Comments on: (FT5) Continually updated -> The Ricoh GXR is here!!! Not really a MicroFourThirds competitor!?!?

By: pgoros

pgoros — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:42:43 +0000

I love seeing out-of-the-box thinking and Ricoh is no stranger to innovation, but I think this one’s going to be a flop. If the lens and sensor weren’t mated, then I think it would have been a different story.

By: Boyan

Boyan — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:33:44 +0000

Innovative but useless

By: Enche Tjin

Enche Tjin — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:47:50 +0000

Also consider this, 50mm with APS-C sensor (bigger than 4:3) plus the sensor is specially designed and optimized with the lens. total price is $830.

Leica 45mm f/2.8 Macro stand alone is $899

which one is more spendy?

By: Enche Tjin

Enche Tjin — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:35:07 +0000

In defense, Ricoh GR 50mm f/2.5 macro should not be compared to 20mm f/1.7, they are different lens. It is closer to Leica 45mm f/2.8 macro which is bigger.

for 24-70mm + small sensor, there is a time/situation where you want depth of field rather than shallow depth of field, and also there is a time when you like versatility of zoom and small, pocket-able size.

You can argue rather to buy the module, why not buying compact camera instead. Yes, you can, but you need to carry extra bulk and learn and adapt to two camera interface.

With GRX, you don’t have to, because the interface, buttons everything are the same.

By: robm

robm — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:41:31 +0000

all I can say is, it makes no sense. Regardless of the attempt by Ricoh to think outside of the box, if I put it into the context of actually using a type of camera for a specific situation… I’m left with only contradictions and confusing.
1. the 50mm (35 equivalent) f2.5 is big and slow. compared to the gf-1 40mm (35 eq) f1.7, the gf-1 remains small even though the sensor is nearly the same size.
2. the 24-70 (35 eq) f.25-4.4 is small and so is it’s sensor so it’s basically a glorified poor low light point and shoot. and it’s not as small as a p & s.
3. I would have to adjust constantly to using a different sensor and attendant sensor characteristics.
4. seriously, how many sensors do I really need? that can’t be cheap. it makes more sense to just have the sensor replaceable (sorta like different focusing screens) so that the lenses would take on different characteristics based on the changed ratio factor.
5. a pancake lens on a gf-1 or ep-2 is small and easily the same size as the smallest from this new camera can be, but it doesn’t loose on poor low light shooting because the ricoh needs a micro sensor to get the lens size down.
6. if I needed top notch lenses (either primes, if they were made , or fast zooms), I just need to swap lenses. but, of course, I would have to carry them with me. with the ricoh, I would have to carry more lens/sensor combos too, but would they make such top flight lenses for it? I doubt it if their 50 prime is that slow and that big.

my point is if you actually anticipate using this thing for the different purposes different lens/sensor combos offer, it doesn’t stack up to the versatility that a conventional system offers, especially an m4/3 camera. Yes it’s great to have new sensors without buying the whole camera, but then one begs the question: why not just replaceable sensors?

this camera seems too big compared to a real p&s, too limiting compared to large sensor cameras, and too wasteful/spendy having to buy a lens with a sensor.

regards,
rm

By: David Bateman

David Bateman — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:17:33 +0000

I really like the concept. One major advantage of digital MF is that the lens, camera and sensor can all be changed. This is similar, but people will have to get used to it.

Why, I don’t think it will sell is the cost. Very expensive!! And it is missing a critical element for the cost, A name.

Sony is doing very well in the market, because of the sony name, and more critical the Zeiss name on there best lens. I own Olympus, but would love to have A850 with the zeiss 85mm f1.4 (the only high quality zeiss that auto focuses, auto apterture!)

Panasonic does very well with the Leica name.

So if Ricoh whats this to work, they should team up with a medium format company and call this a pocket MF Digital. In that case Hassy would be the best name as the H3D was called the best DSLR.

By: guwi

guwi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:59:21 +0000

japanese website Ricoh: http://www.ricoh.co.jp/dc/gxr/index.html?sscl=rtop_gxr
GXR special site: http://www.ricoh.co.jp/dc/gxr/special/

By: central squared

central squared — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:02:33 +0000

This is so innovative! So many people are beating this down when they should be applauding new ideas and technology. I think this seems like a super cool idea, with the possibilities being almost endless for various modules. You can match specific lenses with sensors and price accordingly. Not an entry level system, but if the image quality is good, this could be great.

By: say ricoh

say ricoh — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:44:44 +0000

WHICH ONE WOULD YOU PREFER UPGRADE

LENS OR SENSOR ?

I WOULD SAY BOTH !!!!!!!!!!!

By: Danz

Danz — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:22:00 +0000

Typical hate. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.

Me, I’m waiting for the full review and IQ reports. But I’m liking the fact there lens will never get dirty when changing.

Afterwards, I’ll check out the ergonomics at my local cam shop.

Then that’s when I’ll make a decision to either love it. Or not.

Will they come up with a full frame sensor + lens combo for that form factor is my real query.

By: WT

WT — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:39:03 +0000

I wonder if they’ll have a sensor/lens combo where the sensor is small to give you a super-zoom in a small package, but a larger sensor for normal and WA. That’d be interesting.

But, this has got to be the UGLIEST camera seen in several years! This thing makes Kodak point and shoots look fashionable.