Could there be a next gen gxr after all?

[Tom Diaz]

If you're in Ontario, Henry's has an M-mount module "open box" for in-store pick-up. 🙄

http://www.henrys.com/79351-OPEN-BOX-RICOH-GXR-M-MOUNT-A12.aspx

~Rif

If any Canadian friends would be willing to do the errand at the Missisauga outlet store for me, please PM me. They have a couple of great deals left.


Tom

 

[GaryLH]

What if....

What if....

The following website link --> alpha to Leica m -- speedbooster got me thinking... (B&h pre-announcing something not listed on metabones site yet or is this a mistake)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/983803-REG/metabones_mb_alpa_lm_bm1_alpa_lens_to_leica.html

I was looking at the sensor to flange distance on the a12 m mount module. What if the next m mount module incorporated speedbooster technology? My 35 and 50 cron are now lux's using a apsc sensor..

The way I c it - pluses for full frame sensor
-- much better dynamic range and high iso
-- no tricks a 50 is a 50

Will apsc sensor plus speedbooster design still be less then straight up full frame sensor? I don't know.. Even if it is slightly more expensive, u would get a one stop speed advantage. But on the other hand lenses w/ deep rear elements may not be usable.

Which way would u prefer? No gimmicks and kiss --> go for full frame or speedbooster gimmick?

I never really was interested in the gxr until the a12 m module came out. I suspect this was true of a lot of people. At the end of the day, I would be happy to c them come out w/ next gen gxr design that had an a16 apsc m module. Any of the above would be gravy or icing on the cake.. Just putting something out there as a what if for fun 😛

Gary

 

[Ruhayat]

Give me Ricoh over Fuji anytime. The focus peaking in the GXR is superb, the next best thing to a rangefinder and makes more sense than an electronic pseudo-rangefinder, to me. I much prefer the GXR handling and ergonomics than the Fujis, too, and the body feels solid and easier to grip for long periods. The only thing I don't like is the Ricoh colours, so I shot mine in B&W always. Sold it off to buy another M body. But if Ricoh comes out with the GXR2, with a fixed mount on the body, I'm in the queue!

I think now that they have the GR, Ricoh should just ditch the lensor concept and go the Sigma DP route, but with a difference: just 2 fixed lens cameras (28 + 21 with an attachment, and 40 + 60 also with an attachment). I still have the 21 and 40 attachments for my kaput GRD v1 and I used to like being able to carry 3 focal lengths in a small pouch. Then a third body with a fixed M mount.

 

[johannielscom]

The GXR is great in B&W indeed.

Slow to write files? Not more so than cocking a film M or a Barnack, which I happen to shoot too (Barnacks that is).

Big perk is the EVF on the Ricoh, which is fast enough to keep up with panning, while the Fujis drag the image.

 

[aleksanderpolo]

If it's APSC, I don't see why it would do better than the original GXR. I think they really need to do either one of the following to make it a better seller:

1. The whole package as small as GR, which is why I think the GR is much more popular than the old 28/2.5 module, physics seem to be against it though.
2. Foveon sensor? Seems unlikely, but imagine 3 DPxM with a common body, much better ergonomics and handling? And you can use the saved weight to carry extra batteries?
3. FF sensor M mount: There are just too many APSC mirrorless out there, and I think most people don't care much/know about the performance difference between a CV15 mounted on GXR-M vs Fuji X. What's stopping them from making a GR like body with FF M mount? They don't need to worry about jeopardizing their other lens line. It might even be cheaper to manufacture a GRM without the lens and can potentially sell for 2x the price of GR for a greater margin. And there is no competition at the moment.

Hopefully they won't be spending time/effort making a K mount module aka K02.

Cheers,

 

[CliveC]

Would reducing the crop factor to 1.3 be enough for most of you to sign on?

I think for me I can make do, as long as they can further clean up the files produced at ISO 3200 and crank up the write speed a bit.

While I love my GXR, I'm not sure I would be quite as enthusiastic paying full price for it.

 

[Godfrey]

If it's APSC, I don't see why it would do better than the original GXR. I think they really need to do either one of the following to make it a better seller:

1. The whole package as small as GR, which is why I think the GR is much more popular than the old 28/2.5 module, physics seem to be against it though.
2. Foveon sensor? Seems unlikely, but imagine 3 DPxM with a common body, much better ergonomics and handling? And you can use the saved weight to carry extra batteries?
3. FF sensor M mount: There are just too many APSC mirrorless out there, and I think most people don't care much/know about the performance difference between a CV15 mounted on GXR-M vs Fuji X. What's stopping them from making a GR like body with FF M mount? They don't need to worry about jeopardizing their other lens line. It might even be cheaper to manufacture a GRM without the lens and can potentially sell for 2x the price of GR for a greater margin. And there is no competition at the moment.

Hopefully they won't be spending time/effort making a K mount module aka K02.

Cheers,

The current GXR is just fine as is. The camera back/interchangeable fixed lens camera units/M-mount camera unit is a perfectly logical and very functional camera system. It doesn't have to be smaller, it shouldn't be larger.

How can they improve it without changing the format and the basis design thesis?

- update the A12 camera units to use the Sony 16Mpixel sensor. 1-2 stops more sensitivity, a modest but noticeable increase in resolution.

- update the body-camera unit interface to allow for buffered writes, a larger buffer (more exposures in the pipeline for continuous writes), and faster performance.

- improve the shutter release response and shot to shot response times.

- update the EVF to the same spec as the Olympus VF-2 or (more currently) the Olympus VF-4 quality level. Or build a VF-4 class EVF into the body unit (yes, it will grow a little, but that's just fine given it's current size).

- add tilt articulation to the LCD. That's another source of added bulk, but it would make the camera more versatile and would be worth it.

- make body and camera units water sealed.

- update the remote release to not be a battery operated unit with logic to trigger the camera. Totally unnecessary given that nearly everyone else uses a simple double-stage switch circuit.

- add WiFi to the body for remote control capabilities and image file transfer.

In other words, I'd like to see the GXR become a little more 'grown up' with pro-grade camera features. It's still the best non-Leica digital body to use M-bayonet and LTM lenses with, it would be so nice if it included a bit more oomph to the basic features. A bigger sensor is a nice thing, but would raise the costs of development and the end-user price by quite a bit.

G

 

[aleksanderpolo]

While I agree that those would be nice upgrades for current GXR users, I am not sure if those list would attract people who are currently not interested in the original GXR to get in Ricoh. Using the GR and GXR side by side I think the high ISO sensitivity is only about 1 stop of difference between the 12MP and 16MP sensor (the A12 is really not that bad IMHO)? I would certainly NOT upgrade my A12 if the new one is only a 16MP APSC. Faster buffer, better EVF, LCD articulation are nice, but they will only be up to other current mirrorless offering. So, why buy a lensor over a more flexible sensor+lens? For Sigma the attraction is the Foveon. For x100 it's the hybrid finder. For RX1 is the compact size for a FF camera. For GR is the pocketable size. What is the killer feature of a GXR II that would make one give up the flexibility of a lens+sensor?

I think that unless there is something drastically different from other system cameras, most people would just pick a small interchangeable lens system over Ricoh, unless they are already spellbound by the controls like we do.

I could be wrong, of course. 🙂

 

[rbelyell]

to me the only things that need updating on the gxr are better resolution low light performance, better buffering & write speeds, and i'd personally love some kind of fuji-like in-camera panning pano ability. thats really it, as the size is imo perfect.

however, an interesting thought is that in light of fuji's introduction of rf type focusing on the x100s, how about incorporating something like that for us rf lovers (and lovers of more accurate focusing!)

as an aside, is there some benefit to waterproofing the camera when lenses are not waterproofed?

 

[johannielscom]

Frankly, I'm fine with the current GXR-M and my 2006 Heliar 2.0/50mm nickel LTM mounted onto it.

I'd love a full-frame camera but this would still be hard to beat:


20130215_0011838 by johanniels.com, on Flickr

Yes it's slower than other camera's but the time it takes to write a file is about the same as I would need to wind a Barnack or Leica M to the next frame, and I like slowing down while shooting, gives me more time to look and see what I'm doing...😀

 

[Godfrey]

to me the only things that need updating on the gxr are better resolution low light performance, better buffering & write speeds ...

Indeed, those (and shutter responsiveness) are the biggest gains. 🙂

however, an interesting thought is that in light of fuji's introduction of rf type focusing on the x100s, how about incorporating something like that for us rf lovers (and lovers of more accurate focusing!)

I tried this on the Fuji X and found it somewhat annoying in use. When out shooting with the EVF, I have the GXR set to be "sticky" on the magnification and often leave the Focus Assist mode 2 enabled. Target, focus, half-press shutter release to see the whole scene for framing, release shutter. It's fast and fluid if you keep your other eye open, and I find the focusing critically accurate.

as an aside, is there some benefit to waterproofing the camera when lenses are not waterproofed?

This subject was hotly debated on the Micro-FourThirds forums when the Olympus E-M5 was released. My opinion is that, at least with M-mount lenses which have no electronics in them, it's the body that needs the weather sealing far more than the lenses. The only juncture that could present an issue is the lens mount itself, and the GXR-M mount is so precise it would take a dunking or quite a strong dousing to sneak water past the lens mount. It's all the little buttons, dials and jog levers where small amounts of water can sneak past into the body and cause corrosion that I worry about.

Remember, the right term is not "waterproof" ... they're "water resistant" or "weather sealed." Waterproof (IMO again of course) means a submersible camera like the Nikonos. Weather sealed means a reasonable expectation that getting caught in the rain (or a dusty, windy day on the playa) won't amount to a camera overhaul.

G

 

[Godfrey]

Frankly, I'm fine with the current GXR-M and my 2006 Heliar 2.0/50mm nickel LTM mounted onto it.

I'd love a full-frame camera but this would still be hard to beat:


20130215_0011838 by johanniels.com, on Flickr

...

Lovely photo! 🙂

G

 

[rbelyell]

thanks godfrey, totally agree with your points.
tony

 

[johannielscom]

Lovely photo! 🙂

G

Thanks, G. !

🙂