Ricoh GXR A12 Mount compared with Leica M8/M9

I had the GXR prior to the M mount module and now use a NEX-5N with M glass. The GXR has the best ergonomics out of M8, NEX and GXR. It fits nicely in the hand, is well made, has a good menu structure, superb button layout and is very customizable.
The NEX-5N lacks the buttons and dials, sadly. Also, while it is more customizable than the older NEX. The one thing the NEX has over the GXR is the superior viewfinder and the nice peaking function.

Imagequalitywise, while I have not shot a direct comparison, the NEX is superb, mostly due to the low AA filter the resolution is very high, high-ISO performance is superb (just like the Pentax K5, simliar sensor afaik), easily one stop superior to the GXR (That itself is already rather good).

If I knew the M mount module was coming, I would have kept the GXR. But seeing how superior the 5N EVF is, the NEX makes more sense for now.

Image quality means only so much if the shooting experience is not satisfactory.
 
OVFs, EVFs, etc

OVFs, EVFs, etc

When I first bought the GXR I was concerned about the lack of OVF or built-in EVF. I'm a Leica M shooter and I thought it was going to be difficult. After shooting with the GXR with EVF for a week, I became really use to the EVF to the point where it didn't hinder me. I really like the TTL as well. There have been many times while shooting my Leica where Parallax error ruined a shot. I think he beauty of the GXR VF is that it's upgradable and if you don't want to use it for some reason, you can just take it off. And iF you really want an OVF, then just buy a voigtlander external VF for your desired focal length.

I was enthralled with the idea of the Nex-7 and built-in VF, but the more I think about it the more I don't like the idea. The NEX 7 will have the same VF for it's life. It's not upgradable and if the VF malfunctions, well, the whole camera is might be lost.
 
spencewine said:
I was enthralled with the idea of the Nex-7 and built-in VF, but the more I think about it the more I don't like the idea. The NEX 7 will have the same VF for it's life. It's not upgradable and if the VF malfunctions, well, the whole camera is might be lost.
Click to expand...

Sad truth is that once the Sony will get out another major update of the EVF (like the current was) in a year or two there is a good chance that it will not be compatible with the current models like the current one is not compatible with the NEX-5. And I would not expect anything else from the future GXR updates. For the EVF to work it needs to be compatible with what the sensor and in camera electronics can deliver.

Any digital camera produced today will be "old fashioned" (that does NOT mean that it will not continue doing a good job) in a few years. It is OK, we can handle this ;)
 
Matus said:
Sad truth is that once the Sony will get out another major update of the EVF (like the current was) in a year or two there is a good chance that it will not be compatible with the current models like the current one is not compatible with the NEX-5. And I would not expect anything else from the future GXR updates. For the EVF to work it needs to be compatible with what the sensor and in camera electronics can deliver.

Any digital camera produced today will be "old fashioned" (that does NOT mean that it will not continue doing a good job) in a few years. It is OK, we can handle this ;)
Click to expand...

Probably true. It would be ironic if Ricoh updated the EVF and it was incompatible with the current GXR and M-module. After all, the M-module is designed to be compatible with 60 years worth of M lenses. :bang:
 
I have a a trial GXR and M Mount coming to me tomorrow from importer here in NZ. I have been a little disillusioned with my M9 recently and that pushed me more toward film which I am well catered for. Makes me wonder if I should keep my M9 which is why I am going to trial GXR for a couple of days. If I purchase I will definitely get evf but I amready have 21/25, 35, 50 vfs so if zone focusing I will be sweet. Looking forward also to the comparison mentioned above because I also have a Nex 5n coming.
 
I'd like to see this, too. I also find it curious that Dpreview hasn't published their full review while the preview has been up for months and months...did Ricoh tell people not to review the A12 because an A16 was coming?

I can't really imagine. The A12 is really quite good. The A16 will be better, if the Nex 5n is any gauge.
 
Hi Stephen... Any news? It's been 4 months...

Hi Stephen... Any news? It's been 4 months...

CameraQuest said:
actually,
at least one detailed,
quality M8.2 vs M9 vs Ricoh M comparison is underway
and will be published in the next week or so.

Stephen
Click to expand...

Hello Stephen,

it's been 4 months... Any chance of ever seeing that comparison?

I have bought the GXR with Mount A12 already, but I'd still be very interested in your opinion...

Thank you very very much...
Kind regards from Cologne,
Michael
 
GXR and M9

GXR and M9

I'm also interested in whatever that phantom author might say comparing the GXR to M cameras.

Meanwhile, I'm using a GXR M mount, recently acquired, as a second body to my M9. I'm sorry that I got the GXR so recently that I don't have any good pictures to post nor do I have A/B comparisons.

I can tell you, though, that although I'd kind of prefer to have a second M9 body, the GXR is a very good second choice in my opinion.

I will be interested in the reviews and all that, but now that I'm using both cameras I am pretty sure there are no unexpected downsides.

  • Supports telephoto lenses
  • Has microlenses that do seem to work well with M lenses including wide-angles
  • Has no antialiasing filter. The images look better to me than what I get with M lenses mounted on M4/3 cameras
  • Feels great in the hands--solid and robust feeling magnesium
  • Can use 3 "My Settings" positions on the top mode switch for lens settings
  • Excellent focusing aids compare favorably with an optical rangefinder--they work OK at medium small apertures, too

I never used an Epson RD-1. So, for me this is the first non-Leica digital body that fulfills the mission of "digital body for M lenses."

I got tired of waiting for new solutions to this need and decided to try the Ricoh out, and I am even more pleased than I thought I'd be.

I toyed briefly with the idea of a used M8 or 8.2 as a second body--why not go that route, I said, since I am willing to settle for a smaller sensor? Oh wait, I answered myself--it's because I could not stand having all those IR/UV filters and having to take them on and off lenses when I switched between bodies.

The only thing better, for me, would be a camera from one of the m4/3 companies that had all these features--including a sensor that did right by M lenses--and that also used the excellent m4/3 lenses. Part of my point here, besides the fact that I own some of those nice ones and don't want to give them up, is that I am not sure what Ricoh will do with this system in the future--more modules, more lenses, anything?

Tom
 
Hi Tom. This is a somewhat slow thread.
There are some comparisons between Ricoh and others.

I possess and like the small thing (2 months). I even make it larger with the Hoodman lens.
The APS format is better than m43, if you like wa. The 12mm is now an 18mm, that is very wide still.
On the other side I am experimenting with the Canon 135mm LTM (as a 200er).
As a standard lens I use the Canon 28mm f/2.8.
But I haven't tried large prints yet, only monitor work till now.

I use the fullscreen focussing method with or without mode1.
The lens database isn't very good (described) in my opinion.
The only lens correction function I use is the one against vignetting for the 12mm. Also, because I use this lens wide (f/5.6!) open most of the time.

I am thinking of buying a modern lens Leica 21, 24 or 28mm as a standard lens. The problem is, that I am not unhappy with the Canon 28mm. Does it make sense then?
Jan
 
jankapp said:
Hi Tom. This is a somewhat slow thread.
There are some comparisons between Ricoh and others.

I possess and like the small thing (2 months). I even make it larger with the Hoodman lens.
The APS format is better than m43, if you like wa. The 12mm is now an 18mm, that is very wide still.
On the other side I am experimenting with the Canon 135mm LTM (as a 200er).
As a standard lens I use the Canon 28mm f/2.8.
But I haven't tried large prints yet, only monitor work till now.

I use the fullscreen focussing method with or without mode1.
The lens database isn't very good (described) in my opinion.
The only lens correction function I use is the one against vignetting for the 12mm. Also, because I use this lens wide (f/5.6!) open most of the time.

I am thinking of buying a modern lens Leica 21, 24 or 28mm as a standard lens. The problem is, that I am not unhappy with the Canon 28mm. Does it make sense then?
Jan
Click to expand...

Hi, Jan.

How about sharing your settings for the 12mm (which I assume is the Cosina-Voigtlander 12mm). I have the same lens but have not yet tried it out on the Ricoh. You'd be saving me some time experimenting with different settings.

I like 35mm lenses, so a 21mm as the "standard" makes sense to me, yes. Have you tried the CV 21mm? I have one of those and am happy with the quality. You could stick a 35mm optical finder on there and shoot with abandon.


Tom
 
At this point, a M8/GXR comparison is so belated its value may be restricted to those considering buying a used one or the other (or both, since the price points are utterly different). Leica is 2 generations or iterations past M8; Ricoh has no GXRII rolling out.

I have no comparison to offer either, but a slightly different angle: my Leicas are film cameras (M4, CL, IIIc, Canon P), and my GXR is sometimes their digital chaperone, sometimes their digital surrogate. Its cost with the Leica mount and EVF is about what I invested in the M4 and CL. I'm quite with its workings and IQ, and shoot it as manually as the CL or my OM4. The $2400 invested in the GXR, M4 and CL might have gotten me one M8. In hindsight, I'm happy having more options in body feel, format and focal length for the lenses these cameras can share.
 
Tom Diaz said:
Hi, Jan.

How about sharing your settings for the Cosina-Voigtlander 12mm. I have the same lens but have not yet tried it out on the Ricoh. You'd be saving me some time experimenting with different settings.

I like 35mm lenses, so a 21mm as the "standard" makes sense to me, yes. Have you tried the CV 21mm? I have one of those and am happy with the quality. Tom
Click to expand...

The problem with these correction tools is, that they are dependent of the f-stop. See as an example:
http://de.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/139.html
Technische Daten and then Vignettierung.
I made a test session with the CV 12mm, photographing a landscape with plain grass. I use the CV 12mm at f/5.6 only, so I only tested this f-stop. I have chosen for +2.

The M9 makes corrections too, because it knows what lens is being used (6 bit coding). But it does not know the f-stop, so ....

The Super Heliar seems to be very good mechanically, I´ll have a look after the CV 21mm. Thanks.
Jan
 
rhl-oregon said:
The $2400 invested in the GXR, M4 and CL might have gotten me one M8. In hindsight, I'm happy having more options in body feel, format and focal length for the lenses these cameras can share.
Click to expand...

Also my idea. The Ricoh is built very well, the Leicas are overbuilt (too heavy) for my practice as an amateur.
On the other hand the M-mount does not fit in the lensor concept. It is relatively thick with 45mm. Also the built in flash light is a joke, naturally.

Leica should make a jump to more electronics too, I think. The range finding mechanism is an advantage of M and LTM lenses. Why not explore it with electronics? Then the range finding could be integrated into the display and the EVF, as modeM besides mode1 and mode2.

On the other hand, the existing group of customers seems to be very important for Leica (see the new M-E). So one can explain the trend to conservatism.

Well built lenses are more important, the lenses make the pictures. Leica is famous for its mechanical constructions. Tolerances aren't mentioned in the reviews of lenses. Also MTF curves are seldom seen in the reviews.
Jan
 
jankapp said:
...

The Super Heliar seems to be very good mechanically, I´ll have a look after the CV 21mm. Thanks.
Jan
Click to expand...

The 12mm seems to be more carefully made than the 21mm. Maybe it has to be, to hold everything together as specified. Anyway, the 21 is much less expensive and does seem good optically. It also is very compact!

Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom