Whatever Fuji releases could be very special. They certainly have some pretty unique sensor technology and given that there will likely never be a Fuji/Nikon S6 DSLR, it would seem logical for them to come out with a pro grade 4/3rds system.
Well technically speaking I guess the ability to use specific lens/sensor combos is ideal. But, holy crap what a weird set-up! Time will tell, I'm interested to see how Ricoh's gamble pays off.
mawz wrote:
More like it's forced lens obsolescence. Your lens is obsolete when the sensor/processing is obsolete, unlike my m43 system where I simply upgrade the body and continue using my lenses.
Man, I wish that was true. But (for me anyway) body upgrades have forced lens upgrades. For example: Canon 17-35mm to 16-35mm V1 to 16-35mm V2 to ?, how about al those V2 lenses that we are now buying again? The only lens that has stood the resolution test is the C/Y 21mm and even it has been relaunched. Wait until 35+MP arrives, you will be upgrading again.
IMHO, by optimizing the lens sensor combination, Ricoh has just recognized the realities of the market place. I'd rather take the hit on one lens/sensor combination vs say switching from a Canon G1 to a Panasonic or whatever.
What I would really like is for Cosina to come out with a FF M-mount clone like the old Minolta CLe...
If you think that on the same timeline as the distance between the two 16-35mm releases that you'll have the same "body", you're kidding yourself. The second the modules go past the throughput of the current body which is likely designed to work well at 12MP, you'll be reaching for a new body so you're not back to shooting 1FPS. It's not as if the GR body is the pinnacle of digital camera body development.
While I'm a fan of the normal focal length, I'm not sure this system is a good value. f/2.5 isn't especially fast. I guess if you want your normal lens to also do macro, this is decent, but that's kind of a niche market.
mawz wrote:
Not much of an advantage given how well the Oly SSWF controls dust problems. Only the wettest, stickiest dust is ever an issue for 4/3rds users.
Well, Canon's system is not bad either. I have a 40D for about 2 years and my cleaning ratio is once per year.
Sam Bennett wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for innovation and I think it's great that Ricoh's thinking out of the box, but that's not always a good thing. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
I think that this camera is Genius, no obsolescence
Totally agree. It's funny how when you have to buy a whole new camera it's suddenly not obsolete. Now if only we could get a new LCD, better battery life, and faster card speeds every time we bought a new camera...
nikt wrote:
I see the advantage that you marry up the right sensor with the right lens. I think this will do well.
That just might make sense if there were anything lens-specific about the sensors, but most likely there isn't. You might as well buy into a system which matches up the right polarising filter with the right tripod.
Separating camera electronics from the sensor makes practically no sense. Sensor technology advances swiftly, so the camera electronics need to advance to match the sensor. The lens and the sensor are THE ONLY components in our cameras which really are at all independent of each other, which is why we all buy into interchangeable lens systems. I use 25 year old lenses on my 5D2, with great results. Attaching a sensor to each detachable lens only adds cost to the lens and dramatically increases its rate of obsolescence.
As bizzare as this system is the portrait samples on the Ricoh website look really nice. I agree the 50mm equivalent lens isn't very fast but the camera does appear to have nice high iso performance. I would be more intrigued if I knew what their roadmap was for lens modules.
brainiac wrote:
That just might make sense if there were anything lens-specific about the sensors, but most likely there isn't. You might as well buy into a system which matches up the right polarising filter with the right tripod.
Actually, I disagree. As much as I'm not a fan of this particular system and think it's pretty silly, the fundamental concept of matching sensors to lenses makes sense if you come at it from a usage standpoint. The easiest example is macro. In that case, shooting FF offers you great noise performance which can be handy in some situations, but by and large FF is going to give you problems with very shallow DoF. So, with this system you could have your "macro module" be the combination of a smallish sensor (maybe somewhere between the 1/1.7" sensor they're using and a 4/3" sensor) with a lens that gives you a nice working distance from the subject while still giving you a 1:1 ratio. For other people, having super shallow DoF may be the ticket, so giving them a FF sensor with a fast 50mm on it might be great.
Having both available to you as options on the same body is probably attractive to some people, but I doubt it's attractive to enough people. Personally, I face the problem I outlined above, where the D700 is problematic for some of the close-up work I do. In that case, the GF1 is getting used more an more. It's a bummer though, because for a lot of my conceptual nude work (which I don't share here) when I want to go "out of system" and use the GF1, I lose the important things the D700 gives me - namely CLS and the ability to control my flashes manually from the body. In that sense, having a camera system where you have the same features of the body with a fundamentally different module for different purposes is attractive. But, not attractive enough for me. (And of course, I assume Ricoh doesn't have a CLS-like system, but I could be wrong)
Oh, and ironically Ricoh actually has an APS-C sensor in their "macro" module at this point, which is just totally baffling to me.
Sam Bennett wrote:
If you think that on the same timeline as the distance between the two 16-35mm releases that you'll have the same "body", you're kidding yourself. The second the modules go past the throughput of the current body which is likely designed to work well at 12MP, you'll be reaching for a new body so you're not back to shooting 1FPS. It's not as if the GR body is the pinnacle of digital camera body development.
Actually, its the body upgrade that drives the lens upgrades... So they do cross paths, so to speak.
Lets remember, that this is not a DSLR replacement, it is a point and shoot cam with the potential to offer a lot of flexibility. I will also have an obsolescence cycle that is significantly longer than my G10 (10 months). It is not a permanent solution, unlike film, no digital cam ever will be.
I would venture a guess that Ricoh will also offer body upgrades down the road.
All of this said, Ricoh's current pricing will kill the system.
The problem here is not that RICOH did not deliver the idea correctly, but that the idea itself is not really resolving any issues that either a much cheaper PS or a similarly priced DSLR cannot solve.
For the record, if CANON or NIKON come up with a mirrorless APS-C body, that, via adapters will accept native glass as well as most third party lenses, both the RICOH idea and the M43 will be in great jeopardy.
brainiac wrote:
Separating camera electronics from the sensor makes practically no sense. Sensor technology advances swiftly, so the camera electronics need to advance to match the sensor. The lens and the sensor are THE ONLY components in our cameras which really are at all independent of each other, which is why we all buy into interchangeable lens systems. I use 25 year old lenses on my 5D2, with great results. Attaching a sensor to each detachable lens only adds cost to the lens and dramatically increases its rate of obsolescence.
While I see this new Ricoh only selling to an extremely small, specialized niche market (being able to separate the lens+sensor from the body, viewing system and controls could easily offer huge advantages in specific industrial/technical/scientific photo applications where the photographer can't be in the same place as the lens for instance), I suppose an argument could be made that by separating the electronics from the sensor, a cleaner signal path might be achieved resulting in image quality benefits. This would be along the same idea as used in very high end audio equipment where discrete, separated components offer sonic advantages. Whether this is accomplished in the Ricoh design is doubtful.
I think we need to keep one thing in mind: this camera is not aimed at us I wonder what the deal will look like to someone who wants a little more than his G11 can give, but doesn't want the size of a DSLR? I guess the Ricoh will have to compete with the EP-1/2 and GF1 for consumer mindshare. The dust control angle is something which Ricoh could push in ads.
carstenw wrote:
I think we need to keep one thing in mind: this camera is not aimed at us I wonder what the deal will look like to someone who wants a little more than his G11 can give, but doesn't want the size of a DSLR? I guess the Ricoh will have to compete with the EP-1/2 and GF1 for consumer mindshare. The dust control angle is something which Ricoh could push in ads.
I'm not sure I agree with that. This doesn't seem to be aiming at the same consumer market that Panasonic and Olympus are hoping to tap into. This is much more of a enthusiast photographer-oriented camera, aimed at the fringe of "oh neat" folks whose wants deviate sharply from the norm. I would think that FM.com's userbase is much closer to the user persona Ricoh's designing for than the MFT offerings out there.
Access wrote:
From a marketing perspective this is a really good idea.
It locks people into a company's system with minimal cost up front.
Once you buy the body, it basically maximizes profit by bundling the sensor and lens together. Consumer has to buy more updates than the standard camera-lens upgrade model (where lenses last forever and camera+sensor is updated every few years).
Here, if you want a new lens, it's bundled with a new sensor. Likewise, if sensor technology has progressed to the point you want a new sensor, it's bundled with a new lens. You're always paying for something extra, something you probably don't need or even want. Profit is maximed....Show more →
Did they teach you that in Economics for Bankers 101?
It seems obvious to me that profit is maximised when you sell less to the customer for a given price, not more than she wants. Unless Ricoh plans to produce separate lens and sensor modules, they are forced by the design to sell duplicate components which can only increase the price for the customer, and thereby reduce sales. At a time when small format interchangeable lens cameras are just becoming popular again, this design seems to have missed the point. m4/3 lenses have the benefit that in two years time you will be able to use them on a newer sensor. That makes them an investment.
This type of Camera poses a significant dilemma for the likes of Canon and Nikon... notice how slow they have been to jump on this bandwagon. It will only erode sales of small SLR's, and Prosumer. The bottom line is; to compete, they will need to invest in another line of new lenses. However, Olympus, Panasonic etc... have nothing to lose, they can float the gear and further subdivide the market.
A small Canon EF box would not really offer any advantages to a new system purchaser vs the others. Existing owners would like it, but only a small group that uses alternatives, otherwise what's the point? You might as well use a rebel and be done with it. So does Canon/Nikon want to invest in a new mini cam and lenses, only time will tell.
Given the above, the market (right now) for this type of camera belongs to Panasonic and Olympus. I think that Ricoh is looking to enter that market with a device that is little more "off the wall" so to speak. We must remember, that Ricoh has always been a small player in this market, and that they have a fairly loyal following. All Ricoh would need to do is to bring a few APS-C pancake like high quality primes to market at a reasonable price and this cam will sell in certain markets.
Regarding the discussion about the perceived value of lenses vs bodies etc... It all comes down to depreciation. Will the individual components of the Ricoh system depreciate faster than the equivalent body, who knows. I can tell you that currently, for any camera body, the depreciation cycle is speeding up as the product cycle speeds up. Lenses without sensors tend to hold value until V2 comes out.
Finally on different note, IMHO, the current depreciation cycle on pro gear is unsustainable for the average photographer.
I wonder what the deal will look like to someone who wants a little more than his G11 can give, but doesn't want the size of a DSLR? I guess the Ricoh will have to compete with the EP-1/2 and GF1 for consumer mindshare. The dust control angle is something which Ricoh could push in ads.