The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

GXR/A12 vs GF1

barjohn

New member
Wouter, I'm not sure what you mean by the rolling shutter with fast moving subjects. Is this just when you look at the LCD on the back or through the viewfinder or both? My zone focusing attempts yesterday were utter failures most of the time. I will try what you are suggesting and post a response later today.
 

Photomorgana

New member
I sorry to say this, but I don't understand the point of the GXR.
1. $850 for 50mm f2.5 lens? (even with APS-C sensor, I don't see big deal, not fast, Dof is not that shallow)
2. $550 for the battery holder?
3. Looks of it are not very attractive IMO, but most of all what is the niche of this product.

GRD has the niche with the following features: Pocketability, 28mm large DoF, No focus necessary, No lag time, - perfect for street photography.
E-P2 has the niche of being the best camera for MF photography, period, with GH1 closely behind it. (you can use most any lens ever built) And of course 5D if you need FF sensor is hard to beat.

I don't believe that image quality is trully all that much better, cause if it is that much better than E-p2 than it is probably better than D3, and I really doubt it.

I'm not a fan boy of any brand, or a pure minimalist using one system, one body only. On contrary, I use many different tools and $$$ generally not a deal breaker for me, but as long as its justifiable. Sorry Ricoh, not this time...

Now, if they would make a slightly larger body with FF sensor, similar to what Samsung did, I would be all over it. I hope Epson can deliver, they do have the expertise with RD-1 and best EVF and LCD technology, so why not try.

P.S. don't crucify me either, as this is purely my opinion, noting against Ricoh.
 
T

tmrgrs

Guest
Here is a comparison using the 20mm pancake. I set the GF1 to -1/3 stop, the aperture was set to f3.5 on both cameras and ISO 200. The images are much closer but I still see more detail in the GXR images. These are straight from the camera with default LR 3 beta values. No post processing. In the first set the GF1 selected a shutter speed of 1/2500th and the GXR selected 1/1600th. In the second set the GF1 selected 1/2000th and the GXR selected 1/1500th.

As for color accuracy, the GXR looks closer to what the eye perceives the colors to be in this bright sunny day.
. . . Thanks for redoing these with the 20/1.7 and exposure compensation on the GF1. It looks like the GF1 needs -2/3 EV in direct sunlight with any subject that is white which is valuable information for me. The higher shutter speeds of the Pany illustrate that the ISO values are a little off in comparison with the GXR and probably other cameras as well. This has been talked about by others but your comparison shows that it is very real.

Thanks again!
 

monza

Active member
I sorry to say this, but I don't understand the point of the GXR.
1. $850 for 50mm f2.5 lens? (even with APS-C sensor, I don't see big deal, not fast, Dof is not that shallow)
2. $550 for the battery holder?
3. Looks of it are not very attractive IMO, but most of all what is the niche of this product.

GRD has the niche with the following features: Pocketability, 28mm large DoF, No focus necessary, No lag time, - perfect for street photography.
E-P2 has the niche of being the best camera for MF photography, period, with GH1 closely behind it. (you can use most any lens ever built) And of course 5D if you need FF sensor is hard to beat.

I don't believe that image quality is trully all that much better, cause if it is that much better than E-p2 than it is probably better than D3, and I really doubt it.

I'm not a fan boy of any brand, or a pure minimalist using one system, one body only. On contrary, I use many different tools and $$$ generally not a deal breaker for me, but as long as its justifiable. Sorry Ricoh, not this time...

Now, if they would make a slightly larger body with FF sensor, similar to what Samsung did, I would be all over it. I hope Epson can deliver, they do have the expertise with RD-1 and best EVF and LCD technology, so why not try.

I'm just happy there are lots of choices. :) Competition is great for the consumer. It does seem that Ricoh will have pricing and functionality hurdles to overcome.

The E-P1/E-P2 are not my favorites for MF, because the user interface can require too many button presses to get to manual focus assist mode. Also keep coming back to the swivel LCD on the G1/GH1. ;)

I'm not aware of a Samsung FF sensor, are you speaking of the NX with the APS-C sensor?
 

Photomorgana

New member
I'm just happy there are lots of choices. :) Competition is great for the consumer. It does seem that Ricoh will have pricing and functionality hurdles to overcome.

The E-P1/E-P2 are not my favorites for MF, because the user interface can require too many button presses to get to manual focus assist mode. Also keep coming back to the swivel LCD on the G1/GH1. ;)

I'm not aware of a Samsung FF sensor, are you speaking of the NX with the APS-C sensor?
Yes, what I meant - is why can't Epson make a body similar to what Samsung did or to RD1 or Ep2, but with FF sensor and high quality EVF etc.

Moreover, I don't understand why Olympus can't make "micro FF" body???
4/3rd lenses and m4/3rd lenses are not the same anyway. Olympus has big experience making lenses for FF bodies (like amazing OM lineup) all you need is to make them for smaller register distance of mFF body, etc.. similar to m4/3 lenses but with bigger coverage.
I don't think Olympus will loose much of their existing sales by doing this. I'm not saying abandon 4/3, but rather expand to mirror-less µFF territory, while the iron hot. :)

Yes Olympus and Pana are "HOT" right now due to the fact that they are the first and the only, but it will end as soon as good quality APS-C and FF mirror-less bodies will hit the market. And then Olympus will be back to where it was a year ago. (nothing wrong with that, but they have a chance to shine and grab the market share)
The bottom line if they won't do it someone else will (like Epson, Canon, Nikon, Sony, well maybe not Sony, but Konica would've done it for sure)
 

Terry

New member
I think you need to look at the M9 and what it takes in terms of micro lenses to get it done. The lenses sit very close to the sensor and already you can see the problem with the very wide rangefinder lenses on m4/3 (corners are soft).

Take away the premium for the Leica name, there are still reasons why the M9 would still be expensive.

This isn't to say that I wouldn't want one if some company figured it out. :D
 

Photomorgana

New member
I think you need to look at the M9 and what it takes in terms of micro lenses to get it done. The lenses sit very close to the sensor and already you can see the problem with the very wide rangefinder lenses on m4/3 (corners are soft).

Take away the premium for the Leica name, there are still reasons why the M9 would still be expensive.

This isn't to say that I wouldn't want one if some company figured it out. :D


The secret of Leica M9 is not in its lenses, but in its Rangefinder focusing mechanism. (RF is the reason M9 is so expensive and RD1 was somewhat expensive as well)
Today, with high grade EVF, we don't need RF focusing mechanism to line up the image seen by the lens with image seen by the body. We can see thru the lens via sensor, presto, done.

Lenses for RF cameras were made by Canon, Konica, Zeiss, Voigtlanders and others for many years (even Olympus made a few) There is no problem there and manufacturing cost is not that high. If Konica could make Hexanon lenses that many agree match Leica image quality and exceeded Leica build quality for reasonable price, others can do it as well.

You are right about corners of the image being smeary, But this is due to the fact that the light falls on the sensor at very high angle, since the µ4/3 lens register distance is only 20mm. The solution is to move lens away from sensor lets say to 26mm so agle of light falling on the sensor will reduce, problem solved, (and call the new mount µFF or whatever :) Why 26mm? just so there is a space for Leica adapter to go on and if 26 is still too short, fine go with Leica-M mount and problem solved. (works for Leica, will work for Olympus, no magic here, just optics)
 

Terry

New member
The secret of Leica M9 is not in its lenses, but in its Rangefinder focusing mechanism. (RF is the reason M9 is so expensive and RD1 was somewhat expensive as well)
Today, with high grade EVF, we don't need RF focusing mechanism to line up the image seen by the lens with image seen by the body. We can see thru the lens via sensor, presto, done.

Lenses for RF cameras were made by Canon, Konica, Zeiss, Voigtlanders and others for many years (even Olympus made a few) There is no problem there and manufacturing cost is not that high. If Konica could make Hexanon lenses that many agree match Leica image quality and exceeded Leica build quality for reasonable price, others can do it as well.

You are right about corners of the image being smeary, But this is due to the fact that the light falls on the sensor at very high angle, since the µ4/3 lens register distance is only 20mm. The solution is to move lens away from sensor lets say to 26mm so agle of light falling on the sensor will reduce, problem solved, (and call the new mount µFF or whatever :) Why 26mm? just so there is a space for Leica adapter to go on and if 26 is still too short, fine go with Leica-M mount and problem solved. (works for Leica, will work for Olympus, no magic here, just optics)
Agree to disagree. It the rangefinder were most of the cost, then the M9 wouldn't cost almost $3,000 more than an M7 or MP. That sensor with micro lenses doesn't come cheap. Moving to 26mm doesn't solve the problem you still need the "fancy" sensor.
 

Photomorgana

New member
Agree to disagree. It the rangefinder were most of the cost, then the M9 wouldn't cost almost $3,000 more than an M7 or MP. That sensor with micro lenses doesn't come cheap. Moving to 26mm doesn't solve the problem you still need the "fancy" sensor.

The are 2 reasons why M9 cost $3000 more than already overpriced M7.
Reason #1 - FF sensor, LCD and Software Correction cost them $500 extra tops.
And the second reason is because Leica can get away with it. (they can dictate any price they want to since they are alone in RF field.)

The only thing fancy about M9 sensor is its price tag. M9 has exactly the same CCD as some other cameras.
Yes, I have to agree that since FF bodies are not as common as APS-C bodies at the moment, the FF sensors cost a bit more to manufacture (simple rule of supply/demand) And Leica is not the only one who take advantage of this, Canon and Nikon do too. But the more FF sensor will go into production the more prices will fall. Even today EP-2 with µFF sensor should cost the most $1800 (and that is what I would be happy to pay)
 

Y.B.Hudson III

New member
M9 with 0.95 Nocti...probabLy 18,000 dollars with tax (bought in C@Lifornica)... at one meter...one third of the viewfinder is obscured...guess you get what you pay for:)
 
W

wbrandsma

Guest
Wouter, I'm not sure what you mean by the rolling shutter with fast moving subjects. Is this just when you look at the LCD on the back or through the viewfinder or both? My zone focusing attempts yesterday were utter failures most of the time. I will try what you are suggesting and post a response later today.
See here a good explanation of the CMOS rolling shutter. It happens with both the LCD and the VF, because it is a habit of the sensor that Ricoh probably doesn't fix in-camera unlike for instance Canon with their 5DmarkII.

Good luck with the zone focusing.
 

Photomorgana

New member
M9 with 0.95 Nocti...probabLy 18,000 dollars with tax (bought in C@Lifornica)... at one meter...one third of the viewfinder is obscured...guess you get what you pay for:)
LOL :) what did you expect for $18k? It is miracle it even goes to as close as 1 meter. (thanks to that "fancy" $8,000 floating element) :))
 

barjohn

New member
Looks as if the GXR has the upper hand in the IQ department. Could play with one today at Photo Village in NYC and was told that Ricoh is working on a firmware upgrade to improve AF/reduce Af hunting.
See here a good explanation of the CMOS rolling shutter. It happens with both the LCD and the VF, because it is a habit of the sensor that Ricoh probably doesn't fix in-camera unlike for instance Canon with their 5DmarkII.

Good luck with the zone focusing.
I think I now know what you are talking about but the only way I can create the effect is to shoot at a fluorescent light source. It is also visible on the GF1 but it is slower on the GF1 than on the GXR. I'm not sure I consider this enough of a problem that I would frequently encounter and thus worth worrying about.
 

Photomorgana

New member
Incorrect. No other camera manufacturer uses the same or similar microlens technology on their sensor.
OK, how much do you think this Microlens technology FF sensor truly cost?
Even if Kodak charges $500 per unit (which is outrageous) its only because Leica order only few thousand of them.
If Oly for example decided to use this sensor prices would fall in an instant.
Plus lets hope that back-lighting sensor technology will come soon.
 
W

wonderer

Guest
Leica does indeed have a fancy micro-lens technology in the M9 camera to handle the edge smearing. They were not able to make M8 a full frame camera precisely because according to Leica it would have been very expensive and complex to handle the edge smearing in a full frame sensor. And it is not really possible to compare the price of a niche product to a mass-produced product. They just dont have the sales volume to allow a pricing competitive with something like a Canon 5D II.

However in case of Lecia they were forced to go this route since they had to be compatible with all the existing M-mount lenses. Question is that if you end up designing an EVF FF camera from scratch with a new mount and new lenses, will it be possible to design a system which does not have these nasty edge issues and still retains Leica-like compactness?
 
W

wonderer

Guest
The micro-lens array does not really come as part of the base sensor. For example Nikon designs their own micro-lens structure on top of the Sony sensors which is one of the reasons that the D3X gets more dyanmic range out of the 24MP sony sensor compared to Sony's own A900.

Off course I have no idea how much extra cost it involves, maybe its not too much or maybe it is a lot. But I suspect it might have involved relatively high R&D or manufacturing cost (with respect to Leica's company size and sales volume), otherwise they would not have made the M8 a 1.33x camera.

OK, how much do you think this Microlens technology FF sensor truly cost?
Even if Kodak charges $500 per unit (which is outrageous) its only because Leica order only few thousand of them.
If Oly for example decided to use this sensor prices would fall in an instant.
Plus lets hope that back-lighting sensor technology will come soon.
 

Photomorgana

New member
The micro-lens array does not really come as part of the base sensor. For example Nikon designs their own micro-lens structure on top of the Sony sensors which is one of the reasons that the D3X gets more dyanmic range out of the 24MP sony sensor compared to Sony's own A900.

Off course I have no idea how much extra cost it involves, maybe its not too much or maybe it is a lot. But I suspect it might have involved relatively high R&D or manufacturing cost (with respect to Leica's company size and sales volume), otherwise they would not have made the M8 a 1.33x camera.
My point is, there is a sensor, its made by Kodak. How expansive can it truly be. R&D that Leica did or did not invest in is irrelevant at this point. If demand will kick in, Kodak will deliver.
And another thing is Leica was trying to accommodate the existing lens line up made for film camera. If Panasonic can produce excellent m4/3 and 7-14mm lens, while Samsung can come up with APS-C in 25mm register mount, I can only assume FF is on its way. (I wish it was Oly or Epson)
 

monza

Active member
My viewpoint: micro 4/3 is the new full frame. Full frame is the new medium format. :)

I prefer the smaller size of these cameras. I don't need the resolution or high ISO performance of full frame, and I'm not willing to pay current prices for it, nor am I willing to live with the size, weight, and bulk. (Not talking about the M9 here in terms of size.) Things might be different if I made money shooting and depreciated the equipment. When I lift weights it's at the gym. If someone paid me to carry it, that's a different matter. :)

For full-frame I shoot film.
 

kevinparis

Member
barjohn

i wold lay off using the Ctrl + scroll to zoom in on an image before taking a screen capture...really really bad idea

here is an image viewed at 100% in Preview and screen captured and the same image zoomed and captured using your method.

Hope you can see the difference.


Kevin
 
Top