[Shingoshi]

Future units for RICOH GXR:

"portrait photography unit with full-size sensor"

"ultra-wide unit "
"super-telephoto unit / high-sensitivity astronomical photography"
"ultra high-speed continuous shooting sports сapture unit " -
" waterproof and dustproof unit"

This so close to what I'm looking for, that I'll wait and see what happens as an industry response to this. I had already surmised that cameras would begin to look like this. Medium format won't be far behind. This design is AMAZING!! Each lens has it's own dedicated sensor. You change the lens the sensor goes with it. They can now optimize the sensor to the lenses. And when new sensors become available, they can be more easily exchanged in a shop. This system introduces a whole new level of modularity. All they need to do now is add a vertical grip to this body. Other than that, it's perfect or damn near...

This Ricoh will definitely set the pace for all future development in digital photography. The more I read about it, the more I'm impressed. This is a really well thought out design ready to take on all competitors.
Products & Solutions / GXR | Ricoh Global

Small size and 920,000-dot high definition. LCD Viewfinder VF-2
Attached to the hot shoe, the LCD viewfinder has a 100% field of view equivalent
to approx. 920,000 dots. It provides a wealth of benefits to the photographer, such
as eliminating the influence of sunlight to provide a consistently excellent field of
view and helping control hand-motion blur by enabling a three-point hold. It can
also increase shooting ease by giving a clear view in
the viewfinder while the DIRECT screen is shown on
the camera picture display. With a high-performance
viewfinder optical system utilizing an aspherical lens,
the VF-2 achieves a low-distortion field of view, a
high image magnification ratio, and a wide diopter
correction range (–4.5 - +2.5Dpt). The tilt capability is
convenient for low-angle shooting. (Case included)

If they mount a flash with a built-in Metz adapter below this viewfinder in a single unit, they would have a true high-eyepoint viewfinder.

I think we will also see a more rapid development of digital bodies as a result of this. The bodies can be upgraded independent of the lens assembly. So while Ricoh doesn't have a vertical grip body now, one can be easily designed providing features dedicated to action photography. I'm definitely in love now!!

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

---

Last edited by Shingoshi; 11-11-2009 at 06:30 PM.

[Pål Jensen]

. This design is AMAZING!![/B] Each lens has it's own dedicated sensor. You change the lens the sensor goes with it.

Doesn't strike me as being particularly cost effective....

[Shingoshi]

Doesn't strike me as being particularly cost effective....

But only if the sensors get much larger than this one. This is a small sensor. So cost is NOT prohibitive. I just left this answer below on the Ricoh site in answer to a question about interchangeable lenses.

This answer is irrelevant. Because other manufacturers can easily build interchangeable-lens adapters for your system.

For larger format sensors, it will be more cost effective to have a single sensor. But that sensor body could still be separate from the lens and main camera body. The end result is much quicker development of each separate unit, requiring only the interface between them be maintained.

What I would really like to see is a new version of the Bronica RF645 in a digital version. This design makes something like that a greater possibility. The sensor could even be as large as Kodak's KAF-50100 50 MegaPixel.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

[knoxploration]

But only if the sensors get much larger than this one. This is a small sensor. So cost is NOT prohibitive. I just left this answer below on the Ricoh site in answer to a question about interchangeable lenses.

For larger format sensors, it will be more cost effective to have a single sensor. But that sensor body could still be separate from the lens and main camera body. The end result is much quicker development of each separate unit, requiring only the interface between them be maintained.

I wouldn't call an APS-C sensor "small". There are two modules announced so far - one is a small 1/1.7" chip, and one is an APS-C chip. Neither allows interchanging of lenses without also interchanging the sensor, nor has there been any suggestion that will be possible in the future (in fact, the marketing strongly suggests the opposite).

One of the most expensive parts in an APS-C DSLR is the sensor. Even in Micro Four Thirds cameras which use quite a bit smaller sensors than APS-C cameras, that chip alone makes up a significant portion of the cost. Not to mention, the that I believe the image processor and buffer memory are also in the lens module - meaning that a large proportion of the total cost is attached to the purchase of every lens.

The stuff that's actually in the body - the LCD, battery and flash card slots, hot shoe, popup flash, controls and a few other small bits and pieces are the relatively cheap stuff - and even then, the body still costs more than an entry-level DSLR *with* sensor and kit lens included.

This system isn't close to being cost effective at the moment.

[thibs]

I shoot all of my images in Black & White. And it recently occurred to me that I wouldn't have the ability to "see" my images as I intend to produce them with anything other than a electronic viewfinder. [...]

Or any LiveView capable camera. K20D/K-7 can apply B&W filter although you shoot RAW. There's little difference IMO.

[Shingoshi]

Or any LiveView capable camera. K20D/K-7 can apply B&W filter although you shoot RAW. There's little difference IMO.

What I meant is:
1. I only shoot through the electronic viewfinder.
2. An SLR doesn't have an electronic viewfinder.
3. Consequently, you can't see in real-time the results you expect to get.

When I make image adjustments by exposure compensation, I see it immediately in the electronic viewfinder with a high degree of reliability as to what the final image will look like. And because of this, I'm shooting with compensation most of the time. That's something I never used to do. Or at least not nearly as much as I do now.

Yes, I can always check my work on the LCD. But if I do get the Kodak Pro SLR/n as initially planned, I will have a much smaller LCD to work with. It just means I will be working even slower than I currently do. Which is fine, since I'm now going to be using my new Manfrotto 190CXPRO4 tripod for most of my compositions. That will help me be more contemplative in the process. I think I'm really going to like that.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

[Kunzite]

You can't see in real time the result with an EVF, either. Those things lags like h*ll

[Shingoshi]

You can't see in real time the result with an EVF, either. Those things lags like h*ll

But you knew damn well what I meant. For that matter, Live TV isn't either!

[Talisker]

I shoot all of my images in Black & White. And it recently occurred to me that I wouldn't have the ability to "see" my images as I intend to produce them with anything other than a electronic viewfinder.

With all due respect, people have been shooting Black and White for over 100 years without this 'ability'. That is where technique and the ability to visualise the shot in your mind - the 'photographer's eye' - come into play; what filters, exposure, and with B&W, what you needed to do in the darkroom, came into play. That's not to say that we shouldn't use technology, but it doesn't substitute for ability.

Please don't take that personally - you may be producing wonderful images - I hope you are, as nothing has the impact of a good B&W image - but you don't need an electronic viewfinder to do it!

Sorry, I'm guess I'm getting old - unfortunately I see photography moving to the world of instant gratification where some people seem to think that buying a resonably upmarket digital camera will turn them into a photographic genius overnight, and blame the camera when it doesn't work out - but that's another rant altogether!

Oh, by the way: I would kill for a digital version of the Bronica RF645 - but only if can still use my existing lenses!

[Kunzite]

But you knew damn well what I meant. For that matter, Live TV isn't either!

Yes, I know - please don't get upset because of this.
It just happens that I hate those EVF's. Not the concept itself, but the current implementations. I hate the artificial view, the lag, that it can't be used with the camera turned off (might be useful, when your batteries are almost empty).
And I think you're wrong, an EVF will drain the batteries much quicker than a SLR. In fact, I firmly believe the advantages are not as many and as effective as some (marketing) people wants us to believe
But, if you like them... I can't argue with personal preferences.

P.S. I can't think of a better tool for B&W landscapes than a Rollei

[Aristophanes]

But only if the sensors get much larger than this one. This is a small sensor. So cost is NOT prohibitive. I just left this answer below on the Ricoh site in answer to a question about interchangeable lenses.

For larger format sensors, it will be more cost effective to have a single sensor. But that sensor body could still be separate from the lens and main camera body. The end result is much quicker development of each separate unit, requiring only the interface between them be maintained.

Interchangeable sensors? Great. Do you want to wait for Adobe, Microsoft, and Apple (and every other software company) to update their RAW interpreters for every new sensor released?

This concept magnifies the complexity, does not simplify. It will fail.

[Pål Jensen]

What I meant is:
1. I only shoot through the electronic viewfinder.
2. An SLR doesn't have an electronic viewfinder.
3. Consequently, you can't see in real-time the results you expect to get.

Most DSLR has an electronic "viewfinder" in addition to a far superior optical one. It's called live view.
I don't understand the allergic reactions to mirrors and prisms. It works perfectly. Electronic finders or finder overlays can be implemented getting the still always superior optical one in addition to features made possible through an electronic finder.
As digital images can be viewed instantly anyway, the features of an electronic viewfinder isn't really that useful. Ironically, it would have been far more useful in the film age when it could take days or weeks until you saw the results of the shooting...

[Shingoshi]

Yes, I know - please don't get upset because of this.
It just happens that I hate those EVF's. Not the concept itself, but the current implementations. I hate the artificial view, the lag, that it can't be used with the camera turned off (might be useful, when your batteries are almost empty).
And I think you're wrong, an EVF will drain the batteries much quicker than a SLR. In fact, I firmly believe the advantages are not as many and as effective as some (marketing) people wants us to believe
But, if you like them... I can't argue with personal preferences.

P.S. I can't think of a better tool for B&W landscapes than a Rollei

The issue with not being able to see images without the camera on may be partially valid. I say partially because since a digital camera can't take pictures with camera off, I find this point irrelevant. I guess if you're simply wanting to preview the image beforehand, then having an electronic viewfinder would be a problem. But in my particular case, since I'm using the electronic viewfinder to preview what I conceive of in Black & White, this point has no validity for me. The human eye simply won't make the kinds of changes in the scene according to one's selected exposure compensation. And since the compensation of my images is an essential part of the visual process, I couldn't work without an electronic viewfinder.

It's for this very reason that I'm thinking of using my digital camera with it's EVF as a preview tool when shooting with film. It will be kind of like having a processing lab on scene to evaluate what I want as the final result. We used to use Polaroids for that purpose. But I think digital is even better. For one thing, you can print the digital images, and not so much with Polaroids. So my preferences for an EVF is dictated by how I shoot. And not simply because I like them. Although, admittedly, I do.

And finally. I've been lusting for a Rolleiflex 6008 (and the SLX before that) since I was a kid. But I think you may be speaking of the Rolleiflex TLR cameras. I don't know if you will accept this or not (as a rough equivalent). But I used the Yashica 124 in high school, and it was terrific for landscapes as well. I shot my first night exposure with it and boggled the minds of everyone in class. Including the teacher. But then again, he didn't have much of a clue about much anyway.

Lately though, I find myself considering way too many options. Because my latest "love" is a Fuji GX680III. Having something smaller and lighter, that's easier to carry around than my Sinar for field work would be absolutely terrific. That camera with a 65mm lens would be fantastic!

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

[Shingoshi]

Interchangeable sensors? Great. Do you want to wait for Adobe, Microsoft, and Apple (and every other software company) to update their RAW interpreters for every new sensor released?

This concept magnifies the complexity, does not simplify. It will fail.

I have to admit I haven't done any RAW processing yet. So I'm not familiar with the intricacies there. So I'm very likely misinformed as you have suggested. But then again, that's what I'm here for. So that I can learn from the likes of people who know more about what I need to consider.

Most DSLR has an electronic "viewfinder" in addition to a far superior optical one. It's called live view.
I don't understand the allergic reactions to mirrors and prisms. It works perfectly. Electronic finders or finder overlays can be implemented getting the still always superior optical one in addition to features made possible through an electronic finder.
As digital images can be viewed instantly anyway, the features of an electronic viewfinder isn't really that useful. Ironically, it would have been far more useful in the film age when it could take days or weeks until you saw the results of the shooting...

I may be missing your point here. I think you're referring to the LCD on the back of the camera when speaking of Live View. But personally I find using the LCD on the back of the camera very clumsy. And I find it clumsy for a number of reasons. The most important to me is that it is counterintuitive. That may not be so much of an issue now that I have my tripod. Finally got it and the head today. So having the camera mounted may help eliminate some of the clumsiness I've experienced before. It's just that for some reason, it's not visually familiar. It's kind of like watching TV, when I should be using the camera's VF to take a picture. I'll have to try it and see. However as someone else has already pointed out, it would only increase the battery drain which I want to avoid as much as possible.

As far as your last comment goes, I think we're on the same page there. read the post before this one to see how we agree. Because that's exactly how I intend to merge both technologies to create a single product.

Hey, Thanks Guys!!
Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

[George E Norkus]

We’ve all heard many stories before about Pentax and their FF or larger cameras.

Until they start producing fast lenses and good accessories that are comparable to the “other big guys”, nothing will change. They'll still be 2nd rate.

Maybe that’s what they want?