My Review of the Ricoh GXR + 28mm + 50mm + VF-2

[miserere_mei]

<p>I reviewed the Ricoh GXR for SeriousCompacts.com and it's just been published. I used the 28mm f/2.5 and 50mm f/2.5 macro lensors, together with the VF-2 EVF. Read the full review and see the pics here: http://www.seriouscompacts.com/f41/review-ricoh-gxr-camera-28-50mm-lens-sensor-modules-3356/</p>

<p>Note: I suppose now that Ricoh bought Pentax this in no longer off-topic :-)</p>

[rparmar]

<p>I joined that forum just to reply to you, so job well done!</p>

<p>I have to shake my head at some of the decisions manufacturers make. What sort of market research revealed that customers were clamouring to throw away their sensor with each lens purchase? Answer: none.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>An excellent review and fine read. Regardless of the fine shots you achieved, this is one strange camera. It seems more like a prototype that the Ricoh copier engineers ran amok with, rather than a consumer product.</p>

<p>Those menus and buttons seem like a collection of hassle. Let's hope that Ricoh retains the Pentax usability engineers and designers come October.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Haven't read it yet, but in response to ME. I also hope Ricoh pulls a Samsung and learns something from Pentax. I've always felt, while the Pentax/Samsung relationship ran just a few years, and was probably more beneficial to Samsung, Samsung used it's time with Pentax wisely.</p>

<p>That said, the Ricoh GX100 and GRD have good control interfaces, so it makes me wonder why the GXR is so awful.</p>

[MattB.Net]

<p>Nice writeup. I really like that subway car shot too!</p>

[michael_elenko]

<blockquote>

<p>Samsung used it's time with Pentax wisely</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with you totally. Two things Samsung learned was which photographic markets to abandon, and which photographic markets to pursue.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[Sanford]

<p>I think that this is a case of a superior photographer making a good camera look like a great camera. </p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Ok, I eventually caught on that "lensors" wasn't a typo. However, as Robin suggests, it does seem like a mistake and it does raise questions about Ricoh's decision-making.</p>

<p>I'm inclined to agree with Sanford: those are nice photographs. </p>

[robert goldstein]

Sanford Gerald , Jul 12, 2011; 03:18 p.m.

"I think that this is a case of a superior photographer making a good camera look like a great camera."

 

I had never heard of the GXR prior to Ricoh's acquisition of Pentax, but ever since, I have developed an intense

interest in this compact camera system. I have read every review that I could find online (including one here on

photo.net by Josh Root) and have looked at many dozens of images, especially from the two A 12 APS-C modules.

Admittedly, this is not a substitute for hands-on experience, but nevertheless, I have come away with a distinctly more

positive impression than the one rendered by MM in his review. Most reviewers have found the GXR to be both quirky

and highly innovative. Almost universally, they give it high marks for ergonomics and build quality. Output from the

two A 12 units is not merely good, but excellent. Steve Huff rates the IQ as superior to that of his K-5 with a Limited

lens, and he loves his K-5. My own viewing of images on Huff's site and elsewhere leads me to believe that the GXR

can hold it's own against almost any APS-C dSLR, and this is with a sensor that is of an earlier generation than the

one in the K-5.

 

It is true that the GXR has met with limited commercial success and that few people outside of Japan have ever seen

one, let alone held one in their hands. To be sure, it is far from a perfect product and could stand improvements in

several areas, most notably in AF and in speed of writing to the memory card. It could also benefit from a better EVF,

especially one that is integral to the body. Nevertheless, Ricoh deserves credit for sticking their neck out to build a

unique and high quality compact camera system that can produce dSLR quality images. Whether the GXR will survive

the union of Ricoh and Pentax is anyone's guess at this time. Personally, I hope that it does and that Ricoh devotes considerable resources into developing it further and marketing it more cleverly and aggressively, but I certainly would not bet on that happening.

 

Rob

[robert goldstein]

I might add to my comments above that the GXR is not intended to serve as a full substitute for a dSLR, but rather as

a supplement to one. Thus it is entirely fair to compare it to other high end compact cameras, such as the Leica X1,

the Fujifilm X100 and the Sony NEX. From all that I have seen, the GXR can easily a match any of them in terms of

IQ and is certainly more versatile than the X1 and the X100. The NEX is versatile but is also regarded by some as an ergonomic mess. Still, it is less expensive, and I expect that one could adapt to using it.

 

Rob

[miserere_mei]

<blockquote>

<p>Robert wrote:<br>

I have read every review that I could find online [...] I have come away with a distinctly more positive impression than the one rendered by MM in his review</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm going to reread my review because a few people have told me that it was a negative review. I liked the camera, and praised its many excellent features. I also bemoaned its shortcomings, most of which are not inherent to the design and could be fixed with new firmware.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I might add to my comments above that the GXR is not intended to serve as a full substitute for a dSLR, but rather as a supplement to one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is your opinion, Robert. Mine is that any camera should be able to stand alone as an image taking unit, and thus perform all the main functions a particular photographer might require (note I didn't say "all photographers would require"). As such, a mirrorless camera should substitute, not supplement (what does that even mean?), a DSLR. Who is going to spend over $2,000 on a body with two lenses only to call it a supplement? If mirrorless cameras can't substitute DSLRs, they've already lost the battle and should die out straight away.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>From all that I have seen, the GXR can easily a match any of them in terms of IQ and is certainly more versatile than the X1 and the X100</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know what images you've seen, but I can assure you that your statement is only true up to maybe ISO 800. Above that, especially in low light where images might be underexposed, the GXR lags behind the X100 and NEX cameras. It's a bit better than the Samsung NX10, which isn't saying much, and I'd say about equal to the latest m4/3 cameras. I'm not saying the sensor is terrible, I'm just being realistic, and with some firmware tinkering they should be able to add ISO 6400 and improve its overall high ISO performance. I do want to note that the GXR's IQ, as that of most cameras on the market today, is extremely good by classical standards and should be more than good enough for most photographers. Getting into high ISO IQ discussions in this day and age is nitpicking, and I want everyone to know I realise that.</p>

[robert goldstein]

<p>Miserere,</p>

<p>Actually, I don't think it is fair to expect the same level of functionality from a compact camera as you would from a full size dSLR. As for your review being perceived as having a somewhat negative slant, I think that is because your annoyance with the camera's weaknesses comes across more strongly than your satisfaction with its strengths.</p>

<p>As for image samples that I have reviewed, there are quite a few on Steve Huff's website and on Flickr as well. Steve is a big-time Leicaphile, and his standard of comparison is an M9. Of course, these are, for the most part, not full-size image files, but they do give a strong impression of what the camera is capable of producing. As I mentioned previously, the GXR A12 sensor is one generation behind that in the K-5, so it cannot deliver quite the same DR or high ISO performance. But there is no question whatsoever as to the outstanding image quality that the A12 modules can produce, and all from a very small package. That is what makes it special. The GXR is not for everyone, but it does have a lot to offer.</p>

<p>Steve Huff's review of the GXR: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/12/02/the-ricoh-gxr-digital-camera-review-with-the-28mm-and-50mm-modules/ In the comments section, he makes reference to the K-5.</p>

<p>Steve Huff again: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/12/05/more-from-the-ricoh-gxr-and-28-f2-5/</p>

<p>Compared to Leica X1: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/12/13/quick-comparison-ricoh-gxr-28mm-vs-leica-x1/</p>

<p>Compared to Sony NEX-5: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/11/29/quick-comparison-ricoh-gxr-vs-sony-nex-5/</p>

<p>Rob</p>

[miserere_mei]

<blockquote>

<p>Robert Goldstein wrote:<br>

But there is no question whatsoever as to the outstanding image quality that the A12 modules can produce</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think I ever said anything to the contrary! :-) My complaints are to do with the lack of anything higher that ISO 3200, and the fact that ISO 1600 and above is not on par with current mirrorless offerings such as NEX, and quite a bit below the Sony 16MP sensor on the K-5 and Nikon D7000. Again, this doesn't mean the GXR has a bad sensor, it's just not up to par <em>at high ISO</em> (and this has more to do with Ricoh's image processing than the sensor itself, because Pentax achieved outstanding high ISO performance from this sensor on the K-x). At low to moderate ISO, it performs very well, just like every large sensor camera on the market has for the last 5-7 years.</p>

<p>I just now read Steve's review and found it to be very much in agreement with mine. He seems to like high ISO IQ more than I do, but other than that we find pretty much the same pros and cons to this system. You pointed me to the comments section where he talks about the K-5 and says:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the Ricoh and 28/50 module deliver better performance (IQ WISE) than the Pentax with a limited prime lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Having reviewed the K-5, I know this is not true above ISO 800 or so. Below that, I suppose it depends on what Ltd lens he's using and what set of parameters he's comparing. The closest Ltd lenses in focal length are the 15mm f/4 and the 21mm f/3.2, neither of which I have used, both of which have been generally praised as being very good. If he shows us some side-by-side examples, maybe I could form my own opinion, but it's hard for me to just take his word for it. As such, I will remain agnostic on this particular matter.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<blockquote>

<p>Robert Goldstein wrote:<br />Actually, I don't think it is fair to expect the same level of functionality from a compact camera as you would from a full size dSLR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I expect the same <em>type</em> of functionality, but I don't expect the same <em>grade</em> of functionality. For example, a mirrorless compact should AF, shoot RAW, have manual WB, Auto ISO, 2 control wheels, interchangeable lenses, etc. There is no reason why it can't have the exact same functions that a DSLR has. However, some of these functions depend on physical components, whose size determine how well they can perform; for example:</p>

<ul>

<li><strong>AF:</strong> Fast AF requires faster motors and faster software modules, both of which tend to be larger; but shorter registration distances for compacts mean smaller lenses with smaller elements and shorter distances to travel. Also, microchips get smaller all the time, so an AF software module can be both fast and small. CDAF was much slower than PDAF, but it's catching up, which means we could soon have similar AF performance from compacts and DSLRs. <strong>Today, I don't expect a compact camera to give me as fast AF as a DSLR.</strong></li>

<li><strong>Frames per second:</strong> There's no way to get around this, faster shutters need to be sturdier, thus larger, and require larger mechanisms to get them moving that fast. on teh other hand, slower shutters can be quieter, and some compacts have leaf shutters which are very quiet. <strong>I don't expect a compact camera to shoot 7fps like many affordable DSLRs can do now.</strong></li>

<li><strong>Buffer:</strong> This is also related to how many fps can be achieved. A buffer that can hold more images needs to be larger in physical size. Moore's Law would tell us that next year we'll be able to fit more images in the same physical size, so eventually a compact camera will have the same buffer as a DSLR has today, but it will still be smaller than the buffer of a DSLR released at the same time as the compact. <strong>I don't expect a compact camera to hold dozens of images in buffer right now like a DSLR can.</strong></li>

<li><strong>Processor:</strong> DSLRs process images much faster than compacts do, and again it's due to size, and I also suspect due to costs, which compact cameras using cheaper, slower processors. This is another area that is improving each year. <strong>I don't expect compact cameras to process images as fast as a DSLR.</strong></li>

<li><strong>Battery life:</strong> Again it comes down to physical size, with a larger battery providing more juice than a smaller battery. A compact camera will always have a smaller battery and, if using equivalent technology, will always have a shorter autonomy than a DSLR, but battery technology is also improving so autonomy will steadily increase. <strong>I don't expect a compact camera to give me as many shots per battery as a DSLR.</strong></li>

</ul>

<p>For a sports or wildlife shooter, a compact camera might not replace his/her DSLR, but for other types of shooters it might, if they are willing to compromise on the above specs (and probably others I haven't thought of right now).</p>

<p>So no, a MILC cannot replace a DSLR spec-for-spec, but some shooters, like myself, are willing to give up some performance in exchange for a lighter, smaller, quieter camera that, albeit more slowly, produces the same final IQ.</p>