GR User Forum
The spot for all Ricoh GR camera users
Register for free, meet other Ricoh GR users, share your images, help others, have fun!
Tell your friends about us!Ricoh GXR A12 module focusing speed
- Thread starter fei
- Start date
Takadanobaba
New Member
HI
Maybe the Snap Mode help you For fast quick shoot
Maybe the Snap Mode help you For fast quick shoot
waloszek
Member
I can only compare with the S10 module (and GX100/200) in hindsight, as I did not own a GRD: The S10 unit is definitely faster. Manual focusing seems to be another alternative... Focus speed seems to depend a lt on the subject (and probably the lighting). Macro focus speed is, of course, a lot slower.
Best regards, Gerd
Best regards, Gerd
Thank you folks!
I was walking ard with my GXR today and indeed the snap mode does make fast af but with the lens protruding out at a noticeable Length I personally found it hard to do close street photography. And the lens tend to go out of focus during low light portrait shoots. Quite frustrating at times.
On the other hand, the B&W and close macro pics are just truly awesome! I am also thrilled by the MF! Love it big time! I hope the slow af is a software issue and it will be fixed on the next update! There are currently no S10 unit available in Singapore yet.
I was walking ard with my GXR today and indeed the snap mode does make fast af but with the lens protruding out at a noticeable Length I personally found it hard to do close street photography. And the lens tend to go out of focus during low light portrait shoots. Quite frustrating at times.
On the other hand, the B&W and close macro pics are just truly awesome! I am also thrilled by the MF! Love it big time! I hope the slow af is a software issue and it will be fixed on the next update! There are currently no S10 unit available in Singapore yet.
Can you perform the following test:
Load the following web page into your browser: http://www.online-stopwatch.com/full-screen-stopwatch/
Then start the stop watch. As it runs take a shot of the screen every 5 seconds for 10 or more shots. Then stating at a time of your choosing shoot the screen in continuous mode for a burst. In the first set throw out any shots were you failed to anticipate the right start time to press the shutter and using the remaining images collect the shutter times. For example if you picked every 5 seconds the time would show as 5 + some time in milliseconds, then 10 + some time in milliseconds, etc. Give us the average time from the set. The second set should show shot to shot time which you can average for the series. That will give us a good approximation of the AF performance in good light (the screen is bright and the clock provides a good high contrast image). Of course this includes your reaction time but I suspect that will be a small part of the total.
This would help us have an objective measure of performance.
Thanks,
John
Load the following web page into your browser: http://www.online-stopwatch.com/full-screen-stopwatch/
Then start the stop watch. As it runs take a shot of the screen every 5 seconds for 10 or more shots. Then stating at a time of your choosing shoot the screen in continuous mode for a burst. In the first set throw out any shots were you failed to anticipate the right start time to press the shutter and using the remaining images collect the shutter times. For example if you picked every 5 seconds the time would show as 5 + some time in milliseconds, then 10 + some time in milliseconds, etc. Give us the average time from the set. The second set should show shot to shot time which you can average for the series. That will give us a good approximation of the AF performance in good light (the screen is bright and the clock provides a good high contrast image). Of course this includes your reaction time but I suspect that will be a small part of the total.
This would help us have an objective measure of performance.
Thanks,
John
waloszek
Member
I definitely sent an answer to your request one or two days ago -- it must have been lost. Regrettably, I do not have the time to do such a test before the turn of the year, because I will go on a trip to visit parents and friends. I learnt on dpreview that you ordered a GRX and consider canceling the order. But, there is a life beyond photography for me -- I invested already a lot of work in preparing samples pages (and got little feedback)... Moreover, I doubt that the first test will be meaningful, considering my age and slow reaction...
In my opinion, the main point is, for which purpose you want to use the camera. For many purposes, slow AF is acceptable (it's a macro lens which is inherently slow), for others you can use snap focus or fix focus to alleviate the speed problem. Thus, general recommendations cannot be made. But overall, AF is slow, and macro AF is even slower.
Best regards, Gerd
In my opinion, the main point is, for which purpose you want to use the camera. For many purposes, slow AF is acceptable (it's a macro lens which is inherently slow), for others you can use snap focus or fix focus to alleviate the speed problem. Thus, general recommendations cannot be made. But overall, AF is slow, and macro AF is even slower.
Best regards, Gerd
waloszek":1o2e4gx5 said:
I second walozek's comment. Its a macro lens afterall! thou the AF is really slow to speak , the IQ from the pics compensate all the sad story! I am totally impressed by it. Lets hope the 10x zoom APC module will be on sale soon!
BTW The 1280HD movie is a bonus to me! haha I didn't know A12 can shoot HD! woohoo!!
The slow AF is a bit of a disappointment to me. Given it's an f2.5 lens rather than an f2.0 lens it isn't so fast as to distance itself in IQ from the GF1 with the f1.7 lens. From the images I have seen its ISO 3200 IQ is about 1.5 stops better than the GF1's but the GF1 lens is about 1 stop faster so the performance is a wash. With the EP2 you get in body IS which further improves low light performance as camera shake gets removed from the equation. From what I am reading, even MF performance is not what it should be. I hope that is wrong. I will try one out when I get it and compare it to the GF1 I have and see how good the IQ really is and whether it overcomes all of the negatives of a slow AF platform. It seems that it may be suffering from the same issues as the Leica X1 and the Sigmas before them.
P.S. I looked for your response in the other threads and did not see it. As to the test being time consuming, I'm not sure how that is being computed since it can all be done in less than 5 minutes. I just tested the GF1 with the 20mm and the 14-45mm in less than ten minutes. The results (after being out drinking with friends and having at least one more than I should have) were 551ms for 20mm and 455ms for 14-45mm the best time for the 20mm was 361ms and best time for the 14-45mm was 100ms. I have averaged better when my reaction times were better.
P.S. I looked for your response in the other threads and did not see it. As to the test being time consuming, I'm not sure how that is being computed since it can all be done in less than 5 minutes. I just tested the GF1 with the 20mm and the 14-45mm in less than ten minutes. The results (after being out drinking with friends and having at least one more than I should have) were 551ms for 20mm and 455ms for 14-45mm the best time for the 20mm was 361ms and best time for the 14-45mm was 100ms. I have averaged better when my reaction times were better.
BillBingham2
New Member
Need fast autofocus, Nikon D700 or D3, they rock at that. For me there is more than just pure AF speed, perhaps because I do not have AF on any of what I used to call my main cameras. I look at the total package, IQ, style and speed of handling, package size, meaningful features (e.g. takes regular batteries too). Ricoh is really doing a great job at developing meaningful features and delivering them in a manner that, at least to me, truly adds value. I'm not sure you're going to find fast AF that will compare to what you find in a Pro DSLR in a low cost pocket camera for many years.
If you are fixed on this size/style of camera I'd suggest developing approaches and techniques that might mimic what some of us have used for years before AG. They still work here pretty well, at least for me.
B2 (;->
If you are fixed on this size/style of camera I'd suggest developing approaches and techniques that might mimic what some of us have used for years before AG. They still work here pretty well, at least for me.
B2 (;->
waloszek
Member
@barjohn: I tried to perform the first test, but had a lot of difficulties -- as I already told you, I am too old and slow (or have drunk too little before the test...). An additional analog watch would make anticipation much easier (perception psychologists would agree). Counting helped a little...
In addition, it was unclear to me, whether I should press the button in one go or press only half way through until the camera found focus and then press then, which is a lot harder.
Anyway, pressing in one go usually lead to unusable results -- the camera ended up in a fuzzy state; this required an intermediate focusing so that I could at least see the numbers...
I did a number of shots with the seconds method -- but often I pressed fully in error, because of the hectic... The results were not good enough for doing any maths, but i found delays in the range between 1.7 and 2 seconds, with the majority lying in a range between 1.8 and 1.9 seconds.
I tried MF photos for comparison to find my and the camera's base delay. It was between 300 and 500 ms, typically around 400 and 450ms.
That's it for this year.
Gerd
PS: I would be very careful with drawing any conclusions from this "test."
In addition, it was unclear to me, whether I should press the button in one go or press only half way through until the camera found focus and then press then, which is a lot harder.
Anyway, pressing in one go usually lead to unusable results -- the camera ended up in a fuzzy state; this required an intermediate focusing so that I could at least see the numbers...
I did a number of shots with the seconds method -- but often I pressed fully in error, because of the hectic... The results were not good enough for doing any maths, but i found delays in the range between 1.7 and 2 seconds, with the majority lying in a range between 1.8 and 1.9 seconds.
I tried MF photos for comparison to find my and the camera's base delay. It was between 300 and 500 ms, typically around 400 and 450ms.
That's it for this year.
Gerd
PS: I would be very careful with drawing any conclusions from this "test."
waloszek
Member
@barjohn: I did the burst test, too, which should be more reliable than the first ones. I used the normal burst mode only:
- AF: 2,93 images per second (about 70 photos = about 24 sec) -- during the first 20 shots slightly above 3 im/sec; showed fewer fluctuations as when testing MF (may be just by accident...)
- MF: 2,80 images per second, stepping up to about 3 im/sec after 10-20 images, then some fluctuations and lower average speed (I calculated only the running average).
Probably, the manual states somewhere that the camera has a speed of three images per second, but I could not find that information...
Gerd
PS: My "computed" averages for the first tests are 1820 msec mith AF and 420 msec with MF -- shutter pressed half-way down first. But I warn you sincerely to take these numbers seriously - better wait for some real test results!!!
PS2: Note than due to screen refresh only certain numbers are captured by the camera; this is not a major problem, though, if one calculates or estimates averages...
- AF: 2,93 images per second (about 70 photos = about 24 sec) -- during the first 20 shots slightly above 3 im/sec; showed fewer fluctuations as when testing MF (may be just by accident...)
- MF: 2,80 images per second, stepping up to about 3 im/sec after 10-20 images, then some fluctuations and lower average speed (I calculated only the running average).
Probably, the manual states somewhere that the camera has a speed of three images per second, but I could not find that information...
Gerd
PS: My "computed" averages for the first tests are 1820 msec mith AF and 420 msec with MF -- shutter pressed half-way down first. But I warn you sincerely to take these numbers seriously - better wait for some real test results!!!
PS2: Note than due to screen refresh only certain numbers are captured by the camera; this is not a major problem, though, if one calculates or estimates averages...
Using MF is just as normal as per using any other manual focusing camera (i.e Leica M )
You are able to rotate the rubber grip ( just like your 50mm summicron lens in terms of size and shape) and there is also a screen magnifier feature to assist you in getting better sharpness. I love the way it works and I will be using MF to do all my further portrait shoots instead.
I started this thread inviting all GXR users who also own a GRD concurrently/perviously to compare both AF speed and reliability so to speak. I am fully aware of all what the big heavy expensive machines i.e D700, D3 or 1DM4 can do and I do not have the intention in comparing them to this little beautiful gem.
I personally feel the M43 cameras are comparable as their price range, size and handling differences post similar 'threat' to our new dear Ricoh system. I do own an EP-1 with pan cake kit and in terms of IQ the GXR A12 is still on the upper hand (Personal P.O.V) but on the other my new A12 focus a sec to 2 slower when both cameras are set to F4 at iso400 under same lighting condition.
My old trusty 3yr old GRD1 in macro mode can still do a much better AF job compared to my new GXR A12. GRD1 AF down to 2 - 3 seconds faster under low-lighting conditions during human portrait shoots.
(Therefore I think the precision AF test Barjohn proposed is redundant in a way because while i am using GXR A12 under normal shooting condition, I can already feel that significant difference btw all the a/m cameras.)
GXR A12 have the tendency to miss the nearest object from the lens too ( which was more than 30cm away ). I took both cameras out to shoot while celebrating Christmas eve and there were a few attempts I have to gave up using my new GXR and swap back to my old trusty GRD instead. I hope this is a software issue and the next software update will patch up the problem.
But hey, then again, as rightfully pointed out by Waloszek, this is a professional macro lens! It is not meant for street nor portrait but close up photography. What I can only hope and pray for is for our dear Ricoh to launch their new rumored 10x zoom APC module (with way better AF and constant F2.8 i wish) fast at a reasonable price so to win this big slice of the current hot-micro-camera consumer market! All the other modules (projecter or mass storage) can wait.
cheers! :lol:
You are able to rotate the rubber grip ( just like your 50mm summicron lens in terms of size and shape) and there is also a screen magnifier feature to assist you in getting better sharpness. I love the way it works and I will be using MF to do all my further portrait shoots instead.
I started this thread inviting all GXR users who also own a GRD concurrently/perviously to compare both AF speed and reliability so to speak. I am fully aware of all what the big heavy expensive machines i.e D700, D3 or 1DM4 can do and I do not have the intention in comparing them to this little beautiful gem.
I personally feel the M43 cameras are comparable as their price range, size and handling differences post similar 'threat' to our new dear Ricoh system. I do own an EP-1 with pan cake kit and in terms of IQ the GXR A12 is still on the upper hand (Personal P.O.V) but on the other my new A12 focus a sec to 2 slower when both cameras are set to F4 at iso400 under same lighting condition.
My old trusty 3yr old GRD1 in macro mode can still do a much better AF job compared to my new GXR A12. GRD1 AF down to 2 - 3 seconds faster under low-lighting conditions during human portrait shoots.
(Therefore I think the precision AF test Barjohn proposed is redundant in a way because while i am using GXR A12 under normal shooting condition, I can already feel that significant difference btw all the a/m cameras.)
GXR A12 have the tendency to miss the nearest object from the lens too ( which was more than 30cm away ). I took both cameras out to shoot while celebrating Christmas eve and there were a few attempts I have to gave up using my new GXR and swap back to my old trusty GRD instead. I hope this is a software issue and the next software update will patch up the problem.
But hey, then again, as rightfully pointed out by Waloszek, this is a professional macro lens! It is not meant for street nor portrait but close up photography. What I can only hope and pray for is for our dear Ricoh to launch their new rumored 10x zoom APC module (with way better AF and constant F2.8 i wish) fast at a reasonable price so to win this big slice of the current hot-micro-camera consumer market! All the other modules (projecter or mass storage) can wait.
cheers! :lol:
silverbullet
Member
I think now there will start a competition between software engineers of Leica X1 and GRX APS-C modules for a clever firmware. The contrast AF and the sensor size has it's drawbacks in terms of 'refreshing' the sensor and getting the frame. It seems that this is a first generation of compact cameras design and 'big' sensors.
The fact that the A12 module is more or less only for macro should not be accepted because there will no additional 'normal' 50mm lens so this item must play nearly 100'% in both worlds.
For me a 35mm lens would be the start to get a 'feeling' in my stomach....
The fact that the A12 module is more or less only for macro should not be accepted because there will no additional 'normal' 50mm lens so this item must play nearly 100'% in both worlds.
For me a 35mm lens would be the start to get a 'feeling' in my stomach....
I see some people defending the speed of A12 but to me,it is really a big issue and needs to be fixed.If this is the way Ricoh is going to make it successful,i am sorry it is never gonna happen.I don`t also think that this new different kit system will work for Ricoh.New aproach to draw attention will end up in big disappointment.What Ricoh can do is;A camera with APS-C sensor and 28mm equivalent lens,and naming it GR-DX...Also in small camera group,the successor of GX200 will be at least with f2.0 lens and in camera editing options.GRD1-2-3`s success needs to be developed.
The Panasonic GF1 has set the bar for AF speed in a small body large sensor camera. Ricoh and Leica need to have speeds close to the GF1 or have image IQ that is so superior that slow AF is a fair trade off. It is appearing that the Ricoh may be even slower than the X1 and if that is the case, it may lose out to the X1 despite the price difference. The X1 carries the Lieca name, is smaller and lighter and may have a superior lens along with a 3 year warranty.
While I have seen some that would pay the price for the small sensor module, it makes little sense to me. In this price range it needs to be exceptional in every way. The Canon S90 is a very good small sensor camera that is truly pocketable. I owned an E-P1 and it was slow compared to the GF1 but appears to be fast compared to the A12. I would miss many opportunities for shots waiting for the AF. Also, spot size for AF is important as too large a spot results in the area of interest being out of focus. MF is slow on the GF1 even though one only needs to turn the focus ring to go into magnified mode. However it takes time to get the focus just right and then frame the shot because you can't see the entire frame when the image is magnified. Preferable would be a central magnified box for the AF allowing visibility for the whole frame. Another problem with the magnified image is the slightest camera shake is magnified making the MF that much more challenging. SNAP type focus is not of much use in low light as you need the lens open and the DOF becomes so small that approximate isn't good enough. In really good light where you can stop down is where AF also works best so much of the advantage/need for SNAP is lost. I am waiting to see more and I won't cancel my order yet. I hope Ricoh comes out with improved firmware. I and many others would have given up macro for better AF performance.
While I have seen some that would pay the price for the small sensor module, it makes little sense to me. In this price range it needs to be exceptional in every way. The Canon S90 is a very good small sensor camera that is truly pocketable. I owned an E-P1 and it was slow compared to the GF1 but appears to be fast compared to the A12. I would miss many opportunities for shots waiting for the AF. Also, spot size for AF is important as too large a spot results in the area of interest being out of focus. MF is slow on the GF1 even though one only needs to turn the focus ring to go into magnified mode. However it takes time to get the focus just right and then frame the shot because you can't see the entire frame when the image is magnified. Preferable would be a central magnified box for the AF allowing visibility for the whole frame. Another problem with the magnified image is the slightest camera shake is magnified making the MF that much more challenging. SNAP type focus is not of much use in low light as you need the lens open and the DOF becomes so small that approximate isn't good enough. In really good light where you can stop down is where AF also works best so much of the advantage/need for SNAP is lost. I am waiting to see more and I won't cancel my order yet. I hope Ricoh comes out with improved firmware. I and many others would have given up macro for better AF performance.
odklizec
PK
Guys, I still think there are compared apples and oranges It's not about defending A12 AF slowness. It's about reality. The GF1 AF speed argument is (mainly) based of the experience with 20mm/f1.7 pancake non-Macro lens. Did anyone compare the GF1 AF speed and reliability with Macro lens of similar (A12) specs? I'm afraid, there is currently no Macro lens like this for m4/3 system, except the Elmarit 45/2.8, which is in fact 90mm/2.8. Did anyone try this lens with GF1? But again, even this comparison would not be fair because of different focal length.
We will not know the true GXR AF capability without another APSC module, this time with non-macro lens. Macro lenses are generally slower and there is nothing Ricoh can do with this. It's unrealistic to expect the same AF performance from Macro lens (even in non-Macro mode). It's either about to have Macro or fast AF.
Many people complain about Ricoh choice of first APSC module. One wants 28mm, another 40mm and yet another 24mm APSC. Please, bear in mind that GXR, as any other Ricoh, is designed with primary focus to Japanese market. The rest of world is of course important too, but the preference of Japan customers is most important here. And the truth is that Macro feature is extremely popular in Japan. In addition, Macro is (traditionally) one of the key features in Ricoh cameras. So I guess this was also the reason why Ricoh decided to introduce Macro APSC module as the first one. I'm sure there will be introduced also some non-Macro APSC modules. But as for now, we have to accept Ricoh's choice of preference.
Of course, there is always a possibility that even non-macro ASPC lensor will not be as fast as the GF1. At first, they are both different cameras. And at second, there is an interesting comment about GF1 sensor refresh rate, which is twice as fast as refresh rate of EP1/2 sensor or CMOS sensor used in A12, X1 and many other cameras. This fact could be another reason of somewhat slower AF speed...
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/ ... mments/#20
But I still think the primary reason is the Macro construction.
All in all, only time and more APSC lensors will show us where is the truth. As for now, the prospective buyer has to decide if he needs Macro and can live with somewhat slower AF. The other option is to wait for introduction of another APSC-based module. And of course, there is also third way. One can buy something completely different
It's not about defending A12 AF slowness. It's about reality. The GF1 AF speed argument is (mainly) based of the experience with 20mm/f1.7 pancake non-Macro lens. Did anyone compare the GF1 AF speed and reliability with Macro lens of similar (A12) specs? I'm afraid, there is currently no Macro lens like this for m4/3 system, except the Elmarit 45/2.8, which is in fact 90mm/2.8. Did anyone try this lens with GF1? But again, even this comparison would not be fair because of different focal length. We will not know the true GXR AF capability without another APSC module, this time with non-macro lens. Macro lenses are generally slower and there is nothing Ricoh can do with this. It's unrealistic to expect the same AF performance from Macro lens (even in non-Macro mode). It's either about to have Macro or fast AF.
Many people complain about Ricoh choice of first APSC module. One wants 28mm, another 40mm and yet another 24mm APSC. Please, bear in mind that GXR, as any other Ricoh, is designed with primary focus to Japanese market. The rest of world is of course important too, but the preference of Japan customers is most important here. And the truth is that Macro feature is extremely popular in Japan. In addition, Macro is (traditionally) one of the key features in Ricoh cameras. So I guess this was also the reason why Ricoh decided to introduce Macro APSC module as the first one. I'm sure there will be introduced also some non-Macro APSC modules. But as for now, we have to accept Ricoh's choice of preference.
Of course, there is always a possibility that even non-macro ASPC lensor will not be as fast as the GF1. At first, they are both different cameras. And at second, there is an interesting comment about GF1 sensor refresh rate, which is twice as fast as refresh rate of EP1/2 sensor or CMOS sensor used in A12, X1 and many other cameras. This fact could be another reason of somewhat slower AF speed...
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/ ... mments/#20
But I still think the primary reason is the Macro construction.
All in all, only time and more APSC lensors will show us where is the truth. As for now, the prospective buyer has to decide if he needs Macro and can live with somewhat slower AF. The other option is to wait for introduction of another APSC-based module. And of course, there is also third way. One can buy something completely different
My understanding is that the EP1/2 sensor is the same sensor as the one used in the GF1. Whether Olympus chose not to use the 60Hz refresh rate or not I don't know but the sensor is capable of it. Choice of lens motor and speed of processor are other factors along with efficiency of algorithm used. The GF1 is much faster using the 14-45mm zoom than it is with the pancake 20mm f1.7. This is attributed to the difference in the lens focusing motor. I haven't seen any comments on the macro lenses performance but the fact that it is an effective 90mm would mean that it would /should be slower than the 50mm.
The slow speed of the Sigmas, DP1, DP2, DP1S and their SLRs has been one of the things that have hurt their sales. It shouldn't be dismissed lightly. It is also one of the reasons people jumped from EP1 to GF1 when it came out despite lacking in body IS.
The slow speed of the Sigmas, DP1, DP2, DP1S and their SLRs has been one of the things that have hurt their sales. It shouldn't be dismissed lightly. It is also one of the reasons people jumped from EP1 to GF1 when it came out despite lacking in body IS.
odklizec
PK
It seems to me that EP1/2 shares the same sensor, but GF1 uses something different. Most probably new version of their own sensor. See these sensor specs:
GF1:
Effective pixels 12.1 million
EP1/2:
Effective pixels 12.3 million
Don't forget that Olympus buys Panasonic sensors! I wouldn't be surprised if they purchased big lot of them for EP1/2 and only the next EP will have the latest one. And who knows? Maybe this 60fps is "Panasonic only" feature not available to 3rd parties?
I believe the 60 vs. 30 fps can make a difference for contrast detection AF. But on the other hand, A12 CMOS is used in many other DSLR cameras (Sony, Nikon) and as far as I know, there are no reports about serious AF slowness? So I guess the frame rate has only marginal effect on the overall AF speed? Clever algorithms and lens construction are much more important factors. At least I believe so.
GF1:
Effective pixels 12.1 million
EP1/2:
Effective pixels 12.3 million
Don't forget that Olympus buys Panasonic sensors! I wouldn't be surprised if they purchased big lot of them for EP1/2 and only the next EP will have the latest one. And who knows? Maybe this 60fps is "Panasonic only" feature not available to 3rd parties?
I believe the 60 vs. 30 fps can make a difference for contrast detection AF. But on the other hand, A12 CMOS is used in many other DSLR cameras (Sony, Nikon) and as far as I know, there are no reports about serious AF slowness? So I guess the frame rate has only marginal effect on the overall AF speed? Clever algorithms and lens construction are much more important factors. At least I believe so.
Just to help keep things in perspective here are some comments from dpreview about the Olympus 50mm f2.0 macro lens, a fine lens in its own right.
"Of course there's no such thing as a perfect lens, and the 50mm F2 is not without its faults. Probably our biggest issue is with the focusing system, which is something of a let-down especially when compared to the internal-focus ultrasonic designs offered by competitors. The focus motor is relatively slow and noisy, and the lack of a focus range limiter switch can be a distinct irritation when shooting portraits"
As was stated above a macro lens is not a normal lens in funtionality and design. I am looking forward to seeing what other modules are brought to market for the GXR.
"Of course there's no such thing as a perfect lens, and the 50mm F2 is not without its faults. Probably our biggest issue is with the focusing system, which is something of a let-down especially when compared to the internal-focus ultrasonic designs offered by competitors. The focus motor is relatively slow and noisy, and the lack of a focus range limiter switch can be a distinct irritation when shooting portraits"
As was stated above a macro lens is not a normal lens in funtionality and design. I am looking forward to seeing what other modules are brought to market for the GXR.