Ricoh or Fuji X Pro 1

[jl-lb.ms]

Considering selling my Ricoh M Mount kit to get a Fuji X Pro 1. Improvement, neutral, or worse?

Talk among yourselves. Discuss.

 

[burancap]

I have (had) both. Quite different. The M mount results were a toss up I suppose. The big difference is the native mounts -there is really not a stinker amongst the XF lenses and they are doing nothing but getting better. Get the XP, fall in love, and keep it as a backup when the Mk. II should ever launch. It is one digital from a very short list of what I would classify as near lifetime type of cameras.

 

[f16sunshine]

Great lenses that mount on no other body.
Hybrid finder is the real deal even if it takes some getting used to.
The Xpro1 is a really nice camera but so is the Ricoh.
If you have any inclination towards wanting AF and super yet inexpensive Primes to mount.... go for the fuji.
Check out the XE2 also. The EVF so if having an Optical finder is not a big deal for you... the XE2 may be a better expenditure.
IQ is identical. XE2 EVF is a pretty good improvement over the EVF in the Xpro1.
As well the XE2 has some excellent Manual focus aids that the Xpro1 does not have.

Cheers!

 

[truefriendship]

Keep the Ricoh M Mount kit - full stop.

~Rif

 

[CliveC]

I own both. Low light conditions aside, I like the GXR more. The focus peaking on the X-Pro1 isn't that great in my opinion. I also greatly prefer the controls on the GXR for some reason.

That being said, ISO 3200 isn't usable on the GXR whereas even 6400 could do in a pinch on the X-Pro1.

At low ISO, I may even give an edge to the GXR with M Mount.

 

[truefriendship]

Technically, the X-Pro1 is a better camera/system.

Go that route if you value progress and a modern rendering.

For me, the GXR with vintage glass yields more soul.


~Rif

 

[jsrockit]

For me, the GXR with vintage glass yields more soul.

Wow really? Please explain...

 

[stompyq]

Technically, the X-Pro1 is a better camera/system.

Go that route if you value progress and a modern rendering.

For me, the GXR with vintage glass yields more soul.


~Rif

I want to hear this too. What the heck does "yields more soul" even mean?

 

[kuuan]

Technically, the X-Pro1 is a better camera/system.

Go that route if you value progress and a modern rendering.

For me, the GXR with vintage glass yields more soul.


~Rif

for I don't own the X-Pro1 I therefore can't say if the GXR yields 'more soul', but I do confirm that the GXR M, specially with vintage glass, does yield soul, tones of it.

for those who can't understand the wording, I believe that in English it is called 'descriptive language' and mind that the concept of 'soul' alone is as much as impossible to 'explain'. I'd say that the GXR M module renders the characteristics, specially colors of vintage lenses very truthfully ( something which imo most CMOS sensors are failing in and CCDs used to do better. )

 

[willie_901]

CMOS and CCD sensors both use semiconductor pinned photodiodes to convert light energy to electrical charge. The main differences involve photodiode control-circuit design, sensor manufacturing process and where the physical location of the downstream electronics. (link, link).

This is not to imply the Ricoh's rendering with M mount lenses is not preferred to the X-Pro 1's. I have no experience in with M mount lenses on these bodies.

However the rendering differences are due to other factors such as the lens mount registration distance, color-filter array frequency bandwidth characteristics, pixel pitch or aspects of post-production rendering.

There is nothing unique about how CCD or CMOS sensors use the photoelectric effect to generate analog signals in visible-light digital imaging. Once the signal is created in the semiconductor well, there are differences in the signal paths. But what counts (creating DC voltages proportional to the light flux) is essentially similar.

 

[stompyq]

for I don't own the X-Pro1 I therefore can't say if the GXR yields 'more soul', but I do confirm that the GXR M, specially with vintage glass, does yield soul, tones of it.

for those who can't understand the wording, I believe that in English it is called 'descriptive language' and mind that the concept of 'soul' alone is as much as impossible to 'explain'. I'd say that the GXR M module renders the characteristics, specially colors of vintage lenses very truthfully ( something which imo most CMOS sensors are failing in and CCDs used to do better. )

Can you post some of these miraculously soulful images? I frankly want to see what your talking about

 

[kuuan]

CMOS and CCD sensors both use semiconductor pinned photodiodes to convert light energy to electrical charge. The main differences involve photodiode control-circuit design, sensor manufacturing process and where the physical location of the downstream electronics. (link, link).

This is not to imply the Ricoh's rendering with M mount lenses is not preferred to the X-Pro 1's. I have no experience in with M mount lenses on these bodies.

However the rendering differences are due to other factors such as the lens mount registration distance, color-filter array frequency bandwidth characteristics, pixel pitch or aspects of post-production rendering.

There is nothing unique about how CCD or CMOS sensors use the photoelectric effect to generate analog signals in visible-light digital imaging. Once the signal is created in the semiconductor well, there are differences in the signal paths. But what counts (creating DC voltages proportional to the light flux) is essentially similar.

I believe every word you say.
My observation is not founded by any science, in the contrary, but one that had been shared by a rather large number of users during the first years of CMOS sensors.

 

[kuuan]

Can you post some of these miraculously soulful images? I frankly want to see what your talking about

no miraculously soulful images to show, but possibly for you to discover: http://www.flickr.com/search/?details=1&q=ricoh%20gxr%20M or http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=ricoh+gxr+m+module&m=tags&ss=2&ct=0&mt=all&w=all&adv=1 or http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=ricoh+gxr+a12&m=tags&ss=2&ct=0&mt=all&w=all&adv=1
( I much hope that these flickr searches for "Ricoh GXR M" resp. "ricoh GXR A12" indeed show images taken with the GXR M, not only 'of' the GXR M, for I am on dreadfully slow connection and only a handful of images load I can't verify )

to be clear: this is not intended as an argument against the Fuji which also is noted for the beautiful colors it renders!
for the OP a few points in favour of the more modern Fujis:
they certainly must be faster than the slow GXR, if one uses AF lenses there certainly is a much larger number of very good Fuji X lenses available than GXR modules, if one uses adapted RF lenses the short register of the X mount allows the use of an helicoid adapter for much closer minimum focus distance

 

[Kwesi]

This is turning out to be quite the "soulful" debate.
My Take - Buy the xPro 1 if you intend to take advantage of the Fuji XF Lenses,-.
They are great and inexpensive compared to M lenses from Leica.
The Xpro 1 with its M mount adapter was intended to be no more than a stop gap measure for Fuji while it ramped up its own line of lenses. Now that thats done you won't see any more attempt by fuji to improve upon how their cameras interact with legacy lenses. Especially in OVF mode.
Buy the Ricoh if your main aim is to use legacy lenses.

 

[rhl-oregon]

Do you also have a GR or GRD? Ricoh haptics--the dial and jog wheel, flash & preview button placement-- are so nice for right handed shooting that the 2 cameras make a great compact pair. I sometimes get a bit wrong-handed when I alternate between the XE1 and GR; never between the GXR and GR. And though my sensible self says I should sell the GXR kit as redundant, discontinued, etc., whenever I use it, its capabilities and feel and best results give me a joy peculiar to it. I also TLR-style focusing, and can get that from the GXR VF. (With the XPro I think you can adapt a Nikon F 90 degree finder; with my XE, no.) The most recent 10 images in my rff gallery are the GXR, 50 1.5 ZM in Seattle, most of them focused with 45-90 degree VF, if only to show examples from how I like to use the GXR/M.

If you want iso 6400, a builtin VF (less prone to accidents than the gxr accessory finder) with its 'optical option,' and access to XF lenses at some point--and want to be stringent about limiting the number of overlapping-function cameras in your household, this is a good time to offer the GXR kit for sale (they seem to sell pretty quickly on rff) and to get a nice secondhand X camera.

Like Rif, I'll keep my GXR and XE1.

 

[Bike Tourist]

I have no experience with Ricoh. I sold my X-Pro1 last year, only to buy another one this year. It's that good — at least for me. No one can predict what you'll think of it. To me it's the closest thing to a reasonably priced digital rangefinder-style camera with interchangeable lenses (excellent ones). Add to that the Fuji firmware upgrades that improve performance and the interesting lens roadmap and, well . . . you can tell I'm sold on the X-Pro1.

 

[nongfuspring]

Considering selling my Ricoh M Mount kit to get a Fuji X Pro 1. Improvement, neutral, or worse?

Talk among yourselves. Discuss.

The GXR M and the XP1 are both unique and completely different. If you'd like people to give you useful feedback how about some context? Why are you unsatisfied with the GXR? If you had an XP1 would you buy fuji lenses or use M mount? Do you want autofocus or not?

 

[truefriendship]

Maybe I shouldn't have used that word (soullful). Maybe I've been reading too much "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" 😱

If I said that, for me, film has more soul than digital, or the V1 pre-aspherical Summilux has more soul than later lux's, would that make sense to you? Or does that open an even bigger can o' worms? 😱

~Rif

 

[jl-lb.ms]

The GXR M and the XP1 are both unique and completely different. If you'd like people to give you useful feedback how about some context? Why are you unsatisfied with the GXR? If you had an XP1 would you buy fuji lenses or use M mount? Do you want autofocus or not?

So, I'm really fond of the style of the Fuji, not exactly the most profound reason for wanting it. But I'd not want to downgrade in performance for style only. I'd probably eventually get some Fuji lenses, but only M mount lenses at first. If the X pro had the split image feature, it would be a no brainer.

 

[willie_901]

I believe every word you say.
My observation is not founded by any science, in the contrary, but one that had been shared by a rather large number of users during the first years of CMOS sensors.

I do not doubt the anecdotal evidence you mention about the preference for the rendering of certain cameras that happen to have older, lower signal-to-noise ratio CCD sensors.

The point is whatever advantage they posses is not related to how the semiconductor sensor array is designed and manufactured. The pin photodiode process is not unique to CCD or CMOS semiconductor arrays.

What may be unique are other properties of the total sensor design – especially the properties of the color filter array. The less the red, blue and green filters pass other frequencies than red, blue or green, the more closely the data (spatial electrical charge) matches the mathematical requirements of the Bayer interpolation algorithms. Unfortunately the total light energy is reduced as well. So the trade off is color rendering/tonality or more signal. Some brands went for signal-to-noise ratio while other brands choose rendering/tonality. In those early years consumers purchased brands with the properties they felt were important. This is not necessarily the situation right now.

Oddly I have not read many complaints about the rendering/tonality of Leica digital cameras with newer CMOS technology. I suspect this is because Leica uses high quality color-filter array technologies in both their older CCD and newer CMOS sensors.