[Aristophanes]

That's just a matter of perspective.

It's a matter of price.

Really, that is all that matters.

The cost difference between the GXR and what the rest of the market offers is insurmountable. One body, 4 lenses, and virtually no sales to date. The market has decisively spoken. There is no feasible way to drive down the cost to be competitive with the rest of the industry.

It's RIP GXR.

Pentax Imaging is Plan B for Ricoh.

[philbaum]

It's a matter of price.

Really, that is all that matters.

The cost difference between the GXR and what the rest of the market offers is insurmountable. One body, 4 lenses, and virtually no sales to date. The market has decisively spoken. There is no feasible way to drive down the cost to be competitive with the rest of the industry.

It's RIP GXR.

Pentax Imaging is Plan B for Ricoh.

However, if the price of basic aps sensors becomes inexpensive, than there would be no significant cost factor in including them with each module. However, i don't know what a 10meg aps sensor would cost today. They don't show up on the retail market in quantities of one

Also, if one doesn't insist on "sealed" modules, then using the M module for various adapters to suit manual lenses becomes a sensor situation where cost can be spread to more than one lens.

You may be right, perhaps buying Pentax was a way to get some fresh ideas into that sector for Ricoh rather than a way to enhance the GXR. It would be nice to have been a fly on the wall where Pentax was discussed.

[robgo2]

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.

I think that it may be helpful to regard the GXR as a crossover camera, perhaps the first of its kind. It offers the quality and flexibility of a dSLR in a compact body. Of course, it lacks the full functionality of a dSLR, but the point is valid nonetheless.

Rob

[robgo2]

It's a matter of price.

Really, that is all that matters.

The cost difference between the GXR and what the rest of the market offers is insurmountable. One body, 4 lenses, and virtually no sales to date. The market has decisively spoken. There is no feasible way to drive down the cost to be competitive with the rest of the industry.

It's RIP GXR.

Are you certain of this? Do you know the sales figures for Japan? It may be relatively popular in that country. In the U.S. and Europe, there seems to have been damn little effort put into selling it.

Rob

[uccemebug]

Do you know the sales figures for Japan? It may be relatively popular in that country.

I've been out of the country since the end of last year and I suppose my impressions are of little value to begin with. But I wouldn't say that Ricoh ever achieved much popularity in Japan, across the board. They did always have their products in the stores, and I'd not infrequently see a GRD here or there. But I think that the GXR story is only just beginning.

[Aristophanes]

Are you certain of this? Do you know the sales figures for Japan? It may be relatively popular in that country. In the U.S. and Europe, there seems to have been damn little effort put into selling it.

I am certain because I cannot find sales numbers!!!

What I can see from Flickr and DPR is very low volumes for information transfer or posts. People on the DPR forums actually talk about the GXR not surviving. There is a lot of talk about the lack of SR.

Any effort put into advertising would have to be re-couped from sales, adding to an already big issue with the cost.

It got a few reviews, mostly favourable, where all mention the high price issue, the lack of classic styling, but very good photographic features. Engineers designed the product, but marketing was out of the room.

It just seems to have generated pretty much no sales or market buzz other than "interesting". That will not generate enough sales to overcome the added cost of multiple sensors.

It's a dead-end.

[detritus]

I am certain because I cannot find sales numbers!!!

...

It's a dead-end.

one thing i know for sure - i'm probably gonna get me a gxr because it suits my needs at a price point that i'm comfortable with.

needs differs. if you don't need / like it, that's fine... the rest of the planet might find it useful. no?

[RioRico]

It's a dead-end.

I agree that the lensor paradigm is a dead-end. I disagree that modularity will go nowhere. IMHO the mountor paradigm can be a game-changer. Ricoh apparently agrees, as they've announced mountors but no new lensors AFAIK. Will this approach to modularity succeed? As always, WE SHALL SEE. Stay tuned.

[falconeye]

It's a matter of price.
...
It's RIP GXR.
Pentax Imaging is Plan B for Ricoh.

I basically agree with Aristophanes. Before Ricoh buying Pentax, I said the GXR is the right concept ... but for some moment in future, not today. It's time hasn't come yet.

With Ricoh buying Pentax, that didn't change. The M-module is interesting because a Leica M8 still is much more expensive than a GXR. But I'm sure adapters like the (Metabones) Leica M to Sony NEX adapter are more popular.

A GXR K adapter would be a statement of commitment for the K mount. And as such it could be an important product for Ricoh. But I don't consider it an interesting product. Not in a world where soon Pentax will have to compete with Nikon D400 and D4. There is a reason why Nikon is slow in even doing a mirrorless. It's because it still isn't where the true battlefield is. Bailing out of the battlefield is a way of declaring capitulation. With Pentax, Ricoh must want to return to the battleground. At least, I hope so.

Assuming the software for contrast detect AF is good enough (which is a matter of algorithms really), it is straigthforward to derive a mirrorless camera from a dSLR. But not the other way round. Therefore, I hope Ricoh continues to consider the K mount to be the core of its camera business.

[stanleyk]

one thing i know for sure - i'm probably gonna get me a gxr because it suits my needs at a price point that i'm comfortable with.

needs differs. if you don't need / like it, that's fine... the rest of the planet might find it useful. no?

Yeah, I'm getting one too. Great camera. I went with an X100 first but that's next.

I wouldn't read too much into what is posted on this forum re: business. A lot of drama and silly overly analytical histrionics.

A lot of products don't sell in high numbers but they sell. You might just have to pay more for them. So what.

I would worry about what you want/like and not so much about what everyone else is doing for example buying a Canon Rebel or whatever brand of DSLR. Quite frankly I find DSLR's really boring. If everyone else wants to use one good for them, doesn't impact me in the least.

[audiobomber]

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.

Not with M-mount; one sensor mudule, interchangeable lenses, provision to upgrade body or sensor separately in the future. It's a really neat system and the M-mount with separate lenses is the correct direction. Clearly the market acceptance has been low, but the new IL module is finally getting the GXR some attention. I'm in if they develop a full functionality module for my Pentax primes.

[detritus]

Yeah, I'm getting one too. Great camera. I went with an X100 first but that's next.

I wouldn't read too much into what is posted on this forum re: business. A lot of drama and silly overly analytical histrionics.

A lot of products don't sell in high numbers but they sell. You might just have to pay more for them. So what.

I would worry about what you want/like and not so much about what everyone else is doing for example buying a Canon Rebel or whatever brand of DSLR. Quite frankly I find DSLR's really boring. If everyone else wants to use one good for them, doesn't impact me in the least.

oh don't get me wrong i have a K-5 and i love it for what it can do.

i just don't want to lug a big package around all the time. i like something like the LX5, but i also want something with an aps-c sensor sometimes. and i want them both without buying 2 cameras, and i want them in a relatively compact package.

my point is, the only think preventing pple from seeing the potential versatility of the GXR, is lack of marketing and product awareness, not grouses over built in obsolescence or supposed pointlessness.

pple find uses for stuff they know abt and good marketing is supposed to suggest ways that pple can use them

i mean... many pple thought that the ipad and tablets were pointless... so?

[Aristophanes]

This is the camera that makes me like Ricoh:

Ricoh PX Preview: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

The PX is a seriously well-thought out camera. Apparently it has EV compensation! I hope the sensor is viable and the price competitive (I cannot quite fathom why Ricoh puts the flash where it does; are their engineers all left-handed?). Give the PX a really good high-ISO capable sensor and the Pentax brand and they are good to go.

Their design philosophy for small cameras is not dissimilar to Pentax and they have cleverly exploited niche markets:

G700SE / Digital Cameras | Ricoh Global

Not too far from the Pentax W models. Lots of room to merge and extrapolate there with additional revenue streams. Solid.

With cameraphones taking over the easy-access P&S market, there is still room for dedicated cameras in the small form factor to deliver higher quality images in difficult environments. There is lots of room for cameras as style statements as well. I see similar philosophy between these companies and they are thinking ahead.

But Pentax's K-series of DLSR's and the mirrorless Q go in the opposite direction of Ricoh's G-models.

The Pentax products get very high praise for their styling and ergonomics and accessibly camera controls, all evidence of solid engineering. They have excellent aesthetics, including the Q. They have evolved through a deep understanding of camera engineering and market history. At its heart Pentax is an SLR company. The trend toward mirrorless is a pretty big shock. At least Ricoh has thought out and executive on part of that equation with the GXR.

However, Ricoh's products (GX, GR, GXR) verge on non-traditional and, frankly, utilitarian boring in design. The lensor module system is clever but cannot compete on cost and for mindshare, not with k-mount or against the other dominant mounts. I've railed against elsewhere. The GR and GX look very, very serious in all that Darth Vader black, then the marketing line they offer is "Freedom of Expression". More like depression from the styling.

Overall it's a good marriage, but the ugly stepchild has to go.

And another snide comment about Ricoh: The sample photos on their website are not very good. Some are downright awful. I think the engineers took them without running it by marketing.

[Aristophanes]

The problem with the Ricoh GXR design is the price of new lensors. It's totally not competitive. Each prime model now costs US$649 (B&H).

The Olympus primes average US$299. So the sensor adds US$350 for Ricoh.

Similar dynamics for the zooms. The original kit well-priced, but the modular premium is extraordinarily expensive.

Modules for existing mounts like M and K-mount would inevitably take away sales from the dedicated GXR lensors. So that's a way to drive sales to eBay and away from your bread and butter.

There may be a market for a retrofit, modular digital camera system that is mount agnostic, but a company has to be extremely wary of cannibalizing its sales from its core offerings of new glass.

If Pentax wanted to be a thorn in M43's paw it could offer an APS-C sensor module that did just that, at a low cost, and without some normally beneficial features (like SR and AF). This should not in any way be seen as a mirrorless option for the k-mount line of the last decade. I also think a market for old glass on new sensors is fleeting and marginal at best as old glass is a depreciating market (entropy and all). A company has to be aware that vocal pixel peepers will lambaste a sensor or RAW processing instead of ancient optical formulas and coatings as the source of poor IQ. Lots of gnashing in the M43 crowd over that. Touchy market for core hobbyists but not a sustainable revenue machine for the mothership. This is about the only way I could see the GXR survive. Maybe a k-mount module with no AF or SR.

[rparmar]

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

I just knew someone would be unable resist the slippery slope. Since "compromise" is not in everyone's vocabulary.