The future of the R-D1

patrickjames said:
So that leaves Zeiss and a floundering Leica.
Click to expand...

It strikes me that a floundering Leica is almost a good thing for the dRF market. Leica is a small company of small means, but their name carries a great deal of clout. I find it hard to imagine Leica going bust, and nobody buying it up for the name. A newcomer like Sony might buy up the Leica name to get street cred, and they would continue the M series as a prestige product. Since Sony have the means to ride out issues that hurt smaller companies, and because they can produce all the components in house, they don't care so much if the camera is a great success. If that happened, and the production of dRFs seemed secure for the next few years, competitors might be tempted to come in at a lower price point.

Dunno if that makes much sense, afterall, this is my first post, and I've only recently caught the RF bug.
 
The title of this thread is "The Future of the R-D 1," but here's one thing I don't think has been said yet that needs to be said:

Does any camera have a future? Does anyone care? I don't -- I care about my future, but not especially about my cameras'.

To put it another way: My Canon VI-T has no future at all. It's been out of production for nearly half a century, original spare parts are only a memory, and its manufacturer won't service it and hasn't offered any lenses or accessories for it in decades.

And yet I use it quite happily and without worrying about it. Someday if it finally wears out or (more likely) I drop it fatally, I'll stop using it. With luck, there'll be enough leftovers for it to be an "organ donor" for some other VI-T. If not, well, I've gotten a lot of good pictures out of the old nail over the years, and that's enough for me.
 
I think one reason Leica owners obsess (sp?) over the furture of their cameras is because of the Leica's legendary longevity. Leica probably has more users of their 50 year old cameras than of their new cameras. So, Leica users like to think of their purchases of new cameras as standing the test of time. Unfortunately, digital products, by their very nature, are not built to stand the test of time. They are obsoleted every 18 months or so. That still doesn't keep the Leica faithful from dreaming, though.

/Ira
 
If you use a camera professionally, you have to buy into a system where any component can be readily replaced.

I guess the R-D1(s) will not make it into that category.

So I have EOS as well... :)

but at least I know the M8 (or its successor) will be waiting... :D
 
Topdog1 said:
You could use a M8 body as a backup for your R-D1. :eek:

/Ira
Click to expand...

That's exactly what many RD1 owners intend to do. If there was to be an RD2 I probably never would have developed an interest in the M8. Well, I would have dreamed about it but figured I couldn't afford it

Rex
 
Actually, I tend to use the 5D as the backup - I shoot both formats quite often, going for differing aspects of the subject. Then I'm covered if either craps out :)

edit - I'll almost certainly get another digital RF when my R-D1 dies. Til then, I hope someone has the sense to buy up the spare parts :eek:
 
Last edited:
>Will switch over to DSLR for my digital needs, and wait what happens in the
>digital RF sector.

Didier --

What do you think of the new Pansonic DSLR with the Leica lens? It's a pretty nice piece of equipment and almost handles like a rangefinder.
 
I just ordered a K10D, my first SLR in 20 years. But this was prompted by a need for image stabilization.

I'll keep shooting my film rangefinders when the light will support a fast shutter speed or I'm feeling steady because I really prefer rangefinders and film, but if the Pentax works out I'll probably sell my RD-1.

I looked long and hard at the Panasonic. I liked the controls, the kit lens and the familiar position of the viewfinder, but to a rangefinder shooter, the dark, small VF was a deal breaker.
 
AusDLK said:
What do you think of the new Pansonic DSLR with the Leica lens? It's a pretty nice piece of equipment and almost handles like a rangefinder.
Click to expand...

Actually not shure about the quality of the 4/3 sensors. High ISO issue stronger than with most other dslr's. The Luminous Landscape review of the Lumix L1/Vario-Elmarit (I believe it was from M. Reichmann?) isn't that positive, too, though the author admits he was positively biased to that camera. He mentioned a brillant lens, a poor handling, and the dimmest viewfinder he's ever seen - not sooo much rangefinder feeling IMO. And the Lumix L1 is quite expensive. In that price category I'd prefer a D200 with 50/1.4. And if a 4/3 camera with live-view, then I'd rather go for the E-330 (with swivelling LCD) and the Oly 14-54mm, a combo which costs a grand less (in my currency CHF) than the Lumix/Elmarit.

But actually I'm completely undecided what I'll do. I'll wait the return of (probably new) R-D1 from RW/Epson UK, I fear this will not happen before xmas, and give it a second chance. Or sell. I don't know. For xmas I'll try to rent something, there's a pro supplier in town who rents the fat C and N dslr's.

Didier
 
nksyoon said:
Didier, Light & Byte AG in Zürich has an R-D1 for rent. It had some RF alignment issues when I rented it but maybe it's been fixed?

CHF95/day, but a weekend Friday evening to Monday morning counts as one day. Maybe a Christmas special rate?

See: http://www.lb-ag.ch/rent/LBRentD.pdf
Click to expand...


Nick, thx, I know them, had rented their R-D1 once in 2005. But I would be interested to check the D2X for a weekend...
best regards
Didier
 
patrickjames said:
I still maintain that Zeiss will make one with a Sony sensor. It will come. As for all the problems with the M8 sensor from Kodak? Well it's from Kodak. I have had experience with Kodak sensors going way back and they almost always have issues. A truly beautiful thing would be a ZI with a Canon sensor, but it will never happen. I don't think Epson will make another drf since the first one caused them so many problems. So that leaves Zeiss and a floundering Leica. (Let's hope that Leica is making Kodak help them with the costs of all the recalls/issues.) Thats my short take on it, but I'm probably wrong.
Click to expand...

Kodak has their issues, but to view Sony as the solution is a monumentally bad bet. They have had serious issues with sensors, LCDs, batteries, and other components they supply to other electronics manufacturers over the past few years. The sad facts are:

- The only part of their R&D or manufacturing that isn't a mess is their recent LCD television partnership with Samsung.
- Pretty much everything but their PlayStation division is bleeding cash because people are starting to wise up.
- They've been hit with a number of recalls and non-recalled "known problems" in the past two years, including in the sensor space specifically.
- And they're showing no signs of turning any of this around.

As far as I know, Kodak has a good track record (at least compared to much of the competition) when it comes to sensor technology, and the current problems with the M8 have sounded like they are all due to design decisions on Leica's part--someone correct me if I'm wrong please. Sony at this point is basically an entertainment company (music and video games) who will likely keep selling cheaper and cheaper electronics because they're too stupid and set in their ways to do anything else, until nobody wants to buy the stuff; and then they'll spin all non-PlayStation electronics off into a brand like GPX that sells $10 MP3 players out of bins at the drug store.
 
Topdog1 said:
Unfortunately, digital products, by their very nature, are not built to stand the test of time. They are obsoleted every 18 months or so. That still doesn't keep the Leica faithful from dreaming, though.

/Ira
Click to expand...

I love film and will never willingly abandon it because I'm one of those tactile obsessives, but I do most of my day-to-day shooting (of the "here's some cool graf that I saw" or "here's this crazy dude my wife was talking to on the bus" variety) with a four year old Canon Elph digital, because it's small enough that I can *always* carry it, anywhere. This thing about digital being "obsoleted" every 18 months rings more and more false to me all the time. It was true back in the days of VGA-quality digicams, but for a long time now even small, relatively inexpensive cameras have been capable of quality that is more than enough for 99% of people that don't enlarge past 8x10. It's only "obsolete" every 18 months if one insists on every fancy new feature.
 
climbing vine: I agree with you 100% on both counts (Sony & obsolescence) ... Any company has its misses as well as its hits. The new Sony DSLR may be a hit but look at how much of it is a Sony product ... it's basically a K-M.

And Kodak is to digital photography as Xerox is/was to the PC. In both cases they freakin' invented some of the foundational technology but missed on "productizing" (ugh, I hate that word) the technologies. So what? That's common in any business sector. Kodak may have missed out in the broad consumer digital photo market until recently, but they have been a developer and supplier to high end applications for a long time, and have some serious intellectual capital to bring to bear.

No one has mentioned Dalsa, which would be a valid choice for a camera manufacturer who needed high end sensor technology, especially for a product from a "dark horse".
 
Gerry

Gerry

I think the K10D might work well for you, as I have the *ist DL and can take similar focal length shots at about the same speeds as the RD1 without any IS or SR. For posed shots or tripod shots there is MLU so the mirror shake is a non-issue.

One thing about the DSLR's with crop factors is to get the RF/film shallow DOF portrait and other type photos, you really need a fast SLR lens (faster than f2).

The 4000 or 8000 shutter speeds on the DSLRs come in handy, like the 2000 on RD1s and Hexar RFs.


Flinor said:
I just ordered a K10D, my first SLR in 20 years. But this was prompted by a need for image stabilization.

I'll keep shooting my film rangefinders when the light will support a fast shutter speed or I'm feeling steady because I really prefer rangefinders and film, but if the Pentax works out I'll probably sell my RD-1.

I looked long and hard at the Panasonic. I liked the controls, the kit lens and the familiar position of the viewfinder, but to a rangefinder shooter, the dark, small VF was a deal breaker.
Click to expand...
 
I find it interesting that there is so little faith that Epson will do anything more with the camera. First, there marketing department must be taking note of the fact that refurbs sell out about as fast as they can get them. Second, why even bother with a software upgrade if you are getting out of the business? They would not have lost anything, nor have they gained much. I think their major problem is in marketing. The price point is too high to start with. They should have priced it down to $1,899 by now and they would sell out their production. At $3,000 it is too close to the M8. Someone willing to pay $3K will pay $5K for what is perceived (and actually) as a better product. Going from $2k to $5k is a bit steeper and the difference has to be much greater. At $1k there would be no question about it selling well. Could they make this camera and sell it for $1K and make a profit? Yes, I think they could. Integrated chips are getting much smaller with significantly greater levels of density. Another, somewhat radical move to cut cost is do away with JPG and in camera processing and just produce a DNG or their current RAW format file. Cust the amoutn of processing that needs to be done and hence the cost. For most of us this would not be a big issue. From a marketing perspective, make it smaller than the M8, preferably down to CL size and watch it sell like hot cakes.
 
This may be OT, but since we're talking about forward-thinking...

I wonder why mfrs don't utilize the USB port as a charging port. The R-D1 doesn't have a user-accessible mini-USB port (or at least one that users were intended to access), but most digicams do. Surely it would be less expensive to use the power provision capabilities of the mini-USB port to power the cam, offer in-camera charging, etc. I'll admit that I use my R-D1 more like what was my former M4-P in not chimping, etc., but it would be great to be able to use an auxiliary USB battery pack (I love my Lenmar PPU1700) to extend use of the camera on long shoots or in cold conditions. If we're dreaming about the future of the R-D1/2 or whatever, I'd like a better sensor (the one on the Canon 5D sounds good, with a reduced anti-aliasing filter - I'll put up with some need for dealing with IR stuff - after all, I'm mostly interested in the B&W capabilities...), a quieter shutter with electronic winding (though I don't really mind using the lever), and I think USB access and more importantly powering would be great!

just my opinion, of course. but I did buy two R-D1 bodies and three lenses in the course of just a few weeks, and am in the market for some more (looking for a CV 12mm and some good older Leica glass in the 35 or 50 range (cron, lux, itar, etc.), if anyone was visited by Santa and wants to divest themselves of something...) so I'm definitely not an uninterested observer!

waldemar
 
barjohn,
With the Epson's analogue dials and analogue controls for everything I doubt seriously they made much of a profit with a direct $3,000 sale let alone when giving points to retailers. The R-D1 was an expensive camera to build from what I can tell. That said I'd pay 5k for a new 10mp R-D2 if it had a longer and more robust RF mechanism and that's probably why they won't. Very few people would join me in such a purchase.

Ted
 
Last edited:
Sailor Ted,
Since you can buy a new Cosina R4A for around $600 and we have to presume that they make a profit at that price, we are only talking some additional electronics. Since I have been in the electronics/computer business for over 40 years I have a pretty good idea what the electronics will cost a manufacturer, I would have to disagree with you. Given the normal manufacturer's rule of thumb, the camera costs them around $200 to manufacture. We are talking around $200-$300 worth of electronics to add on making for a camera that should be able to be sold for a profit at $1,500. I know this doesn't include engineering/development costs but those are sunk costs and not ususally added into the camera's cost.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom