(FT2) Is that a real or fake Ricoh Micro Four Thirds module picture?
An anonymous source (Thanks!) just sent me the following picture. That’s why I ask you (and my sources) if that picture is real or fake!
The Ricoh GXR system was announced 13 months ago and since there we have had many rumors about a possible Ricoh Micro Four Thirds module release.
UPDATE: The source is a user that wrote a comment on fotointern.ch. He says that this picture “was shown on a developer meeting last month“.
P.S.: The Ricoh GXR system is made by a main body and many separated moduls (Click here to see them on eBay)
Loading ...Via Mirrorlessrumors
Share
Recent comments
Comment from Al M: It would be interesting if they did a li...- Comment from Micro Four Thirds module for Ricoh GXR | Photo Rumors: [...] image, which is probably fake, is ...
- Comment from 今更ですが DMC-GF2 | KNCN weblog: [...] 43 Rumors | Blog | (FT2) Is that a...
Comment from Cristian: The GXR delivers something that is not a...
Fiona
2 years ago |Are you seriously posting a fake photo that links to ebay just so you can collect hits? Wow.
frosti7
2 years ago |would you prefer to pay for this from ur pocket?
admin
2 years ago |Hi Fiona! Sorry that was a mistake. I have a wordpress plugin that puts links on camera names. I removed the link!!!
Damn, I hate it when that happens…
Brian Ronald
2 years ago |If it’s fake, it’s an old fake. This from last June:
http://www.radiantlite.com/2010/06/ricoh-gxr-with-micro-four-thirds-mount.html
admin
2 years ago |Thanks!
admin
2 years ago |Hi Brian! But that is a new image!
frosti7
2 years ago |One of them is fake because they do not match, hence i believe the second one is fake as well
Daywalker
2 years ago |It’s not real, but we get this combination in the next year. 100%
Thom Hogan
2 years ago |I’m surprised at those m4/3-ers that say that it wouldn’t be of interest to them. They apparently haven’t actually used a Ricoh camera, let alone a GXR. In the next batch of compact reviews I’m doing the GXR is included. Had it had an m4/3 module available and that performed as expected, it would have been my preferred mirrorless camera. Superb build, very photographer-centric controls, and some very good other lens/sensor options. Expensive, yes. But sometimes you get what you pay for.
Chris
2 years ago |How did you feel about the GXR’s off-center hot-shoe and tripod mount? I remember that you saw those as a flaw in your evaluation of the Fuji X100′s design. I’m not overly excited about the X100 myself; I would rather see a better system camera than a fixed-lens one.
Al M
2 years ago |It would be interesting if they did a line of sensor/mount specific modules. An APS-C Sensor with an M42 screw mount would be fun too.
Parci
2 years ago |Maybe they are all waiting for that modular Oly…
But you are right, such a module would indeed be very interesting, it would add a lot of possibilities for both worlds.
tmrgrs
2 years ago |Thom, if there was a GXR module that allowed me to use my m4/3 lenses I’d definitely be interested. The only thing that might hold me back aside from the price are the reports in the reviews about the GXR’s sluggish AF speed. I’d want the body and module to be no more than say $1000 and I’d want it to AF at least as fast as the GF1. The excellent build quality and UI of the GXR would be a great upgrade for sure but I’m thinking that Olympus is the one who will give us that killer combination – compact body – built-in EVF – built-in flash – direct controls.
Dummy00001
2 years ago |I’m not interested – and voted No – because there are plethora of good m43 bodies on the market.
If there were any promise that GXR would deliver something that is not available in the already existing m43 bodies, then it would have been different story.
And considering sparse m43 lens line up, I do not think that it makes sense for GXR to bother with the m43 module right now. Since you say the system costs premium, users ready to pay premium would expect premium lenses too – and those are yet to materialize.
Cristian
2 years ago |The GXR delivers something that is not available in ANY body period, this is the ability to change the whole module and use an APS module when you need better high ISO and DR without the need to lug around another camera or use different controls or even a different SD card or battery.
As much as I love my GF1 with the lenses I have for it, the 50mm A12 module for the GXR has better DR, better high ISo and a better lens than you can get for m4/3 but if I could use my existing lenses on the same camera with the fantastic Ricoh controls I would gladly get rid of my GF1.
frosti7
2 years ago |I dont believe the GXR External Viewfinder VF-2 is as good as Oly’s, thats a Major for me
Cristian
2 years ago |No, the VF-2 is better than the Olympus EVF, especially in low light it is way better because it does not get grainy and the refresh rate remains high.
Sometimes it’s better to test than to believe
CRB
2 years ago |Thom, a better question would be if GXR users are interested in a m4/3 sensor with worse DR and high iso performance than the A12 modules they already using…as for Ricoh UI, i think is superb for photographers…used a GX200 and a GRD…
Voldenuit
2 years ago |Voted yes myself. I imagine a lot of negative votes were from people who have never used a Ricoh camera. Ricoh has one of the best UIs on the market – the GRD-III is a strong testament of their skills in this department. I have a GX100 myself but it hasn’t held up over the years sensor-wise. I often wish my GF1 were as intuitive to use as the GX100, though.
Being able to use Micro Four Third lenses on a Ricoh body with Ricoh controls? I’m there.
sporty883
2 years ago |I’ve never liked the concept of the GXR. It’s just over the top. But the m43-standard is a obvious route for any manufacturer that wants to expand their market share. There is a healthy eco system already and with good camera’s and/or good lenses any manufacturer will be able to get some instant success.
Ricoh, Sigma, Voigtländer, Contax/Zeiss, Casio, Pentax, you name it.
Terry Gibson
2 years ago |The picture may be fake – but is the real camera in the pipeline. I certainly hope so.
I love my 4/3 SLR – and none of the current crop of m4/3 cameras have tempted me to stray yet. But this one might if it’s for real. My first 35mm SLR as a teenager was a Ricoh XR-S and I’ve always liked the brand – the GX8 was a very nice digital compact in it’s day.
If it can focus as fast as the other mirrorless cameras then it’s a winner in my book.
zebarnabe
2 years ago |Yep … fake … perspective looks wrong…
frosti7
2 years ago |+1
you can see that in the sensor looking to the “right”
Eric
2 years ago |It would certainly make the GXR system more interesting to me. Steve Huff has already peaked my interest in the GXR with his recent review, but I want a module option with a lens mount before I will seriously consider it. That said, instead of a m4/3′s module I’d prefer a Leica-M module with either a 35mm or APS-H sensor.
There’s no doubt I’d prefer to use the GXR body over any m4/3′s body or NEX body. It’s the right size, right build quality, and right controls. Olympus, Sony, and Panasonic should take notes, because Ricoh actually knows how to build a camera for photographers.
CRB
2 years ago |Agreed…the downside for a Ricoh user is the m4/3 sensor…..
Miroslav
2 years ago |Fake or not, I hope Ricoh joins m4/3. And ( as I’ve said before ) I hope Olympus modules have the same mount/connectors. But that’s too optimistic
.
BTW, it’s possible both this and image shown couple of months ago are authentic. I suppose internal company documents do not need to have real photos in order to illustrate future plans.
gekopaca
2 years ago |I love Ricoh camera (I’ve got a GR-D and still using it) and I think it will be a good thing if Ricoh join the MFT system, because it’s a great photographic brand – more credibility for the consortium, more users, better prosumers products…
But I will probably not buy one of these, because I’m waiting now for a compact camera with built-in EVF.
Mr Hipsta
2 years ago |I’m sure the GXR is great a camera, but with two or three lenses, it’s a fairly expensive system since you have to pay for a new sensor with every lens. Consequently I guess the GXR owners are more excited about the idea of a m43 module than the m43 camera owners.
tmrgrs
2 years ago |I see no reason why m4/3 owners shouldn’t also be interested in a m4/3 module for the GXR. The build quality and UI ought to attract some who value those things. I’m not ready to jump ship as soon as something like this is available but I’d look long and hard at it and give it some serious consideration.
demian
2 years ago |I hope Ricoh never join the MFT system. I don’t like that too small 4/3.
Pipou
2 years ago |I don’t get it.
The whole idea of gxr is to have a sensor per lens.
That would be against the concept…
mochapaulo
2 years ago |Simply reply…definitely no M4/3…as I know
PPL
2 years ago |Fake, fake, fake…
Bo
2 years ago |Reflections on the mount don’t match the light on the body. Besides why would they make a 43 mount.? the camera would not be a able to drive the lens as they don’t have a agreement, a M mount with manual lenses would make much more sense.
今更ですが DMC-GF2 | KNCN weblog
2 years ago |[...] 43 Rumors | Blog | (FT2) Is that a real or fake Ricoh Micro Four Thirds module picture? [...]
Micro Four Thirds module for Ricoh GXR | Photo Rumors
2 years ago |[...] image, which is probably fake, is from 43rumors. (function() {var s = document.createElement('SCRIPT'), s1 = [...]