Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica M8 / M8.2 / Ricoh GXR

Leica M8 / M8.2 / Ricoh GXR Smaller than full frame digital Leica M mount cameras. The Ricoh is included as a less expensive and viable digital Leica M lens platform.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Ricoh GXR gets an APS-C M-module in Autumn 2011
Old 01-31-2011   #1
jorgen83
Registered User
 
jorgen83 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 54
Ricoh GXR gets an APS-C M-module in Autumn 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
__________________
"You keep believing; I'll keep evolving."
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #2
Benjamin Marks
Registered User
 
Benjamin Marks is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,660
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
__________________
Benjamin’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #3
berlincontemporary
-
 
berlincontemporary is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 174
So what? Another APS-C digital. Full frame or go away.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #4
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
 
Bobfrance's Avatar
 
Bobfrance is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lancashire, England
Age: 49
Posts: 1,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by berlincontemporary View Post
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.
__________________
Website
Flickr
gallery

Last edited by Bobfrance : 02-01-2011 at 01:21.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #5
jorgen83
Registered User
 
jorgen83 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 54
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?
__________________
"You keep believing; I'll keep evolving."
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #6
user237428934
User deletion pending
 
user237428934 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorgen83 View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #7
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobfrance View Post
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.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #8
pvdhaar
Zoom with your feet!
 
pvdhaar's Avatar
 
pvdhaar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorgen83 View Post
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..
__________________
Kind regards,

Peter

My Hexländer Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #9
jorgen83
Registered User
 
jorgen83 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 54
OK, so I forgot one ancient 6MP camera...
__________________
"You keep believing; I'll keep evolving."
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #10
pvdhaar
Zoom with your feet!
 
pvdhaar's Avatar
 
pvdhaar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorgen83 View Post
OK, so I forgot one ancient 6MP camera...
It's now in its RD-1xg incarnation..
__________________
Kind regards,

Peter

My Hexländer Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #11
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 5,069
ehhh... M mount lenses are nothing special on APS-C sensors... Would have preferred an m4/3 module to be honest!
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #12
berlincontemporary
-
 
berlincontemporary is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by rxmd View Post
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"?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #13
berlincontemporary
-
 
berlincontemporary is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdigital View Post
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?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #14
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 5,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by berlincontemporary View Post
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.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange

Last edited by gavinlg : 02-01-2011 at 02:32.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #15
videogamemaker
icelandic_photographer
 
videogamemaker is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by berlincontemporary View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #16
videogamemaker
icelandic_photographer
 
videogamemaker is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by rxmd View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #17
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdigital View Post
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).
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #18
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdigital View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #19
videogamemaker
icelandic_photographer
 
videogamemaker is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #20
berlincontemporary
-
 
berlincontemporary is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by videogamemaker View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #21
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by videogamemaker View Post
It is true though, to a degree.
Technically yes, in practice...debatable.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #22
videogamemaker
icelandic_photographer
 
videogamemaker is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by berlincontemporary View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #23
videogamemaker
icelandic_photographer
 
videogamemaker is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #24
regularchickens
Registered User
 
regularchickens's Avatar
 
regularchickens is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 222
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.
__________________
flickr | tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #25
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 5,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
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.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #26
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by videogamemaker View Post
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.
I have a 28mm f/2.5 on my Ricoh. That's faster than most options for the M. I udnerstand what you are saying, but most fast glass is expensive.

Last edited by jsrockit : 02-01-2011 at 06:29.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #27
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdigital View Post
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.

Ah, I see... my mistake. However, there are plenty of m4/3 bodies already to choose from, so why fret over this not being implemented by Ricoh?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #28
Benjamin Marks
Registered User
 
Benjamin Marks is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,660
Just a comment on the forest, rather than the trees:

1) Any time the makers of the new "film" (that is, digital sensors) provide an option for using the existing stock of interesting glass, this is a good thing and should be applauded.

2) Any time a camera maker takes a risk and thinks outside the box to produce something other than a "me too" feature set, this is a good thing, and should be applauded.

3) Any time a proof-of-concept camera makes it into production, thereby showing other camera makers what can be done, this too is a good thing and should be applauded.

How about a round of applause for Ricoh?

If you are not impressed, don't buy one.
If you are holding out for FF, don't buy one.
If you are satisfied with film, don't buy one.
If you think it is ugly, don't buy one.

Hell, I have so many cameras, I probably won't buy one; but I'm tickled three shades of pink that someone is out there doing this. Why? I can easily imagine a system with a drop-in module for high-ISO's, a B&W module with a tri-x, Neopan 1600 settings, a wide angle module that can deal with edge fall-off and has an firmware center-filter, etc. etc. Can you imagine a modular Red-One type system in 20 years that allows you to scale your format or replace a damaged sensor?

I've got my oil-miniscus lenses trained on a spot outside the box, boys. Who's with me?


Ben
__________________
Benjamin’s Gallery

Last edited by Benjamin Marks : 02-01-2011 at 07:19.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #29
umcelinho
Marcelo
 
umcelinho's Avatar
 
umcelinho is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sao Paulo
Age: 36
Posts: 1,327
The Ricohs have the BEST handling on a compact I've ever seen. If the image quality is good, it will be a quite interesting option!
__________________
__________
@marcelography on Instagram
behance.net/marcelography
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #30
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks View Post
Just a comment on the forest, rather than the trees:

1) Any time the makers of the new "film" (that is, digital sensors) provide an option for using the existing stock of interesting glass, this is a good thing and should be applauded.

2) Any time a camera maker takes a risk and thinks outside the box to produce something other than a "me too" feature set, this is a good thing, and should be applauded.

3) Any time a proof-of-concept camera makes it into production, thereby showing other camera makers what can be done, this too is a good thing and should be applauded.

How about a round of applause for Ricoh?

If you are not impressed, don't buy one.
If you are holding out for FF, don't buy one.
If you are satisfied with film, don't buy one.
If you think it is ugly, don't buy one.
Truth.....
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #31
berlincontemporary
-
 
berlincontemporary is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by videogamemaker View Post
Sorry, no. If Ricoh were to make a full frame M-mount, they would be starting from scratch.
Still bull**** and doesnt make more sense by repeating it.

The system and hardware backup is there, the user interface is there, the form factor is there, all they need is a large enough sensor in the box they already have. They could also just take a damn M9 apart. Thats not "starting from scratch".
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #32
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 5,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Ah, I see... my mistake. However, there are plenty of m4/3 bodies already to choose from, so why fret over this not being implemented by Ricoh?
Well, thats true too... Look at it this way - if you were in the market for a compact digital w/interchangeable lenses, would you buy into the m4/3 system or the ricoh gxr interchangeable module system that supports m4/3 AND aps-c ricoh GR lenses.... The m4/3 module was actually rumored alongside the M mount module for a while, so it still might come.

Maybe I'm just talking rubbish now... haha.

I actually agree with what Mr Marks said above - I shouldn't be criticizing ricoh, I should be in admiration of them. They always seem to take fairly bold steps to please real photographers. On a major positive note, I'd love to see how the voigtlander 35mm f1.2 and 50mm f1.1 perform on a gxr!!
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange

Last edited by gavinlg : 02-01-2011 at 16:15.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #33
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 42
Posts: 3,933
This seems to me to be a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #34
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by berlincontemporary View Post
A used 5D is around 800 Euro today. A 5D Mk. II or D700 are below 2000 Euro. Where is that "prohibitively expensive"?
Economy of scale both in procurement and in offsetting development costs. If you think Ricoh can expect to sell anywhere as many GXR M-mount units as Canon and Nikon have been selling 5Ds and D700s, you are seriously deluded.

Ever wonder why the M9 is expensive, even though in your words "the system and hardware backup is there, the user interface is there, the form factor is there, all they need is a large enough sensor in the box they already have?" And comparing a newly-announced device with a used mass-produced product of six years ago is kind of pointless.

I know that among online photo gear enthusiasts there is a strong collective belief that swarm intelligence and wishful thinking trumps basic economics, engineering and market research, but it's not like the company in question here has some kind of bizarre religious commitment to crop sensors. If they find that at some point it makes sense economically to make a full frame unit, they'll probably make one. Until then I suggest we just wait.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2011   #35
alien8
Registered User
 
alien8 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by berlincontemporary View Post
So what? Another APS-C digital. Full frame or go away.
+1

I'd love to have a digital option for my m glass, but to my mind crop sensors are not a serious option for full frame lenses. Anyhoo, at this point it's more or less a dream that i've given up on. I got my dslr stolen from my apartment a few months ago and currently have no digital camera (save my iphone). I'm toying with the idea of the fuji that's about to hit the market, but i doubt i'll end up springing for it (a bit pricey for a single focal length). I'm hoping the EVIL category matures a bit and a couple of models really aimed at semi-pro/enthusiasts show up. Keep hearing rumours about nikon but I'm not holding my breath.
__________________
my flickr

Last edited by alien8 : 02-01-2011 at 18:58. Reason: general dyslexia
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2011   #36
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdigital View Post
On a major positive note, I'd love to see how the voigtlander 35mm f1.2 and 50mm f1.1 perform on a gxr!!
Me too... I'll be buying the 1.1 soon and that was my first thought when I saw this module.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2011   #37
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
This seems to me to be a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Phil Forrest
That might be fair, but I'm sure Ricoh did this as a labor of love more than as a profit making machine. That said, these cameras are doing well in Japan and you know the Japanese are Leica crazy.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2011   #38
hexiplex
Registered User
 
hexiplex's Avatar
 
hexiplex is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sweden
Age: 31
Posts: 291
I've been glancing at the GXR for a while now and this module might just tip the scale towards "buy", depending on what it sells for. I really like the idea of a relatively small digital camera with the same or similar interface as the GRD series that can accomodate my M and LTM glass.

Will Ricoh make money off of this? Yes, I am quite positive that they will. the GRD (and I assume the GXR) cameras are very popular in Japan, and the popularity of Ricoh coupled with the Leica craze will no doubt make this an attractive bit of kit. Anyway, I hope we'll see Ricoh re-launching their GR lens in M-mount at a somewhat reasonable price in conjunction with the release of this module.

Last edited by hexiplex : 02-04-2011 at 07:32.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2011   #39
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexiplex View Post
Anyway, I hope we'll see Ricoh re-launching their GR lens in M-mount at a somewhat reasonable price in conjunction with the release of this module.
That would be awesome.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2011   #40
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,020
I think this new announcement is great. Depending on how it all pans out with the sensor quality, interface, evf, pricing and all, it could be a great digital back for m/ltm lens.
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 19:57.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.