Stefan, the GXR M module is an M mount, not an "adapter Mount" and is sitting at (what I assume is) the correct M register distance as per the specification for it. I don't think Ricoh screwed up the basics. So all native M glass should reach infinity. All other M mount glass, ZM, Voigtländer, Ricoh, Minolta etc should do the same unless they fail to comply with the M mount register.
With this fixed mount you are certain that if it does not hit infinity it is the lens at fault.
kosmoskatten wrote:
With this fixed mount you are certain that if it does not hit infinity it is the lens at fault.
With adapters you never really know.
Right now for me this would be the most appealing reason to get the GXR. I can see what my lenses can do when I nail the focus at mid range distances and I am boiling over when I see none of my shots at far distance or building shots with the 35 are soft while those that really have a decent exposure time to eliminate my shake and have the focus nailed don't even need sharpening anymore.
The reason I did not switch is the versatility the NEX has with regard to AF lenses - native E-mount, A-mount with Sony adapter and maybe EF-mount whit courus adapter somewhere in the future. For everything else I could get adapters to M-mount and that would be it. OTOH, if I manage to get a decent M-lens lineup I would probably skip the AF options.
I do believe you are right about Ricoh likely being consistent to its design ethos. I like the sameness of the line up and would consider buying something other than a GXR from Ricoh for that reason.
Slungu, I feel my Hawk adapter may not have allowed all my wides to hit infinity but can't prove it one way or another now. Also when at infinity the exit pupil of my offending Biogons was at the nearest distance to the NEX sensor, thus amplifying problems. It's only a few millimeters difference from one end of focus to the other, but it does seem to make all the difference in the world - subjects close in did not seem to suffer nearly as much from edge smearing. Likewise when using the Hawk extended to reduce the minimum focus distance to almost nothing, moving the exit pupil even farther away from the sensor, images to me looked incredibly sharp across the field.
I have been playing with the GXR-M: I am gobsmacked by how intelligently this tiny, tiny camera is set up, honestly. My friend with the fast fifties will be here tomorrow, so I can check the effectiveness of the 'kosmo-kitty' focus assist settings, but so far on the CV 15, it's looking very promising. The configurability of the GXR body is an example to ALL other manufacturers, IMHO.
Did I mention how tiny the setup is?? Minute! Of course, after the D3, D3s and D700s, all the compact cameras feel and look small, but the GXR-M is really really tiny.
If you find focussing the CV15 workable, prepared to be amazed with longer lenses. Wide open with longer lenses you can see the field of focus as clear as day when in mode 2 and you move focus across the subject. My 18mm I find the most challenging to nail given the deep depth of field even when closer in and open wide; even the 25mm is markedly easier.
Hmnn, thinking about this caused me to think of another possible firmware change for Ricoh to contemplate... when shooting at lower sensitivities sometimes Mode 2 won't pick up enough detail but raising ISO solves all; why not have the Mode 2 view employ Auto ISO or something akin to it behind the scenes, and when a shutter press or half press of the shutter occurs, revert to normal behaviour?
Kit, I am glad you are taking to the GXR.
Believe me, the CV15 is the hardest lens to focus on the GXR. All fast glass and say, 28mm and longer are a breeze.
I got my GXR as soon as they were out. For a while I felt like I was the ONLY guy in the western hemisphere that grasped how intelligently laid out it was.
The press didn't get it and since it was not widely / proactively pushed by Ricoh it was quickly dismissed by the internet intelligentia as "the most ridiculous idea in digital cameras in a long time" or that it was a "novel" idea but would be quickly scrapped and disappear and that there was no place in the market for it.
All the while I was cradling my GXR, rocking it back and forth in my arms, soothing, whispering "they have no idea of that you are capable of my ugly duckling, they have no idea..."
The GXR is quite strong in Japan, which is a big enough country to sustain it alone, there is a GXR Magazine (!) and the GRD cameras have a huge following there with a GRD magazine too. (I have read the GXR Magazine but had to settle for the pictures as my japanese is nonexistent... The GRD cameras have their crowd in the west and I have the GRDII and GRDIV, the latter with the 21mm wide conversion lens. I am selling it in preparation of the GXR.2 as I will relegate the GXR body to host my AF modules and will use them instead of the GRDIV.
Many of us here have had a great many different cameras; and for some it's a hobby, a passion, and an avocation. I am pretty sure I have had all the compacts and µ4/3rds bodies and lenses, as well as the heavy duty tools. Perhaps you need to be a bit more experienced (possibly a bit jaded?) to really appreciate the sheer intelligence of the GXR design. What I like most is that I now have a P&S, an AF macro tool, and a light work MF camera with the same control interface. Only shooters who have worked under pressure will really get how important that is—who here does not recall fumbling for a button (or, worse, trying to find something in a menu, deep down in that system) and having the rhythm of the process interrupted or, worse, the moment lost?
I will relegate the GXR body to host my AF modules
Perfect, and very likely I will do the same. Cheers
I haven't gotten around to sell my GRD2 (with 21mm and 40mm converters) much less my GRD3 (with 21mm converter).
The GRDx vs the GXR-M is an issue that I have been thinking about recently: no matter how much I like the GXR-M with the Elmarit-21 ASPH (currently my favorite combination), it cannot replace the GRD3 for street photography. Shooting the GRD3 with its huge depth of field lends itself to a degree of fluidity and looseness of style that I like a lot and that iis very different from what one accomplishes with the GXR-M. This is particularly true if one uses the LCD of the GRD3 to roughly to establish the edges of the frame and then if one looks directly at the subject when pressing the shutter — something different from shooting with a larger sensor camera. That is why I think the frequent pleas on the dppreview Ricoh Talk (baby talk) Forum for a larger sensor GRD camera just represents a complete misunderstanding of what a camera like the GRD3 is for.
Take the following two pictures. The first one is taken with the GRD3 at ISO 400 and f/1.9, at which aperture the shot benefits from the small sensor's huge depth of field. The second one is taken with the GXR-M and the Elmarit-21 at ISO 2000 and probably f/4 or f/5.6:
Below is another picture with the GRD3, this time with the 21mm converter, that I like a lot. Here's what someone wrote about it, which fits in with my feeling about the picture (modesty aside): "I know this is pretty old, but I only came across it while "researching" the GRD3 (which I bought). All of these Paris images are really nicely done, but this one with it's highly unconventional composition which so perfectly suits what seems to be happening, is my absolute favorite. Even the street signs are very effective in this scene, the colors are perfect and all around I think this is arguably the best (non landscape) color GRD3 shot I've seen."
No, for dynamic street photography, I'm still wedded to the GRD3 — I don't think that I could shoot the "Paris in the rhythm of Basquiat" series linked under my signature below with any other camera.
Mitch, I can get what you are saying, completely. And I just looked: they are a throwaway price, too. I very much liked the Paris, au rythme de Basquait essay, as well.
I will keep the GRDII for light duty and in particle laden work environments.
I can't see myself keeping to many cameras though the Ricoh cameras are of course easiest to integrate.
The Fuji X10 is my point&shoot of choice at the moment, it does quite well and I got suckered in by the retro looks. AF is a bit spotty though. I've learned how to nail it on most occasions but it can still throw a picture out of focus too often. Image quality at high ISO is the usual watercolor pen style, but now that RPP supports the X10 I will see what it is capable of in RAW.
So, is anyone else curious why there is a duplicate EVF port located on the base of the body beside the battery cover hidden under the small rectangular piece of rubbery plastic?
It would also seem there is provision for an AC adapter based on the little square flap of rubbery plastic at the side of the battery compartment and lip of the grip... though I see no mention of such an accessory in the manual.
Ron, I think the extra EVF port is to allow for a separate LCD display, a larger one. Or some sort of similar contraption. They have/had a few wild ideas as to fitting projectors, hard drives etc.
Also I am thinking the GXR could be very well suited for astronomical photography through adapters to telescope mounts. I know some guys do this, but I don't know if anyone has hooked up an M mount yet.
I am contemplating selling the X10, but it has a little charm to it. Also, my gf seems able to operate it properly so a nice climbing camera it still is.
I had the 24-72mm module but sold it off with my former spare GXR body, sort of wish I had kept it for work stuff, but they surface from time to time.
Sean Reid of http://reidreviews.com/ added another update today to his on-going review of "EFCs For RF Lenses"; translated for those who don't read Reid, he's decided to call CSC (Compact System Cameras) or EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) cameras by the term "Electronic Finder Cameras".
Anyway, long story short he's been testing some of the more challenging wide angle lenses - 21mm Leica | 15mm and other CVs | Zeiss ZM21 - on a NEX-5N and GXR M Mount and it won't surprise anyone to learn that the GXR does very well in this comparison.
Maybe we'll see some more folks get some GXR love on.
Jonas B wrote:
I'm slowly getting there. A new version of the body, and a new M-mount module you say? I'l be watching with interest!
Same here. The Fuji XP1 is looking less interesting at the announced price and with the reports of AF not being particularly awesome. The Olympus OM-D could get interesting but not the 2x crop is not really my thing.
If one already has some M lenses, the GXR is if not a no-brainer at least one that should be right at the top of the consideration list. Would I buy one for the lensors alone? Hmnn... for me, probably not. Would I buy one if I didn't already have M lenses? Maybe.
