Ricoh GXR gets an APS-C M-module in Autumn 2011

jorgen83 · 01-31-2011

Ricoh has today announced the development of a Leica lens mount unit for its GXR camera system.

Planned for release in the autumn, the GXR Lens Mount Unit will allow photographers to use Leica M-mount lenses on the GXR.

A mock-up version of the unit is due to go on show at the CP+ Camera & Photo Imaging Show in Japan from 9 February.

A spokesman for Ricoh Japan said: 'The lens mount unit is being designed to make the best use of the optical characteristics of the lenses mounted.

'It will have as its image sensor a 23.6x15.7mm (APS-C size: total pixels approx. 12.90 million) CMOS sensor, and it will feature a newly-developed focal plane shutter.'

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...ws_305321.html

Benjamin Marks · 02-01-2011

Pretty bold! If it materializes, it will be really interesting to see how the image quality stacks up against the NEX sensor with legacy lenses. It will also be interesting to see how they solve the 'light at an oblique angle to the sensor" problem that seems to have been a chief bugbear of Leica designers for the M8 sensor. Such a module would have to take lenses from 18mm through 135 . . .

Ben Marks

berlincontemporary · 02-01-2011

So what? Another APS-C digital. Full frame or go away.

Bobfrance · 02-01-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by berlincontemporary

So what? Another APS-C digital. Full frame or go away.

I have to agree. There are plenty of cameras that can be adapted to take M-mount, however this is a purpose designed module that only takes M-mount. I know there is a cost issue, but going ahead with a less than FF sensor seems to be missing the point of a dedicated module.

A FF module would be brilliant and make the camera unique. I'd run around all day with my 15mm Heliar strapped to it.

jorgen83 · 02-01-2011

So how many APS-C bodies are there that can take M-lenses? Besides the M9 and M8 (still too expensive for most people) you have the Sony NEX, and after that a whole lot of smaller sensored MFT camera's... Am I missing something?

tom.w.bn · 02-01-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgen83

So how many APS-C bodies are there that can take M-lenses? Besides the M9 and M8 (still too expensive for most people) you have the Sony NEX, and after that a whole lot of smaller sensored MFT camera's... Am I missing something?

I think there is enough crop-stuff around. Something new with a crop factor between 1.3 to 1 would be interesting.

rxmd · 02-01-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobfrance

A FF module would be brilliant and make the camera unique.

And prohibitively expensive, and it's still unclear whether people would actually buy it as opposed to talking about it.

Test the waters first, and if it catches on they can still put out a full frame module if they think that people would buy it for the $3000 or so that such a boutique item would cost.

People whine about crop, but then for some reason they don't buy M9s and then forget all about why they don't buy them.

pvdhaar · 02-01-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgen83

So how many APS-C bodies are there that can take M-lenses? Besides the M9 and M8 (still too expensive for most people) you have the Sony NEX, and after that a whole lot of smaller sensored MFT camera's... Am I missing something?

The Epson RD-1 comes to mind..

jorgen83 · 02-01-2011

OK, so I forgot one ancient 6MP camera...

pvdhaar · 02-01-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgen83

OK, so I forgot one ancient 6MP camera...

It's now in its RD-1xg incarnation..

gavinlg · 02-01-2011

ehhh... M mount lenses are nothing special on APS-C sensors... Would have preferred an m4/3 module to be honest!

berlincontemporary · 02-01-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by rxmd

And prohibitively expensive

A used 5D is around 800 Euro today. A 5D Mk. II or D700 are below 2000 Euro. Where is that "prohibitively expensive"?

berlincontemporary · 02-01-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by fdigital

ehhh... M mount lenses are nothing special on APS-C sensors... Would have preferred an m4/3 module to be honest!

Disagree. M4/3 would be an even worse decision. Seriously... not satisfied with the G1, G2, GH2, GF1, GF2, EP1, EXYZ1234-whatever... ???

And where is the point of M4/3 lenses on APS-C?

gavinlg · 02-01-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by berlincontemporary

Disagree. M4/3 would be an even worse decision. Seriously... not satisfied with the G1, G2, GH2, GF1, GF2, EP1, EXYZ1234-whatever... ???

And where is the point of M4/3 lenses on APS-C?

Using a 4/3 sensor - the sensor is in the lens mount remember. The reason why it would make sense is because of this:

m4/3 lens list

Currently there are only 2 decent lenses available for the GXR - the 50mm and the 28mm and each of them is pretty expensive.
Plus, you'd have full autofocus with the m4/3 mount over the M mount, and the lenses would actually work the way they were designed to. Anytime you put a full frame lens on a crop sensor it dulls it's character.

videogamemaker · 02-01-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by berlincontemporary

A used 5D is around 800 Euro today. A 5D Mk. II or D700 are below 2000 Euro. Where is that "prohibitively expensive"?

First, you can't compare used items, they frequently sell for less than it costs to produce them, so the 5D I is out.

2nd, the 5D II and D700 sell at an order of magnitude (in unit numbers) more than the M9 or a GXR module would. When you can count on 1 million unit sales, your profit margin can be a fraction of someone expecting only 1,000. Not to mention the 5D II and D700 are iterations in a proven pipeline, something that doesn't take much R&D in comparison to a brand new product (there are no full frame exchangeable mount GXR modules currently).

Even if they could design a functional full frame M mount GXR module, it could easily require 3-4k to make a profit and recoup R&D costs, and requires the body purchase plus lenses. A hard sell for sure.

videogamemaker · 02-01-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by rxmd

People whine about crop, but then for some reason they don't buy M9s and then forget all about why they don't buy them.

Yep. the whole "someone should make an M9 but cheaper" crowd always gives me a chuckle.

jsrockit · 02-01-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by fdigital

ehhh... M mount lenses are nothing special on APS-C sensors... Would have preferred an m4/3 module to be honest!

And M mount lenses are special on M4/3?

To me, this should be applauded. Why? Because it will be the first APS-C non- rangefinder camera (module) made especially for M mount lenses. The NEX and M4/3 are not made with M lenses in mind... they are just adapted later (frankenstein like) by users using third party adapters (with varying results).

jsrockit · 02-01-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by fdigital

Anytime you put a full frame lens on a crop sensor it dulls it's character.

Come on man, this is just simply not true. I know what you are saying, but a good photo is a good photo. Lens charecter is way overblown for the most part. It is a camera geek thing.

m4/3 is cool and all...but I don't want all of my M lenses to become telephoto lenses.

videogamemaker · 02-01-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Come on man, this is just simply not true. I know what you are saying, but a good photo is a good photo. Lens charecter is way overblown for the most part. It is a camera geek thing.

m4/3 is cool and all...but I don't want all of my M lenses to become telephoto lenses.

It is true though, to a degree. The 35-85mm range has been near perfected in terms of size, weight, performance, light gathering, etc. When you start to deviate it gets more expensive and harder. If you now have to move them all over to 20-50mm you end up getting some super nice short tele options, but your wide angle options all become larger, heavier, more expensive, and your light-gathering lens options dry up.

It's the same story with SLRs. I moved to a full frame just to get a good 35mm equiv low light lens. There are some great crop bodies, and some great 35-85mm lenses, but not as many great 20-50mm lenses, certainly not for the same price.

berlincontemporary · 02-01-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by videogamemaker

First, you can't compare used items, they frequently sell for less than it costs to produce them, so the 5D I is out.

Not so fast. I´d happily take an "outdated" sensor like the one in the old 5D in a simple box with an m-mount.

Quote:

Originally Posted by videogamemaker

2nd, the 5D II and D700 sell at an order of magnitude (in unit numbers) more than the M9 or a GXR module would. When you can count on 1 million unit sales, your profit margin can be a fraction of someone expecting only 1,000.

Neither did Nikon or Canon sell a million units of a model. Nor would a GXR full frame sell only 1000. Never.

Quote:

Originally Posted by videogamemaker

Even if they could design a functional full frame M mount GXR module, it could easily require 3-4k to make a profit and recoup R&D costs, and requires the body purchase plus lenses. A hard sell for sure.

Bull****. The interchangeable-sensor (!) platform is already there. The control back and LCD are there as is the backup hardware and user interface.

jsrockit · 02-01-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by videogamemaker

It is true though, to a degree.

Technically yes, in practice...debatable.

videogamemaker · 02-01-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by berlincontemporary

Not so fast. I´d happily take an "outdated" sensor like the one in the old 5D in a simple box with an m-mount.

Neither did Nikon or Canon sell a million units of a model. Nor would a GXR full frame sell only 1000. Never.

Bull****. The interchangeable-sensor (!) platform is already there. The control back and LCD are there as is the backup hardware and user interface.

I shoot with a 5D I myself. I'd never trade it for an M-mount GXR either. I was saying that it's out as a comparison of what price points can be met. An old Bessa is a great camera too, it doesn't mean that the Ebay price of one amounts to a hill of beans when talking about an Epson RD-2 in price.

Those numbers were pulled out of my ass, but you're fooling yourself if you think that Ricoh has ever sold even 1/20 the units Canon or Nikon has on their most popular cameras (of which both 5Ds and the D700 qualify).

Sorry, no. If Ricoh were to make a full frame M-mount, they would be starting from scratch. To declare otherwise is outright false. To even begin to say they are at a comparable point as Canon making the 5D II from the 5D I's platform is laughably ignorant.

videogamemaker · 02-01-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Technically yes, in practice...debatable.

Maybe debatable to you, but there are plenty of people who want a fast moderate wide, a fast normal, and a fast short telephoto without breaking the bank. This is much more possible on any full frame platform, be it Nikon, Canon, Leica, or Sony, than it is with any crop option.

regularchickens · 02-01-2011

This is cool. I'm glad that convention-floor mockup is coming to fruition. And more choice is always a good thing. I'd buy a body with Ricoh controls over NEX controls any day of the week.

gavinlg · 02-01-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Come on man, this is just simply not true. I know what you are saying, but a good photo is a good photo. Lens charecter is way overblown for the most part. It is a camera geek thing.

m4/3 is cool and all...but I don't want all of my M lenses to become telephoto lenses.

I'm not suggesting the m4/3 mount to use leica lenses, I'm suggesting it to use the native m4/3 lenses, of which there are 20+ of them, and they're all high quality and designed for the sensor size. The problem with M mount lenses on a crop sensor is if you want a fast 35mm equiv lens you have to use a 24mm - of which the only fast one on the M mount market is the f1.4 summilux which is more than an m8 to buy. Forget about a fast 28...

I understand there are heaps of people that will welcome this, I'm just speaking from my experience with crop sensors/35mm lenses.