Having seen the GXR samples...

[ncruces]

Agree with you here. Lenses last the longest and price drops the least. Electronics updates all the time, including sensor, video codec, memory buffer , image processor. Interchangable lens makes sense because you can keep the lens investment and just upgrade the electronics. Now with Ricoh, if I invest in a 70-200 F2.8 IS type of lens, I have to throw away if I want a newer sensor ? I don't get it.

Except that newer sensors can, and often do, outresolve older lenses (which prompts one to upgrade his lenses too).

The Ricoh way, lens and sensor design can be optimized for each other (size, quality), as is possible with fixed lens cameras. You can have small zooms and fast primes in the same system.

Obviously, there has to be some advantage compared to purchasing multiple compact cameras. For instance, buying the camera and both modules shouldn't be more expensive than buying an LX3 and a DP2. Then it would start making sense. You'd only need one charger, one flash, one EVF. You'd only need to learn one camera.

 

[ecaton]

I don't understand the moaning about price. How much is the GF1 plus 45mm macro lens again? UI wise Ricoh beats Pana anytime. As far as building lenses is concerned, Ricoh is up there with the best. Pana, for the first time, came with a winner with the 20mm.

This is not a Pana bashing, I own GF1 with kit zoom and 20mm and soon the 45mm, but Ricoh will be a serious contender. High iso performance of the 50 module looks better than mft.

 

[Michael Yung]

There are GPS unit, extension unit, wireless unit, printer unit, harddisk unit, projector unit ...

A dream machine for Transformer fans

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20091110_328005.html

(Scroll down ...)

--
Cheers,
Michael
http://www.michaelyung.com/blog/album/
http://www.80days.com/gallery2/

 

[FPL53]

I don't understand the moaning about price. How much is the GF1 plus 45mm macro lens again? UI wise Ricoh beats Pana anytime. As far as building lenses is concerned, Ricoh is up there with the best. Pana, for the first time, came with a winner with the 20mm.

This is not a Pana bashing, I own GF1 with kit zoom and 20mm and soon the 45mm, but Ricoh will be a serious contender. High iso performance of the 50 module looks better than mft.

It also has a better body than the Panasonic or Olympus offerings. But the lack of lenses limits it. I personally would not want a 1/1.7" sensor, if you are going to sacrifice image quality that way, might as well get a completely pocketable P&S.

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

It also has a better body than the Panasonic or Olympus offerings. But the lack of lenses limits it. I personally would not want a 1/1.7" sensor, if you are going to sacrifice image quality that way, might as well get a completely pocketable P&S.

. . . When to comes to actual sales numbers, this Ricoh is going to be a dead duck. Walk ins at the brick and mortars won't go for the ridiculous price and most enthusiasts will be put off by the small sensor on the zoom lens which they can get in a compact digicam at less than half the price. That leaves just the relatively low numbers of devotees who might want the prime lens module which actually isn't very small in comparison to a similar configuration in mFT. Ricoh has never sold well and this modular lens/sensor foolishness is a good indicator that they still don't know much about the camera business.

 

[Archiver]

I just had to ask: where has anyone said that the Ricoh GXR is a module that attaches to an iPhone??? Or was that some bizarre throwaway thought that someone else in the thread had?

The GXR is a camera body with interchangeable modules, certainly not a set of modules that attach to an iPhone.

it would be dog slow - no optimised processing. Not sure how large a programme you'd need running on the phone to be able to produce jpgs and run all the camera operations. Can't imagine the phone will work very well at all doing tasks like that.

It would be awkward to use, trying to juggle a phone and a lens is not ideal - one in each hand. I think having a "proper" camera body would be much easier to handle and change settings.

LCD is worse than the one provided with the body.

Battery life wouldn't be good - small ( non interchangeable ) battery on iPhone.

These are just some quick thoughts, I'm sure I could come up with more if I tried

I realise that you'd not need to buy and carry the body unit, but on it's own it is rather small.

What am I missing here that makes this such a good idea ?

--
Archiver - Recording the sights and sounds of life
http://www.flickr.com/photos/archiver/

 

[billyzeng]

I see your point of lens sensor optimized for each other. However the same can be said for image processor (more pixels means more processing power, more advanced noise reduction means more processing power), same for IO subsystem. The design de-coupling in this system is still optics I believe.

On top of this, if you look at how often vendors upgrade their lens (especially canon and nikon, they still have lens designed in their 80s), versus how often they release new bodies, there is no comparison. I don't believe Ricoh will keep up with the pace of upgrade. I don't believe we consumer is willing to pay for yearly lens upgrade.

Agree with you here. Lenses last the longest and price drops the least. Electronics updates all the time, including sensor, video codec, memory buffer , image processor. Interchangable lens makes sense because you can keep the lens investment and just upgrade the electronics. Now with Ricoh, if I invest in a 70-200 F2.8 IS type of lens, I have to throw away if I want a newer sensor ? I don't get it.

Except that newer sensors can, and often do, outresolve older lenses (which prompts one to upgrade his lenses too).

The Ricoh way, lens and sensor design can be optimized for each other (size, quality), as is possible with fixed lens cameras. You can have small zooms and fast primes in the same system.

Obviously, there has to be some advantage compared to purchasing multiple compact cameras. For instance, buying the camera and both modules shouldn't be more expensive than buying an LX3 and a DP2. Then it would start making sense. You'd only need one charger, one flash, one EVF. You'd only need to learn one camera.

 

[Harold66]

I agree, the images have something strange and not much quality, even those on the Ricoh site

... what you are talking about

It's going to be difficult to argue with micro 4/3, and m43 is a much pleasant system with much more flexible, besides olympus and panasonic lumix (and leica) do much better lenses

This has to be the most ridiculous statement of the week. I don't know anyone who could argue that the user interface on the m4/3 bodies is even REMOTELY pleasant to use as the Ricoh interface

One could argue that so far Ricoh has only one fixed focal length with a larger sensor but this is true of m4/3 where there is only one GOOD fixed focal lens ( the 20mm)

Once Ricoh introduces some more "mainstream " focal like 24, 40mm and 85mm ( in 35mm equivalents) , this would be a real system ahead of the m4/3 . And even if there is a premium price to pay, this would be worth it for most REAL photographers who want a camera where they can control the settings in an intuitive fashion

Harold

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

 

[Fredy Ross]

Brian did you read the statement dpreview wrote about the 4/3 system when previewing the new Ricoh yesterday. I was always sure I would get as good photos as with my canon 40D and am now confused after what he said. Could you comment?
--
fredyr

 

[antoineb]

...by photozone dot de

They've tested it and looked at the results before any software corrections applied in camera. And found that it was an average to poor lens!

Makes one wonder what the E-P1 (or the GF-1) might deliver, if coupled to good lenses! (yes, I know, there IS an adapter to use Leica glass).

 

[Brian Mosley]

--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri

 

[Teski]

It's most likely a beta firmware, so you can't make final conclusions based on preview images.

--
Thanks,

Teski
http://www.tedescophotography.com

 

[Brian Mosley]

However, I did read a review comment saying these were 'advanced beta' and unlikely to improve. The Ricoh site samples (APS-C) are pretty good.

Cheers

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri

 

[rhlpetrus]

The samples show very good tone and natural colors and details. And, I assume, no strong CA and no distortion correction needed for the Ricoh.
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 

[will foreman]

Yup. I've also had Olys, Canons, Fujis and Panasonics, all of which were fun, but I'm Ricoh hardcore...

 

[Brian Mosley]

--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri

 

[Sam Bennett]

...is the final result.

They've tested it and looked at the results before any software corrections applied in camera. And found that it was an average to poor lens!

That is not how the lens was designed to be used, so it's irrelevant to those of us who are using it in the manner it was designed. The lens, when corrected (automatically) is superb. Like it or not, Panasonic is taking full advantage of the opportunities offered in the digital age. If there's a downside to using digitally-corrected lenses, I haven't seen it yet. This lens compares very well to even the high-quality, esoteric L primes I used as a Canon shooter.

--
Sam Bennett - http://www.swiftbennett.com

 

[Steven Wandy]

I have found the results from using the 20mm with the EP1 very, very good.

Also, to test a m4/3 lens and discount the "corrections" that are part of the system is pretty dim-witted in my view. We all know (at least the people who read forums like this one) that because of the size of the lenses both Pana and Oly do some corrections either in the JPEG engine or they are done afterwards in software. So to base their final opinions on the lens and not take these corrections into account seems rather stupid. (What camera body, if not a m4/3 one that will apply corrections, do they think the lens is intended for????)
Steve

 

[Chez Wimpy]

Makes one wonder what the E-P1 (or the GF-1) might deliver, if coupled to good lenses! (yes, I know, there IS an adapter to use Leica glass).

No, they only work their magic with "medicore" lenses I am afraid

Keep in mind that photozone is a single (sometimes strangely biased) voice... vs the hundreds of individuals posting samples on this board (and flickr, smugmug, ect). If the lens were lacking, there would be obvious photographic evidence to that affect already.

--
-CW

よしよし、今日も生きのいい魂が手に入ったな

 

[Chez Wimpy]

The samples show very good tone and natural colors and details.

I agree. Not a bad showing at all. The package doesn't strike me as inherently more portable, or superior in IQ though, so based on the price, I have little (err, no) interest. I wish them the best of luck though, they are going to really need it.

And, I assume, no strong CA and no distortion correction needed for the Ricoh.

And if a tree falls in the forest (and nobody was there to check), did the leaves still have purple fringing when framed against the sky...?

--
-CW

よしよし、今日も生きのいい魂が手に入ったな