Test by The Phoblographer

[Duane Pandorf]

I couldn't agree more Ken!

[JONIE]

Thanks for posting this, Jonie. IMHO no image posted should be considered the final word on how good or bad the A12 M performs. First, if the camera is hand held, there are too many intervening factors that can affect the outcome such as: how steady the photographer is or was at the time; the condition/quality of the lens being used; the lighting/contrast conditions; shutter speed; etc. I think a true evaluation of quality/sharpness would best be served by anchoring the GXR on a tripod, using the CA-1 cable release, shooting a relatively static subject, and varying the ISO/aperture/shutter combinations. The resulting images might be a little boring, but should be a better barometer of how the combination performs on a strictly technical level. I, for one, love to shoot "from the hip" as well as on a tripod, so I'm comfortable with less than perfect results if I'm going for the "artistic" results. However, I would never judge the capability of the GXR/A12 M based on random shooting, which is how I would describe the images I've seen by the Phoblographer. Ken

Hello Ken,

you are so right and said it in a longer and complete version.

Cheers,
JONIE

[silverbullet]

Here are jaw dropping pics from non-Leica lenses. This blows M8 pics out of the water.......or?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/olvych/6233934711/

[Ksnow]

These are stunning pics! BTW, two things: First, I've still been too busy to get out & shoot some decent pics with my A12 M and OM lenses--will do so soon & post results; second, I do agree with some A12 M users that manual focus is not the easiest thing to do, and that so far I don't like the Focus Assist feature. Perhaps I'll change my mind as I get used to it. Ken

[Ksnow]

I just reread the Phoblographer's review. I don't know if anyone caught one of his last statements (3rd to last paragraph), but he says that, "at 24 years old, with failing vision, I really need autofocus." So we can't accept his slightly out of focus images as being a fault of the GXR A12 M combo. However, I for one appreciate his noble efforts. He has put together a fairly comprehensive review. Ken

[ktel99]

I am a happy owner of the M mount module, but the truth is that focusing is difficult. One of the big advantages is to use fast lenses wide open, and these are hard to focus (they are also hard to focus on a Leica, by the way). I see the exercise mainly as a way of getting fast short tele capabilities (the Voigtlander 75mm 1.8, or any Leica 90 mm or 135mm).

I found the link interesting and fairly balanced-- useful to read for someone who is on the fence (my own advice-- if you are on the fence, save your $$ for something else (say, the Ricoh prime you are missing). If you love your M lenses AND the GXR AND manual focusing, then go for it).

[onitsuka]

@ktel99: i love Ricoh and want to feel the M lenses experience (not necessarily from Leica)... but have zero experience with manual focus.... Can't decide until now.


O

[ktel99]

Onitsuka, there is a similar post regarding comparison between the Ricoh and the NEX camera as vehicles for Leica lenses in The Luminous Landscape:
<http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/ricoh_gxr_a12_field_report.shtml>
He is much more positive regarding focusing.

If someone has M-mount lenses and wants to use them digitally, the options are Ricoh, NEX and 4/3-m4/3. Ricoh and NEX have the advantage of the sensor and the 1.5x factor (as opposed to the 2x factor of the m4/3). The least expensive alternative "to try" is a NEX-3 with an M-lens adapter. The new firmware of NEX also provides "peaking" as manual focus help, but the NEX -3 does not have electronic viewfinder as an option-- I believe this is significant.

The issue I have had using M lenses with digital cameras is that it is fun, but I would not substitute it for the equivalent lens of the digital camera manufacturer. Years ago I was excited to use vintage lenses with an Olympus 4/3 camera, but I discovered the images did not look so great and I much preferred the AF zuiko lenses.

In other words, now I would rather use the A12 Ricoh 28mm than a CV, Leica or Zeiss 21mm (which would give me a 32mm equivalent). And I would prefer the Ricoh 50mm to the M-mount 35mm lenses, except in some special circumstance (eg, when one really wants to shoot @ 1.4). I am not saying which lens is better, I am just saying that when I factor the whole time+effort+outcome, I prefer the AF experience with the GXR.

So I end up using the longer M lenses to do things I cannot do with the Ricoh offerings (like the Voigtlander 75mm, which turns into a 112.5 mm f/1.8, is not too big and can be focused with practice-- but is difficult to use). Depending on one's personal circumstance (already owned equipment, disposable income and so on) one option may make more sense than another.

[onitsuka]

Hi ktel99,
many thanks for your input. really appreciate it. At this moment i'm confused probably i think too much about "what if".
i will consider the option to take the AF instead of the M-Mount module.

have a nice weekend,
ONSK

[radical7]

Is it just me or every time the guy said "you think it's in focus" and he DOES get it in focus?
That turned me off to the reviewer completely