Hello Ron, thanks for these, and I agree re. the three-way discussion on the cameras.
A quick clarification q.: did the M9 correct that file in camera via the coding? And I have a CV 50/1.5 coming too; it's a perfect EFOV on the GXR for portraits, for me, and the slightly busier OOF BG areas will not be a problem for me. They are both very sharp lenses in the centres, it seems.
Re. focussing stiffness: all five of my CV lenses have light beautifully weighted focussing—yours might need a service. I will let you know what my 50 feels like when it arrives; it's second hand like yours.
I was a newspaper photographer in the 1960s and early 70s when everything was manual, the highest shutter speed was 1000th second and fast film was ASA400. We were pretty good at follow focusing. The Ricoh offers an advantage over those days with peaking and high shutter speeds. You obviously remember the pre-focus technique, but we did not have the advantage of peaking and essentially instant shutter release. I simply prefocused and watched the dog approach the white area (peaking highlight) and snapped the picture at the appropriate instant. The NEX-5n and 7 really make this technique pretty foolproof because they have a 10fps shutter setting to go with peaking. Curiously, the 7 apparently has a greater buffer than the 5n, which is full (shooting RAW) after 5 to 7 images. Even at 10fps, only one image will be in focus, and then the plane of focus may not be on the eyes, which is really a necessity. The only cameras I’ve found that will keep the face of a fast moving dog in focus throughout a motor drive sequence are the Nikon D3 and D3s, which is why I use them.
I think your idea of starting the GXR-NEX7-X-PRO1 heading is great! Despite shooting some comparison images with the Ricoh and NEX7, I honestly don’t know which produces the sharpest image. Sometimes the Ricoh looked sharper, and other times the NEX7 appeared to have the upper hand. At larger magnifications, the 24MP NEX-7 was the clear winner. If the 16MP Ricoh-M is as good as the current version, I will buy one, and if they were not going to make it, I would probably buy the 12MP version. Of course the X-PRO1 may be a viable alternative....And there may also be a mirrorless Leica camera announced at Photokina. Then there is the Nikon announcement scheduled for Feb 7. Will there be a D800 sans AA filter?
I was amazed at the image quality from the Ricoh and Leica lenses. This surely must be attributable to the lack of AA filter. I mostly used lenses in the 50-135mm focal length range. Do you (or anyone else) happen to know how much of a role the microlenses on the Ricoh sensor played in the image quality I was seeing? Are the microlenses primarily meant for use with wide lenses? If they are a factor in the resolution and micro contrast with normal and longer focal lengths, with the Fuji X-PRO1 have them? Ricoh makes the M module expressively for use with rangefinder lenses. Fuji, as far as I know, will simply offer an adapter allow the us of them on the X-PRO1.
I forgot to mention what I thought was a very interesting example from the Ricoh. I put a Noctilux on the camera and took a quick snapshot at f1.0 My memory of images at f1.0 is they are quite soft with low contrast (which has the effect of opening shadow areas). The detail, contrast and saturation in the vase amazed me. I assume that once again this is due to the lack of AA filter. This is a delightfully accomplished little camera!
kosmoskatten wrote:
uscmatt: maybe you can add a little card/thingy to deflect the pop up flash / block it from casting a shadow on the lens/image.
Bill H: wow, nice catch with the dog "in flight". Also cool to see a shot with the APO 135/3.4. I have been wanting to shoot with this lens. The last shot with the APO 75 is VERY crisp. Nice post pro on all, thanks for sharing.
In my opinion the GXR M sensor is one of the best when it comes to bringing out the true lens character, regardless of it is wide angle or telephoto lenses. I think the GXR does well on some of those tricky lenses which _might not_ come to life on AA-filter fitted sensors.
I find that lenses I thought were "ok" are actually slightly better with the GXR M than the other platforms I have tried, difference in MP aside. ...Show more →
Thanks. That is interesting. I have been wondering how my Nikon lenses will do on a D800 without an AA filter, if such a thing does become a reality on Feb 7.
Kit Laughlin wrote:
Hello Ron, thanks for these, and I agree re. the three-way discussion on the cameras.
A quick clarification q.: did the M9 correct that file in camera via the coding? And I have a CV 50/1.5 coming too; it's a perfect EFOV on the GXR for portraits, for me, and the slightly busier OOF BG areas will not be a problem for me. They are both very sharp lenses in the centres, it seems.
Re. focussing stiffness: all five of my CV lenses have light beautifully weighted focussing—yours might need a service. I will let you know what my 50 feels like when it arrives; it's second hand like yours. ...Show more →
Hi Kit, that M9 file was not coded and had only minor adjustments in Lightroom. I mostly tried it uncoded today but I did one sequence to compare it coded vs. uncoded, with it set for the 50 Lux ASPH.
Here's the sequence - shot on the M9 - first is uncoded, second is coded as 50 Lux ASPH, third is the 50 Lux ASPH. These were all handheld, so the framing isn't consistent..
I think the stiff focusing was partly due to the weather, at around freezing today. Now that it has warmed up inside it feels better, though still not as nice as the Zeiss. According to the seller, a store, it was owned by an amateur. It looks hardly touched, so it's possible it has been sitting for a number of years and just needs a bit of exercise.
Bill, wow, that looks great from the Noctilux!
I suspect the microlenses also help with 50mm and longer lenses. I guess the benefit is that the lens will take the light entering the entire pixel well and concentrate it better onto the actual pixel itself. The guy around here who would probably answer your questions the best is Joakim (aka theSuede) https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/recent/theSuede
GXR, cropped around 30% because the 90cm minimum focusing distance of the CV50 resulted in a pretty loose shot: 50 Lux ASPH, CV50 f/1.5, ZM50 Planar, CV40 f/1.4 The crop is the same size in all, so what I see in the high-rez files is that the 50 Lux is the longest of the bunch. Leica has measured this copy at 51.4mm. Then comes the CV50 and the ZM50 is a bit wider than it. $4000 also buys you an aspherical lens without onion rings.
WB based on the ZM image, brightness adjusted to match the white in the C of Canon. Of the various LR parameters, contrast was set to zero, black point at 5, clarity at zero.
Bill, forgot to mention that if you are shooting wide angle glass, the GXR M is currently the best solution on the market, weighing the pro's and con's. Sony are quite good but the sensor on the Ricoh is tweaked to handle older/legacy wide angle glass and here the lack of AA filter helps out too. I think the GXR M does better than the M9 in this regard (though the M9 is full frame). I had the M9 but it was too crippling for me for that premium price tag.
The Fuji X Pro 1 (which I have a keen eye on too) has the _potential pitfall_ of not being tweaked to accommodate wide legacy glass. There is no mention anywhere in Fuji's literature provided that the X Pro 1 does well with wide angle glass, has offset micro lenses and evidence points to the contrary: the new Fuji 18/2 (equiv of roughly 28) is designed for the sensor - and not the other way around. Something to consider if you have wide angle legacy glass. Also, the optical viewfinder of the X Pro 1 will be pretty pointless with longer glass.
The rest of the X Pro 1 speculation I will try to confine to the proper thread.
Yum, onion rings, my favorite junk food. Four large pays for a lot of trips to A+W for onion rings.
I opened Ron's four images at random in new windows and arranged them on my screen - #71 I correctly guessed was the Zeiss and just on bokeh alone assumed #72 was the Lux.
The CV50's rings are less obvious to me at least. Maybe the cyan tinge on the Zeiss rings makes them stand out more. I wonder how the Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 would fare in this...
Judging by the diagram showing the 18/2 mounted on the X-pro 1, the big rear glass element seems to redirect the light rays into the sensor almost at 90º.
If the drawing shows the real design of the lens, I'd say that the sensor isn't optimized for acute angles at all.
For the sake of having a lot to choose from I hope we are both wrong in this assumption and that the sensor is capable of handling really wide alt glass. But, since they made that effort to accommodate the _lens to the sensor_ and not the _sensor to the lenses_ I have some doubts about it.
As I have said numerous times before, the camera is designed for a new set of lenses and not to accommodate alternative/legacy glass by default. Of course they will not dedicate a whole lot of R&D into the latter category but will rather settle for an "ok-ish" result. I mean, how many on the R&D team are legacy lens aficionados and care to the same degree that we do here? One guy? (If we are lucky...)
I was a newspaper photographer in the 1960s and early 70s when everything was manual, the highest shutter speed was 1000th second and fast film was ASA400. We were pretty good at follow focusing.
Yep, know all about that (I was a dance and theatre photographer for many years); still works, doesn't it?
Re. the microlenses: I know that their placement affects WA lenses in particular, but do not know about normal and longer lenses. The lack of an AA filter is amazing in its effects, for me; I have used no sharpening at all on any of the images I have shot for work. And if you do add a bit of sharpening and clarity, the images just pop.
I thought I remembered you being a long time photographer. I’m finding I am having a blast using a totally manual camera again. Interestingly, most of the time totally manual use is at least as fast as total automation, because I don’t have to dial an AF point around or add plus or minus exposure.
Possibly a dumb question, but is there a Canadian distributor for Ricoh cameras, the GXR in particular? I've been searching, but haven't found any Canadian stores that carry them.
Bill, interesting you should mention that (about using the camera full manual): in most of my work in those days I used a pair of Nikon F2As, with the Photomic heads—young photographers here who have not used a great OVF like the Nikons or the Oly OMs of that era really don't know what they are missing. And the GXR's EVF hardly compares, but at least it's 100%.
And in those days there were only MF lenses, and people still shot sports (and dance) with these. In most of my work, a 35/2 and an 85/2 did most of it, because as a pro I shot at dress rehearsals, and could move anywhere I wanted.
I will be the first to admit though that we probably were not focussing as accurately as one needs to today to be perfectly sharp, and the audience's expectations were different in the pre-pixel-peeping eras—many of the best images were more about compositions (graphic elements, in other words) and content than technical accuracy. Film (at least in the 135 format) was more forgiving, and big enlargements were usually left to medium format, with which I also worked, though usually on a tripod, in the studio, with more control.
molson, over at dpr, I found this thread. It seems that Popflash will let you trial one for a week, effectively free. Amazing.
Bill, interesting you should mention that (about using the camera full manual): in most of my work in those days I used a pair of Nikon F2As, with the Photomic heads—young photographers here who have not used a great OVF like the Nikons or the Oly OMs of that era really don't know what they are missing. And the GXR's EVF hardly compares, but at least it's 100%.
And in those days there were only MF lenses, and people still shot sports (and dance) with these. In most of my work, a 35/2 and an 85/2 did most of it, because as a pro I shot at dress rehearsals, and could move anywhere I wanted (and the shutter noise was part of the "lift your arms!" ambience!).
I will be the first to admit though that we probably were not focussing as accurately as one needs to today to be perfectly sharp, and the audience's expectations were different in the pre-pixel-peeping eras—many of the best images were more about compositions (graphic elements, in other words) and content than technical accuracy. Film (at least in the 135 format) was more forgiving of slight focus inaccuracies (especially if the content was interesting), and big enlargements were usually left to medium format, with which I also worked, though usually on a tripod, in the studio, with more control.
molson, over at dpr, I found this thread. It seems that Popflash will let you trial one for a week, effectively free. Amazing.
Kit Laughlin wrote:
molson, over at dpr, I found this thread. It seems that Popflash will let you trial one for a week, effectively free. Amazing.
The one week trial might be "free", but I would still have to pay the shipping, duty brokerage, and taxes on the full value of the camera when it crosses the border.
I would be more inclined to buy the camera if they had sales and service in Canada.
Oh: that's a bugger (as we say here). AFAIK, there's no way of getting around that HST (or whichever one it is; I work in Canada every hear); I had a friend bring a D3s to me from Billingham for just that reason.
I totally get wanting local S&S, but I always get my stuff from Popflash or B&H, and keep the shipment value under $1,000 AUD—that way, here at least, we only have to pay shipping. Over that amount, and add roughly 30%. good luck.
An hour with the Dremel (with the plunge router attachment) and it's done.
The first image shows the extent and rough dimensions of the two cuts: the first moves the threaded part of the slot about 1.5–2mm closer to the end of the bracket, and the second cut enlarges the landing (to clear the screw head) by the same amount.
The next image shows the standard screw, and a Hassy circlip I had here; adding this retains the standard RRS screw perfectly.
The next shows the screw in place
The last one shows the GXR A12 50 with a perfectly square and secure RRS L bracket. Very happy with this.
Though I might not be as old as some of you geezers I started getting paid doing photography in 1989. This was an interesting year, it was actually a year or so before internet. And well before internet grew into something useful. Haha.
On topic again:
I looked at some of the Summarit 75mm files and it is obvious to me what a difference working with the EVF does when hand holding the telephoto lenses as opposed to using the rear LCD. The difference between nailing it, almost nailing it and blurring it is a fine line to walk with only the rear LCD.
I consider myself quite a steady shooter and back in them film days (when you had to make do with 400 speed film) I usually nailed critical focus hand holding the Nikkor ED180/2.8 and my Contax 135/2 down to 1/60s. You had to really time your breathing and your subject because if the subject moved ever so slightly the shot would be off.
With my RF cameras I could go down as far as 1/15s on wide angles when needed. Consistently.
Same with the Hassy Superwide which I would cradle in my hands at waist height, look at the bubble and squeeze off with a cable release; down to 1/30s was workable, 1/60s was spot on every time.
On LCD cameras I find I struggle to cope with those speeds and I find that with anything above 50mm on the NEX5n and the GXR I have a much worse keeper ratio than before. With the EVF I am somewhat confident and consistent using slow-ish shutter speeds. I am not as steady as before but even with fairly short shutter speeds I find that the EVF does help.
For sunny day street shooting and open shade the rear LCD works well though.
I'd say it's likely that, like with the M9, the GXR's special microlenses are just marketing, and the lack of an AA filter is the real corner improving method (cfa choice can also affect color shift.) Interestingly, as theSuede has mentioned, corner performance is the main reason to remove an AA filter, because it results in false detail and technically even slightly lowers the resolution compared to a sensor with an AA filter, due to so many artifacts.
Work on the sharpening procedures with an AA filtered camera, and maybe even add some simulated grain "artifacts," and you can get surprisingly close to the results of an AA-less camera. However, the AA-less camera will have that nice edge advantage, so I think it's still a net positive with rangefinder lenses.
I started getting paid doing photography in 1989. This was an interesting year, it was actually a year or so before internet. And well before internet grew into something useful. Haha.