Sensor-Lens modules: the "smart" solution?

[Tom Caldwell]

Perhaps with the continuing development of sensors and the inclusion of image cropping zoom in larger format sensors combined with software corrected wide angle Ricoh's decision to make combined sensor-lens modules was not so crazy as it has seemed.

Ricoh are on record as saying that they are matching sensor to lens in their modules and that is only what might be expected naturally.

However with the new Sony RX100 taking software adjusted lens performance to new heights with presumably distortion corrected wide and image cropped "clear zoom" surely there is a statement that sensor must be closely interwoven to lens for the lens to work at all.

Those that say it is silly to throw away a perfectly good lens in order to fit a new sensor must start to be confronted with a new lens that is no use whatsover without a matched sensor to go with it. Ricoh's matched sensor-lens modules now seem to be a revolutionary step forward. Replacing whole cameras to get the next generation of sensor-lens combination now seems increasingly flawed. The more so as the quality of the camera, its sensor and its lens in combination increases.

If we can think of a new generation of lenses being born that are basically an optical-electronic device where the lens performance depends completely on it's relationship to the sensor and the firmware that drives the combination we must change our hats and start thinking quite differently. The more so if these combinations produce better results than individual sensors unmatched to a variety of possible lenses that might be mounted. It seems that in future perhaps the lens is not a stand alone device but will actually have to be necessarily packaged with a sensor.

As long as a single pure optical-only well adjusted lens (at any price) will out-perform a sensor-lens package adjusted in firmware then the outstanding "traditional" lens will persevere, but what if the reverse becomes true?

Therefore are we going to get high-performance individually made cameras with built in lenses where each camera must be limited by the style of lens on board compared to traditional optical-only replaceable lensed cameras? Does the Ricoh solution offer some half-way house where the sensor and lens is packaged together? Do we get future dslr or EVIL-type cameras with traditional optical only lenses that have enough "smarts" to be able to automatically correct the huge variety of lenses that can be fitted? Will these smarts extend far enough to know whether any given optical lens needs correction or does not need it?

Ricoh seems to be already playing with software correction of lenses to the extent that the A12 mount module does allow its owners to individualy correct (or deliberately distort) any lenses they might choose to use. They have the firmware, it is only a short step to matching that firmware to a fixed sensor/lens combination.

The subject requires a good amount of mental revising of traditional attitudes to cameras with replaceable lenses. We have "sort of" already accepted Ricoh's "lensor" approach but perhaps we have not realised the revolutionary ahead of their time significance completely.

Once a suitably large sized megapixel-magnitude / physical size (aka 1"?) sensor is available to Ricoh we might see a flowering of lensor modules for the GXR. Or am I just into wishful thinking?

Perhaps a new more powerful GXR back with built in evf is the next cab off the rank but the jaw-dropping curiosity of the lensor system now around for quite a few years might have been a very predictive idea and just possibly something similar might emerge from other manufacturers as they struggle to get high performance out of ever bigger sensors in ever smaller camera bodies. The GXR theory might yet turn out to be "just about right".

--
Tom Caldwell

 

[Midwest]

However with the new Sony RX100 taking software adjusted lens performance to new heights with presumably distortion corrected wide and image cropped "clear zoom" surely there is a statement that sensor must be closely interwoven to lens for the lens to work at all.

How do you match a sensor to a lens so as to correct the lens's optical defects? Isn't that correction done in the processing engine on fixed-lens cameras and in RAW pp-ing on interchangeable lens cameras? Yes it is.

Those that say it is silly to throw away a perfectly good lens in order to fit a new sensor must start to be confronted with a new lens that is no use whatsoever without a matched sensor to go with it.

I don't believe lens correction is done by the sensor. When I process RAW images from my camera, the (free, included) software allows lens correction for a wide variety of specific lenses. That is a heck of a lot more flexible and massively cheaper.

If we can think of a new generation of lenses being born that are basically an optical-electronic device where the lens performance depends completely on it's relationship to the sensor and the firmware that drives the combination we must change our hats and start thinking quite differently. The more so if these combinations produce better results than individual sensors unmatched to a variety of possible lenses that might be mounted. It seems that in future perhaps the lens is not a stand alone device but will actually have to be necessarily packaged with a sensor.

I think you've got the process mixed up. The lens passes the image onto the sensor; then the firmware processes the image to correct for the lens. Different corrections are needed at different apertures. What sensor could do that?

Therefore are we going to get high-performance individually made cameras with built in lenses where each camera must be limited by the style of lens on board compared to traditional optical-only replaceable lensed cameras? Does the Ricoh solution offer some half-way house where the sensor and lens is packaged together? Do we get future dslr or EVIL-type cameras with traditional optical only lenses that have enough "smarts" to be able to automatically correct the huge variety of lenses that can be fitted? Will these smarts extend far enough to know whether any given optical lens needs correction or does not need it?

The smarts are in the RAW software. When a lens really requires post-shot correction for distortion etc. shooting RAW and applying the correction for that lens provides the 'smarts'. It need not be in-camera.

For example, Canon's DPP (Digital Photo Professional) application currently provides correction for about 40 of their lenses, primes and zooms, kit and upmarket.

Ricoh seems to be already playing with software correction of lenses to the extent that the A12 mount module does allow its owners to individualy correct (or deliberately distort) any lenses they might choose to use. They have the firmware, it is only a short step to matching that firmware to a fixed sensor/lens combination.

Of course a dslr (for example) maker knows all of their own lenses someone might put on the camera and can provide correction for them. Not so easy for a mount that can take countless lenses from everywhere, each one of which would require its own correction profile.

The subject requires a good amount of mental revising of traditional attitudes to cameras with replaceable lenses. We have "sort of" already accepted Ricoh's "lensor" approach but perhaps we have not realised the revolutionary ahead of their time significance completely.

Even if a sensor could correct for a lens, the pp'ing RAW software approach would work better, much more flexibly and basically at no cost. I think the significance you see is not as significant as you think.

Once a suitably large sized megapixel-magnitude / physical size (aka 1"?) sensor is available to Ricoh we might see a flowering of lensor modules for the GXR. Or am I just into wishful thinking?

Frankly I think so.

Perhaps a new more powerful GXR back with built in evf is the next cab off the rank but the jaw-dropping curiosity of the lensor system now around for quite a few years might have been a very predictive idea and just possibly something similar might emerge from other manufacturers as they struggle to get high performance out of ever bigger sensors in ever smaller camera bodies. The GXR theory might yet turn out to be "just about right".

Or superfluous.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Maybe I am mixed up.

What I was getting at was that the new Sony RX100 seems to correct wide angle distortion via in-camera firmware and also improve zoom capability by sensor cropping.

Plenty of cameras do this already. I hyper-jumped this to a lens/sensor link, but the necessary smarts still need to be provided electronically for the image captured by the lens to be recorded to best advantage. Therefore these lenses must be more than than a mechanical device. Presumably they will either be packaged in a camera body (complete) or in modular form as a lens module.

--
Tom Caldwell

 

[Franka T.L.]

Well, a lens specially tailored for a particular sensor and is associated soft and hard bit is , still a lens, an optical device. The electronic , at best control the mechanical side of the device, and the software do their part after the capture. The motto though, what if a better optical lens is used. There is no saying one cannot build a lens that can operate well and above integrated ones ( you go take a look at cine lens and you will know ). And there is no saying one cannot apply the same software correction to a lens just as if it was build integrated.

So for the part the argument must be made within a constraint and prerequisite. That which of what and how the setup are being handled, design, build, setup, utilized, and how the capture is being developed, post, and presented.

Its not saying the GXR concept is wrong , in fact its very good, but at a junction where interchangeable ( even optical only ) lens can be have ( the typical dx, fx form factor aka FF and APS-C ) it will take a very very good one to replace the good old lens. Take the 18.3mm module. Is it really better than the M module with say a Zeiss ZM 18mm/4.0 combined. Its a toss, but its not a clear one. No one is better, and the Zeiss do it without the soft magic. So if I have a proper RAW developer with all the Zeiss lens correction parameter worked out, can I expect even better result from the capture, Yes I would think so.

The whole module concept is somewhat a all build into one solution and this would goes well when we stray into different form factor an sensor size. Now picture this the GR-D got a 1/1.7' sensor. Now if we got the new CX aka 1" sensor inside the Sony RX100 and put that into a module together with a killer 10mm lens ( equivalent to 28mm coverage just as GR-D do ) it would likely be. Now how about a FF sensor , might be the 24MP sensor rumored, and have a dedicated 21mm lens for it ( remember the GR-21 film compact ). It would likely be usable. Module is in a way an optimized setup. It might not be the best in any single term ( most likely not the optical side ), but it is as said, optimized. within reason and limitation.

Optimized setup of lens / sensor with a common control platform as a compact system is what I see the GXR act. The current 33mm and 18mm module is such, where the M module is just a way to retrofit the platform for some flexibility which it lacks. In fact with the development of all these mighty good sensors nowadays I am seeing the GXR concept even more viable. Forget the 1/1.7" or 1/2.3" sensor. They work best in an even smaller pocketables such as the GR-D. Go with the 1" 4/3, 1.5", APS-C and might be even the FF sensor instead. and have inbuild lens that perform ( and not just solely by soft correction ).

And further to that how about alternative sensors, say Monochrome only ( UV/IR capable, give it sets of filter to let us do UV, IR, and visible light specific ), Foveon like full spectrum sensor, or sensor without AA for high definition capture. Super fast frame rate for Video etc ... Possibility is many. Opportunity is what Ricoh made of it.

--

• Franka -

 

[Documensony]

However with the new Sony RX100 taking software adjusted lens performance to new heights with presumably distortion corrected wide and image cropped "clear zoom" surely there is a statement that sensor must be closely interwoven to lens for the lens to work at all.

How do you match a sensor to a lens so as to correct the lens's optical defects? Isn't that correction done in the processing engine on fixed-lens cameras and in RAW pp-ing on interchangeable lens cameras? Yes it is.

Correct.

Those that say it is silly to throw away a perfectly good lens in order to fit a new sensor must start to be confronted with a new lens that is no use whatsoever without a matched sensor to go with it.

I don't believe lens correction is done by the sensor. When I process RAW images from my camera, the (free, included) software allows lens correction for a wide variety of specific lenses. That is a heck of a lot more flexible and massively cheaper.

And in-camera software is easily updated if needed for new lenses.

If we can think of a new generation of lenses being born that are basically an optical-electronic device where the lens performance depends completely on it's relationship to the sensor and the firmware that drives the combination we must change our hats and start thinking quite differently. The more so if these combinations produce better results than individual sensors unmatched to a variety of possible lenses that might be mounted. It seems that in future perhaps the lens is not a stand alone device but will actually have to be necessarily packaged with a sensor.

I think you've got the process mixed up. The lens passes the image onto the sensor; then the firmware processes the image to correct for the lens. Different corrections are needed at different apertures. What sensor could do that?

Excactly.

Therefore are we going to get high-performance individually made cameras with built in lenses where each camera must be limited by the style of lens on board compared to traditional optical-only replaceable lensed cameras? Does the Ricoh solution offer some half-way house where the sensor and lens is packaged together? Do we get future dslr or EVIL-type cameras with traditional optical only lenses that have enough "smarts" to be able to automatically correct the huge variety of lenses that can be fitted? Will these smarts extend far enough to know whether any given optical lens needs correction or does not need it?

The smarts are in the RAW software. When a lens really requires post-shot correction for distortion etc. shooting RAW and applying the correction for that lens provides the 'smarts'. It need not be in-camera.

For example, Canon's DPP (Digital Photo Professional) application currently provides correction for about 40 of their lenses, primes and zooms, kit and upmarket.

Interesting.

Ricoh seems to be already playing with software correction of lenses to the extent that the A12 mount module does allow its owners to individualy correct (or deliberately distort) any lenses they might choose to use. They have the firmware, it is only a short step to matching that firmware to a fixed sensor/lens combination.

Of course a dslr (for example) maker knows all of their own lenses someone might put on the camera and can provide correction for them. Not so easy for a mount that can take countless lenses from everywhere, each one of which would require its own correction profile.

Could be done, though. And maybe will be ... by independent software developers for PP-work.

The subject requires a good amount of mental revising of traditional attitudes to cameras with replaceable lenses. We have "sort of" already accepted Ricoh's "lensor" approach but perhaps we have not realised the revolutionary ahead of their time significance completely.

Even if a sensor could correct for a lens, the pp'ing RAW software approach would work better, much more flexibly and basically at no cost. I think the significance you see is not as significant as you think.

The main question about linking sensor and lens together is that the two parts are somewhat out of sync in terms of development. Not many today would buy a camera with a five years old sensor - whereas a fifty years old lens can still perform superbly (as you will be the first to confirm, I suppose )

Once a suitably large sized megapixel-magnitude / physical size (aka 1"?) sensor is available to Ricoh we might see a flowering of lensor modules for the GXR. Or am I just into wishful thinking?

Frankly I think so.

I am afraid to have to agree.

Perhaps a new more powerful GXR back with built in evf is the next cab off the rank but the jaw-dropping curiosity of the lensor system now around for quite a few years might have been a very predictive idea and just possibly something similar might emerge from other manufacturers as they struggle to get high performance out of ever bigger sensors in ever smaller camera bodies. The GXR theory might yet turn out to be "just about right".

Or superfluous.

The single reason for Ricoh to develop 'lensors' was to combine the benefits of large sensor cameras (IQ) with the benefits of compact cameras (size) in one system.

If this really turned out to be a great solution could be answered from asking one simple question: How many users work with compact sensor lensors on their GXR? Not that many, I would think. And if so, then the real reason for having lensors is gone ... only the downsides remain in tough competiton with other large sensor cameras.
--
-----------------------
Documensony
'Spontaneity is enabled by rigorous practice'

 

[Documensony]

... the necessary smarts still need to be provided electronically for the image captured by the lens to be recorded to best advantage. Therefore these lenses must be more than than a mechanical device. Presumably they will either be packaged in a camera body (complete) or in modular form as a lens module.

The data needed to correct a number of lenses can easily be stored i camera memory. And memory software can be updated along with new lenses being introduced. Panasonic, Canon, Leica and many others actively do this already.

--
-----------------------
Documensony
'Spontaneity is enabled by rigorous practice'

 

[Documensony]

Forget the 1/1.7" or 1/2.3" sensor. They work best in an even smaller pocketables such as the GR-D. Go with the 1" 4/3, 1.5", APS-C and might be even the FF sensor instead.

1" makes more sense, and FF would be a dream come true.

And further to that how about alternative sensors, say Monochrome only ( UV/IR capable, give it sets of filter to let us do UV, IR, and visible light specific ), Foveon like full spectrum sensor, or sensor without AA for high definition capture. Super fast frame rate for Video etc ... Possibility is many. Opportunity is what Ricoh made of it.

Great ideas ... but: Alternative sensors wouldn't make much sense tied with only one lens in a 'lensor'. And if instead those alternative sensors were made for M- or other external mounts only (leaving lens sales to competitors), Ricoh wouldn't make much profit from it.

--
-----------------------
Documensony
'Spontaneity is enabled by rigorous practice'

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Ok, now that I have been completely thrashed ..

If Sony can make an impossibly large sensor camera with a good performance into an impossibly small camera body ...

Can anyone explain how the various lens corrections stored in the cameras made by others has failed to make their lens/sensor/body combinations as small and powerful as the RX100.

I guess that is my argument - that I tried to explain it with pseudo-science is my own mistake, for which I humbly apologise. Now can we address the correct argument?

Are we to ignore Sony, or gasp in awe, or has Sony now leapt so far ahead of the field in technical expertise that all other manufactures might as well give up right now?

--
Tom Caldwell

 

[Documensony]

Ok, now that I have been completely thrashed ..

Nah ... a simple misunderstanding was cleared up fast, nothing personal at all

If Sony can make an impossibly large sensor camera with a good performance into an impossibly small camera body ...

RX100 has a 1" sensor, which is considerably smaller than the APS-C sensor of the current Nex cameras. So the body and the lens of the RX100 is smaller too.

Can anyone explain how the various lens corrections stored in the cameras made by others has failed to make their lens/sensor/body combinations as small and powerful as the RX100.

History moves on. Generally, cameramakers have been underestimating public demand for bigger sensors, even in compact cameras. Now that the mass of compact cameras is about to be replaced by cellphones, manufacturers are fighting to keep up compacyt camera sales ... adding wifi, gps and a lot of other stuff AND larger sensors.

I guess that is my argument - that I tried to explain it with pseudo-science is my own mistake, for which I humbly apologise. Now can we address the correct argument?

Are we to ignore Sony, or gasp in awe, or has Sony now leapt so far ahead of the field in technical expertise that all other manufactures might as well give up right now?

Other manufacturers will soon catch up. If Ricoh intend to maintain a range of compact cameras for enthusiasts wiling to pay a premium, Ricoh will have to catch up too.

--
Tom Caldwell

--
-----------------------
Documensony
'Spontaneity is enabled by rigorous practice'

 

[dovi]

Too many things I dont know.
I hope this is relevant:

1) If Ricoh can Produce a module with performance close or better than the sony compact they can benefit, As long as the cost is competitive. I know it is a little more bulky but if you are buying into a system I think it might sell because of potential for growth. They could tempt users with a really good price.

2) I think Ricoh will need to address the dust and hot pixel issues with the lensors they are currently selling. I have not seen spotting like this on any of the compacts I have used.

3) The distortion in the zoom is also curious since the "Matched Sensor-Lens Unit" marketing and propaganda would lead one to believe that this was implemented in the zoom. Saying "Canon did it" makes me wonder even more- wtf?

I think the current implementation of the "Lensor" model could use some improvement.
As a whole it is a more compact and versatile kit that delivers, in my opinion.

 

[Documensony]

... the current implementation of the "Lensor" model could use some improvement.

Apart from the dust issue, are you asking for more lens modules ... or?
--
-----------------------
Documensony
'Spontaneity is enabled by rigorous practice'

 

[Godfrey]

Too much gobbledy-gook to read through and dissect, Tom.

I have no idea what you're going on about regards the Sony RX100 and its lens correction image processing. It's nothing new ... Sony, Panasonic, Olympus and others have all been doing similar lens correction and digital zoom assistance for a while.

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

 

[dovi]

I think new lensors are inevitable as tech moves on. No need to ask for that.

Anything new could use

1)dust reduction built in

2)Method to handle hot pixels

3) based on the zoom, which I like a lot--> real, effective distortion correction for the wide side of the lens. It must have been a marketing decision to make it 24mm given the distortion it has.

 

[Katsunami]

Why do you keep pushing the GXR and it's modules like a madman?

The GXR as a camera with interchangeable lenses is a failed concept because of the lens modules. You cannot upgrade your sensor without also replacing the lens. No new modules, no new sensor. And if Ricoh replaces a module, it's an improvement for that one lens only. With all other ILC's, replacing the camera means a benefit for all lenses.

The GXR is a cheap way to create / own a range of high end compact camera's without buying a seperate back and EVF for all of them. You have come to that conclusion yourself. For most people, it's useless because nobody wants 5 or 6 compact camera's. People want a camera with interchangeable lenses.

If there hadn't been a GXR-M, I'd probably never have bought a GXR. It would have been a Sony NEX-5N probably, or maybe, just maybe an M8.2, assuming that I can focus the thing, and can live with the fact that this camera needs a special IR-blocking filter for each lens.

I see my GXR, M-mount and EVF as one complete camera, an alternative to the Epson R-D1x, Leica M8.2 and M9 and that's it.

If Ricoh would decide to create a "GRM", with a 1.5x or full frame sensor (as is: a camera with integrated viewfinder and GXR-like controls, featuring an M-mount) and then kill the GXR line, I wouldn't mourn it for a second.

To be honest: if Zeiss or Leica would put a Digital Ikon or EM10 (EVIL M) on the market for under $2000, then I'd probably jump ship too, as soon as I can spare the money.

 

[Documensony]

... if Zeiss or Leica would put a Digital Ikon or EM10 (EVIL M) on the market for under $2000, then I'd probably jump ship too, as soon as I can spare the money.

Apparently, your prayers might have been heard - this rumor was posted today:

"It is a real Leica, not a clone or a re-badge. It will cost less than the M9 and feature a regular VF (no EVF and not EVIL). In fact, it’s more like the M9 than it is different – it’s a scaled back M9. M mount."

Source: http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/

-----------------------
Documensony
'Spontaneity is enabled by rigorous practice'

 

[Katsunami]

I hope that it's clear that I'm very satisfied with the GXR-M, apart from (despite....) it's external viewfinder. With "I'd probably jump ship" means that my next camera doesn't need to be a Ricoh one if Leica or Zeiss have something decent, and affordable.

I wonder: No EVF for the ME? Then it has to be a rangefinder. How can you scale back the M9? It already has no features apart from taking pictures. Less megapixels? Smaller sensor? That's about it. Meet the M8.3...

I'd rather see an EVIL camera with focus peaking: No external viewfinders necessary. 100% view. Never any front- or back focus. Easy compensation for focus shift. Use of non-M lenses if desired. No, it won't be a rangefinder, but people who want that, can go for the M10 or second hand M9.

Still, I expect an ME to cost $3500 at least. If it's a scaled back M9, then a second hand M9 will actually be the better deal.... To sell such a camera Leica will need to stay well below the second hand price of an M9 (I estimate that price at $3500, obviously).

 

[Gary CG]

I really like using the EVF tilted up. I'm not sure I'd want to use a built in one now. Especially for tripod work which comprises a large amount of my street people photography.
--
http://clemans-gibbon.com - glamor/studio work (flash site with music)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/71724131@N06 - street/misc photography (mostly with X100 and GXR/M):

 

[Documensony]

How can you scale back the M9? It already has no features apart from taking pictures. Less megapixels? Smaller sensor? That's about it.

That remains to be seen. Rumor says FF, but nothing seems to be confirmed.

I remember, however, Leica CEO Kaufmann giving an interview signalling that a true but more compact Leica was in the wings. Something in the tradition of the Leica CL from 1973



Personally, I would think there's considerable opportunity for making a good camera much smaller than M8 - M9 - M10.

And why should Leica sit back and let Fujifilm cash in on a steady stream of Leica'ish cameras. Why not cashing in themselves on all those photographers and enthusiasts who'd love to have a Leica - but who do not have the funds for a M9/10?

--
-----------------------
Documensony
'Spontaneity is enabled by rigorous practice'

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Too much gobbledy-gook to read through and dissect, Tom.

I have no idea what you're going on about regards the Sony RX100 and its lens correction image processing. It's nothing new ... Sony, Panasonic, Olympus and others have all been doing similar lens correction and digital zoom assistance for a while.

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

Godfrey

Ricoh comes with a suite of lens adjustment controls in it's A12 mount module. No doubt others simply match adjustments to individual lenses. Handy, because they no longer have to engineer perfection. Lenses are always a compromise and the less compromises the more expensive the lens. Here we have, increasingly, compromises overcome by electronics rather than manufacturing process. In fact electronic adjustments can probably push the boundaries of what can otherwise actually be technically manufactured. The next step presumably is to refine tolerances and presumably further improve the performance of already capable lenses. Wide becomes electronically corrected wider, zoom becomes electronically enhanced.

As you say, they have been "doing it" for a while and mechanical purity is sacrifiiced on the alter of price/performance. Not a problem when it is something encased in a single body to make cheap point'n'shoots or silly-length bridge camera zooms.

I have just been peering into my flawed crystal ball and get a hazy image when these electronically-enhanced lenses start finding their way into replaceable lensed bodies.

Surely a little correction chip might go into a standard size lens body, but the emphasis is always on smaller-lens/more-versatile/bigger-sensor. To get the best effect the lens and sensor need best be associated with the correction chip. Easier if the lens/sensor/chip are combined in the one unit.

If this technology can make things happen that are otherwise physically impossible then I guess the same correction technology might also make plain-good lenses perfect.

I know that you are always interested in the past and proven performance and rightly so, your knowledge in this area is invaluable. Others sensibly simply wait to be surprised on what new technology Santa might bring (waiting for the next verified rumour). I tend to look at what is happening now and add two and two and come up with three and fourpence, crazy as that might seem the addiction to crystal balls is similar to the fortune teller in the fairground booth (and almost as accurate). Good humour, fun, and maybe I will get it right once and become a hero retrospectively.

--
Tom Caldwell

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Why do you keep pushing the GXR and it's modules like a madman?

Do I? I don't think I do, I don't have any aps-c primes or the A16 zoom. I only have the S10 and P10 as convenient way to get extra camera backs. They have their uses though. I just tried to say that if the present direction of integrating firmware correction of lens performance into cameras gets more sophisticated then it will go beyond a "chip in a lens" or single-camera box into the exchangeable lens category. If this technology modifies lens characteristics beyond the physically-possible then it will be necessary to associate a correction chip at least and possibly a sensor as well into the design. This sounds very much like what Ricoh do already.

The GXR as a camera with interchangeable lenses is a failed concept because of the lens modules. You cannot upgrade your sensor without also replacing the lens.

This is the crux of my argument - if a chip and possibly a sensor needs to be associated with a lens then this must happen. If great lenses are expensive then even greater chipped/sensor attached lenses might even work out cheaper.

No new modules, no new sensor. And if Ricoh replaces a module, it's an improvement for that one lens only. With all other ILC's, replacing the camera means a benefit for all lenses.

Only if the lens can stand alone without further electronic wizardry.

The GXR is a cheap way to create / own a range of high end compact camera's without buying a seperate back and EVF for all of them. You have come to that conclusion yourself.

Yes, and I stand by this.

For most people, it's useless because nobody wants 5 or 6 compact camera's. People want a camera with interchangeable lenses.

Yes, but they will have to accept a chip and/or sensor in it if they want small and high performance in a single package. Or simply buy a single camera that has it all much like the RX100. I am thinking of the next stage after the RX100.

If there hadn't been a GXR-M, I'd probably never have bought a GXR.

Neither would I. I waited until the A12 arrived, meanwhile I had been "practising" (with the "s") using a Samsung NX10 with adapters.

It would have been a Sony NEX-5N probably,

Much the same idea as myself.

or maybe, just maybe an M8.2, assuming that I can focus the thing, and can live with the fact that this camera needs a special IR-blocking filter for each lens.

Not for me, I would otherwise have stayed 100% Canon EOS dslr + GRD.

I see my GXR, M-mount and EVF as one complete camera, an alternative to the Epson R-D1x, Leica M8.2 and M9 and that's it.

I agree.

If Ricoh would decide to create a "GRM", with a 1.5x or full frame sensor (as is: a camera with integrated viewfinder and GXR-like controls, featuring an M-mount) and then kill the GXR line, I wouldn't mourn it for a second.

FF GXR? I would add it to the stock. The present A12 would continue to be highly usable and mix and match lens effective focal length as much as I use the Canon 50D and 5D interchangeably to multiply the focal length stock of my lenses.

My eyes are tired but I find difficulty in determining on whether a 50D or a 5D captured an image with a Canon EOS EF lens. But I can tell the difference between a GXR-M image and that from a 50D when the shooting conditions get tough. That does not stop the GXR-M being my favourite camera(s) of all time.

To be honest: if Zeiss or Leica would put a Digital Ikon or EM10 (EVIL M) on the market for under $2000, then I'd probably jump ship too, as soon as I can spare the money.

Zeiss or Leica simply cannot do it for the money and it is very unlikely that they ever will. Leica rebadges Panasonics - will that do?

Electronically adjusted lenses are here to stay (everyone tells me so) and can give increasingly higher performance on a budget. Once the results are seen users do not care a hoot on whether they are "pure" or that the sensor is now in the lens and not the camera body.

In fact there is a great absence of hooting even now. In the end the ones that will suffer are the traditional manufacturers of the highest quality plain glass lenses as they will continue to be constrained by the laws of physics in their design considerations and the craftsmanship of low volume lens manufacture.

I am surprised that the Leica/Zeiss lobby have not started to refute electronic adjustment even now. But I suppose that this high quality glass has yet to be threatened. Meanwhile such exclusive lens manufacturers as Canon and Nikon must increasingly use electronic enhancement as a matter of course and hardly mention it. Certainly it does not get trumpeted by "EEI" (Electronically Enhanced Image) stickers on their lenses. (grin)

--
Tom Caldwell