Epson RD-1 vs. other high-end digital camera

[6 Mega Pixels Only?]

If I understand it correctly, it should be the size of the sensor that matters more. You get better result from 6MP on a bigger sensor than 12MP squeezed from a smaller sensor. It's like you'll have a smoother drive with 180 horsepower from a bigger engine than modifying your car to death and squeeze 280 horsepower from a smaller engine.

If fact I even think that the reason why R-D1 delivers great result is due to it's "6MP only".

[Smaller LCD]

Yes it's smaller, but it's a "honest" one. I always thought I got great pictures when I was using a $ony T1, by looking at the LCD, then only to be disappointed when I loaded the pics to the computer. Even the LCD on my beloved GRD2 lies a little. The one on the R-D1 is quite honest.

[Less Trouble on the Street]

My girlfriend holding a Nikon D80 + 18~200 zoom lens. Me holding an R-D1s
with the Nokton 35/1.2, one of the "too big too heavy monster" compared to other RF lenses. I'm still the less suspicious one.

[Handling]

It's really hard to tell the difference between shooting with my Bessa R2A and R-D1s. And it feels great. And when it feels great I usually got better pictures, just like better performance when I'm in front of a better piano.
 
For a short time I had both, a Nikon D1x and the Epson R-D1s in parallel, I liked the photos taken with the Epson a lot more (colors, dynamic of the sensor, high-ISO performance). I sold the Epson in favor of my M-Leicas but if I would have to buy a digital RF camera again, it would be the Epson and not the M8. The design of the Epson is more "rangefinder-style", IMHO (direct access to all important settings, foldable screen, manual cocking of the shutter).
 
Lately my main squeeze is my R-D1 with a ZM 25/2.8 with a Mr Zhou half case. I wonder, am I really less conspicuous then someone with an SLR? My Shutter is quieter. What else?
 
kshapero said:
Lately my main squeeze is my R-D1 with a ZM 25/2.8 with a Mr Zhou half case. I wonder, am I really less conspicuous then someone with an SLR? My Shutter is quieter. What else?
Click to expand...
Here are a few ones IMO :
- can you walk for five hours with a DSLR in one hand ?
- can you do waist shots in the crowd with a DSLR without people's attention being brought immediately to the camera.
- can you bring the camera to your eye in 1/2 second and frame correctly with a DSLR ? There is less inertia and gravity forces with a rangefinder.

I believe most of the answer is around that. The RD1 (and other rangefinders) are so much faster and easier to handle in street photography. A guy with a 5D is immediately spotted in a crowd and seen as photographer. With a rangefinder people don't perceive it as much, the RD1 is easy to hide behind your hand, back and the second later, the shot is taken.
 
Well, i'm totally shure of which are the pros/cons of a rangefinder against a DSLR. My decission in that way is clear, no doubts on what i will receive in terms of focusing advantages, less conspicious in street photography or any other quality a rangefinder has against a DSLR.
My only doubt is if i will miss the quality archives i could get with the 5D. I know that the printing sizes will be smaller (actually i do not make prints myself, and if i would, there would'nt be bigger than a A4 size) and the better noise capability on the 5D at high iso's.
Before selling the Canon i was questioning myself if i could live with a 6Mb sensor and a 1.5x crop factor, and the answer was yes.
The only reason of my doubts now is if the resolution, dynamic range and colours that come out of the RD1 sensor are at the same level that the 5D ones, or make justice to the quality of my two actual lenses (35 cron ASPH and 50 cron).
Other thing i'm willing is what lens i would need to have a wider angle of view, due to the crop factor.
I'm thinking in maybe a 21mm or 24/25 would be nice. I don't need for the moment wider ones.
The Leicas are too expensive for my economy so i'm thinking on some CV's or maybe an afordable used Zeiss.

Sorry for being so patient with my suggestions, maybe it would be better to ask all these questions in a new thread.

Kind regards,

Santi
 
Going back to something raised in the original post, it's easy to get misled by high megapixel counts on marketing material. But the truth is that they don't count for much.

In a way, you can imagine the number of megapixels indicating how big of a picture is produced on your computer after the shot. However, it does not indicate how good that picture looks. You could liken it to making contact prints from a Holga and from a Pen-F - the Holga's will be bigger, of course, but the Pen's will almost certainly be sharper and be more preferable to most people.

Of course, that's a bit of an oversimplification, as the physical size of the sensor plays a part too, but the gist of it is that megapixels should not be your first comparison between cameras.
 
santi-u said:
Other thing i'm willing is what lens i would need to have a wider angle of view, due to the crop factor.
I'm thinking in maybe a 21mm or 24/25 would be nice. I don't need for the moment wider ones.
The Leicas are too expensive for my economy so i'm thinking on some CV's or maybe an afordable used Zeiss.
Click to expand...
Santi, the CV21mm is great value for the money. I own about 10 lenses but this is the one that sees most action as it is a 33mm with crop factor. Only problem is it frames wider than the viewfinder so either you buy an external one or you use approximation (that works for me). I believe that with 25mm, you can use the whole finder to frame.
 
breathstealer said:
Going back to something raised in the original post, it's easy to get misled by high megapixel counts on marketing material. But the truth is that they don't count for much.

In a way, you can imagine the number of megapixels indicating how big of a picture is produced on your computer after the shot. However, it does not indicate how good that picture looks. You could liken it to making contact prints from a Holga and from a Pen-F - the Holga's will be bigger, of course, but the Pen's will almost certainly be sharper and be more preferable to most people.

Of course, that's a bit of an oversimplification, as the physical size of the sensor plays a part too, but the gist of it is that megapixels should not be your first comparison between cameras.
Click to expand...
Good points, the only big drawback about the 6mp IMO is the ability to crop. But then, many of you will tell that I should not crop and just frame better ... ;)
 
Thanks Yanidel, maybe the 21mm will be nice, and i will try how it works the approximation method before buying an external viewfinder.
I will better leave this thread with the original questions and make my suggestions on another one.

Thank you very much!
 
santi-u said:
Well, i'm totally shure of which are the pros/cons of a rangefinder against a DSLR. My decission in that way is clear, no doubts on what i will receive in terms of focusing advantages, less conspicious in street photography or any other quality a rangefinder has against a DSLR.
My only doubt is if i will miss the quality archives i could get with the 5D. I know that the printing sizes will be smaller (actually i do not make prints myself, and if i would, there would'nt be bigger than a A4 size) and the better noise capability on the 5D at high iso's.
Before selling the Canon i was questioning myself if i could live with a 6Mb sensor and a 1.5x crop factor, and the answer was yes.
The only reason of my doubts now is if the resolution, dynamic range and colours that come out of the RD1 sensor are at the same level that the 5D ones, or make justice to the quality of my two actual lenses (35 cron ASPH and 50 cron).
Other thing i'm willing is what lens i would need to have a wider angle of view, due to the crop factor.
I'm thinking in maybe a 21mm or 24/25 would be nice. I don't need for the moment wider ones.
The Leicas are too expensive for my economy so i'm thinking on some CV's or maybe an afordable used Zeiss.

Sorry for being so patient with my suggestions, maybe it would be better to ask all these questions in a new thread.

Kind regards,

Santi
Click to expand...

Santi, if you consider 21mm lenses that are available new, you have 4 to choose from (someone correct me if I am wrong): Leica, Zeiss x 2 and Voigtlander. I own them except the Leica... Resolution wise, they are all very good and somewhat comparable to the Leica, except maybe for the Voigtlander that may lags a bit behind if you happen to get a not so good copy (there is some sample variation here: I tested 3 Voigtlander before picking the best one, and it was better than the 2 others by far and large). And they are all small, compared to any SLR lens. The main point is (quite strong) vignetting with the R-D1 (a totally different scenario with film): if it bothers you, keep away from the Voigtlander and the Zeiss f4.5. That leaves the Leica and The Zeiss f2.8 to choose from; then let your wallet make the decision?
On the used market, you'll find the super angulon Leica (I think it vignettes like hell on the R-D1 to the point that it is no a longer a "flaw" but a special "feature"), the Avenon (known under a few other names as well), the super rare Hexanon dual range 21-35mm (my favorite combination on the R-D1, but an expensive one...) and maybe other "exotic" lenses I am not aware of.
 
santi, your summicrons will blow away anything with 5D. Period :) Even rd1 is 6mp and 1.5x. Summicrons is enough a reason to switch if one doesnt care about differences of RF or DSLR except for image quality.

CV lenses are superb for wide. Forget that astronomically expensive Zeiss ;)
 
I just got the ZM 25mm from another RFF (thanks Erik) and the results really very nice. Even up close.
2642834877_e359cfffc6.jpg
 
Dear Paul,
Both cameras M8 and the RD1 have their advantages, and some people will favour one or the other. However the pixel count above 6m is sometimes not that important to be honest particulary if you are not going to print above A3. Sometimes in fact a higher pixel counts on a large sensor defeats their own objectives as they can then cause more noise issues, that then have to be corrected by software that then destoys the image somewhat. The 6m pixels that is used by the RD1 is the optimum number of pixels for that sensor and therefore the noise is pretty low and does not need further software to correect it. Incidently I blew up an RD1 image to nearly a meter across for a commissioned picture for a restaurant and there was no pixelation issues. The RD1 is a great camera. I also prefer the way the RD1 is laid out. Much more filmic. The ASA the speed dial etc. I especially like the dials that let you know at a glance your colour temp, number of frames shot quality and battery life. That's fabulously useful. Don't get me wrong it has it's fiobles. But on the whole, for me, its a better camera than the M8. May I point you too the thread where the RD1 was compared to the M8 and look which comes out on top of the random survey.

However, all that said, you can get fantastic images from the M8 too. though I have to tell you I sold my M8 as it had problems and I started to not trust it. This was possibly an emotional response, but I am no the most technical of photographers to be hinest.

Ray

This whole pixel count chasing is often more to do with magazine picture editors and stock library archivists demanding the pixel counts without actually knowing much about the physics of a digital image.
 
Hyperbole is very popular among men.
Click to expand...

If men would only describe their choice of gear using women's emotional language, there'd be no problem. It's just the stupid male insistence that one's choice of gear is a matter of LOGIC AND REASON that makes these discussions pointless, after a certain point.
 
Last edited:
In terms of MPs, it depends on your shooting style too. I do not do any landscape, product, sports shooting with my RD1. I have my 1Ds for that.
I use it for street (no, street photog is not dead yet :)) night, events, protraits...generally, anything that requires good high ISO, with very fast glass, and a small body!
...oh yes, add to that the fact that people do not take you seriously with a film-wind lever in this age of DSLRs and you got a very good tool for certain subjects.
 
yanidel said:
Good points, the only big drawback about the 6mp IMO is the ability to crop. But then, many of you will tell that I should not crop and just frame better ... ;)
Click to expand...

I crop my R-D1 photos, sometimes heavily. I haven't had any problems. If I crop alot I upres with Genuine Fractals. No problem there either. One thing I have never complained about with my R-D1 is lack of resolution, even with cropping. In fact, I can think of damn little to complain about with it.

/T
 
Tuolumne said:
I crop my R-D1 photos, sometimes heavily. I haven't had any problems. If I crop alot I upres with Genuine Fractals. No problem there either. One thing I have never complained about with my R-D1 is lack of resolution, even with cropping. In fact, I can think of damn little to complain about with it.

/T
Click to expand...
Interesting, I did not know about this software, thanks for sharing.
I found that when cropping street scenes heavily you lose too much details in the background part, but I never applied upres like you mention. I will try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom