jaimiepeeters
Well-known
Goodmorning guys,
Can somebody tell me their experience between the Ricoh GXR with a Leica lens ( I own a Zeiss Planar 50mmF2) and the Fuji X100.. but mainly image result wise.. and perhaps focussing.
I just discovered that you can place a Leica lens on a Ricoh GXR so I'm pretty stunned right now.
Can somebody tell me their experience between the Ricoh GXR with a Leica lens ( I own a Zeiss Planar 50mmF2) and the Fuji X100.. but mainly image result wise.. and perhaps focussing.
I just discovered that you can place a Leica lens on a Ricoh GXR so I'm pretty stunned right now.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
I have no X100, but the details richness and color on the GXR is stunning. It is just as good as the M8. Different, but same league, imho. Smaller sensor, but much better high-iso performance, if you need that.
Focusing with Mode 2 assist is easy (easier than on my Pentax K5 and different, but not harder than on the Hexar RF I currently enjoy. Only the D700 with magnifier and Ec-S matte was easier, due to auto aperture mostly).
Focusing with Mode 2 assist is easy (easier than on my Pentax K5 and different, but not harder than on the Hexar RF I currently enjoy. Only the D700 with magnifier and Ec-S matte was easier, due to auto aperture mostly).
jaimiepeeters
Well-known
the GXR is not that expensive but how much is the Leica mount adapter? I can't seem to find that anywhere..
fireblade
Vincenzo.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
I paid € 650,-- for Body + Mount
jaimiepeeters
Well-known
That's not inexpensive :O
kanzlr
Hexaneur
depends 
Kavenzmann
Member
Its a totally different league.
I like my X100, but focusing manually is still a pain.
I use the AF on a seperat button with my thumb and use the focusring only for slight adjusts.
Since Firmware 1.2 its a little better but the X100 is not the typical MF camera!
I like it mostly for IQ up to ISO1600 and the overall simplicity and compact size
I take it everywhere. Its a fixed focal length hi quality camera with amazing image results.
I use it wide open most of the time with the integrated ND filter activated.
The GXR is a modul camera and can be pretty much everything. With the A12 M modul you don't just buy a mount adapter but a whole picture unit with 12 MPix chip, microlens array especially designed for M lenses and the M mount itself. Its one of the sharpest and most ideal non-leica crop cameras for rangefinder lenses...
Kavenzmann
I like my X100, but focusing manually is still a pain.
I use the AF on a seperat button with my thumb and use the focusring only for slight adjusts.
Since Firmware 1.2 its a little better but the X100 is not the typical MF camera!
I like it mostly for IQ up to ISO1600 and the overall simplicity and compact size
I take it everywhere. Its a fixed focal length hi quality camera with amazing image results.
I use it wide open most of the time with the integrated ND filter activated.
The GXR is a modul camera and can be pretty much everything. With the A12 M modul you don't just buy a mount adapter but a whole picture unit with 12 MPix chip, microlens array especially designed for M lenses and the M mount itself. Its one of the sharpest and most ideal non-leica crop cameras for rangefinder lenses...
Kavenzmann
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
Very happy with my a12 + Canon/Voigt lenses. But envy my Lumix which can mount the Contax G Planar. So seeking a ZM Planar for the GXR....
This is a far less expensive alternative to the M8. Go for it / no regrets / lots of happy shooting.
This is a far less expensive alternative to the M8. Go for it / no regrets / lots of happy shooting.
GaryLH
Veteran
I have both cameras. I have gxr with the evf... They are two different cameras. Think of the x100 as the digital version of a Konica AF and the gxr with the evf more like a manual focus slr... Some like to use the evf and some just hate it. Gxr ergonomics and handling beats the Sony cameras but Fuji is just as good but different. High iso goes to Fuji, 3200 versus 1600. I like image quality from both cameras. Both cameras can be extremely quiet, but Fuji with leaf shutter is king. Flash synch goes to Fuji due to leaf shutter. If u come from a dslr background u may complain about autofocus speed and shutter lag issues. I have no problems with either one. The tricks I learned from the contax g2 work for me on this camera.
Hope that helps
Gary
Hope that helps
Gary
GaryLH
Veteran
Forgot to mention that at one time there was a rumor about a new m-module sensor for gxr that would be using new Sony 16mp one..for the gxr.
Gary
Gary
kanzlr
Hexaneur
btw you do realize that the X100 has a 23mm lens, so we are talking about completely different FoV here
Adanac
Well-known
Compared to what? A Leica M8 (even used) or Leica M9? Yes, it is inexpensive. The GXR plus Mount A12 plus the optional EVF costs less than a new Zeiss Ikon film rangefinder too. It costs about the same as a Sony NEX-7.
The two cameras are quite different. The X100 is at its heart an autofocus /single lens/ camera that has a hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder.
The GXR with the Mount A12 installed is a manual focus /interchangeable lens/ camera. It has good support for focusing lenses, and is arguably the best digital host for M lenses other than a Leica M8 or M9, although for some a NEX-5N also makes a terrific host for M lenses. The NEX-7 and Fuji X-Pro 1 are other options but carry a little baggage.
I used to own a X100; even though I used it extensively and have also used the Ricoh GXR for some time now, I would not be able to compare the two in a meaningful way.
With good lenses on the GXR, in general, you should be happy if not thrilled with the performance. I'm very pleased with how all my Zeiss lenses behave on the GXR. With lenses ranging from 18mm through 75mm, including the ZM50/2, without comparing even one other dimension of the two cameras I can declare the GXR a winner over the X100. For me that boon is flexibility.
For myself I found the fixed lens on the X100 both a boon and a curse. You can travel lighter and don't need to think about lens selection ever. But there are many times when I want a wider field of view, and sometimes when I want longer, and I want all of the above out of my every day carry camera.
Two different cameras. Both great. Ultimately the GXR will cost you more, because if you want a similar 35mm effective field of view, you'll need to consider a new lens in the range of 21 - 25mm.
rbelyell
Well-known
i would think of them as 'complimentary' vs 'competitive' in your bag. the gxr has no low light/high iso 35mm f2.0 FOV equivalent lens option. so both can happily co-exist in your bag!
Archiver
Veteran
The images of the GXR M-module have a very different look from the X100's. I am really enjoying my X100 and use it for everyday shooting, and I use the GXR and the appropriate lens for many different things.
To my eye, the GXR images have a 'thickness' or density/depth that the X100 doesn't. The X100's colour is also very different, tending to strong blues, yellows and reds. The GXR colours are vivid but more even handed and reveal subtle shading that the X100 sometimes doesn't quite capture, although that could also be due to my postprocessing technique.
We all know that the X100 is soft and glowy at f2, especially at closer distances. The GXR + modern f2 rangefinder lens has none of these issues. Even the Zeiss Sonnar f1.5 looks an absolute treat wide open.
To my eye, the GXR images have a 'thickness' or density/depth that the X100 doesn't. The X100's colour is also very different, tending to strong blues, yellows and reds. The GXR colours are vivid but more even handed and reveal subtle shading that the X100 sometimes doesn't quite capture, although that could also be due to my postprocessing technique.
We all know that the X100 is soft and glowy at f2, especially at closer distances. The GXR + modern f2 rangefinder lens has none of these issues. Even the Zeiss Sonnar f1.5 looks an absolute treat wide open.
zwarte_kat
Well-known
I have both.
I vastly prefer the look of the image coming from the GXR. I have the 28mm biogon and 50mm Sonnar. Actually, when the shot is taken well, it looks better then pretty much anything, except maybe the M8/M9 at lower iso.
However, the X100, which I also own, is a much more usable camera, sometimes slow AF, but I never regretted taking it anywhere. I regretted bringing the GXR several times, when I wanted a wider lens, or a better flash, or auto focus. As you start solving these issues with the external EVF and more lenses, you bulk up. I often bring my x100 in my jacket pocket, and it's much more pocketable than the GXR plus Planar plus evf, I even have problems putting that one in my domke now. I sometimes even put the x100 in my jeans' ass pocket to get my hands free. And I don't have a big ass
The flash on the x100 is awesome, low light performance is awesome (though the GXR is not bad in low light and files are very easy to clean in post)
The GXR is JUST for image quality IMO, when you have time to compose and focus. Look at the "post your GXR m-mount images" thread, there are many still lives and landscape type of shots. For more dynamic on the move shots the X100, the "always with you camera".
BTW I would never get the a12 mount if I didn't have M Lenses. And if you only have a 50, than that will become a 75mm field of view.
I vastly prefer the look of the image coming from the GXR. I have the 28mm biogon and 50mm Sonnar. Actually, when the shot is taken well, it looks better then pretty much anything, except maybe the M8/M9 at lower iso.
However, the X100, which I also own, is a much more usable camera, sometimes slow AF, but I never regretted taking it anywhere. I regretted bringing the GXR several times, when I wanted a wider lens, or a better flash, or auto focus. As you start solving these issues with the external EVF and more lenses, you bulk up. I often bring my x100 in my jacket pocket, and it's much more pocketable than the GXR plus Planar plus evf, I even have problems putting that one in my domke now. I sometimes even put the x100 in my jeans' ass pocket to get my hands free. And I don't have a big ass
The flash on the x100 is awesome, low light performance is awesome (though the GXR is not bad in low light and files are very easy to clean in post)
The GXR is JUST for image quality IMO, when you have time to compose and focus. Look at the "post your GXR m-mount images" thread, there are many still lives and landscape type of shots. For more dynamic on the move shots the X100, the "always with you camera".
BTW I would never get the a12 mount if I didn't have M Lenses. And if you only have a 50, than that will become a 75mm field of view.
AndrewNYC
Established
However with a APS-C Sensor
However with a APS-C Sensor
So effectively a 35mm.
However with a APS-C Sensor
btw you do realize that the X100 has a 23mm lens, so we are talking about completely different FoV here
So effectively a 35mm.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
it has the same angle of view as a 35mm lens on 135 film.
you could also say it is effectively a 17.5mm, if you come from a 4/3ds perspective, etc.
I usually carry the GXR with a 28mm M-Hexanon. Wonderful setup, easy to focus, works for social events, too.
The file quality is amazing, and I prefer it to the M8 I sold in EVERY way, except that focusing a stopped down lens is not as precise as working with a rangefinder.
you could also say it is effectively a 17.5mm, if you come from a 4/3ds perspective, etc.
I usually carry the GXR with a 28mm M-Hexanon. Wonderful setup, easy to focus, works for social events, too.
The file quality is amazing, and I prefer it to the M8 I sold in EVERY way, except that focusing a stopped down lens is not as precise as working with a rangefinder.