Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              27      
28
       29              43       44       end
  

Archive 2011 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?
  
 
Mitch Alland
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #1 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


I find this discussion pseudo-scientific and removed from photographic reality — in other words not very helpful, which means irrelevant. The only problem that I have come across on cameras without an AA filter is occasional moiré, and I had more incidences in that respect with the M8.2 and M9 than with the GXR-M (actually none so far). To make all these statements about the alleged (scientific?) horrors induced by artifacts from AA filters strikes in the face photographic reality and, frankly, is boring.

Comparison of the NEX-5N to the GXR-M in terns of AA filter vs no AA filter is not fruitful because the two sensors are so different, with that of the newer NEX-5N sensor being superior in resolution and high-ISO performance. More relevant is to compare the GXR-M in terms to that the two GXR A12 50mm and 28mm EFOV camera units because the same sensors are used, although obviously the lenses will be different. My conclusion went through my wallet: I sold the tow A12 camera units after shooting with the GXR-M for week.

—Mitch/Hua Hin
Barrier



Feb 11, 2012 at 05:01 AM
douglasf13
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #2 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


Mitch Alland wrote:
I find this discussion pseudo-scientific and removed from photographic reality — in other words not very helpful, which means irrelevant. The only problem that I have come across on cameras without an AA filter is occasional moiré, and I had more incidences in that respect with the M8.2 and M9 than with the GXR-M (actually none so far). To make all these statements about the alleged (scientific?) horrors induced by artifacts from AA filters strikes in the face photographic reality and, frankly, is boring.

Comparison of the NEX-5N to the GXR-M in terns of AA filter vs no AA filter
...Show more

I compared the 5N to the GXR, because that was the test made by a GXR user, and many GXR users claim the GXR is better than the 5N in this regard and switched (I've considered it, too.)

I don't think there's anything pseudo-scientific about it. Both AA'd and no-AA'd cameras have different issues to deal with, and it's just a preference, although I do believe that you can get them to look pretty similar to each other. It's not as if the major camera companies have been applying AA filters to punish us, although, now that registrations are becoming so short, I think no-AA is probably the way to go.



Feb 11, 2012 at 05:28 AM
kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #3 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


douglasf13 wrote:
I don't want to speak for Joakim, but I believe that he is just saying that no AA-filter isn't any closer to reality than having an AA filter, which I'd agree with. Which looks better is a personal choice.


No Douglas, Joakim wrote: .

the suede wrote:
What you can't ever fix is that you are now the owner of an image about as related to reality as Donald Duck.


I strongly disagree with him on that. He is implying an AA filter-less camera is way inferior to an AA-filtered one, which is yet again. I simply traded some traits and drawbacks for some other ones. I will not repeat myself again after yet again stating; I get to where I want to be faster with the GXR M in post pro. I could get there as well with the NEX5n (as an example) but I prefer the user interface of the GXR M, that's all. No hidden agendas or claims of "superiority" either way from my part, other than the user interface.

Both you and I have tinkered with the same cameras and we've drawn more or less the same conclusions, and I think we can agree on the difference being very small at best with the favor tilting one way or the other depending on needs, wants and wishes. We just chose differently in the end. Both are excellent cameras. I've chosen a Donald Duck reality over a Mickey Mouse one.




Feb 11, 2012 at 09:58 AM
Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #4 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


kosmoskatten wrote:
Toothwalker; for most of the problems that AA filter-less cameras are bashed for, there are solutions that are quite easy, as Denoir showed. I find it easier to deal with the potential artifacts of AA-filter less cameras than some of the inherent mushiness of AA-filtered cameras, on top of the inherent problems of the individual cameras.


It might be easy to deal with artifacts as in making them look less disturbing. It is impossible to deal with them as in restoring the actual scene, because you would need to know what it looks like.

Personally I am happy with the AA filter in place, until pixel densities are so high that diffraction takes over its role at the f-numbers I most often use.




Feb 11, 2012 at 11:53 AM
Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #5 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


denoir wrote:
Color artifacts, although not irreducible. If you put a gaussian blur filter on the a & b channels in Lab mode they go away.

[snip]

http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/moire/acrvsc1.jpg


Nice illustrations.

There is still noticeable aliasing in that bridge though, in the form of low-frequency spatial frequencies running through the railings. (Presumable aliasing; I can only guess what the real bridge looks like.)





Feb 11, 2012 at 12:06 PM
edwardkaraa
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #6 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


douglasf13 wrote:
Both AA'd and no-AA'd cameras have different issues to deal with, and it's just a preference, although I do believe that you can get them to look pretty similar to each other. It's not as if the major camera companies have been applying AA filters to punish us, although, now that registrations are becoming so short, I think no-AA is probably the way to go.


That is exactly my point of view. And I personally do prefer no AA for all the mentioned reasons, especially the corner problem , not only with RF lenses, but also in DSLR. I have mentioned in another thread how the ZA 24-70 that is known for its blurry corners at 24 mm suddenly produced sharp corners on film. The AA filter of the A900 is curiously too strong for such pixel count, and even in the center I find the blur to be unnecessarily exaggerated, and comparisons with the D3X do prove it. In my opinion, if I have to choose between moire and blurry corners, I choose moire. Both are problematic, but it's always good to have a choice.



Feb 11, 2012 at 05:52 PM
douglasf13
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #7 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


edwardkaraa wrote:
That is exactly my point of view. And I personally do prefer no AA for all the mentioned reasons, especially the corner problem , not only with RF lenses, but also in DSLR. I have mentioned in another thread how the ZA 24-70 that is known for its blurry corners at 24 mm suddenly produced sharp corners on film. The AA filter of the A900 is curiously too strong for such pixel count, and even in the center I find the blur to be unnecessarily exaggerated, and comparisons with the D3X do prove it. In my opinion, if I have
...Show more

Agreed, it's the corners that bother me. I guess, as Joakim mentioned, the ideal solution would be some kind of graduated AA filter, because I personally don't love the look of the false detail from aliasing, but pixel sizes are shrinking every year, so we're likely going to not need it soon, anyways.

I also believe that the A900 AA filter was stronger than it needed to be. The AA filters on my NEX cameras seem much less strong, as far as I can tell. I'd be pretty happy with my 5N AA filter, if the edges looked like the center.



Feb 11, 2012 at 06:10 PM
Kit Laughlin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.28 #8 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


you are now the owner of an image about as related to reality as Donald Duck

The resolution (excuse the pun) of the apparent opposition of views between kosmo and theSuede is simply one of scale. It is true (I assume) that AA filter-less cameras introduce artifacts at the pixel level, and beyond (in the case of moiré) but which simply cannot be seen if printing (dithering, etc.). Mitch trusts his eyes in this regard, as do I.

I shot a tree yesterday with a camera that does not have an AA filter, and the image looked like that tree and not the one next to it—and not like Donald Duck or any other Disney character. The point here is that, at the scale of consideration, the image made looked much more like the tree I was looking at than like any other tree in the vicinity. Understanding scale is key.

Digital reality is far removed from what Anthony Wilden calls "Big-R 'Reality'": the thing itself. No photography is anything but a representation of this Reality—some representations we like; some we don't; and some are far from it.

The larger point (IMHO) that Henrik makes (easier PP) is the case, in my experience, so far, and like many here, I have owned Sony's, Nikon's and Canon's best, and the 'ugly duckling' is simply easier and faster in this regard.



Feb 12, 2012 at 08:11 AM
kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #9 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


Teethwanderer:
That is a fine example of moiré showing its ugly head. I assume it is a 100% crop so I am not sure how that image would look in final print. It might be visibly distracting or it might not.

Also, noteworthy is that the above images are from a totally different camera than the GXR M and it is unfair to bash the AA filter-less solution in the GXR M based on the samples provided. I find the GXR M is much less prone to moiré and color artifacts. I have yet to find it a problem in practical photography.

Kit:
You are dead on in your assumption. I find I save a little time working with the files in post. And a little time per image quickly adds up. I could do just as well on the NEX5N, save the wide angle part though. I find the sensor and characteristics well balanced on the GXR M.

I have been swinging the bat in defense of the GXR M and I find that the discussion has been going in circles and I will not keep pouring water on the wheel. I think me and Douglas are in full agreement on the quirks and traits of both the NEX5N and the GXR M, we just went different ways, that's all.

As for Joakim I don't think we'll agree, or that we have to agree, we just have different standpoints on the matter, both being discerning in our own ways. It's all fine with me.

My next camera might or might not have an AA filter. I don't really know. It all depends.
There are only two things that I find I would really miss if I didn't have the GXR M;
the user interface/customizing options and this particular sensor for my M glass, although it isn't _the best_ on the market and a little dated.





Feb 12, 2012 at 08:37 PM
artur5
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #10 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


Somebody, somewhere, listen to us please : We want an hybrid between a NEX and a Ricoh GXR. Call it Sonicoh or Ricony if you want..
1- Modular design, controls, interface and customized settings GXR like;
2- Sony Up-to-date electronics and sensor tuned for M lenses, without AA filter.
3- State of the art EVF.
4- High resolution LCD. tilting in two axes;
5- Sony E mount, allowing the use of Contax G lenses and the Hawks adapter for M glass.
6- 'unLeica' priced.

( a FF sensor would be heaven but I'm afraid that premise nº6 it's incompatible with that )



Feb 12, 2012 at 10:21 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Kit Laughlin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.28 #11 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


Artur5, re. 6—with the number of FF sensors around now, a 'half-Leica' price should be doable. I certainly hope so. And agree completely re the EVF and the LCD—in fact the whole list!

The first company to do this would clean up, you would think, if the responses to the NEX7 and the X-Pro1 are anything to go by.



Feb 12, 2012 at 10:42 PM
douglasf13
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #12 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


artur5 wrote:
Somebody, somewhere, listen to us please : We want an hybrid between a NEX and a Ricoh GXR. Call it Sonicoh or Ricony if you want..
1- Modular design, controls, interface and customized settings GXR like;
2- Sony Up-to-date electronics and sensor tuned for M lenses, without AA filter.
3- State of the art EVF.
4- High resolution LCD. tilting in two axes;
5- Sony E mount, allowing the use of Contax G lenses and the Hawks adapter for M glass.
6- 'unLeica' priced.

( a FF sensor would be heaven but I'm afraid that premise nº6
...Show more

To tell you the truth, I think the tilt up/down LCD makes more sense on mirrorless, because it is a thinner mechanism. If the LCD did tilt on two axes, I wouldn't want the kind that swings out to the side, because it isn't great for waist level shooting.

I was hoping that Pentax would answer the call for a better mirrorless, but the Q and K-01 have left me scratching my head...



Feb 13, 2012 at 04:51 AM
Kit Laughlin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.28 #13 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


I was hoping that Pentax would answer the call for a better mirrorless, but the Q and K-01 have left me scratching my head...

Beautifully put, Douglas. In the meantime, the GXR does the job, and the 5N does it well, too.



Feb 13, 2012 at 05:44 AM
michaelwatkins
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #14 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


This is interesting:
http://lepidi-photo.blogspot.com/2012/02/ricoh-gxr-changement-de-capteur-en-sav.html

Quick translation: The blog writer has been in communication with Ricoh service to see if it is possible to replace the 12MP sensor in A12 modules (including the M mount module) with the new 16MP sensor shipping in the new zoom.

They said yes.

I've been following this in another forum; on follow up Ricoh told him that a cost couldn't be offered off hand - the camera would have to be sent in for a free estimate. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me but there you go.

Probably the "repair" is a wholesale swap out of the board the sensor is mounted on, and perhaps a firmware upgrade... implying that all this work has already been done for the new A16 M mount module too. Or the person responding may be blowing smoke out of their ears.

Anyone with closer ties to Ricoh want to check this out for veracity and maybe obtain a real cost?

Edited on Feb 14, 2012 at 04:28 PM · View previous versions



Feb 14, 2012 at 04:22 PM
kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #15 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


Douglas; the Pentax Q seems very niche, possibly a wink to the old miniature Pen cameras. But from thought to execution of the idea? I think the whole Q system is a mistake.

With the K-01... ...I don't know. That large a body and no EVF? They hire a "famous" designer and he is obviously not so well versed in designing cameras. Heck, I could design a better camera in a day, ergonomically. It is not that the K-01 is ugly, but it is clearly not properly designed - a camera that you have to hold up with arms bent/stretched out to see what you are shooting is compromising handling with shutter speeds and possible camera shake. Imagine covering an event where you have to wait a minute or two, you would be literally shaking after a while.

Pentax deserves a better designed body, Ricoh can provide the ergonomics and user interface and Pentax can keep the lenses coming.

I think Ricoh inherited something that had gained momentum inside of Pentax and I hope that the Pentax purchase and merger does not stall the GXR M development too much and that they don't get too tangled up in compromises. Sometimes 1+1 does not make three, it takes a little more to get that synergy going.

Edited on Feb 14, 2012 at 04:30 PM · View previous versions



Feb 14, 2012 at 04:27 PM
michaelwatkins
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #16 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


Mitch... (odd, your reply disappeared) Yes it might be a hoax but not sure where the profit in that to the person would be. I guess an email to Ricoh service in Germany would confirm it.

If swapping out the sensor board and updating some firmware might cost 1/2 of a M mount module, I'd be willing to do it. Heck, I might even do it if it costs 2/3's of a new module, just to gain access to the 16MP sensor more quickly.

I've not followed the zoom lensor very closely - is it AA filter-free too?



Feb 14, 2012 at 04:36 PM
kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #17 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


I find that the idea of swapping the sensor on the A12 lens units (28/50) seems strange, since they both have custom AA-filters. Changing the sensor would mean that the filter would probably not suit the A16.

The A16 on the zoom is apparently without AA-filter and should be possible to mount in the A12 M module, but I don't think it is all that easy. If it was possible I'd be happy to buy another A12 M mount and swap the sensor right away.



Feb 14, 2012 at 04:48 PM
edwardkaraa
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #18 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


So what's keeping Ricoh from putting that 16mp sensor in the M module, so that I could finally get one?


Feb 14, 2012 at 04:50 PM
Mitch Alland
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #19 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


Michael, sorry, I reread the alleged Ricoh e-mail and saw that it referred to a repair situation, in which case sending the camera in for a quote could make sense, which made me delete my posting that suggested that this was a hoax. However, I still think would be a difficult proposition to replace the 12MP sensor with a 16MP one.

—Mitch/Bangkok



Feb 14, 2012 at 04:52 PM
kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #20 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


Ed: Well, that is a shared sentiment. It is not much of a big effort, the M mount is already developed, just a swappety-do-dah and there, done. A current, competitive sensor in a great little package. Just picked up the 35/1.2 btw, sits right in front of me.

Mitch: quick hello from me and Jenny, hope all is well with you.

Michael: I read somewhere the other day that the A16 is without AA filter. Will try to find the link.
I would swap instantly if possible, but if there was a risk involved I'd buy another A12 and risk that one. We are still not talking an exorbitant amount of moolah invested for a spare module, so I'd risk it if Ricoh would say that it would work.

EDIT: No AA-filter in the A16 zoom module is confirmed by Ricoh according to a guy at the Ricoh forum.




Feb 14, 2012 at 04:58 PM
1       2       3              27      
28
       29              43       44       end




FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              27      
28
       29              43       44       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password