If we cannot have facts then we have to invent something

[Tom Caldwell]

Lets presume that the very next thing that Ricoh might add to the GXR system is a new camera back.

Firstly they could simply update the current one. Not a lot needed but suggestions might include a phase detect focus window, a higher burst capture buffer (much higher), then perhaps not a lot more. The buttons and other controls are well laid out (don't fiddle with them please). Maybe the higher res lcd from the GRDIV and give us back the rotating button instead of the fiddly jog lever.

I am about done there - maybe there are other suggestions?

However this might not be a good idea. Why? Simply because it would tend to make the existing back obsolete and Ricoh might still have a few to sell. Furthermore Ricoh needs and tends to flesh out the system with more product and not start replacing units that basically are working quite well.

A second type of GXR back is my present hobby-horse (one of many it seems). I think that Ricoh could incorporate rectification of all the little deficiencies nominated above into a brand new type of back. This camera back might be follwing the dslr shape paradigm. Not huge, but with a nice hump for one of those great new Epson evf screens and an slr-style grip. Would take all the existing modules on the familiar GXR mount rails. Simultaneously they could introduce a Pentax K mount module and behold we have a compact little dslr-equivalent than not only takes all the existing modules but is fully compatible with all the K mount lenses and also would handle large manual ex-slr lenses in some style.

The third type is a "I wonder if it could be done" body type. We have heard rumours (very vague) that Ricoh was working on a smaller replaceable lensed camera. As they have a few mount systems already we might wonder on whether yet another mount would be wise. Perhaps the Q mount might step into the breach, probably not, the sensor is too small and it might be impossible to fit a sensor much larger behind that mount. The K mount has a flange back length entirely unsuitable. But what if the new system was a smaller bodied back with GXR mount rails? Hard to think how it might be done. However if the inbuilt flash unit was sacrificed, the top plate lost it's buttons over the lcd and just left a sliver to fit a hot shoe then just maybe it might be possible to come up with a body that was not much bigger than the present GRD that took all the GXR modules. Now the P10 would equivalence the CX and the S10 would truly be approaching the GX300 that never was. And also there would be a very sleek little aps-c M mount that would make a delicious little RF camera with compact lenses. And of course we would have our aps-c sensored 28mm mount and a 50mm mount as a bonus. All plugging into a GRD sized body. The A16 zoom and any other module that might come by is a pure bonus.

If does seem a little silly if a mix and match system is not mixed to the max.

Tom

 

[riccadonna]

Tom. I do understand your concern about the future GXR models , due to the loud silence coming from Ricoh side, before and after Koln. What do they really speculate on, one might ask. GXR model is fine as it is, neverless it do could do with some improvements. Personally I think it would be pity if they departed from the proven concept.
I don`t think your "third type" is practical. Just hold GXR in the hand. It fits. Anything smaller, like GDR is attractive due to it`s flatness, which would be impossible to achieve with , f.ex. m-unit. Just look at Sony Nex. Tiny flat body , huge lenses.
"Second type" is what we all were talking about. Articulate LCD, integrated EVF ( still separate EVF has it`s advantages, you can tilt it upwards, really helpfull when
f. ex. filming) .
As I`m conservative guy adhering to idea, if it works don`t change it and if you must do,then just built on the proven design.
Here comes my suggestion for a kind of pro GRX.
As the my unperfect photoshoped pict shows, take existing body, extend the bottom gaining space for additions like EVF ( its, to some people ackward positioning has an advantage of stabilising the camera as you rest it against your forhead) ,extra processor, memory , wireless remote, more advanced HDMI and so on.. As you suggested, add to the front phase detector window too. Some kind of weatherproofing wouldn`t harm anybody.
As to extended AF ability, just add, as you suggested k-unit that would allow the use of wonderfull compact primes. Somebody suggested MFT-unit, not bad idea thinking about existing and comming often unique lenses (12/2, 7-14 and so on). Finally, as I wrote long time ago, please come up with dedicated HD-unit, 2MP,( could be 3MP for extra space for electronic stabilo) could be APS-C or 1", your choice. That would be it for time being. Cheers Stanislaw

 

[thelps]

My GXR invention is a dual lensor GXR body, a body that can take two lens modules.

Then you could do true stereo 3D images or put a A28 and a A50 or any combo you like, to have a wide angle and standard FOV all in one shutter press. The Fuji W3 does this already so it ain't new.
Perhaps also if mounted with same type modules they could somehow cover overlapping image areas and in-camera do stitching to make a dual module panoramic camera or you stitch the RAWs afterwards.
One body and they would sell lens modules by the double. :shock:

No more alcohol for me before visiting the forum! :lol:

 

[riccadonna]

Tim, just buy double. GXR bodies are really-willy cheap. There`s however a problem with both solutions. Two bodies or double lensor big mama. You know, the convergence. With the changing distances the axis of lenses change covergence angle. Now, there`s some solutions. You buy m-unit and leicas stemar ( it`s only couple plus grands) , but it`s built for FF so you`ll get something like 2.5D. Or pray to Ricoh to make them produce double lens lensor in 2.4proportions (cinescope) with automatic convergence.
Beside it Tim, why on earth you would want 3D in photography?. 2D or 3D, it`s all illusion after all. And only illusion that counts is Holly-Bolly wood. :geek:

 

[thelps]

2D or 3D, it`s all illusion after all. And only illusion that counts is Holly-Bolly wood. :geek:

Hehe, my nephew says it 2.5D not 3D. If it is all in one camera back then the Ricoh engineers will have to do all the software smarts for us.
The convergence problem is one I was wondering about. I will have to handball that problem though!

 

[andrewteee]

Seeing this makes me think a FF Mount unit is possible with the current GXR body. It would stick out below and to the left and look sort of Frankenstein, but it could work. One body with everything from the P10 to a FF Mount makes the GXR a fully realized concept. Spend less get the APS Mount, spend more get the FF Mount. Take your pick.

 

[Duane Pandorf]

I would settle for the A16 M module and just a faster buffer in the body.

 

[AlbertTRAL]

I would settle for the A16 M module and just a faster buffer in the body.

+1.
Let's keep it simple. Pentax was pointing that FF will come but, not immediately...the only alternative to an A16M I would like to see is a coop with Sigma placing the Foveon sensor in a GXR module. Whatever mount with short register distance (obviously M would be already ok and the best option for IQ).

 

[Ripbab]

I think the GXR could use a 4/3 module.
The small 14 and 20 primes are great.

 

[Lepantho]

I would settle for the A16 M module and just a faster buffer in the body.

...that's what I also hope. And a better High-ISO would be good.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

For Stanislaw: Some of the lens modules for the GXR are collapsing lenses. They did follow along the lines of replicating previously existing lenses for other models (CX and GX) and many including myself wondered just why put lenses designed for compact cameras on to a larger camera body.

I base my "is it possible" model on a vague rumour quite a while ago that Ricoh was working on a smaller replaceable lens camera body and a great deal of loyal faith in engineers in their ability to pack a lot into a very small space.

I then get my GXR-S10 and my GRDIII out and sit them side by side and think: "is it possible to put the GXR mount rails into an even smaller body?"

The height of the GRD body is just slightly more than the height of a GXR module. Each module has a connecting side, a back mounting plate, and a top finishing plate on the camera back which has no significance to the mounted module but must act as a brace to strengthen the GXR camera back and also to house (mainly the flash unit. It also serve incidental functions in housing the focus illuminator, control buttons, the evf plug and the hotshoe itself. Most of these could be relocated (with some difficulty). If the top plate was reduced to an absolute minimum then the flash and evf plug would have to go, but a hotshoe might remain. Fitting a smaller-size lcd would enlarge the available real estate for buttons and things if necessary.

The grip is smaller on the GRD but the length and general width is not much different to the GXR back.

Therefore with some compromises I can design a GRD style back that is not much larger than the present GRD that would hold GXR modules. Whether the engineers can do this, or Ricoh should want to try is another thing entirely.

However the plus side is that the GRD immediately has access to the whole existing range of GXR modules - all six of them. No doubt Ricoh would see fit to put a version of their landmark GR 28mm f1.9 lens into a module that would fit into this new GXD model. In one swoop Ricoh would add six/seven? new cameras to the GRD range and also give us the super-CX with hot-swappable P10/S10 to be the GX300 as well.

When millimetres make astonishing diferences the new GXD with A12 mount module and a tiny RF lens would be so cutesy cute, especially with a bespoke ovf on top. For a moment the FF mount module would be forgotten, but if and when it did happen then how compact can you get to carry such revered lenses?

From then on every module released could be treated as a "travel camera" on the GXR back with an inbuilt flash or the more "almost pocketable" GXD with collapsible P10, S10 or 28mm GR prime. Or simply an "as cute as" little RF with the A12 mount module. And of course a compact dslr-style EVIL camera back with a built in evf that was ideal for larger lenses. No problems in fitting GXR mounting rails in a faux-dslr style body with less need to be utterly compact.

Of course there would have to be a little hot-shoe flash accessory for the GXD as the present Ricoh one might make a mockery of the portability factor.

Hey, and I have not even started to talk about a fully functional K mount module or the introduction of other new modules. Thereafter every new module would mean three new camera possibilities.

Two new camera backs alone would increase the current range of six GXR cameras to eighteen. Obviously not all modules would wear well on some of these camera backs. A fully functional Pentax K module would not wear well on my fictional GXD module. A P10 or S10 might work on the dslr-style module but might be an outfit for a pop-eyed crazy shooter (but it could be done).

On the other hand the A12 mount module would be perfect for wide RF lenses, work quite well on the present GXR (as it does) and be ideal to carry larger ex-slr lenses on a dslr-style camera back.

Canon and Nikon like to line up their full range of lenses to show their system's versatility. If Ricoh had two more camera backs with GXR rails the combinations and permutations would suddenly need a wide angle lens to capture them laid out in splendour.


Tom

 

[riccadonna]

Tom.
Ricoh made small lenses GXR units derived from fixed zoom compacts to give GXR users the range of 28-300 which in APS-C size would conterdict the whole idea of compactness. Just look at A12 24-85. When at 85mm it looks just ridiculous compared to my 50/2 Summicron on m-unit ( to be exact it gives 75mm eqv. but there`re a lot of 55-58mm/2 which would give me ca.85mm).
I just wonder how one would shoehorn A12 units into GRD body. You could shave 5mm of the GRX top removing the flash and the function buttons. That`s not big difference to my hand. Reduce the handgrip and you`ll end with paradox of producing small compacts with add on handgrips for the sake of handiness. And the place for built-in EVF?
What I need in improved GXR body is added functionality and not the opposite. Talking about compactness I would love an A12 unit with nonrectractable fixed wide with manual distance scale, say 21/4 that would be flush with grip thus making it pocketable. To achieve that, the lens would have to be paired with a sensor smaller then APS-C. How much smaller would be up to Ricoh engineers.
The second wish is couple specialized units, envisioned by Ricoh which alas didn`t materialise.
Remote control system shown on the pict is wired. Remove the wire, make the units operate wireless. Better still if the GXR-PRO body proposed by me could operate multiple receiver bodies attached to the lensors. Three A12 28 fired from different vantage points! Wow. C`mon Ricoh. Don`t go Q way. There`s MUCH MORE you can do to make GXR system UNCOMPARABLE. Go RICOH, andale RICO. Stanislaw

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Stanislaw,

I am with you in that remote contolled unit. It is also intersting to see that the slave unit still has the space above the actual mount. Maybe this is necessary and it blows my idea of a reduced size GXD model. But maybe it is just a rough mock up. My idea is simply to try by whatever means to make a camera body much the same size as a GRD that can take the GXR module mount rails, nothing more. Everything falls into place after that.

What you are after is a more capable body. I appreciate this and size is less of a bother. I am thinking of something more like (say) a Samsung NX10 shape with GXR mount rails and all the bells and whistles of a professional level camera. Teamed to a new fully functional K mount module of course. All the "twiddly" bits you have suggested are included. So we have a compact camera for those that like really small and a larger all-pupose professional level one where size is not such a limiting factor. This camera handkes like a dslr in practice.

Meanwhile: remote control. Why not just two GXR cameras. One has a wireless module built in. The other one is a normal camera but the receiver comes with it. The first one controls the second seamlessly as if it is the actual camera used. The second just takes pictures as is required under full natural and normal control from the first (lcd, framing, adjustments, etc). I cannot see this being any more expensive to make than the wired together mockup. It would also be more intuitive to use.

Tom

 

[Duane Pandorf]

My concern with my existing GXR body is durability. The yellow battery clip has broke, the mechanism that keeps the flash closed broke ( I have it taped down with gaffer's tape) and on my current road trip traveling I've had to buy Gorilla glue to refasten the rubber grip.

I haven't checked lately but I'm sure I have we'll over 10,000 actuations on my M mount module.

Again, I'd settle for an improved A12 or better yet A16 witha new body with faster buffer and weather seals.

Plus, please someone make a 24mm f2.0 lens for the M Mount.

This week I'm in Zion National Park and I'm finding the 28 module too wide and my Cron 35mm not wide enough.

 

[riccadonna]

Duane. Sorry to hear your problems concerning durability. The yellow clip is delicate and I treat it with care. No problem with the flash. Up til now my two GXR bodies work O.K. (have them some 6 month and carry them in my pockets, knocks and all). As to lenses, I guess when you talk about 24 you mean 35 in APS-S terms. Well, just crop 28 and voila. I hear that Zeiss and Schneider are going to make some lenses ( 24/2 too !) for Nex. It would be a treat if they made them in m-mount too, which is the most universal mount for manual lenses for different mirrorless cameras ( using adapters of course). M-mount doesn`t necessary have to mean FF. Voightlander-Cosina, Zeiss, Leica and Samsung could make some nice profit making APC-C lenses in m-mount. Talking about my lens wishes, well being architect just give me compact 10mm/4 in m-mount or as a lensor. I hear that Samyang makes not bad at all fish-eye 8mm/2.8 specifically designed for mirrorless APS-C. Alas in Nex and NX mount. I`ll try to get NX version as it has close to LTM-M flange distance and try somehow to swap the mounts. Why fish-eye? well, they are perfect for 360 stiched interiour QTVRs. It`s all about compact lenses on compact bodies, old leica philosophy. Because you could use Nikkor, Olympus or Pentax 24/2 lenses but they would look pretty mismatched on GXR body.
While we are at 24/2 giving us APC-C 35mm, please will somebody make it as tilt/shift 24/2.8 or better 18/4 edition. Alleluja

 

[bertalan]

As a relative newcomer to the GXR(3 months), my wishlist would include a faster buffer(theres no reason it can't be as fast as anyones entry level DSLR) and a smaller-than-the-A16 wide zoom. I use primarily the 24-50 end of the range and ideally would like something along the lines of a 21-42(14-28? actual) f2.8-4.
I also recall seeing a mock up of a hard drive module which I'm sure would be handier than my 120GB Hyperspace drive(which has no screen).

 

[Duane Pandorf]

Duane. Sorry to hear your problems concerning durability. The yellow clip is delicate and I treat it with care. No problem with the flash. Up til now my two GXR bodies work O.K. (have them some 6 month and carry them in my pockets, knocks and all). As to lenses, I guess when you talk about 24 you mean 35 in APS-S terms. Well, just crop 28 and voila. I hear that Zeiss and Schneider are going to make some lenses ( 24/2 too !) for Nex. It would be a treat if they made them in m-mount too, which is the most universal mount for manual lenses for different mirrorless cameras ( using adapters of course). M-mount doesn`t necessary have to mean FF. Voightlander-Cosina, Zeiss, Leica and Samsung could make some nice profit making APC-C lenses in m-mount. Talking about my lens wishes, well being architect just give me compact 10mm/4 in m-mount or as a lensor. I hear that Samyang makes not bad at all fish-eye 8mm/2.8 specifically designed for mirrorless APS-C. Alas in Nex and NX mount. I`ll try to get NX version as it has close to LTM-M flange distance and try somehow to swap the mounts. Why fish-eye? well, they are perfect for 360 stiched interiour QTVRs. It`s all about compact lenses on compact bodies, old leica philosophy. Because you could use Nikkor, Olympus or Pentax 24/2 lenses but they would look pretty mismatched on GXR body.
While we are at 24/2 giving us APC-C 35mm, please will somebody make it as tilt/shift 24/2.8 or better 18/4 edition. Alleluja

I have recently considered looking at the older Olympus Zuiko 21mm f2 and 24mm f2. Olympus also made a tilt shift but I can't remember it's focal length.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

My concern with my existing GXR body is durability. The yellow battery clip has broke, the mechanism that keeps the flash closed broke ( I have it taped down with gaffer's tape) and on my current road trip traveling I've had to buy Gorilla glue to refasten the rubber grip.

I haven't checked lately but I'm sure I have we'll over 10,000 actuations on my M mount module.

Again, I'd settle for an improved A12 or better yet A16 witha new body with faster buffer and weather seals.

Plus, please someone make a 24mm f2.0 lens for the M Mount.

This week I'm in Zion National Park and I'm finding the 28 module too wide and my Cron 35mm not wide enough.

Duane

That is a lot of actuations and your camera is surely well travelled. They reckon you could always tell a professional's camera by the patina on the grip and a few body scratches, you have sure taken this to a new high. Perhaps you need a second body. Leicas have a reputaion for lasting, but Gary Winogrand's (one?) Leica was apparently something to behold when he died - looked well used apparently and lashed up a bit, but it still worked. Consider yourself in good company, none of this shiny just out of the box stuff! None of my clips have broken, but then I have not taken anything like the number of shots that you have and I already have multiple bodies.

The grip on my original GRD started peeling about a month after I bought it. I found that the "official" way to re-stick it was to slip some very thin (sticky-tape thin) double sided tape under it. I found a roll for $1.20 in a hardware shop, I needed just a few square millimetres. I only once have had to re-apply. I think that roll will see out the century. The reason for this is that the grip has to come off to get at some of the service screws. With the GRDIII and several GXR backs I have had no grip peeling problem.

If my wild guess of the unlikely prospect of a GRD size body with GXR mount rails does happen then a "GRDIII/IV" style f1.9 24mm collapsible lens module surely would happen. Just as much as the "CX" = P10 and "GX" = S10 modules are already here. Probably have to settle for the GRD senosr as well, but that is no bad thing for it's size.

But maybe, just maybe, the Sony RX100 sensor might find it's way into a new Ricoh module - best mated to my imaginary "GXD" body.

Tom

 

[Tom Caldwell]

As a relative newcomer to the GXR(3 months), my wishlist would include a faster buffer(theres no reason it can't be as fast as anyones entry level DSLR) and a smaller-than-the-A16 wide zoom. I use primarily the 24-50 end of the range and ideally would like something along the lines of a 21-42(14-28? actual) f2.8-4.
I also recall seeing a mock up of a hard drive module which I'm sure would be handier than my 120GB Hyperspace drive(which has no screen).

I agree the camera needs a much better shot to shot buffer, but things have come a long way from the excruciatingly slow raw file recording speed of the original GRD.

As we have no high speed shot buffering the next best thing we can do today is to fit a fast sd card. I have a regular Sandisk "class 4" sdhc 16gb card, but the 95 mb/second "class 10" that I also have is so much faster in recording that the difference is easily noticed (no stop watch needed). Does not help with the buffer (which we still need) but recording speed of individual captures is much better.

Tom

 

[Duane Pandorf]

As a relative newcomer to the GXR(3 months), my wishlist would include a faster buffer(theres no reason it can't be as fast as anyones entry level DSLR) and a smaller-than-the-A16 wide zoom. I use primarily the 24-50 end of the range and ideally would like something along the lines of a 21-42(14-28? actual) f2.8-4.
I also recall seeing a mock up of a hard drive module which I'm sure would be handier than my 120GB Hyperspace drive(which has no screen).

I agree the camera needs a much better shot to shot buffer, but things have come a long way from the excruciatingly slow raw file recording speed of the original GRD.

As we have no high speed shot buffering the next best thing we can do today is to fit a fast sd card. I have a regular Sandisk "class 4" sdhc 16gb card, but the 95 mb/second "class 10" that I also have is so much faster in recording that the difference is easily noticed (no stop watch needed). Does not help with the buffer (which we still need) but recording speed of individual captures is much better.

Tom

It would seem the existing GXR body has the capability as when shooting with AE bracketing turned on the camera can take at least 3 RAW Shots very quickly.