Why bother for a m4/3 when you can get a GXR ?

[Thom Hogan]

If you are of the kind of the person who always need to get the latest sensor ( I am not and most photographers are not ) , what's the difference between changing camera versus changing lens

You well know that this has been answered elsewhere, but you've chosen to ignore the answer.

The difference is simple: you're paying for a new sensor every time you pay for a new lens. And every time you want a new lens you have to pay for a new sensor. If you don't understand how that's different than buying lenses without sensors and sensors without lenses, well, Ricoh's found themselves a customer...

--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (21 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com

 

[Thom Hogan]

it's not about the m4/3 system being "bad"
it's about it not developing towards its full potential

Again, I'll be very direct: how is it not developing towards its full potential? What's missing (other than two lenses you want, which aren't available for the GXR, either)? And why are you so willing to dismiss Panasonic and Olympus when they haven't even finished the first generation offerings for m4/3 yet and so willing to accept Ricoh's promise that some day everything will be fine?

p.s. You still haven't answered my question about the "big picture" with the GXR.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (21 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com

 

[Harold66]

I had a Ricoh GX100. It was a joy to operate from the standpoint of the menus and the ergonomics of the camera. The IQ was lacking. Before I buy another Ricoh they will have to show the better IQ. MyGF1 has excellent IQ.

I don't think you can make that point if you compare a camera with a 4/3 sensor with one with a 1/1.7"sensor
Harold
--
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/haroldglit

 

[Harold66]

It's statements like that which drive me crazy.

I don't see why

Basically you're willing to believe the marketing hype from Ricoh over random reviews on the Internet.
I have no idea what you are meaning in this sentence

Moreover, you're doubly willing to just ignore the fact that there are better prime choices available for m4/3 today. Not just one or two, but many.

well you must have info that I don't have because as far as I know there are only TWO single focal lengths available for m4/3 the 17 mm and the 20mm

But the thing that really gets me about your constant mooning over the Ricoh and panning of m4/3 is that you're not actually using either of them. You're basing all your wandering and non-responsive posts on, well, belief in the unknown. Meanwhile, some of us are actually using cameras in the field and capturing some very nice photos (sorry you missed mine on my site, but images are ephemeral on my front page for a reason).

Thom ,

I have no idea why you are twisting my words and assuming stuff about me. As a matter of fact , I have seen one or two images you took with the m4/3 rds

and again , I am not saying that m4/3 cameras are not capable of producing great files

I am ONLY talking about the different in user interface and also what is the current m4/3 offering in terms of AF single focal lenses
Harold

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

 

[jiayaw]

so you said it yourself, the GXR with some of the modules like the 24-72 just can't compared with the 4/3 sensor in the m4/3 cameras.

I had a Ricoh GX100. It was a joy to operate from the standpoint of the menus and the ergonomics of the camera. The IQ was lacking. Before I buy another Ricoh they will have to show the better IQ. MyGF1 has excellent IQ.

I don't think you can make that point if you compare a camera with a 4/3 sensor with one with a 1/1.7"sensor

that is what the GXR would be using too if you use the 24-72 lens module... only way you get aps-c sensor with the GXR system now is if you get the 50mm prime module...

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

--



http://jiayaw.smugmug.com
Yoko Dam

 

[Harold66]

Why would you need an external finder on the G1 or GH1 - they both have an excellent EVF built in ?

On those ones , you would not need , which is good because the OVF is not really a serious option. Please try to read my point and not changing it

What I am saying is that the GXR can work in the three options. NONE of the m4/3 can do that as of now
hey guys , please don't change what I am writing

Since you have started several threads in both the Oly SLR and Micro 4/3s fora about the lack of single focal lengths in each system I'm really curious how you find the Ricoh offering - which has 1 lens with a decent sized sensor - so wonderful. I'll be prepared to bet you a large sum of money that this time next year the 4/3s system will still have more single focal length lenses than the Ricoh.

that hardly seems fair. I am willing to bet that one AFTER its launch , the Ricoh will

have more single focal lengths that the m4/3 system does One year after the first m4/3 body was launched

come on guys are you telling me that so far the panasonic , olympus has been complementary and successful in producing a lot of high quality single focal lenses

If you don't want people to switch or make their own minds up why did you start a thread asking why bother with micro 4/3s ?

Stick to taking great pictures instead of starting threads about how nobody is making the camera you want.

I am confident that the Ricoh can get pretty close

I'm sure that the Ricoh system will disappoint you in a couple of months time and then you'll have to find another "perfect" camera

Nick,
I am willing to bet on that one

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

 

[nick_webster]

You are making no sense to me so I'll give up trying to reason with you.

I hope you enjoy the Ricoh if you ever buy one,

Nick

 

[polarizer]

plunge because of the fact that it is a system walking on crutches without the appropriate lenses

oh the GXR system has more lenses????

and sizewise, they are too big for the smaller EP and GF1 bodies ( they are more appropriate for the G1 and Gh1)

have you checked the size of the A12????

 

[julieng]

Harold66 wrote:

The difference is simple: you're paying for a new sensor every time you pay for a new lens. And every time you want a new lens you have to pay for a new sensor. If you don't understand how that's different than buying lenses without sensors and sensors without lenses, well, Ricoh's found themselves a customer...

Not to mention this :
Many legacy lenses still make sense.
5 year old sensors are dated.
10 year old sensors are ment for museums.

 

[cheddargav]

Lol, very funny, and also a good point. No doubt Harold will ignore this...

--
Anything the kids can do, I can . . . . copy
http://www.twitter.com/gavphotography
http://gavin1977.blogspot.com/

 

[Teski]

So that leaves the one prime that they've announced. We have to great primes with the Panny in the 20 and 45, and he's saying there will be more and better lenses. Oi...The argument gets weaker and weaker.

--
Thanks,

Teski
http://www.tedescophotography.com

 

[Godfrey]

nearly any lens ??? This is such a ridiculous statement that it does not warrant an answer
I think you should get a book about lenses for film cameras
In addition there is compatibility and compatibility
but having a lens like the zuiko 90-250mm be compatible is just rhetoric
In practicality most of the lenses you are thinking of are pretty much unusable

You exhibit a severe lack of understanding about Micro-FourThirds cameras, Harold.
You should actually try one before you think you know something.

--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

 

[mstuart]

I think it's interesting as progression.
As a photographer, it's too premature to embrace.
I think the m43 is great, and will be with me for some time.
Ricoh, has made a plunge into design, and a concept, that will
take some further refinement. Why couple the sensor with the
lens? Why not take it a step further, and allow sensors to be swapped out.

I have always been enamoured by the ALPA camera's, I'd like to see something
of that caliber, with an EVF, and the ability to swap out backs, and choose

a lens as well. The Ricoh GRX is a cheap plastic concept, at this point, and still
very limited in scope.

I imagine it will take a few years, but eventually I'd say let the concept go to the

extremes, have the whole modular approach - allow us to swap out the EVF, the Sensor back the storage device or transmission module, and - much like the M43, allow us to use our jewel Leica lenses, our Zeiss, our Olympus OM glass, When Ricoh or any system allows that to happen THEN you have my attention, for now my GH1 is pretty nice, I am happy.

 

[Trevor G]

Why couple the sensor with the
lens? Why not take it a step further, and allow sensors to be swapped out.

That's a more sensible suggestion, but would still be next to the same cost as replacing the whole camera, because it also needs to include the electronics.

It's a concept doomed to fail because it couples a transitory item (sensor) with a long-term one (lens). If they end up making those dismountable then they might have something.

--
Cheers

Trevor G

http://www.computerwyse.com/photo.html

 

[Harold66]

Why couple the sensor with the
lens? Why not take it a step further, and allow sensors to be swapped out.

That's a more sensible suggestion, but would still be next to the same cost as replacing the whole camera, because it also needs to include the electronics.

It's a concept doomed to fail because it couples a transitory item (sensor) with a long-term one (lens). If they end up making those dismountable then they might have something.

Trevor

Tell me something . Don't you think that the sensor technology has reached a point where the pace at which a sensor becomes really obsolete is not what it used to be.

Granted, sensors will continue to improve but I think most improvements we can see in small and medium sensors are going to be chiefly on high iso IQ

A lot of people seem to be more eager on new features on their camera ( video, art filters, etc..) and I don't think sensors get obsolete that fast

I think the issue for Ricoh will be more about the pricing of the items and getting new modules out than on the sensor becoming obsolete
Harold

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

 

[Harold66]

nearly any lens ??? This is such a ridiculous statement that it does not warrant an answer

You exhibit a severe lack of understanding about Micro-FourThirds cameras, Harold.
You should actually try one before you think you know something.

This one really cracked me up.
Some replies have made some good points about my initial point but not yours

I find it funny that of all the pompous "talk " about the m4/3 cameras like a "special" knowledge that is independant of basic photo knowledge

I am not going to argue with you about why the compatibility of a small camera like the Ep1 which has NO OVF and NO EVF and weighs 335 grs with a lens which is almost 10 TIMES THE WEIGHT

after all , I am the Ricoh fanboy and I don't have your " understanding of micro Four thirds"

Harold

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

 

[Jonas B]

Hi Harold,

The GXR is a cool idea.

But why bother with an idea only when there are available µ4/3 cameras already available?

I like reading your posts: You sometimes make good points and sometimes food for thoughts and sometimes they are just on the borderline to be trollish stupidity samples.

Whats amazing with a 24-72mm 1/1.7" sensor?
Whats amazing with a 50 (35mm equiv) f/3.8 (35mm equiv) 1:2 macro lens?

It is something amazing with a camera forcing you to buy a new sensor and processor with each new lens - but how cool is that?

Time will tell how this modular system works out. We have already seen it cause funny discussions like this thread. It's always fun with something new.

Some of the posts here made me laugh, some just made me click Next! This reply add to the count, well deserved for a senseless but attractive opening post!

Jonas

 

[Bilgy_no1]

It's statements like that which drive me crazy.

I don't see why

Basically you're willing to believe the marketing hype from Ricoh over random reviews on the Internet.
I have no idea what you are meaning in this sentence

Moreover, you're doubly willing to just ignore the fact that there are better prime choices available for m4/3 today. Not just one or two, but many.

well you must have info that I don't have because as far as I know there are only TWO single focal lengths available for m4/3 the 17 mm and the 20mm

This is a seriously wrong statement. Apart from all the manual focus legacy lenses there are a number of 4/3 lenses that will work on the m4/3 cameras, including AF for all 4/3 lenses on the Olympus bodies. For those bodies that don't support AF on all 4/3 lenses, they will support automatic MF zoom.

These are not all the size of the 90-250mm. Think about primes like 25/2.8, 35/3.5, 50/2 which are all very well regarded in terms of IQ and also fit the smallest m4/3 bodies well in size. OK, AF may be sluggish, but have you read the statement about AF in the GXR preview on this site?

Your statement as to the number of m4/3 primes als neglects the fact that the 45/2.8 is already available and that an 8mm FE and 14/2.8 pancake have been announced by Panasonic. Olympus has a FE and 50mm macro due to be released before spring of 2011. By the way, the 14/2.8 offers the same angle of view and aperture as the 'standard' wide prime of film days (28/2.8) which you stated is missing from the m4/3 line-up (together with a portrait prime).

So, apart from your incorrect statements, what does the Ricoh solution offer over buying three seperate Sigma's: DP1 w 28mm eq lens, DP2 w 40mm eq lens and DP3 w 85mm eq lens.

Damien

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilgy_no1

 

[BigBarney]

Hello everyone
Talk about missing the opportunity to stay ahead

There is little doubt that the new Ricoh camera is a revolutionary concept, but as with concept cars at motor shows, it remains to be seen whether or not they will make the leap into full scale production and distribution. I have yet to see any comprehensive reviews of the Ricoh system, other than the let's rehash the press release and call it a review variety. I'll keep an open mind on how good it will eventually be.

Micro four thirds (MFT) by comparison has reached the stage of stable production and incremental evolutionary development of features. Olympus and Panasonic have been leapfrogging themselves and each other in the development of MFT systems, and the 2010 lens roadmaps seem to suggest that this trend will continue.

The Japanese market seems to be the one where both Olympus and Panasonic have been very successful, so those of us in other countries will probably have to wait until the developments in Japan trickle down to us. The good news is that both companies seem committed to the system's development (albeit never at a pace that keeps everyone happy), so I am becoming increasingly confident that my early leap into the MFT system will be worthwhile in the longer run.

 

[John Carson]

Trevor

Tell me something . Don't you think that the sensor technology has reached a point where the pace at which a sensor becomes really obsolete is not what it used to be.

Fuji is working on a Foveon type sensor that uses organic materials and potentially has much higher sensitivity than anything currently available. If they can pull it off, it will be a revolution.

--
john carson