-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
good news on GXR
- Thread starter yonsarh
- Start date
It depends on who you "pick a fight with".
Those who buy Fuji x100 throw away their lens when they upgrade to x100s.
It's the marketing's job to make sure their product won't be pitted as competitor of interchangeable lens camera such as the NEX or XPro.
This is always an interesting "GXR" topic. I see the GXR as a camera when a module is mounted. Therefore instead of having one back and multiple modules you might have several cameras (which is even more expensive and not what you are advocating). The multiple camera approach not only allows a consistent fixed user interface but by judiciously swapping the components the user can keep one set of familar camera setings across the set of cameras that they own. Something harder to do with fixed camera/mount bodies.
Therefore I am not in favour of more expensive GXR camera backs - it would tend to one camera back and more module swapping. The idea that lenses and sensors should be treated separately.
On the other hand if lenses are important and need to be kept then there is already a solution in the modular concept - something like the M mount module. The whole M mount module would need to be replaced to conveniently update the sensor, but the lenses can stay the same. This is the concept of smart adapter with sensor on board.
However cost must need be the amount that the manufacturer needs to charge to make production worth while.
I would rather Ricoh made components that were quality and lasting rather than priced to popular market expectations. Whilst I am as interested as anyone in what Ricoh might further offer I do not feel deprived or left out of the technology race with the existing GXR camera backs and the presently used modules.
My M mount modules are very satisfactory and I am not in a rush to see them upgraded. Churning over camera gear regularly is becoming increasingly wasteful now that digital camera technology is sorted out and fairly stable. Surely there are some exciting new innovations and some desirable cameras coming on to the market but yesterdays camera bought well is still as exciting and capable as it was when first released.
It would be an intersting exercise to re-read 5 year old reviews to find out just how amazing your five year old camera really was and still is.
MW
There is always room for improvement. But the existing, just off the market, but still sold in Japan, GXR camera back was a pretty good unit. If you had asked me, needlessly usually (grin), then I would have said that Ricoh could easily have made a new GXR back that was either smaller or larger with more features (such as built in evf). There is nothing much wrong basically with the first GXR camera back which could easily have continued as a parallel product.
However the GXR camera back has at least one problem that needs replacement to rectify - the shot to shot buffer is not sufficient for professional level duty. While they were at it then they could fit that higher resolution lcd that the GR now has ... and .... and ... think, think .... not much else, but I am sure either Ricoh or some other helpful Ricoh users could think of something.
Flagging the end of the present GXR camera back signifies to me that a revised GXR camera back on the way. If this is the indication then it must be "steady as she goes" and any new product excitement must be in new module releases. If they are smart they might bring out fast-50 and maybe a macro-40 with A16 sensors to extend the range of available modules rather than directly replace them. Add some mount modules and the GXR system would be filling out nicely.
I have never heard of a specific lens that works best with a specific camera. That would be pretty much the same thing as what you're saying about the lensor concept. Generally a lens is regarded as a lens and a sensor is regarded as a sensor, and I have not seen where there is any specialization where one particular lens and sensor work together especially well. I don't think it's a huge consideration even if there is something to it.
No doubt some of us see this from different perspectives.
--
It's nice to say that nice pictures are nice. (sarcasm)
Last edited:
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
They better not be long range plans. Rico doesn't have enough time left.
.
How it will pan out for Rico
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
Only for relatively inexpensive consumer lenses, I think. Years ago I read that the best telescope lenses were hand ground and polished because that introduced more random movements (compared with the more regular machine movements) producing smoother, more uniform surfaces. I don't know if this is still true or not since I guess that computer control can introduce its own pseudo-random grinding and polishing motions. If there are any more knowledgeable astronomers (or lens technicians) around, please chime in.
Anyway, most of the cost of the expensive (aka "exotic") lenses is the glass used to make them. Here's Thom Hogan's Nikon-centric view.
http://www.bythom.com/nikonroadmap.htm
.
http://www.bythom.com/2010 Nikon News.htm
.
http://www.bythom.com/2012 Nikon News.htm
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
Wasn't this exactly what Fuji said about how the matching of the X100's fixed lens to its sensor allowed the sensor and its microlenses to be better optimized than if more than one focal length would have been used? I'm not saying that the X100 was the greatest lens/sensor combination ever, but Fuji seems to have done a better job of it than Sony did with WA lenses for the NEX7.
Fair comment for the exotic lenses but they must be tumbling out a huge amount of consumer glass or simply making the lenses on a twelve month long assembly line.
What Thom is saying is undoubtedly correct for the superstars with huge amounts of glass, I have a couple of them myself but I find it hard to see how any lens made that way could sell anywhere near the average user's reach.
I think we agree, firstly that computer controlled machines can probably turn out lenses quite quickly and reasonably priced and still use proper optical glass. There will obviously be some hand made low production superstars in the lens fraternity but I am sure that the lens manufacturers are working on a way to automate the process as far as possible.
I don't think making a lens is a trivial process and quality and precision is vital. But the Lens in the GR which seems quite good enough to receive the "GR" moniker is well made, complicated because of it's folding mechanism and included in the entry price of a fully operational camera. The amount of optical glass in each lens must be miniscule when compared to the heavy end of the Nikon lens production.
What I am getting at is the current continuing complaint about the GXR modules throwing away the lens when updating the sensor. Has it come to pass in the case of the more production line lens such as goes in the Ricoh product that the lens is hardly worth more than the sensor anyway?
On the other hand if it was an intricate hand made Nikon ultra weapon of extreme repute then there is no way that it would make sense to tie one of these up to a particular sensor.
Therefore it is horses for courses and methinks that production line lenses are probably cheaper to make than perception has it. After all people have been routinely throwing away fixed lenses attached to their obsolete cameras for quite a while. I have a very nice, possibly genuine Leica Leica fixed permanently to my LC-1, but I am not going to throw that little baby away with the LC-1 bathwater even if the sensor is some generations old hat.
However just as soon as you buy a camera with replaceable lenses the cost of such replaceable (production line) lenses seems way out of proportion to the cost of a complete camera and lens. That is marketing I guess.
What Thom is saying is undoubtedly correct for the superstars with huge amounts of glass, I have a couple of them myself but I find it hard to see how any lens made that way could sell anywhere near the average user's reach.
I think we agree, firstly that computer controlled machines can probably turn out lenses quite quickly and reasonably priced and still use proper optical glass. There will obviously be some hand made low production superstars in the lens fraternity but I am sure that the lens manufacturers are working on a way to automate the process as far as possible.
I don't think making a lens is a trivial process and quality and precision is vital. But the Lens in the GR which seems quite good enough to receive the "GR" moniker is well made, complicated because of it's folding mechanism and included in the entry price of a fully operational camera. The amount of optical glass in each lens must be miniscule when compared to the heavy end of the Nikon lens production.
What I am getting at is the current continuing complaint about the GXR modules throwing away the lens when updating the sensor. Has it come to pass in the case of the more production line lens such as goes in the Ricoh product that the lens is hardly worth more than the sensor anyway?
On the other hand if it was an intricate hand made Nikon ultra weapon of extreme repute then there is no way that it would make sense to tie one of these up to a particular sensor.
Therefore it is horses for courses and methinks that production line lenses are probably cheaper to make than perception has it. After all people have been routinely throwing away fixed lenses attached to their obsolete cameras for quite a while. I have a very nice, possibly genuine Leica Leica fixed permanently to my LC-1, but I am not going to throw that little baby away with the LC-1 bathwater even if the sensor is some generations old hat.
However just as soon as you buy a camera with replaceable lenses the cost of such replaceable (production line) lenses seems way out of proportion to the cost of a complete camera and lens. That is marketing I guess.
Zagato
Leading Member
Chris Dennehy
Leading Member
With regards to a GXR with EVF you have to remember that Pentax is primarily a maker of DSLR's, compared to the GXR they are big and heavy, putting an EVF into a GXR or Pentax Q for that matter both of which can accept more or less any lens ever made has the potential to reduce both the sales of DSLR's and dedicated lenses.
We were getting so worked up and friendly until I saw those lenses you have and I had a small touch of jealousy (grin). I have managed a few nice Meyers as a sort of consolation.
Zagato
Leading Member
Tom,
no need to have the slightest touch of jealousy with all those wonderful lenses you own.
The purchase of the Topcor lenses was pure coincidence as I passed by a small camera shop which I had not noticed before despite the fact that it's located exactly vis-a-vis the Leica Shop which I visit once in a while to see the objects in reality which are offered on their internet page. They have an incredible selection of second-hand cameras and lenses but rather high priced.
Anyway, in the window of that little shop called Camera 31 I saw a Topcon Super DM, a camera which was my dream in the early 1970s but was unaffordable at that time. It was offered in near mint condition including 3 lenses (28, 50 and 135mm) and a neat bag for € 220.-, a reasonable price in my opinion. So firstly back home to check some reviews regarding Topcor Re lenses, not finding too much information but enough to take the decision for the purchase. I even found some review by Ken Rockwell (although he is not the bible) which were very positive. The other 2 lenses, 35mmf2.8 and 100mmf2.8, were bought at the Leica Shop for more than the camera and 3 lenses package had cost but I have no regrets as they both deliver fantastic results.
Topcon Super DM
Brgds
Michael (Vienna)
Attachments
Am I right that the Topcon mount is type same as some other? Is it Exakta? Or am I having one of my mix-ups?
Nice looking camera and the lenses sound good.
--
Tom Caldwell
Nice looking camera and the lenses sound good.
--
Tom Caldwell
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum