Ricoh GXR A12 Mount compared with Leica M8/M9

[hausen]

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.

[carpediem007]

Originally Posted by CameraQuest

was delayed, but should be published this week
now it also includes the Nex 5n

Stephen

Hi... :-)

Any news?

Thank you...

[carpediem007]

4 weeks ago Stephen wrote:

Originally Posted by CameraQuest

was delayed, but should be published this week
now it also includes the Nex 5n

Stephen

Originally Posted by carpediem007

Hi... :-)

Any news?

Thank you...

Just a bump... & sorry for being a "nudnik"... :-)

[carpediem007]

another bump... :-)

[dreilly]

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.

[carpediem007]

Originally Posted by CameraQuest

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

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

[donz]

Comparison gone with the wind ?

[Tom Diaz]

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

[jankapp]

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

[Tom Diaz]

Originally Posted by jankapp

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

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

[rhl-oregon]

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.

[jankapp]

Originally Posted by Tom Diaz

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

The problem with these correction tools is, that they are dependent of the f-stop. See as an example:
http://de.leica-camera.com/photograp...enses/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

[jankapp]

See also this one:
http://de.leica-camera.com/photograp...enses/129.html
for differences in fstops.
Jan

[jankapp]

Originally Posted by rhl-oregon

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.

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

[Tom Diaz]

Originally Posted by jankapp

...

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

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

[Tom Diaz]

Originally Posted by jankapp

The problem with these correction tools is, that they are dependent of the f-stop. See as an example:
http://de.leica-camera.com/photograp...enses/139.html
Technische Daten and then Vignettierung.

Jan

Jan,

I looked at the vignetting data for the 24mm f/1.4. (By the way, do you actually own that gorgeous lens?) The Y axis shows light falloff as you move away from the center, where "100%" means "no vignetting." Doesn't that mean that 0% equals 1 f/stop of falloff?

Anyway, the X value of interest would be 10-12 mm, right? The edge of an APS-C sensor is about that far from the center. Anyway, difference between f/5.6 and f/1.4 is about 25%. I'm not sure how may stops that equals--1/4?

If my reasoning is valid, which it may not be, it seems like a vignetting correction for wide open would be reasonably good for a couple of stops down, too.

Tom

[jankapp]

No, no, this is just an example.
The diagonal of full format is 42mm (43,2mm to be exact). This gives an X value of 14mm (radius and crop factor).
The Y value of 5.6 at 14mm is 60%, that is almost one f-stop from the ideal value (100%).
At 1.4 it is 30%, that is another full f-stop less.
Jan

[Tom Diaz]

Originally Posted by jankapp

No, no, this is just an example.
The diagonal of full format is 42mm (43,2mm to be exact). This gives an X value of 14mm (radius and crop factor).
The Y value of 5.6 at 14mm is 60%, that is almost one f-stop from the ideal value (100%).
At 1.4 it is 30%, that is another full f-stop less.
Jan

1. OK. In that case I can see the reason to aim the vignetting correction at whatever aperture you use most frequently. With something like the 24mm f/1.4, I'd probably be shooting wide open a lot, because that's the reason for owning the lens!

2. Just checking my math: is the factor of light falloff the antilog of the percentage of falloff? If so, then "60%" means a falloff of 2.5x (antilog .4), even more than one stop. Please set me straight if this is not the right formula.

Tom

[jankapp]

Isn't it like exposure times, f-stops and ISOs? Double or half.

One f-stop is 50% of the light (-intensity), two f-stops are 25%, etc.
At the top: 100% means no f-stop compensation necessary. And 0% means absolutely no light in this area, say an infinity number of f-stops .

I propose the following formula: y = 1/log(2.) * log(1/x)
where
x is the light fall-off in parts (in stead of 25% -> 0.25).
y the vignetting in f-stops
log function at base 10
constant log(2.)=0.30103

These compensations (M9 and Ricoh) stay emergency measures. In these areas the electric current is amplified simply, giving the same effect as in Photoshop, namely more noise. The light (the information) is dimmed in these areas.
Jan
PS
A light fall-off of 60% gives 0.74. So between 2/3 and 1 f-stop.

[Pete B]

Still no m9/GXR noise comparison?
Pete