line, that still wouldn't send me packing. Why? At this time there just isn't any alternative, for me, that meets my most important criteria.

Finally, I do also empathize with those who don't believe the GXR is wounded by high ISO noise performance. Perhaps for them like me it just isn't an issue due to technique or expectations. When technique can't deal with noise, then there's no alternative but to embrace it, just like in the film days.

Very interesting some of the points you counted here. I must say I categorically relate to your line of thinking. I too purchased GXR after playing with it here in Osaka at the store for a while and to be honest did see the indications of ISO noise but I really liked the construction and the user interface so much that I guess closed my eyes to its shortcomings.

Before I forget, I'd like to let you know that I have read a couple of reviews of the A16 zoom lens out here and they have been on the lukewarm side. Not bad at all but not stellar. The noise performance is along the lines of M-mount A12 and the lens itself very plain but capable of delivering the famous Ricoh characteristics under the right conditions. For me it looks too big and somewhat slow. I am passing on it for now in favor of some other lenses I have in mind. One of he reviews likened the construction of it on the camera to a tightened water pipe!

Similar to many, I am very much looking forward to a full frame lensor which I think will eventually come out, as in my view, it is the natural line of evolution for GXR and no doubt will attract many new customers. I think Ricoh is aware of that! I just hope if they do develop such a module, they will use a current and top notch sensor with high dynamic range and best in class noise performance. No reason they shouldn't as that is what it's going to take to remain relevant and competitive.

I have also been playing with X-Pro1 by Fuji recently (at the shop) and I must say it's hell of a camera! Kind of in the phenomenal category, however, I don't like he construction and it feels a bit cheap and flimsy to me. I had the same feeling about X100... a bit plasticy if you know what I mean.

So I guess I agree there is currently not a better option than GXR for a highly portable and serious camera in APS-C category. It's always in my bag wherever I go. When shots really count though I resort to D700... there's no messing around there! It's a good combination as I can reuse all my Nikkor lenses on my GXR with excellent results! I recently acquired a cheap Nikon 18-55mm DX lens which works very nice on the GXR and gives me a nice zoom range too! Haven't had a chance to take any shots though... soon enough!

we seem to have such utterly different priorities in terms of equipment.

once past a certain plateau of competence, changes in the camera body do very little to improve my photography. that plateau is reached when the body achieves the point of accurately capturing what the lens renders. the lenses are the part of the equipment kit which means much more to my photography. lenses which render as i want to see my subject matter are the gold.

i never buy cheap lenses. to me, they're a waste of money and time. i buy the best performing lenses i can find and afford. a great lens on a cheap body will always produce better results for me than the most advanced body with a cheap lens. i rarely need super high sensitivity and need enough pixel resolution and dynamic range to meet the needs of the prints i want to make. which are not extreme in size ... very very very few photographs i've seen (or made) really warrant much more than a hand-holdable print size.

different points of view.

z

zigorus said:

we seem to have such utterly different priorities in terms of equipment.

Click to expand...

We may and that's what makes everything more interesting... can you imagine if everyone wanted and said the same thing!

zigorus said:

once past a certain plateau of competence, changes in the camera body do very little to improve my photography. that plateau is reached when the body achieves the point of accurately capturing what the lens renders. the lenses are the part of the equipment kit which means much more to my photography. lenses which render as i want to see my subject matter are the gold.

Click to expand...

I can't say I disagree with anything you say here! The only point I'd like to make is that many digital camera models are just reaching that plateau you mentioned. Some pro models probably reached it two or three years back at a price and the rest are nicely following now, specially the recently released models. I am not sure I'd include GXR all the way in the plateau yet although on many fronts it sure is there! Maybe a couple of more things and it'll be squarely there for my purposes anyway!

zigorus said:

i never buy cheap lenses. to me, they're a waste of money and time. i buy the best performing lenses i can find and afford. a great lens on a cheap body will always produce better results for me than the most advanced body with a cheap lens. i rarely need super high sensitivity and need enough pixel resolution and dynamic range to meet the needs of the prints i want to make. which are not extreme in size ... very very very few photographs i've seen (or made) really warrant much more than a hand-holdable print size.

Click to expand...

I agree here too, my little experiment with the cheap Nikon lens was just that, a $100 experiment and I'm very happy with the results! Although lens construction not very sturdy, the optics are superb, comparable to much more expensive lenses. I do need high resolution and low noise as I do large prints for sale and any unwanted noise/artifacts can be fatal! In some cases it can be used artistically but in many others it can not.

Do you use any full frame cameras? Do you do large prints (A3+, A2, etc.)? I'd be interested how your prints turn out and how you deal with noise...

zigorus said:

different points of view.

z

Click to expand...

While I generally agree that most prints are viewed and valued at either small print sizes or computer/TV screen resolutions, I have often printed pictures at much larger sizes. While these are normally viewed, appropriately, at "convenient viewing distance", I would like them to hold up well at closer inspection.

I have found that a point and shoot camera can deliver what I want, but not always.
--
**** Frederick

i have more cameras then i have time to work with as much as i'd like, amongst them Leica M9, Leica M4, Ricoh GXR, Nikon D100, D700, Olympus E-1, Minox 35GT-E, Rolleiflex TLR, Minox C, Nikon F, Hasselblad 500C, etc. don't know how many cameras i have. probably dozens. never sold any, been doing this a long time..

few photos are good enough to print large, but i make exhibition prints up to pretty big sizes when that's needed. not sure how big an A2 or A3+ is.

i expose so there isn't any noise. or i expose to make noise greater. or i process to eliminate grain, or i process to make grain bigger.

photography is a study in technical compromise and aesthetic expression, not bits, bytes, dr and sensitivity.

z



what camera makes a photo is an implementation detail

Hi Lenseye,

why do you think Ricoh is aware a FF GXR is what people expect?

Did Ricoh announce something?

Thanks, Bart

Mainly because in every forum that I have seen or participated, many people express a deep interest in such a module! I know I'd be standing in line right away and probably many who read this thread will too! Even here in Japan, more often than not in magazine articles, it is casually touched upon whether Ricoh will ever release a FF module... I think Ricoh people read those too... To be honest I speculate that any announcement along the lines of an FF module will have a lot of customers jump up and down in joy...

Also, it seems GXR has been designed with Leica philosophy in mind, as indicated in product brochure and full compatibility data on Leica M-mount lenses provided. They don't provide the same data for other M-mount lenses out there... so at least, in my mind, developing a FF module similar to M9 sounds like a logical progression from where they are now. If not immediately maybe in a couple of years time...

Who knows... I HAVE been wrong before!

Guess the right question should have been " what cameras don't you have?"

Certainly a full frame module is a logical extension for the Mount A12 module. Think about it - the digital cameras on the planet purpose built for M mount rangefinder lenses are:

Leica M8 (1.3x crop)
Leica M9 (full frame)
Ricoh Mount A12 (1.5x crop)
Epson R-D1 (1.5x crop, long out of production)

And that's it.

The Ricoh is easily competitive with the M8, but isn't a rangefinder. On the other hand the Ricoh is still in production and is less than half the price of used M8's and a quarter the price when new. The Ricoh is one fifth the price of a new M9.

FF sensors are not many orders of magnitude more expensive than crop sensors; the gap has narrowed. It seems reasonable that a maker could produce an a compact electronic finder camera like the GXR, with a full frame sensor, for a decent fraction of the price of a M9. Feature for feature, if economies of scale were the same, such a camera should cost less than a D800 or any of the prosumer full frame Nikon or Canon DSLRs, as there's simply less to build in an EFC mirrorless compact, and fewer features to develop and support in hardware and firmware.

Ricoh has developed the in-house knowledge required to produce a camera that treats M lenses well. Maybe other camera makers could also do the same, but other than Leica, the only company with current demonstrated expertise in this area, and willingness to go there, is Ricoh.

Could others go this route too? There is history on the side of Nikon and Canon and even Sony (via Minolta) - all have produced Leica compatible rangefinder cameras in their past, with the Minolta CL having been produced within the lifetimes of most or many folks posting here. But those companies carry baggage in the form of existing DSLR and compact lines and maybe more importantly, lens lines they want to maximize profits from. Ricoh (ignore Pentax for the moment) doesn't have those ties, which is probably why they felt open to making the Mount A12 in the first place.

Finally, you'd expect with Leica having a M8 (crop) first, a proving ground, followed later by the M9 (full frame) camera, perhaps Ricoh also decided to prove themselves worthy by taking on the M8 in substance with the Mount A12 always with a plan to take the next step.

For the time being Ricoh seem to be the best bet to release a full frame compact we'd be happy to mount rangefinder lenses on. Is the market for such a unit big enough to warrant the design costs?

I hope so. I've no data but know that every where I turn existing Ricoh Mount shooters and those using other camera systems continue to express serious interest in a Ricoh FF Mount camera unit. Priced right it would sell very well. I want to pre-order one now.

This is a list of all the full frame cameras that have existed in resonable production, available for consumer purchase:

Nikon D700*, D800**, D800E**, D3, D3s*, D3x*, D4**
Canon 1D x, 1Ds, 1Ds II, 1Ds III, 1Ds IV, 5D, 5DII*, 5DIII**
Sony A850, A900
Leica M9*, M9-P*

* current production
* new model, current production

12 current production cameras, average price north of $5000 apiece. The lowest price, in production, full frame models in this group are the Canon 5DII @ $2200 and Nikon D700 @ $2200 body only (recently repriced lower as their replacement models are just hitting the market).

I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that if Nikon or Canon could produce a full frame DSLR priced lower than that, they would do it in a heartbeat. It would sell in HUGE numbers. But both have had to raise their prices on the newest full frame models, due to the rise in cost of goods and CODB due to the economics of the past couple of years.

Leica has produced approximately 10,000 M9/M9-P bodies since 2009. They've sold well, but selling well in Leica terms is a tiny fraction of the numbers of similarly priced Nikon D4/D3/D800/D700, Canon 5D/1Ds sales, which means the majority of their lower prices are the benefit from the economies of production scale. Sony bowed out of the full frame DSLR, one can only wonder why, and is rumored to be going SLT with their next full frame endeavor. It isn't going to be cheap, but it can be produced a little bit cheaper than a DSLR or an M9.

(People don't seem to realize just how costly it is to make the Leica M9. A customized sensor designed specifically to minimize the imaging problems caused by too short a lens mount register, that mechanical/optical rangefinder assembly, low volume production capacity/processes, etc ... this all costs a HUGE lot of money per unit.)

The question is how many Ricoh GXR buyers would pay what will likely be an absolute minimum of $1500 (more likely $2000) for a full frame camera mount unit considering that they would also need to pay for a camera body ($350) and viewfinder ($250)? And also considering that to handle the data requirements of a higher than 12-16 Mpixel sensor for responsive use will likely need an updated body with faster bus and more buffering, larger battery, etc etc? Never mind paying the development costs for another customized sensor, new (larger!)shutter, etc. What is the expected profitability for Ricoh?

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see them do it. The GXR is such a sweet camera (despite the ridiculous moaning about its "old noisy sensor" and all that horsepucky) that performs beautifully and poses a superb complement to my M9. I'd pay for a full frame camera mount unit in a heartbeat. But I simply can't see the economics weighing in favor of it happening any time soon.

I hope to be surprised and delighted when it appears.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

Godfrey, i fear you are right,

sheer economics of wafer production do explain why a FF can cost factors more than a 1.5 crop.

1 dead spot in a 1.5 crop wafer might still yield 100% usable wafers, whilst the same dead spot in a FF could yield 0% usable wafers.

Even if a dead spot is in the middle ofs a1.5 sensor, than still the wafer probably has more than 1 other good sensor, whilst this same dead spot in a FF still yields nothing.

So, the cost is unfortunatly not related to the factor ff/1.5 crop.

But a much higher factor.

So it does not surprise me that a waferbatch of FFs is like 4 or 5 times more expensive than a 1.5 xbatch. Hence the price delta.

The technology is exactly the same, but the yield is dramatically lower.

Still, if a FF module for GXR would sell at half the price of an M9, i think it still would sell good enough to start such a project.

And, not to forget, the prestige and professional acknowledgement a brand would get...probably those same ones who laughed at Ricoh with its lensors will be first in line to aplaude the system now.

So, yes Lenseye, a FF would probably make sense to most of us, so indeed Ricoh, go for it.

Makes technical sense although I haven't seen a BOM (Bill of material) for any of these cameras and don't know how much things cost. I wouldn't look at Leica for pricing as the brand alone I think is responsible for half the price! An FF module should not cost as much as an FF DSLR either as it is not a camera and much smaller to produce (assuming it'll work with the present body! Big assumption?). Currently an M-module here in Japan sells for around $730 at major stores and slightly cheaper at other outlets. I don't believe it's impossible to make an FF lensor module that costs around $1000 to $1400! I think the reason the haven't done it so far is that they haven't been able to maintain specs all the way with the sensors they have, cheap or expensive! Maybe that'll change with the introduction of the latest sensors/capabilities! One hopes!

I don't have hard data but it seems the market for Ricoh products is a niche market at best and they are generally not high sellers like Sony and MFT brands, therefore while probably aware of public interest, it'll be a while before they launch upon creating an FF module. Even accessory manufacturers basically cater to the needs of Sony and MFT brands before anyone else like Ricoh!

On the positive side, no one expected Ricoh to come up with a GXR system in the first place let alone an M-module?! So I wouldn't completely write this off as unlikely... you just never know! I ony hope if they do so, they will extend the ISO range to be on par with other major manufacturers... those who don't wish to use higher settings... just set it to 200! I, on the other hand, like to set it to 1600 once in a while and capture a clean image!

Oh... and add some more mega pixels while you're at it! You know how it is...

lenseye said:

Makes technical sense although I haven't seen a BOM (Bill of material) for any of these cameras and don't know how much things cost.

Click to expand...

Someone in the engineering department at Agilent (HP's spin off company concentrating on the development of imager chips) quoted me that an APS-C format sensor cost about $300 and a 35mm format sensor cost about $1200. That was about 2007 so prices are probably down by 50% or more on the APS-C but probably nowhere near that much down on the FF sensors.

Personally, for a GXR camera unit, I think even $1500 is a very optimistic estimate for a FF format unit. $2000 might be doable, barely, with body and viewfinder making a $2600 price point, complete camera ready for a lens.

It doesn't cost a lot less to make an all electronic body compared to an SLR body unless you go to the pro-grade optical systems ... there are too many other expensive electronic components in the all electronic body and the mechanical bits of a consumer grade SLR are well amortized by forty years of production development.

Remember when the Canon Rebel DSLR came out? That was the cheapest DSLR that could be produced at the time. It was essentially the (retail) $150 film SLR wrapped around the cheapest electronics and 1.6x crop sensor that Canon could make ... and it was (retail) $900, a price breakthrough. That means in typical volume electronics products that the mechanical and optical SLR parts cost somewhere about $60 and the sensor and rest of the electronics about $400 or a little more.

This stuff is still very expensive to produce. FAR more expensive than computers and cell phones!
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

2007 was a very long time ago in technology. If Canon could sell the 5D for

• eliminates many moving parts
• has no electronic communication with lens, also meaning no firmware to write for lenses or camera in this regard
• has no optical viewfinder, mirror, pentaprism
• doesn't need AF capability, no need for contrast or phase detect code
• doesn't need to support 12 or 100 frames per second to match competition, merely needs to be competent
• doesn't need to support dual memory card slots
• arguably doesn't need to provide high end video, or any video at all
• doesn't need to use the same sensor as the approximately $3k Nikon D800 which has all of the above components and more... but could
• doesn't need profits to support a massive world wide rollout and marketing campaign on the scale a Canon or Nikon would require

I could go on.

The fact is a M mount camera - either a module or a purpose built integrated camera - is a very simple camera, not unlike other cameras Ricoh currently builds.

Certainly it does not make sense to compare costs of production between a FF GXR and a Leica. The two are completely different animals, which is why I'm suggesting comparing the potential build and retail cost of a FF GXR module with a Canon 5D Mark III or Nikon D800.

If they can build a complete camera for $3k retail, then surely a Mount alone could be built and retailed for less.

Thus it does seem reasonable that a M mount module could be delivered at a reasonable premium over the current APS-C Mount module. I'd certainly pay double. Probably would pay up to $2K. At about $3200 all in the camera would remain a bargain compared to the only other purpose built for rangefinder lenses full frame camera out there, the M9.

lenseye said:

Guess the right question should have been " what cameras don't you have?"

Click to expand...

There are a few.

z

Reading Godfrey's summation and Sroute's rebuttal, it sounds like an FF module could actually be a possibility, in a financial sense of the word of course. As sroute put it in detail, such a module won't have to be nearly as full-featured and sophisticated as a D800 or 5D III, which should help reduce the development and subsequent retail price. Ricoh might even have one in the oven as we speak!

I am afraid only time will tell... meanwhile we'll have to make do with what's at hand and just click away shot after shot! Life's too short to wait for Ricoh or anyone else for that matter...

if ricoh comes out with a camera mount with a big sensor it will be expensive. i'll buy one, it makes sense for my lenses, but $2000 or more is probably what it would cost. much less than that i'd be very surprised.

which makes me ask, if they do come out with a $2000 camera unit, how many people will buy it? and how many will complain?

z

Absolutely 100% agree with not waiting for Ricoh or anyone else to bring out a $3k or less full frame M compatible non-rangefinder camera. I do wish my 25mm / 50 and 75 actually delivered the look they have on full frame film, but for now on digital I'm perfectly content with using an 18 and 35 to fill in the gaps.

If full frame is important enough to someone, today, they can move up to DSLRs or shoot film SLR or rangefinder cameras, or buy a M9 or M10, whatever the latter beast will be.

It seems to me that any M9 shooter may well want a GXR Full Frame for a backup camera. Plenty buy the NEX (or a GXR) for that purpose despite their minuses and for their plusses. There are film M shooters who won't go digital until a more reasonably priced body comes out. One could argue these are a huge source of potential customers.

With respect to cost of a full frame compact M lens friendly camera, one area of speculation surrounds the sensor implementation, in other words, what magic pixie dust does a manufacturer need to add to make close back focal length lenses - rangefinder lenses - work well? Is that an expensive proposition?

The popular assumption is these sensor packages are highly customized and therefore expensive, but I've not read any concrete supporting information for such assumptions. Like most things made out of silicon these days, what might have been expensive five years ago is likely to be much less expensive today. The raw sensor itself is more expensive but those costs have come down, and we know a much more complex FF camera can retail for $3K.

Perhaps we can use the GXR Mount product as a clue as to how much additional cost microlenses and pixie dust add to the sensor implementation for a M lens friendly camera. Here we have a very reasonably priced high quality M lens camera module that delivers extremely good results edge to edge without the characteristic smearing of detail we see on other cameras like the X-Pro 1, NEX-7 (some lenses) and even NEX-5N (fewer lenses still). The darn thing only costs $649, a fraction of the cost of a new M8 even when you add in the rest of the camera.

The GXR Mount also appears to suffer less from colour shift and vignetting than even an M8 according to some who have owned both, and while I'm not sure there's been a proper study to confirm this, I tend to believe this is the case as the ZM18 and CV15 do very well in this regard on the GXR Mount. I am mindful that the M8 is a 1.33 crop vs the GXR Mount (and NEX and Fuji) 1.5 crop; in other words the M8 has to work a little harder at the edges of its frame, so maybe perception is all that is at work here.

Still, isn't it remarkable that Ricoh could come out with a winner of a M compatible product on its first go around? To me this speaks well of their ability - and others frankly - to produce a sensor package that would compete well with anything Leica has to offer, at extremely competitive prices.

The only question is whether there's enough market to go after, and again Ricoh seems to have answered that question for us by being the only other maker save Leica to currently produce a M lens specific camera.

Bragging rights alone would be worth something, no?