Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 90 of 90

Thread: GXR/A12 vs GF1

  1. #51
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post

    Terry, AFAIK (and I know very little of anything), the sensors are made by Matsu$hita Electric Co. Ltd.
    In the investment management world we need to remember these things in order to buy the right stocks!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panasonic_Corporation

  2. #52
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Don't crucify me on this post. It was done for fun. I was looking at an M8 shot of the same area of my back yard ( a gulf course) shot at ISO 640 with the 28/2.8 ASPH lens and while they were not taken at the same time and the colors are different, it gives a comparison against a high quality standard in lens and sensor. The M8 shot is on the left.
    Last edited by barjohn; 26th June 2010 at 22:26.
    V/r John

  3. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    116
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    I have been using the GXR for a couple of days now, so pardon my "early" reactions. The focus issues that John points are indeed all true. As it stands now the GXR is not a good moving subject camera in terms of fast focus and focus tracking. The GRD(3) is not either, except for snap focus, but the more limited DoF in the GXR makes this feature more challenging to use (I have not tried to use it much yet). It does not have a focus "tracking" capability.

    However, as John also points out the IQ is stellar and the dynamic range in the DNGs is very workable. It reminds me a lot of the Sigma DP cameras, with their detail capabilities and dynamic range. You could push those files and retrieve a lot of shadow and highlight detail. The still life and landscape imagery I've shot so far with the GXR have been absolutely beautiful (I've been focused on B&W for now). No "project" work yet, just taking shots here and there as opps present themselves. People shots are also beautiful with an almost "Leica'esque" clarity and presence to them.

    I'm not a pixel-peeper, I look at the gestalt of an image, and in this regard the GXR is so far more pleasing than the E-P2 in terms of absolute IQ. That said, I still absolutely love my E-P2. I just had some color E-P2 prints made and they are beautiful. The Panasonic 20mm lens is wonderful.

    With the GXR I'm still getting re-used to the 50mm focal length. I used to love it when I had my Canon 50L, but over the past year I have become more used to the 28-40mm focal lengths.

    I still have reservations about the GXR as a system. And I'd like to see more lens options sooner rather than later, primarily something wider than 50mm.

    The GXR/A12 camera is expensive and not for everyone. But I believe it is unique in terms of IQ and for the Ricoh aficionados it is worth the effort to evaluate. I really like the Ricoh camera and UI design, and find them to be easily and quickly usable. And the results in both small sensor and large sensor speak poetry to my photographic eye.

    I, too, realize this is an m4/3s forum, and that is still my primary camera, but the GXR fits into the same category (at least with the A12 unit), and is worthy of comparative commentary. Right now there is no Ricoh forum on the GetDPI forums (I'd love to see one). To me, Ricoh is not an "Other" camera ; )

  4. #54
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    John

    thanks for all your info on this

    Quote Originally Posted by barjohn View Post
    The focus issues are (in order of importance):

    1. The frame freezing while it is trying to focus. ...
    2. Any speed improvement to the AF would be very beneficial ...
    ...
    4. Manual focus needs to improve the servo so ...

    If Ricoh can fix these issues they have a real winner in my opinion (assuming that they will expand the lensor line to add some additional primes).
    this is pretty much the summary of a friend of mine in Japan who picked one up to play with it in Yodobashi when it first appeared. He (a G1 owner) decided quite quickly that it was a lame duck and subsequently lost interest.

    The lack of lenses or zoom is the real killer for me ... like really, who buys cameras like GS690's anymore?

    I really just don't know what they were thinking with this camera ... like what possible market could it have (except the curious)?

  5. #55
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Quote Originally Posted by barjohn View Post
    Don't crucify me on this post. parison again It was done for fun.

    At least I did not and I did not intend to, unless you are identifying yourself with GXR performance.

    Terry, That was to reassure the financial markets that I am no way connected to them and there is no danger to myself or anyone else related to investments.

    (I do know one thing for certain that I am not a "Lumix Photographer" as a certain brand would like to brand some using some brand name cameras.)

  6. #56
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    I thought I would add one more of the Leica comparisons for fun. In this comparison the Leica shot is at ISO 160 using the 90mm Cron at f5.6. I only zoomed it 50% so the two images would not be grossly disproportionate and the GXR is at 100%.
    Last edited by barjohn; 26th June 2010 at 22:25.
    V/r John

  7. #57
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    The GXR looks interesting, seems like they need to fine-tune some features and functionality. The main strike against it from my perspective is there really is only a single lens (the 50mm equivalent.) The only other lens has a tiny sensor.

    Besides the size differences, the workflow for the CCD may be entirely different than the workflow for the CMOS. It's time-consuming enough for me to learn the idiosyncrasies of a single sensor.

    There will never be as many lens options for the GXR as with other systems.

  8. #58
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    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.
    Last edited by barjohn; 26th June 2010 at 22:25.
    V/r John

  9. #59
    wbrandsma
    Guest

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    John, thank you for your first test and also confirming some of the issues you've mentioned. The issues with the AF and the freezing of the screen or EVF with moving subject have already been mentioned by previous users/testers of the GXR like Pavel Kudrys of Ricohforum, Cristian Sorega (Ricoh GR-Diary) and also me. Unfortunately none of the serious review sites did really mention it.

    Since you stay in California I have a request for you regarding zone focusing. In the couple of days I had a test sample in December the camera had a strange behavior in freezing temperatures. Every time I tried to zone focus, the zone focus point is always off. The background was in focus, but the intended focal region was off focus. So try to focus at 3 meters for instance and set the aperture at f/5.6 or f/8 and try to photograph a subject at the same distance.

    With fast moving subjects did you notice the rolling shutter of the sensor yet? I thought it was pretty annoying.

    We have already requested a focus limiter for the A12 lens to avoid the long AF travel when it tries to find a focus point with less contrast. End we also requested a solution in a firmware fix for the problems you've mentioned with the AF.

    The more people mention some of these issues the better and hopefully Ricoh will listen and fix it asap. Still for me this system has a lot of uncertainties. The A12 macro lens is mostly targeted to the Japanese market which I really don't understand, because they want to increase their sales outside Japan.

  10. #60
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Wouter,

    Thanks for the feedback. Here are a couple of shots I took yesterday that look pretty decent. They were taken of the bay between Balboa Island and the Newport Beach peninsula in Newport Beach, CA.
    Last edited by barjohn; 26th June 2010 at 22:25.
    V/r John

  11. #61
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    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.
    V/r John

  12. #62
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    164
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    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.

  13. #63
    tmrgrs
    Guest

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Quote Originally Posted by barjohn View Post
    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!

  14. #64
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Quote Originally Posted by Photomorgana View Post
    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?

  15. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    164
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Quote Originally Posted by monza View Post
    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 FF 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)

  16. #66
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    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.

  17. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    164
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Quote Originally Posted by TEBnewyork View Post
    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.


    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 4/3 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 FF 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)

  18. #68
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Quote Originally Posted by Photomorgana View Post
    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 4/3 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 FF 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.

  19. #69
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    164
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Quote Originally Posted by TEBnewyork View Post
    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 FF sensor should cost the most $1800 (and that is what I would be happy to pay)

  20. #70
    Senior Member Y.B.Hudson III's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    314
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    M9 with 0.95 Nocti...probabLy 18,000 dollars with tax (bought in [email protected])... at one meter...one third of the viewfinder is obscured...guess you get what you pay for

  21. #71
    wbrandsma
    Guest

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Quote Originally Posted by barjohn View Post
    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.

  22. #72
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    164
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Quote Originally Posted by Y.B.Hudson III View Post
    M9 with 0.95 Nocti...probabLy 18,000 dollars with tax (bought in [email protected])... 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) )

  23. #73
    Senior Member bradhusick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    2,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    53

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Quote Originally Posted by Photomorgana View Post
    M9 has exactly the same CCD as some other cameras.
    Incorrect. No other camera manufacturer uses the same or similar microlens technology on their sensor.

  24. #74
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Quote Originally Posted by retow View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by wbrandsma View Post
    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.
    V/r John

  25. #75
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    164
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Quote Originally Posted by bradhusick View Post
    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.

  26. #76
    wonderer
    Guest

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    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?

  27. #77
    wonderer
    Guest

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Photomorgana View Post
    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.

  28. #78
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    164
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Quote Originally Posted by wonderer View Post
    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)

  29. #79
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    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.

  30. #80
    Senior Member kevinparis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    919
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    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

  31. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    belge
    Posts
    1,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    GXR/A12 can be used for street work

    Quote Originally Posted by andrewteee View Post
    I have been using the GXR for a couple of days now, so pardon my "early" reactions. The focus issues that John points are indeed all true. As it stands now the GXR is not a good moving subject camera in terms of fast focus and focus tracking. The GRD(3) is not either, except for snap focus, but the more limited DoF in the GXR makes this feature more challenging to use (I have not tried to use it much yet). It does not have a focus "tracking" capability.
    in defense of the GXR (and the acknowledgement that i seem to shoot differently than a vast majority of people), i did not find it a problem with moving subjects at all -- once i got used to the camera a little.

    i shot with manual focus only (did not find the travel too long as Wouter did, nor did i Zone focus -- mostly used it wide open because of the light), and typically shutter priority and/or full manual exposure. *all* i shot was moving subjects, trying to get "moments" as that is what i prefer to do.

    to be honest, i was more than pleased with the results using it this way. i did not put up the images because they weren't quite up to my standard (but i am very picky this way) and, at the time, had no way to process RAW.

    if i can process from RAW (a big IF because i was using pre-production firmware), i will put some images up. if not, i will put some JPEGs up when i get back home at the end of the week (i'm not sure if i have any on the drive i brought).

    i'm not saying there aren't issues with the camera and focus for street work, simply that there are way to make it work if that is what you like to shoot.

  32. #82
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Quote Originally Posted by Photomorgana View Post
    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.
    I also agree-I dont see really the point. Plus I would expect that a unit of sensor+lens is allways more expensive than having to exchange just a lens.

  33. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Quote Originally Posted by Photomorgana View Post
    I sorry to say this, but I don't understand the point of the GXR.


    ...............
    How about offering a large sensor, interchangeable lens system in a small, lightweight body? As such, it is the firsts of its kind, followed by the Samsung NX. If Ricoh launches a 28 equiv., a fast 40mm and moderate tele module, I could see a digital Leica CL borne.

  34. #84
    Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    3,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1117

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Quote Originally Posted by retow View Post
    How about offering a large sensor, interchangeable lens system in a small, lightweight body? As such, it is the firsts of its kind, followed by the Samsung NX. If Ricoh launches a 28 equiv., a fast 40mm and moderate tele module, I could see a digital Leica CL borne.
    Don't forget the small sensor zoom, which keeps the size way down. Many of us, myself included, have m4/3 cameras, but also carry compacts.

    Keith

  35. #85
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Kevin, I only did it for that one because the image would be too small for on screen viewing of detail and since it was done for both the effect is the same on both. Having said that I can still see the detail in the magnified image you presented.
    V/r John

  36. #86
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    I tried zone focusing today at 3M at f8 and it worked very well. In looking at my attempts the other day I found that the problem was I did not set the ISO high enough so I got blurred images due to slow shutter speed and camera shake. I am starting to like the ZF on this camera as a quick way to shoot. It is too bad we don't have a wider lens so that the DOF is larger for a given f-stop allowing for a faster shutter speed for a given light level.
    V/r John

  37. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    392
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Thanks to your this thread AND GF1 sale thread, I am following your path and going for GXR.

  38. #88
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Please be sure and read my last post in the GXR Taste Thread so you know what you are getting in to. I don't want to mislead anyone.
    V/r John

  39. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    392
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Absolutely John, I will not blame you
    Indeed I read that on Ricoh forum before placing an order

    Quote Originally Posted by barjohn View Post
    Please be sure and read my last post in the GXR Taste Thread so you know what you are getting in to. I don't want to mislead anyone.

  40. #90
    Uebermensch
    Guest

    Re: GXR/A12 vs GF1

    Quote Originally Posted by barjohn View Post
    I thought I would add one more of the Leica comparisons for fun. In this comparison the Leica shot is at ISO 160 using the 90mm Cron at f5.6. I only zoomed it 50% so the two images would not be grossly disproportionate and the GXR is at 100%.
    Hello, BarJohn.
    Could you, please, elaborate, in this particular screenshot which one is the GXR and which one is the Leica?

    Thank you.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •