[Aristophanes]

The functional capabilities are marginal compared to the cost of the "lensor" units.

The price scenarios cannot be overcome by any amount of marketing. In fact, they'd make it worse (you do have to pay for the marketing in the price of the product).

GXR is the worst case of forced obsolescence ever. Throw out good lenses because the sensor is outdated? Okay. At least with M- and K- mount MF modules it would have some place in the world.

Absolutely.

The GXR concept because it is modular is interesting, but ultimately flawed. Adding too much backwards functionality reduces current lens sales. This is how optical companies lose money by the bucketloads. Having to outsource multiple sensors from different suppliers at different prices on an ongoing basis is expensive, especially when tied to small production runs.

It simply does not move the bar far enough to be a market success.

[kanzlr]

well, actually I use the GXR and it is a wonderful camera. Small, good modules in the 50 and 28mm APS-C variety, VERY small but superbly ergonomic body and stellar image quality.

if ricoh never releases any more modules it would still be a superb secondary body and/or travel camera because of the great usability, size and optical quality. And the 12MP Sensor is good anyways.

Also, the merger made me aware of Pentax again. I wanted a SLR or rangefinder again as primary camera (Because the GXR doesn't suffice for everything I do. Long Tele and faster action for example), so I went to a shop to try the K5 yesterday, fell in love and ordered one

see, we are a big family now *g*

[eddie1960]

well, actually I use the GXR and it is a wonderful camera. Small, good modules in the 50 and 28mm APS-C variety, VERY small but superbly ergonomic body and stellar image quality.

if ricoh never releases any more modules it would still be a superb secondary body and/or travel camera because of the great usability, size and optical quality. And the 12MP Sensor is good anyways.

Also, the merger made me aware of Pentax again. I wanted a SLR or rangefinder again as primary camera (Because the GXR doesn't suffice for everything I do. Long Tele and faster action for example), so I went to a shop to try the K5 yesterday, fell in love and ordered one

see, we are a big family now *g*

Welcome tho the club, there is a GXR user club BTW but it's sadly underpopulated though i think that's going to change (there are 2 of us in Canada waiting on distribution here that I know of)

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/132301...-gxr-club.html

[rparmar]

GXR is the worst case of forced obsolescence ever. Throw out good lenses because the sensor is outdated?

Agreed. I don't care how good the camera is, it is impossible for me to ethically support such unreasonable wastefulness and forced obsolescence.

[uccemebug]

Agreed. I don't care how good the camera is, it is impossible for me to ethically support such unreasonable wastefulness and forced obsolescence.

Then I'm sure you'll never again buy anything with a memory chip?

[eddie1960]

Agreed. I don't care how good the camera is, it is impossible for me to ethically support such unreasonable wastefulness and forced obsolescence.

ahve a look at this review Robin

he ends with some comments on that including possible marketing solutions (ie trade your old lensor towards a new - so the lenses can be recycled into new lensors, and/or factory sensor upgrade options)

the results he has gotten from it in real world shooting seem excellent
and he really didn't have a lot of bad to say (neither have most of the reviews actually). Mostly people struggle with the concept of it but they all seem to like the camera and many of them have kept it (or stated their intention to get one). because they haven't been available in canada I had ignored Ricoh pretty much, the sale of course changed that and i started looking around. personally i think it's a very cool (albeit Niche) product in need of some decent distribution and marketing to go along with the good reviews

Review: Ricoh GXR Camera with 28 and 50mm Lens-Sensor Modules

[Aristophanes]

Then I'm sure you'll never again buy anything with a memory chip?

By definition the "lensor" concept goes against 100+ years of photographic lens recycling and continued use by tying one piece of silicon to another.

It's a very high-priced disposable camera:



This is not analogous to microchips.

From all accounts it sounds like Ricoh made the GXR a respectable piece of photographic engineering and that's good to see for Pentaxians as it shows Ricoh has photography in its DNA like Pentax.

But the GXR costs far too much with intrinsic costs beyond Ricoh's control, and pretty much no sales appeal to the broad market. Ricoh did not pay $100+ million for Pentax to attach a camera product to the brand with sales of under $1 million per year (my est.).

[audiobomber]

Agreed. I don't care how good the camera is, it is impossible for me to ethically support such unreasonable wastefulness and forced obsolescence.

I don't get this. What about a Fuji X100, Sigma DP-x, or any other fixed lens camera? It has a fine lens, inextricably attached to a sensor AND a body. There's nothing salvageable there. At least the GXR re-uses the body for an upgrade.

[uccemebug]

It's a very high-priced disposable camera:

Only as much as any other fixed lens camera. Mmm, perhaps a bit less, because the actual body can survive whatever it is that causes the module to be obsolete.

This is not analogous to microchips.

Well sure, no one's producing electronics goods in hopes that you never buy a replacement.

[robgo2]

By definition the "lensor" concept goes against 100+ years of photographic lens recycling and continued use by tying one piece of silicon to another.

It's a very high-priced disposable camera:

This is not analogous to microchips.

From all accounts it sounds like Ricoh made the GXR a respectable piece of photographic engineering and that's good to see for Pentaxians as it shows Ricoh has photography in its DNA like Pentax.

But the GXR costs far too much with intrinsic costs beyond Ricoh's control, and pretty much no sales appeal to the broad market. Ricoh did not pay $100+ million for Pentax to attach a camera product to the brand with sales of under $1 million per year (my est.).

At this point, I'm ambivalent on the GXR. On the one hand, it looks to be a very well engineered photographic tool capable of producing extremely high quality output. In this sense, it complements a dSLR system, by being able to produce comparable IQ with a much smaller package. As such, it is arguably the finest compact camera on the market, and that includes the X100 and the X1.

On the other hand, the upgrade path does seem both wasteful and expensive, which almost automatically limits the camera's appeal to well-healed enthusiasts who are willing to spend their disposable income on camera gear and to do so repeatedly. (I might point out that there are more than a few such folks on this very forum. I'm talking about people who do not hesitate to get the latest cameras as soon as they are released and who own enough lenses to stock a small shop. You guys know who you are. ) This does not mean that the GXR could not be profitable, if some of its deficiencies are addressed and it is cleverly and aggressively marketed. Being more expensive than the competition can work, if your products carry a certain cachet, something that Ricoh needs to develop.

As for myself, I am waiting to see what Ricoh/Pentax does in the way of a successor to the K5. Then, I want to see what further developments they have in store for the GXR system. I would love to have a high quality compact camera to use at times when I don't want to carry a dSLR.

Rob

[eddie1960]

At this point, I'm ambivalent on the GXR. On the one hand, it looks to be a very well engineered photographic tool capable of producing extremely high quality output. In this sense, it complements a dSLR system, by being able to produce comparable IQ with a much smaller package. As such, it is arguably the finest compact camera on the market, and that includes the X100 and the X1.

On the other hand, the upgrade path does seem both wasteful and expensive, which almost automatically limits the camera's appeal to well-healed enthusiasts who are willing to spend their disposable income on camera gear and to do so repeatedly. (I might point out that there are more than a few such folks on this very forum. I'm talking about people who do not hesitate to get the latest cameras as soon as they are released and who own enough lenses to stock a small shop. You guys know who you are. ) This does not mean that the GXR could not be profitable, if some of its deficiencies are addressed and it is cleverly and aggressively marketed.

As for myself, I am waiting to see what Ricoh/Pentax does in the way of a successor to the K5. Then, I want to see what further developments they have in store for the GXR system. I would love to have a high quality compact camera to use at times when I don't want to carry a dSLR.

Rob

The x100 and the x1 arr bothe wasteful by that standard moreso actually since the gxr maintains the body
The gxr is also cheaper by far than either of the other
When i pricrd out an a12 28 kit with evf leather case spare battery and lens shade it stil cost less than the x100
Add the a12 50 and its still less than an x1 but with 2 lenses
So its not really out of libe but requires a different mindset

[robgo2]

The x100 and the x1 arr bothe wasteful by that standard moreso actually since the gxr maintains the body
The gxr is also cheaper by far than either of the other
When i pricrd out an a12 28 kit with evf leather case spare battery and lens shade it stil cost less than the x100
Add the a12 50 and its still less than an x1 but with 2 lenses
So its not really out of libe but requires a different mindset

I see your point, and I would add that compact cameras are often regarded as throwaway items. Use them until a better model is released and then upgrade. You can bet that this is precisely what many owners of X1s and X100s will do. Viewed in this way, upgrading GXR modules will actually be less expensive. There may be a body update along the way, at least I would hope so. I can see how updating multiple modules may pose a real challenge for Ricoh in their effort to keep up with the competition. After all, most people will want the latest sensor, AF etc.

On the user side, most will probably own only one, two or three modules. Ricoh might cleverly offer some sort of trade-in discount for current owners wanting to upgrade. This would take some of the sting out of the process. Personally, if I were in the market for a compact APS-C right now, it would be the GXR with both A12s.

Rob

[Class A]

I don't care how good the camera is, it is impossible for me to ethically support such unreasonable wastefulness and forced obsolescence.

By this standard, no K-7 owner would have been allowed to upgrade to a K-5. Think about all the body wasted for what was essentially just a sensor upgrade.

We can agree that the best modularity is achieved by separating body, sensor, and lens.

The conventional approach is to glue body and sensor together which has its disadvantages (see K-7 -> K-5 upgrade).

Ricoh's approach rationalises that body and sensor do not need to be matched but that it makes sense to match a sensor to a lens and vice versa. So while it does not achieve full modularisation, it at least glues together what appears to belong together. And, any camera which ties all three -- body, sensor, and lens -- together is more "wasteful" by definition. The GXR approach is definitely an improvement when you take this (quite common) starting point as a reference.

The approach is not wasteful if you consider the possibility that the lens modules will continue to take great pictures even if better sensors become available. If an updated version of the FA 77/1.8 is released, does that mean that your copy is suddenly waste and needs to be replaced?

It may not even make sense to combine the lens of a current lens module with a better sensor because the lens resolution and the sensor resolution are matched and any change would be for the worse. Sensors have become so good regarding noise and dynamic range that you won't see dramatic improvements in the future (the K-5's sensor is very close to an ideal photon counter within the Bayer matrix approach). Hence there is no urgency to mate the Ricoh lenses with future sensors.

At the very least, the Ricoh GXR approach allows to separate body, sensor, and lens by means of offering mount modules. If Ricoh offered a number of mount modules (such as the forthcoming M-module) the GXR system could take off big time.

The Ricoh GXR approach requires a different mindset and appears to be illogical and too expensive at first. When you start to think about it, though, and make the right comparisons as many in this thread did, it makes a lot of sense. It may not become a commercial success, but the latter has never been a good litmus test of technical excellence.

[Aristophanes]

I don't get this. What about a Fuji X100, Sigma DP-x, or any other fixed lens camera? It has a fine lens, inextricably attached to a sensor AND a body. There's nothing salvageable there. At least the GXR re-uses the body for an upgrade.

You're confusing market segment vs. function.

The GXR is replicating the use of a DSLR's interchangeable lens system and in doing so duplicates a sensor purchase with every lens.

It's uneconomic and not competitive because a DSLR (or other mirrorless) does not build in that added cost.

So the GXR competes against every DSLR and mirrorless camera that does not price in a sensor with every lens!

You buy the Fuji X100 for only one lens. That's the deal. Thus has it been with most economical RF's. Just you like you buy a Leica M9 for manual focus by default as an ILC RF with a very high price.

And someone correct me if I am wrong, but does not the GXR completely forego SR and PDAF? To me it looks like there's not room for those in the lensor as designed.

[Class A]

The GXR is replicating the use of a DSLR's interchangeable lens system and in doing so duplicates a sensor purchase with every lens.

That's just a matter of perspective.
You could just as well say "The GXR improves on the disposable camera (P&S, Fuji X100, ...) concept". At the end of the day, everything competes with everything and it is just a matter of price (and what people want to pay for).

And someone correct me if I am wrong, but does not the GXR completely forego SR and PDAF?

The modules may not offer the space required for a sensor-based SR for big sensors, but other than that I don't see why you couldn't support lens-based SR or sensor-based SR for smaller sensors.

Regarding forgoing PDAF, I believe that's the future. You certainly won't hear any "My lens FF/BFs, how do I correctly micro-adjust the AF?" questions/complaints about the GXR. The challenge is to make the CBAF as fast as PDAF. Falk has been saying for a long time that this challenge can be mastered and the recent improvements (e.g., Live View focus from K-7 to K-5 or Ricoh's own firmware upgrade) are encouraging.