Ricoh GXR system?

Started Jun 21, 2014 | Discussions thread
Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 35,999
Re: Ricoh GXR system - the virtuoso mount module

kuuan wrote:

schaki wrote:


First mistake by Ricoh was the lensor-concept

I am a late adopter of the GXR and bought it together with the M module to use adapted lenses, first of all rangefinder lenses. The M module is optimized for these, works great with them and I enjoy it immensely.

This is all I want. I do not need ( nor use ) any other module, if one could not exchange lensors I would not miss anything. That one can is a surprising, welcome additional feature but certainly never anything that I could hold against the GXR M. In other words imo the discussion of the lensor concept seems to have made quite a few people blind for what the GXR with M module really is. If I handed over my camera to someone who doesn't know he never would imagine that one could separate a module with the mount and sensor from the rest of the camera.

I hope that Ricoh / Pentax will release a successor of the GXR M, an updated mirrorless camera optimized for rangefinder lenses, never mind if it was modular or not.


I agree that the mount module was the virtuoso piece of the GXR.  In fact as an existing Ricoh devotee I had no truck with the GXR lensors before the mount module was released.  I saw no real point.  Lately disabused by buying S10, P10 for "cheap" additional bodies and finding the A16 zoom a particularly nice camera and lately also finding the A12 50mm a refeshingly modern and very useful lensor even though  branded "past history" by those motivated by a constant stream of tittilating new poduct.

Therefore I could see the technical advantages of a mount module which might continue to last for a considerable time and have been so pleased that I have a bevvy of them that can last forever at my rate of use. It is the "why do you need more than one motorbike?" scenario personified as much as why do you need more than one dslr when you can exchange lenses? when confronted by a professional with three cameras with lenses hanging from his body. Both smart and stupid at the same moment.

Therefore the GXR-M becomes a state of mind a simple constant pleasure with little regard to whether it is up to date, the best possible technology (what! no auto focus, no use of the very latest up to date technical lenses? Hah! not even lens coating - what about the flare, you fool ...) We must just happily plod away in the supreme bliss of our bad choice and smile sweetly back and just keep clicking away in some sort of rude suspended technical development.  Arrr ... those were the great days of sail and wind in yer face, the skills of the doughty true sailor before all you got was smoke and soot.   The GXR-M proved that there is a lot of positive feedback by just using the basics and what can you move up to when the basics are just what you do get and "improving" them is not what is asked, and perhaps not really necessary?   Taking that sort of attitude the GXR-M becomes a hard act to follow.  If the basic affordable Leica RF had to become affordable digital then how would you otherwise build one?

One area where I have been proven wrong is that the lensors were in fact very good despite my reservations at the time.  Even the P10 and S10 work well.

When I shoot the GXR-M in company it is just another "odd" camera to them and give it polite questioning.  Once interest is shown if I have a Schnieder Kreuznach Retina DKL on board I love to pop eyes by removing the mount module, then the LM-M42 adapter, then the M42-DKL adapter.  In one second you have a taut tight and terrific RF style camera and in the next a lego-style  bunch of camera building blocks and my audience is in shock and groping for their in-camera smelling salts ....

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow