phototektour
Established
But it was you who asked for advice, not me! You make me loose my time phototektour. I won't try to help you next time you can trust me.
Sorry, but I didn´t ask for advice. Again, I was only asking for "multiple choices" for this poll. Read carefully. And it ends with "... have to think about it, life is such a pleasure." That sounds, that I´m very happy not have bigger problems. (It seems, now I have :bang: )
And by the way, don´t tell me that you have no probs with your finder, LOL. Two weeks ago you wrote "...No problems since then but the R-D1 needs some little adjustments from time to time...."
Come on, lets be friendly and enyoing our R-D1(s) :angel:
flyalf
Well-known
The perfect camera would be the M-9 with the finder and exterior of the RD-1.
flyalf
Well-known
Please,
I have recently switched from a D700 to the RD-1. I have never been so happy with a camera. Its sheer relief to get away from the menus and complexity of an modern DSLR
Although I have to admit that the Nikons are better overall tools for most serious work. Its just that I am avoiding having to work.
jarski
Veteran
film is still affordable, my M7 (& Coolscan) does pretty much same I could do with M9.
so, voted the last option.
so, voted the last option.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I find it interesting that in the poll the R-D1 is out in front of the M8.2. In fact, even the M8 is in front of the M8.2. I have thought that I would prefer the M8.2 to the M8, for its more useable (for me) frameline sizes, as well as the quieter shutter, etc.
But what is really getting my attention is the very strong support here for the R-D1. People have consistently raved about its IQ, especially at high ISO; and described it as a camera they will not let go of, even if it does have "only" 6MP. This, despite its reliability issues of hot pixels, rangefinder adjustment, dead LCD, dead sensor, shutter problems. Perhaps these problems have been blown out of proportion.
I have never gotten over the temptation to try one. This thread is reawakening my interest.
But what is really getting my attention is the very strong support here for the R-D1. People have consistently raved about its IQ, especially at high ISO; and described it as a camera they will not let go of, even if it does have "only" 6MP. This, despite its reliability issues of hot pixels, rangefinder adjustment, dead LCD, dead sensor, shutter problems. Perhaps these problems have been blown out of proportion.
I have never gotten over the temptation to try one. This thread is reawakening my interest.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
_mark__
Well-known
Occasionally a camera comes along that defies convention, expectations and early negativity to become a classic I believed the RD-1 to be such a camera. Also its sensor produces a very film-like quality.
LCT
ex-newbie
Will become an antique when the M8 drops down below $2K i'm afraid. Not for me though as i favour the 1:1 VF above everything else but people like me are not that many i guess.
ali_baba
Well-known
m9 for me.
i have 2 m8's for sale.
here they are.
they have served me well in the last 2 years.
i shot many many many photos and enjoyed them greatly.
the m9 is what the m8 should have been.
it still has room for improvement.
it needs an advance lever at least for ergonomics, i use a thumbs up now but wish i didnt have to, although its the best accessory for the m digital bodies.
it needs a battery pack / handgrip like the leica m motor.
it needs to have the option to get either .58 - .85 a la cart.
other than that it's great!
check an image of prints and the m8's im selling.....
i have 2 m8's for sale.
here they are.
they have served me well in the last 2 years.
i shot many many many photos and enjoyed them greatly.
the m9 is what the m8 should have been.
it still has room for improvement.
it needs an advance lever at least for ergonomics, i use a thumbs up now but wish i didnt have to, although its the best accessory for the m digital bodies.
it needs a battery pack / handgrip like the leica m motor.
it needs to have the option to get either .58 - .85 a la cart.
other than that it's great!
check an image of prints and the m8's im selling.....
Roger Hicks
Veteran
_mark__
Well-known
/\ At 5x the cost
LCT
ex-newbie
What's the link between price, pixel count and film like quality?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
A widely believed (and highly credible) theoretical figure is that you need at least 18 megapixels to give the same amount of information as a top-quality slide on slow film taken with a sharp lens mounted on a good camera on a tripod.
Having looked at the 18 megapixels of an M9, I am inclined to believe that the theoretical figure is pretty accurate. Anything much less than 18 megapixels has (for me) a sort of 'airbrushed' quality.
Cheers,
R.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
From which I might infer that since my rangefinder-camera photos are often made at high ISOs, wider-than-optimum apertures, and almost never a tripod, I would not get the full benefit of an 18-megapixel camera...?
Whew, that's a relief! -- not to mention saving me a considerable amount of money, since all the cameras I use are in the 6-to-12-megapixel range.
Seriously, for this theoretical figure to be "highly credible" with me, it will need a bit more theory. For example, it would need to address the question of viewing magnification: How, exactly, are we viewing the "top-quality slide" posited as a reference? How are we viewing the comparison digital image? And what, exactly, will we see? Let's see if we can work out the derivation of this theoretical number...
One figure for the smallest detail the eye can distinguish under average viewing conditions is 3.4 minutes of arc (which I quote from the "Camera Optics" chapter, by Rudolf Kingslake, of the 15th edition of the Morgan & Morgan Leica Manual.) This represents about 1/1000 of the distance from the viewed object to the eye -- or 0.01 inch, assuming scrutiny from a close but plausible viewing distance of 10 inches. (My own eyes won't focus quite that close anymore without help, but let's stick with that number because it's easy to use.)
In case people want to play along at home, let's further assume we're going to view our "top-quality" reference slide through a theoretically perfect 20x magnifier, giving it an apparent viewing size of 20 x 30 inches.
Since my eye can't distinguish details smaller than 0.01 inch, the most detail it's going to see in that image is the equivalent of (20/0.01) x (30/0.01), or 2000 x 3000 pixels... whaddaya know, the exact size of file my R-D 1 makes!
In other words, viewing an average continuous-tone subject under average viewing conditions, my eye would not be able to see any difference in detail between a 6-megapixel digital image and a 35mm slide seen through a 20x magnifier.
It's worth noting, though, that the chapter I quoted earlier states that under better-than-average subject and viewing conditions (say, a target of sharply-ruled black and white lines under very strong light) the eye can do considerably better than 0.01 inch -- as much as 3 times better, or 300 points per inch (which happens to be why black-and-white laser printers are designed to image 300 ppi.)
Applying that 3x improvement to my 6-megapixel result derived earlier may well be the source of the widely-believed 18-megapixel figure Roger referenced in his post.
But it's important to keep in mind that that number relies on a seldom-achieved best-case scenario of subject conditions and camera technique... which, in turn, is why so many perfectly satisfactory images are made of more representative subjects at lower pixel counts.
"Dammit, Bob, we're gonna have to throw all them pictures away -- not enough pixel count! Go back and try again!"
(Image linked from an article at http://www.skylighters.org/photos/robertcapa.html)
Last edited:
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
I love the R-D1. So much that I bought a second body and now don't change lenses nearly as much. I can cover most shooting situations with a 21mm and 50mm on those bodies.
So here's the answer to the initial poll for me:
Sell a bunch of my photo gear and get an M9 OR save that money I'd put into the M9 and take my R-D1s on a week long trip to (________________ name any place in the world).
The R-D1 just works for me.
If the camera were released with a larger sensor or better RF magnification options, that would be great. Until then I'm quite happy with it.
So here's the answer to the initial poll for me:
Sell a bunch of my photo gear and get an M9 OR save that money I'd put into the M9 and take my R-D1s on a week long trip to (________________ name any place in the world).
The R-D1 just works for me.
If the camera were released with a larger sensor or better RF magnification options, that would be great. Until then I'm quite happy with it.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I've seen a bewildering variety of figures from your own 6 megapixels up to 80 megapixels. The majority of the film, lens and camera manufacturers -- NOT their sales departments -- to whom I have spoken are inclined to go for the 18-22 megapixel range for the situation I described, albeit with reservations and qualifications.
If you never use a tripod, optimum aperture, etc., then no, you won't get the benefit of 18 megapixels, except in tonality, where much the same arguments apply as for larger formats in film: bigger is almost always better, other things being equal. If you don't want to believe the 18-22 megapixel figure, don't. But bear a few things in mind.
First, anyone who understands the subject knows that precise comparisons are impossible between the irregular grain of a film and the regular pattern of a digital sensor.
Second, as you say, resolution of the human eye as 1 second of arc is at least as defensible as your figure -- which immediately transforms your own argument into an argument for 18-22 megapixels (ignoring details about line pairs, contrast and Nyquist limits). This resolution is at anything much above 10 foot-lamberts -- sorry for the ancient units, but it's ancient and well-established reseach, quoted in Lipinski, Miniature and Precision Cameras, 1955.
One second of arc is a dark human hair on a white tile at 10 feet, or a human figure at 3-1/4 miles. Your figures make the hair invisible beyond a metre, the man beyond a mile. Do my figures require 'better than average conditions'? No: normal, I'd say. The 3.44 figure looks suspiciously like a conflation: 1 second of arc corresponds to 1 unit, 3440 units away.
Third, there is a surprisingly big difference between resolution of a single line, and 'vernier' resolution -- the ability to see a discontinuity in a single line.
From direct experience of looking at pictures taken with cameras with a wide range of megapixel counts (from mobile 'phones via Hasselblads to scanning-back cameras), 18 megapixels looks very much to me like the point where you start getting qualiy comparable with a top-flight 35mm slide. Do you always need that? Of course not. But I'd generally prefer to have quality I don't need, and can throw away, over not having the option of the quality in the first place.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
LCT
ex-newbie
Film-like quality is not reduced to K25 or Panatomic looks fortunately. Means Tri-X, Neopan 1600 or even FP4 or Kodacolor 200 for some of us. Adding grain in PP to M8 or M9 pics is mandatory for that. Less so with the R-D1.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sure. But we're back to the choice of throwing way quality you don't need, or not having quality when you want it.
Actually 18 megapixels is more like a modern ISO 100 slide film. Or Ektar 100.
And if you really care about B+W, you don't piddle around with adding fake grain in digi. You shoot film and wet print.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
LCT
ex-newbie
Matter of tastes i guess. I'm not interested in film any more. I expect digicams to give me b&w film-like quality on a good monitor first of all. Quite easy to achieve with the R-D1, less so with my Nikons or otherwise favorite 5D with R lenses. Silver Efex works fine though but i don't see the point of spending $7K to mimic my Epsons. Would miss the 1:1 VF of the latters anyway. Won't do it before they fall apart if i can resist GAS until then.