Ricoh GXR Leica M-mount APS-C module, K-mount next?

Blue · 08-06-2011, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

Anyone looked at this page:

GXR firmware / Digital Cameras | Ricoh Global.

Ricoh is a company that is very open in communication to its customers!

I notice that their firmware updates include actual upgrades and not just "bug" fixes.

rvannatta · 08-07-2011, 09:28 PM

This Ricoh model looks interesting, but some I have problems seeing that plug and play sensors and plug and play---everyone's under the sun lenses---is going to be an inexpensive product.

and putting large SLR style lenses with a bulky adapter seems to defeat the reason for using
a rangefinder style camera in the first place.

I see the niche for a poor man's Leica to be that of a small box that takes really good pictures.
Now, I'm not yapping about full frame--- APS-C is good enough, bu there is something about a DA* big zoom and a Leica that simply doesn't go together.

OTOH, the LTD series of Primes..........

Blue · 08-08-2011, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by rvannatta

. . .
OTOH, the LTD series of Primes..........

That is kind of the main point not to mention many other compact Pentax and other lenses. for K-mount and m42, you would only need one module.

eddie1960 · 08-08-2011, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by Blue

That is kind of the main point not to mention many other compact Pentax and other lenses. for K-mount and m42, you would only need one module.

For that matter if Manual focus is your primary thing the m mount registration allows most any lens with an adapter
so even if the k module takes time to come there is the alternate of the m module with an adapter (or3 depending on how many different lens types you own - I have M,LTM,m42,k that I would use - the m is native , they have stated an ltm adapter would be available, now for the other 2

)

Blue · 08-08-2011, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by eddie1960

For that matter if Manual focus is your primary thing the m mount registration allows most any lens with an adapter
so even if the k module takes time to come there is the alternate of the m module with an adapter (or3 depending on how many different lens types you own - I have M,LTM,m42,k that I would use - the m is native , they have stated an ltm adapter would be available, now for the other 2

)

That m module will definitely be under consideration. Maybe I will make do with my e-p1 until it comes out. Its not like my ltd lenses have af on there.

illdefined · 08-08-2011, 09:45 AM

nothing stopping them now except for the flange distance. M-mount is really close to the film plane (sensor), i think around 26mm, and its already adding extra thickness to the base GXR module.

K-mount is closer to 46mm, with the added dimensions of the detachable sensor/lens mechanism, altogether it would likely be deeper than a K-5, or at the very least the same size but without SR. at that point how much space are we really saving?

I'd still want to see them try to make it, the more things i can attach my Limited primes to the better.

Unsinkable II · 08-09-2011, 02:52 AM

Agreed, the K-mount registration distance is an issue...

Unless they do a folded optic version as someone mentioned on another K-mount EVIL thread.

Add an integral 3 million dot OLED viewfinder (as is rumoured in the upcoming A77), and I'd be in camera heaven.

arpaagent · 08-09-2011, 06:20 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Unsinkable II

Agreed, the K-mount registration distance is an issue...

Unless they do a folded optic version as someone mentioned on another K-mount EVIL thread.

Add an integral 3 million dot OLED viewfinder (as is rumoured in the upcoming A77), and I'd be in camera heaven.

Agreed on the integral viewfinder. Pretty sure I am not going to by any serious camera without a built-in eye level viewfinder. I'm sure I could live with an EVF for that type of camera since it's difficult to take out the mirror and have a TTL viewfinder. But I do love about an OVF, if only for the viewfinder dynamic range and minimal power consumption (great for battery life, only run the sensor when making an exposure).

RonHendriks1966 · 08-09-2011, 09:54 AM

Does any one know the difference in diameter between M-mount and K-mount? I wonder if it fits in the little box?

eddie1960 · 08-09-2011, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

Does any one know the difference in diameter between M-mount and K-mount? I wonder if it fits in the little box?

k mount is quite a bit wider if i remember (I'm not at home to actually just look) so no the adapter would stick out
external according to Wiki is 44mm, flange is 27.8mm

k mount i can't find perhaps someone who isn't on a work crippled internet can

edit the bayonet size is apparently "27.8mm Leica M bayonet mount" from Engadget

I know K is a fair bit larger diameter than that
.

RonHendriks1966 · 08-09-2011, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by eddie1960

k mount is quite a bit wider if i remember (I'm not at home to actually just look) so no the adapter would stick out
external according to Wiki is 44mm, flange is 27.8mm

k mount i can't find perhaps someone who isn't on a work crippled internet can

edit the bayonet size is apparently "27.8mm Leica M bayonet mount" from Engadget

I know K is a fair bit larger diameter than that
.

Well not the flangdistance, but the diametre of the K-mount versus M-mount. There isn't much room left so I wondered if it would fit, a Full Frame sensor in that little box. The difference in flangedistance is easily overcome with jus a tube the thickness off the difference.

robgo2 · 08-09-2011, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by johnmflores

Funny!

What impresses me about Ricoh (I owned a GX100) is that you get the distinct impression that their engineers are photographers when you use their stuff. The DPR preview shows that the A12 module is filled with nice little touches:

- the ability to enter and save different lens parameters for inclusion in EXIF data
- multiple MF assist modes
- silent electronic shutter option
- no AA filter

I like the way our new overlords think!

No AA filter = color moire. Why do you consider this a good thing, especially when it is so simple to counter AA filter softness with capture sharpening? I just don't understand this aversion to AA filters. Manufacturers use them for a good reason, not because they want to irritate users who think that they cannot get sharp images with those damn filters in the way.

Rob

pinholecam · 08-09-2011, 07:40 PM - **1 Like**

Perhaps a small bare bones body where you can customize the following as you please is in the works?

1. Want larger camera : attach on grips
2. Want smaller camera : leave it bare bones
3. Want FF sensor : just attach a FF sensor module
4. Same as #3 for APS-C, M, etc sensor modules.

A transformer camera for geeks

RioRico · 08-09-2011, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by pinholecam

A transformer camera for geeks

And a larger version, GXR2, with room for MF sensors. Isn't 645D technology part of why Ricoh bought Pentax? Hay, take it up to 6x7cm!

Or even with the small current GXR, why not mountors with variant sensors in the Q-M-K mounts: square, portrait mode, pano, etc. Fuji sells pano film cams for Big Money. The revolutionary Olympus Pen-FT half-frame 135 SLR was in portrait mode, with an internal porroprism (like binoculars have), no bulging top. And square frames have been around for a long long time -- no need ever to change camera orientation, perfect for tripod work.

And not just the size and orientation -- variant sensor TYPES too: Foveon; filters other than Bayer; B&W or IR or other specialized spectra; etc. By separating the body from the mountor, the costs of all these variants would not be prohibitive.

johnmflores · 08-09-2011, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by robgo2

No AA filter = color moire. Why do you consider this a good thing, especially when it is so simple to counter AA filter softness with capture sharpening? I just don't understand this aversion to AA filters. Manufacturers use them for a good reason, not because they want to irritate users who think that they cannot get sharp images with those damn filters in the way.

Rob

No AA hasn't hurt sales of Leica's M9...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Ricoh GXR Club	Urkeldaedalus	Ricoh GR	587	03-26-2024 03:19 AM
Ricoh GXR-system Full Frame K-mount module	RonHendriks1966	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	60	06-07-2016 06:47 PM
The Ricoh GXR is no K-mount (yet?)	thibs	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	7	11-11-2009 07:53 PM
Ricoh mirrorless APS-C camera in K mount this year?	emr	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	18	11-09-2009 05:50 PM

08-06-2011, 06:44 PM	#16
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 Anyone looked at this page: GXR firmware / Digital Cameras \| Ricoh Global. Ricoh is a company that is very open in communication to its customers! I notice that their firmware updates include actual upgrades and not just "bug" fixes.

08-07-2011, 09:28 PM	#17
rvannatta Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Apiary, Oregon Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,181	This Ricoh model looks interesting, but some I have problems seeing that plug and play sensors and plug and play---everyone's under the sun lenses---is going to be an inexpensive product. and putting large SLR style lenses with a bulky adapter seems to defeat the reason for using a rangefinder style camera in the first place. I see the niche for a poor man's Leica to be that of a small box that takes really good pictures. Now, I'm not yapping about full frame--- APS-C is good enough, bu there is something about a DA* big zoom and a Leica that simply doesn't go together. OTOH, the LTD series of Primes..........

08-08-2011, 06:04 AM	#18
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by rvannatta . . . OTOH, the LTD series of Primes.......... That is kind of the main point not to mention many other compact Pentax and other lenses. for K-mount and m42, you would only need one module.

08-08-2011, 06:13 AM	#19
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by Blue That is kind of the main point not to mention many other compact Pentax and other lenses. for K-mount and m42, you would only need one module. For that matter if Manual focus is your primary thing the m mount registration allows most any lens with an adapter so even if the k module takes time to come there is the alternate of the m module with an adapter (or3 depending on how many different lens types you own - I have M,LTM,m42,k that I would use - the m is native , they have stated an ltm adapter would be available, now for the other 2 )

08-08-2011, 06:17 AM	#20
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by eddie1960 For that matter if Manual focus is your primary thing the m mount registration allows most any lens with an adapter so even if the k module takes time to come there is the alternate of the m module with an adapter (or3 depending on how many different lens types you own - I have M,LTM,m42,k that I would use - the m is native , they have stated an ltm adapter would be available, now for the other 2 ) That m module will definitely be under consideration. Maybe I will make do with my e-p1 until it comes out. Its not like my ltd lenses have af on there.

08-08-2011, 09:45 AM	#21
illdefined Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: NYC Posts: 929	nothing stopping them now except for the flange distance. M-mount is really close to the film plane (sensor), i think around 26mm, and its already adding extra thickness to the base GXR module. K-mount is closer to 46mm, with the added dimensions of the detachable sensor/lens mechanism, altogether it would likely be deeper than a K-5, or at the very least the same size but without SR. at that point how much space are we really saving? I'd still want to see them try to make it, the more things i can attach my Limited primes to the better.

08-09-2011, 02:52 AM	#22
Unsinkable II Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,352	Agreed, the K-mount registration distance is an issue... Unless they do a folded optic version as someone mentioned on another K-mount EVIL thread. Add an integral 3 million dot OLED viewfinder (as is rumoured in the upcoming A77), and I'd be in camera heaven.

08-09-2011, 06:20 AM - 1 Like	#23
arpaagent Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Raleigh, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 803	Originally posted by Unsinkable II Agreed, the K-mount registration distance is an issue... Unless they do a folded optic version as someone mentioned on another K-mount EVIL thread. Add an integral 3 million dot OLED viewfinder (as is rumoured in the upcoming A77), and I'd be in camera heaven. Agreed on the integral viewfinder. Pretty sure I am not going to by any serious camera without a built-in eye level viewfinder. I'm sure I could live with an EVF for that type of camera since it's difficult to take out the mirror and have a TTL viewfinder. But I do love about an OVF, if only for the viewfinder dynamic range and minimal power consumption (great for battery life, only run the sensor when making an exposure).

08-09-2011, 09:54 AM	#24
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Does any one know the difference in diameter between M-mount and K-mount? I wonder if it fits in the little box?

08-09-2011, 09:58 AM	#25
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 Does any one know the difference in diameter between M-mount and K-mount? I wonder if it fits in the little box? k mount is quite a bit wider if i remember (I'm not at home to actually just look) so no the adapter would stick out external according to Wiki is 44mm, flange is 27.8mm k mount i can't find perhaps someone who isn't on a work crippled internet can edit the bayonet size is apparently "27.8mm Leica M bayonet mount" from Engadget I know K is a fair bit larger diameter than that .

08-09-2011, 01:30 PM	#26
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by eddie1960 k mount is quite a bit wider if i remember (I'm not at home to actually just look) so no the adapter would stick out external according to Wiki is 44mm, flange is 27.8mm k mount i can't find perhaps someone who isn't on a work crippled internet can edit the bayonet size is apparently "27.8mm Leica M bayonet mount" from Engadget I know K is a fair bit larger diameter than that . Well not the flangdistance, but the diametre of the K-mount versus M-mount. There isn't much room left so I wondered if it would fit, a Full Frame sensor in that little box. The difference in flangedistance is easily overcome with jus a tube the thickness off the difference.

08-09-2011, 01:59 PM	#27
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by johnmflores Funny! What impresses me about Ricoh (I owned a GX100) is that you get the distinct impression that their engineers are photographers when you use their stuff. The DPR preview shows that the A12 module is filled with nice little touches: - the ability to enter and save different lens parameters for inclusion in EXIF data - multiple MF assist modes - silent electronic shutter option - no AA filter I like the way our new overlords think! No AA filter = color moire. Why do you consider this a good thing, especially when it is so simple to counter AA filter softness with capture sharpening? I just don't understand this aversion to AA filters. Manufacturers use them for a good reason, not because they want to irritate users who think that they cannot get sharp images with those damn filters in the way. Rob

08-09-2011, 07:40 PM - 1 Like	#28
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,706	Perhaps a small bare bones body where you can customize the following as you please is in the works? 1. Want larger camera : attach on grips 2. Want smaller camera : leave it bare bones 3. Want FF sensor : just attach a FF sensor module 4. Same as #3 for APS-C, M, etc sensor modules. A transformer camera for geeks

08-09-2011, 08:42 PM	#29
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by pinholecam A transformer camera for geeks And a larger version, GXR2, with room for MF sensors. Isn't 645D technology part of why Ricoh bought Pentax? Hay, take it up to 6x7cm! Or even with the small current GXR, why not mountors with variant sensors in the Q-M-K mounts: square, portrait mode, pano, etc. Fuji sells pano film cams for Big Money. The revolutionary Olympus Pen-FT half-frame 135 SLR was in portrait mode, with an internal porroprism (like binoculars have), no bulging top. And square frames have been around for a long long time -- no need ever to change camera orientation, perfect for tripod work. And not just the size and orientation -- variant sensor TYPES too: Foveon; filters other than Bayer; B&W or IR or other specialized spectra; etc. By separating the body from the mountor, the costs of all these variants would not be prohibitive.

08-09-2011, 09:17 PM	#30
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by robgo2 No AA filter = color moire. Why do you consider this a good thing, especially when it is so simple to counter AA filter softness with capture sharpening? I just don't understand this aversion to AA filters. Manufacturers use them for a good reason, not because they want to irritate users who think that they cannot get sharp images with those damn filters in the way. Rob No AA hasn't hurt sales of Leica's M9...