GX GARNERINGS

(Ricoh GX200) The Ricoh Meetup HK was held this afternoon with 20 lucky Ricoh users (there were 100 applicants in total), bloggers, several people from Laikok the distributor and Ricoh getting around in a cafe-on-balcony – luckily not a camera cafe or else there might be crying over accidental extra spending on lenses and stuff – with free drinks and snacks.  There were sharing, playing with the CX6 and numerous manual lenses and  some officially unofficial announcements, which included a very exciting news to be released real soon. All participants left happily with a free pin and a towel as souvenirs. It was a successful event.

(GXR M-mount with Voigtländer Nokton 35mm F1.2 ASPH II) I am getting some preparation for tomorrow's Ricoh Meetup HK. So, another break before the M module review resumes.

(GXR M-mount with Voigtländer Nokton 35mm F1.2 ASPH II) When you are tired, you just take every chance for a breather. The GXR M-mount field review will continue after a break.

As discussed in the first review post, the M module is a departure from the original GXR concept of lens-sensor combination. One aspect of it is that, with the lens component dropped, the M module adopts a focal plane shutter instead of a central shutter for the other two A12 modules. This is because the focal plane shutter allows the use of interchangeable lenses without requiring the extra cost of fitting in a separate shutter in individual lens. But there are some inherited disadvantages to a focal plane shutter. Let’s look briefly at the three most prominent ones. Three Disadvantages The first one is the louder shutter noise. To those traditionalists who may have a penchant for everything nostalgic, the M module’s solid, deeper shutter sound could be rather sexy. To me, it sounds as do any usual mechanical film cameras. One may wish for a quieter operation in certain situations as I did in doing shots in indoor settings. Silence operation is especially important for doing ste

In the Hand The GXR body with the M module is very solid in the hand and evenly distributed in weight, with the generous bulge giving users a comfy grip of the camera. But the overall weight increases significantly when mounted with the Voigtländer lens on loan for the review. As a matter of course, the camera lends itself to dropping head down when the lens is mounted. This is certainly no fault of the camera or the design. It will be the same case for any cameras used with any lens of comparable metal construction. In fact, among all mirror-less cameras, the 2-year-old GXR body is probably still the best in terms of ergonomics. GXG would have given it full marks if not for the wheel-rocker mechanism instead of a truly two-wheel system for making exposure combos. For the bells and whistles of the GXR body, readers may refer to the previous posts on the implementation of its buttons and functions here and here . The camera requires two-hands operation; but who will complain

Some two years ago, the GXR system saw the light of the day. Ricoh, jumping on the mirror-less bandwagon, bet on the lens-sensor solution to capture the expanding customer bases. In this vein of development, the A12 modules (the 50/Marco and the 28/f2.5) were rolled out in response to the keen upmarket competition while the P10 and S10 modules were launched for casual shooters. Among diverse public opinions about its market viability, such a lens-sensor strategy is still a matter of debate. In a nutshell, the system has in its infancy drawn more debates than purchases. For one thing, factoring in the body overhead cost, the higher-end modules become too pricy to be attractive than the mid-level DSLRs. For the lower end modules, the admission fee is not what many would pay for a point-and-shoot camera. Price aside, certain operation performances have come under fire, most notably the sluggish focusing speed of the A12 50mm Marco lens especially in low light situations. What hits th

(Ricoh GX200) A friend asked the author why not placing the subject on the left instead.  Apart from the obvious reason that the boy was sitting near the edge of the row of chairs, the answer lies in the typical way most people read a picture which is from left to right. As you may notice from the above images, the second image, which is horizontally inversed, looks odd in that one's gaze encounters the subject too soon while the right side of the image is wasted. In the first image, the viewers' sight travels from the left, which becomes functional and therefore is not a wasted space, to meet the subject. It is so in line with our reading habit that the first picture is just not as odd visually. This is Sunday.  Have a nice day.