Sold My Two R-D1's Today

AusDLK said:
I will always be fond of the R-D1. It's a wonderful creation.
Click to expand...
I'm also fond of the M8, and my Canon 5D, and I don't think they're a complete bust. Wonderful creations aren't a complete bust, in my opinion. Well, ok, there's Polaroid, but that's just what happens when you let monkeys in charge of the marketing department.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. 🙂
 
M4streetshooter said:
...The camera was designed to fill a void for rangefinder shooters that didn't want to go to the darkroom anymore....of course it has it's little things that you have to get used to but so does any camera....for me, it's the perfect marriage of eye, hand and camera...
Click to expand...
Fully agree.
In spite of my buying a M4, a M4-2 and a M6J to try to replace it, the M3 has always been my favourite film RF and to me at least the R-D1 is *the* digital M3.
Perhaps the M8 or M9 will do it with a 0.85x or higher mag RF i don't know but so far it's just a digital M7 with disturbing features i don't like at all.
With all due respect to my Leicaphile friends of course.
sorry.gif
 
I've done weddings, events, portraits street copy work everything that photography has to offer and all with Leica M's...my personal favorite M4.
Click to expand...

You can drive a nail with a screwdriver too, but it's easier to do it with the appropriate tool. I've done weddings with Leicas too, back in the days before serious SLRs. The M4 was my all-time favorite also -- in some ways, still is. But as you say, I don't want to go back into the darkroom. Seems to me it would be pretty hard to find a pro who does weddings with a rangefinder. Parts of a wedding, yes -- the parts that resemble street shooting, but the formal stuff takes a bigger gun.
 
rsl,
Hmmmm- not sure what you mean by bigger gun aside from the fact a DSLR is larger then a DRF. I can see no reason why a DRF would not perform at least as well as a DSLR in a wedding environment and much better when the action gets fast and furious (like after you start drinking along with the guests : )

Landscape- sure a medium or an Lindhoff would be nice but I’ll take a tri-pod, my 12mm CV or 21mm Zeiss and bubble level and M8 any day. Sure I wont be able to enlarge to a 70-inch poster but who cares (unless that’s what you need)

PS. So long as we keep it civil these debates are far more entertaining then the pedestrian blather we've had for the past few days (iEye excluded) ; )
 
rsl said:
...Seems to me it would be pretty hard to find a pro who does weddings with a rangefinder. Parts of a wedding, yes -- the parts that resemble street shooting, but the formal stuff takes a bigger gun.
Click to expand...

May I chime in that wedding photography topic, though I'm not a pro photog. When a friend of mine married 3 years ago, he had an official and expensive pro wedding shooter, equiped with two DSLR's and giant flash units. I had a M6 with 75 Summilux and Fuji Neopan 400 in the pocket.

The people, including the wedding couple and the priest, got obviously annoyed about his camera's loud clacks and the flash's strong lights during the ceremony in the church. I could shoot unnoticed. The photog admitted he'd hate to work like that, but said he had no other option. When he would sell the prints afterwards, no one would ask whether the camera was loud or not. True in a sense, but... needless to say that the couple and their families preferred my available light b&w pictures over his flashlighted color pictures, and I sold a lot of prints.

Didier
 
Last edited:
Didier said:
May I chime in that wedding photography topic, though I'm not a pro photog. When a friend of mine married 3 years ago, he had an official and expensive pro wedding shooter, equiped with two DSLR's and giant flash units. I had a M6 with 75 Summilux and Fuji Neopan 400 in the pocket.

The people, including the wedding couple and the priest, got obviously annoyed about his camera's loud clacks and the flash's strong lights during the ceremony in the church. I could shoot unnoticed. The photog admitted he'd hate to work like that, but said he had no other option. When he would sell the prints afterwards, no one would ask whether the camera was loud or not. True in a sense, but... needless to say that the couple and their families preferred my available light b&w pictures over his flashlighted color pictures, and I sold a lot of prints.

Didier
Click to expand...

Didier, strangely enough, perhaps, I agree with you. But the whole thing depends on what the wedding couple wants. If they want informal you can shoot the whole thing without lights -- or at least with a ttl speedlight bounced off the ceiling (if there is a ceiling). Even then, you need an SLR since I don't know of any ttl speedlights that work with a Leica. (The very idea of putting a flash on a Leica blows my mind.) But if they want formal, you'd better wheel out the whole panoply of cameras, lights, action, etc... I haven't done a wedding in years (thank God), but I still remember what it's like. I hated it and I quit doing it after a while.
 
AusDLK said:
>I can see no reason why a DRF would not perform at least as well as a
>DSLR in a wedding environment

Auto-focus.
Click to expand...

Depends on the "wedding environment." If you're shooting in a chapel you probably can get by with a rangefinder. If you're shooting in the cathedral you'd better have, to coin a phrase, the whole shooting match.
 
there's one big magic moment that happens with a RF that a SLR will never be able to do...and that is see...at the very precise moment of exposure......I remember as a kid with my 1st M2....firing a flash and seeing the exposure....man that was sexi and still is....sooooo I sold my 2 5D's..why..cause I can't live without seeing....even at events....it's just very reassuring to see those eyes open and not wait till I get back to process......

The Epson addresses features that the M8 let me down on...sold 2 of those after a week...I won't ditch that camera here cause many shooters want it....it's just not my cup of tea.....

and...the above post is right on.....The Epson is the M3 of digital Rf....at least for the moment.......
 
AusDLK said:
>we all want the "digital M3" don't we??

What I want(ed) was an M7 with a digital sensor instead of film. Period.

I want the shutter advance, I want it to take my Rapidwinder, I don't want an LCD screen.
Click to expand...

I truly believe tht the R D1 is as close as you can get to this right now,so will be sticking with mine until something [really] better comes along.
Haven't had the failure issues that I see a lot here [luckily] in spite af shooting a lot, and being hard on my gear!
I certainly couldn't do my stuff with a DSLR [I know I've tried!

How else could you complete a travel mag assignment with the contents of Billingham Hadley [2 RD1 + lenses, Xpan +lenses] fantastic............

Clive
 
dnk512 said:
Sounds like you all are asking for digital film... old concept... nothing came out of it... 🙁
Click to expand...

Maybe now technology is ready to produce a decent one? I would love to take my M4P and use it to kade digital pics, I could then afford to sell the r-d1.
 
AusDLK said:
>we all want the "digital M3" don't we??

What I want(ed) was an M7 with a digital sensor instead of film. Period.

I want the shutter advance, I want it to take my Rapidwinder, I don't want an LCD screen.


I couldn't agree with you more about just wanting to use in essence digital film. Unfortuneately, they could not do that so they had to build a whole new camera. In light of that it seems to only make sense to have the advantage of being able to see if you got the shot with the lcd screen. This is especially the case if you are on a once in a lifetime shoot . I have the r-d1 and must admit that I folded the screen so you could not see it. However, once I got luigi's case I fliped the screen around so only I could see it when I wanted to check and make sure the shot I wanted was there.

I still like the way film looks better; however, you cannot deny the convenience of seeing the photo right after you take the picture. After all you did buy an r-d1.

Bill
Click to expand...
 
>...just wanting to use in essence digital film

No, I'm not advocating digital film.

What I am advocating would be a different, new camera. It would just fit into the same sized body shell as the M7. It could have the same sensor as the M8.

One of the reasons given for the M8's added depth was that the sensor and LCD could not sit back to back without the depth of the body being increased.

Well, maybe. But they managed to do it with the R-D1...

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Just lose the LCD screen.

In fact, lose all of the convoluted buttons except for one multifunction button on the back (like the little button on the R-D1) that toggles through ISO and white balance settings. Visual verification could be in the viewfinder or on the little LCD thing where the battery and exposure counter is. (This could be straight off of the M8 as is.)

Any other settings are done on the PC or Mac and set on the camera by a USB connection or even downloaded from the SD card. There could be another button, probably under the base plate and maybe another small LCD display, that could allow various preset configurations stored in the camera to be selected in the field.

I doubt many people accustomed to M rangefinder photography would cry too long and hard about the absense of the big LCD on the back.

Sure the shutter advance and the retained ability to cock the shutter with the Leicavit or Rapidwinder is retro but isn't that a large part of the M camera's remaining appeal?

That's my recipe for the Digital M that would have saved Leica's bacon.
 
That sounds cool- could I have my iBook in my backpack hooked up to my M9 to handle the functions? Or how about a PDA like a Palmpilot or Blackberry hooked via blue tooth? Or how about a secret digital watch like Dick Tracy used? That would be neat.
 
Last edited:
funny, I had similiar thoughts and realized that for me the M8 failed...maybe it's my expectations of living up to a M4...whatever but I decided that the R-D1s is by far a more intuitive camera and actually a better on too...just my opinion but after 40 years doing Leica's....it was a big step to sell those 2 M8's.......
 
digital m7...

digital m7...

i would do cartwheels all the way down to the shop if such a camera existed.
there were whispers of a digital rangefinder (a while back and more like "wishlist" material from a few rff members) that recorded solely b+w and bare bones. no lcd etc. well count me as one of the "whishers".
i thought long and hard about purchasing two rd-1's a while back. i really, really wanted to go through with it however the reliability issues etc. killed it for me. they were to both be working camera's (i'm what's not so affectionately known as "stringer") and i just could NOT afford to have camera's off for service etc. dslr (be-grudgingly) i went (2 of 'em).
panasonic and leica kind of had my attention with the L1 and d3 but no fast primes?!?
so here i linger, waiting... for the M7 with a digital capture. doesn't even have to be 10-14 megapixels. 6-8 with good high iso performance and i'm game. scrub the lcd and keep it affordable.
sigh
john
 
>Digital M7
>i would do cartwheels all the way down to the shop if such a camera existed.

Yep, so would I. And so would probably 90% of the considerable number of M8 naysayers.

So would all of the current M8 lovers.

By my math that adds up to considerably more sales.

Plan and simple, Leica blew it.

PS. Regarding the mythical b&w digital M, I heard about it too, but it was going to be exactly the same as the current M8 but with some electronics changes that would have resulted in something considerably higher than 10MP image capture -- b&w only.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom