eyeman
Member
First, I would like to say thanks for all of the information which I've received from this forum prior to purchasing my R-D1. I live in NYC and purchased from one of the larger retailers here in Manhattan. Initially, two new units were brought into the store for me to look at and both had vertical alignment issues. Serial #'s were in the 4500 range. A third unit, also in the 4500 range arrived a few days later and it has alignment issues...probably the worst of the group. I am currently using that camera while waiting for the store to receive three replacement bodies. According to Epson these three bodies were shipped in early 2005...March through May.
Rangefinder issues aside, I think this is a fantastic camera and I am throughly enjoying it. It has a few hot pixels at 1600 and tends to under expose by about 1/3 to 2/3's of a stop...an issue which I understand to be common in the D100 which uses the same Sony sensor.
Based on what I've been reading here I have asked for a camera with a serial number in the 4600 range which Epson tells me are the highest numbers that are currently shipping.
eyeman
Rangefinder issues aside, I think this is a fantastic camera and I am throughly enjoying it. It has a few hot pixels at 1600 and tends to under expose by about 1/3 to 2/3's of a stop...an issue which I understand to be common in the D100 which uses the same Sony sensor.
Based on what I've been reading here I have asked for a camera with a serial number in the 4600 range which Epson tells me are the highest numbers that are currently shipping.
eyeman
Gid
Well-known
Welcome.
I've had my RD-1 since March last year - serial number 0024**. Apart form vertical alignment of the RF patch (which I fixed myself following advice from the guys here) and maybe slightly wonky framelines I've had no problems with the camera. I have got so used to the camera that I don't think about the frameline accuracy - its a non issue for me. Absolutely love the camera and have hardly shot anything else since I got it. It is my first RF and that did take quite a bit of getting used to, but now its by far my preferred way of shooting. I hope you get as much pleasure from your's as I have from mine.
Post some shots when you can.
Regards
Gid
I've had my RD-1 since March last year - serial number 0024**. Apart form vertical alignment of the RF patch (which I fixed myself following advice from the guys here) and maybe slightly wonky framelines I've had no problems with the camera. I have got so used to the camera that I don't think about the frameline accuracy - its a non issue for me. Absolutely love the camera and have hardly shot anything else since I got it. It is my first RF and that did take quite a bit of getting used to, but now its by far my preferred way of shooting. I hope you get as much pleasure from your's as I have from mine.
Post some shots when you can.
Regards
Gid
F
Frank Granovski
Guest
Did you ask the dealer if could get one re-aligned for you free of charge (under warranty)?
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I'll second what Gid says about hardly using anything else since I got my R-D 1.
I already had owned a long string of RF cameras (including a couple of Leicas, a Nikon S2, a Contax IIa, and several Canons) and recently had been doing a lot of shooting with a Bessa, so the framelines etc. didn't put me off at all. The RF alignment on my R-D 1 ( a very early number) was pretty good right out of the box, but I felt it could be a little better, so like Gid I touched it up myself using instructions I found here. Since then (and it's been more than a year) I think my Nikon D100 has been out of the bag all of once.
I'll say one word about the underexposure and hot-pixel issues you mention, and that word is: "raw."
If you start shooting a lot in raw format, you'll discover that the R-D 1's exposure system works really well for it. With a raw-format image, you still need to avoid blowing out the highlights, but you have a lot of latitude for opening up the midtones, and the R-D 1's metering tends to favor this approach -- I suspect it's optimized specifically for raw.
Also, most of the current raw-conversion utilities (including Adobe Camera Raw and Iridient Raw Developer) have very effective hot-pixel-fix capabilities. My R-D 1 had a couple of fairly prominent hot pixels that used to worry me a lot when I was shooting mostly in JPEG, but since switching to raw I literally don't see them anymore.
I know that committing to raw requires a bigger investment, either in memory cards or in some kind of storage device (I bought an Epson P-2000) but it really does help leverage your investment in your R-D 1, so it's really worth considering.
I already had owned a long string of RF cameras (including a couple of Leicas, a Nikon S2, a Contax IIa, and several Canons) and recently had been doing a lot of shooting with a Bessa, so the framelines etc. didn't put me off at all. The RF alignment on my R-D 1 ( a very early number) was pretty good right out of the box, but I felt it could be a little better, so like Gid I touched it up myself using instructions I found here. Since then (and it's been more than a year) I think my Nikon D100 has been out of the bag all of once.
I'll say one word about the underexposure and hot-pixel issues you mention, and that word is: "raw."
If you start shooting a lot in raw format, you'll discover that the R-D 1's exposure system works really well for it. With a raw-format image, you still need to avoid blowing out the highlights, but you have a lot of latitude for opening up the midtones, and the R-D 1's metering tends to favor this approach -- I suspect it's optimized specifically for raw.
Also, most of the current raw-conversion utilities (including Adobe Camera Raw and Iridient Raw Developer) have very effective hot-pixel-fix capabilities. My R-D 1 had a couple of fairly prominent hot pixels that used to worry me a lot when I was shooting mostly in JPEG, but since switching to raw I literally don't see them anymore.
I know that committing to raw requires a bigger investment, either in memory cards or in some kind of storage device (I bought an Epson P-2000) but it really does help leverage your investment in your R-D 1, so it's really worth considering.
Gid
Well-known
I second JLW's comment about RAW - I've only ever used Jpeg for test shots - dust, alignment etc. I find Epson's Photo Raw program excellent, especially for B&W conversion.
BTW JLW - really stunning shots in your gallery, but where are your RD-1 shots?
Regards
Gid
BTW JLW - really stunning shots in your gallery, but where are your RD-1 shots?
Regards
Gid
eyeman
Member
My dealer insisted on getting me a new body rather than having it adjusted...in fact, Epson also suggested an exchange as opposed to a warranty repair. Hopefully, the new bodies will arrive this week.
I only shoot raw and have been doing so since using digital...compared to the Canon 1D's that we have around, this body does under expose a bit...not a big issue, just something to be aware of.
eyeman
I only shoot raw and have been doing so since using digital...compared to the Canon 1D's that we have around, this body does under expose a bit...not a big issue, just something to be aware of.
eyeman
andyturk
Established
I agree on the underexposure issue--at least in high contrast compositions. What I've noticed is that if there's even a tiny patch of backlighting (e.g., a bright cloudy sky) in the frame, the rest of the shot will be significantly underexposed. My Canon 1DMkII does a pretty good job in the same conditions, but it's got matrix metering and correctly guesses that blown highlights aren't a problem.eyeman said:
loretdem
Established
Yo! eyeman
Yo! eyeman
I think you are doing everything right and I'm glad that the info on this forum has encouraged you towards the R-D1 and not away from it. If you can deal with the Epson factor, it really is a sweet machine. Good luck and if you have any more valuable insight to share about your R-D1 experience we would be most interested!
-Carlos
Yo! eyeman
I think you are doing everything right and I'm glad that the info on this forum has encouraged you towards the R-D1 and not away from it. If you can deal with the Epson factor, it really is a sweet machine. Good luck and if you have any more valuable insight to share about your R-D1 experience we would be most interested!
-Carlos
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Gid said:
Well, let's see, I've been in photography seriously for about 35 years, and I've got seven pictures in my gallery... that works out, on average, to one gallery-worthy picture every five years. I've had the R-D 1 a little over one year, so I figure I'm about 20% of the way to having a gallery picture from it...
Gid
Well-known
jlw said:
LOL. Look forward to 2010
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
Me too, actually.
I have a few photos in my gallery on the site, but I'm really not proud of any of them. I didn't really *love* the equipment that I had. I'm shooting better, composing better, and just all-around enjoying photography more since I started using a rangefinder.
The only problem is those seriously almost-fatal (at least money-wise) GAS attacks.
I have a few photos in my gallery on the site, but I'm really not proud of any of them. I didn't really *love* the equipment that I had. I'm shooting better, composing better, and just all-around enjoying photography more since I started using a rangefinder.
The only problem is those seriously almost-fatal (at least money-wise) GAS attacks.
Gid
Well-known
Yeah, I think I'm suffereing post Xmas GAS. Maybe I should get out more - somewhere that they don't have photog shops with shiny things
Gid
Gid
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
At least I'm not lusting after a Leica anymore, but I've learned that even Canon rangefinder glass can add up in a hurry.
pfogle
Well-known
eyeman - hi, welcome to the forum
re the rangefinder alignment - we did a big discussion on adjusting this a while back, you can find the instructions here.
In my experience, the vert. goes out a bit over time and use, and I regard it as a maintenance issue. If the other aspects of your body meet your expectations, I'd stick with what you've got and do it yourself. I'm happy to discuss it further if you'd like.
Phil
re the rangefinder alignment - we did a big discussion on adjusting this a while back, you can find the instructions here.
In my experience, the vert. goes out a bit over time and use, and I regard it as a maintenance issue. If the other aspects of your body meet your expectations, I'd stick with what you've got and do it yourself. I'm happy to discuss it further if you'd like.
Phil
Last edited:
eyeman
Member
Hey Phil.
Thanks for the offer...I've actually looked at some of the threads here on adjusting the rangefinder. I would like to think that I will be able to get a body from Epson that is functioning properly, but considering my experinces with the first two I'm a bit skeptical. I'll keep you guys posted.
eyeman
Thanks for the offer...I've actually looked at some of the threads here on adjusting the rangefinder. I would like to think that I will be able to get a body from Epson that is functioning properly, but considering my experinces with the first two I'm a bit skeptical. I'll keep you guys posted.
eyeman
pfogle
Well-known
Yeah, it's a crazy situation - I've never come across anything quite like it in a 'professional' context. I went through 2 or 3 before settling on the one I've got.eyeman said:
Anyway you look at it, this is an enthusiast's camera - meaning that I expect to have to fix things from time to time. I just can't seem to get the response from Epson UK that would give me confidence in sending it in. If I had any hair, I'd have pulled it out long ago! We can only hope they get their act together, or sort out an agency of some sort to handle service issues.
That said, my R-D1 has worked perfectly well since I got it, and touch wood, long may it do so
Phil
brightsky
Established
Welcome to the world of the RD-1!
Despite the fact that most here seem to have one or more quirks with their cameras, we still love them to death.
I wish Epson would get their act togerther, but I work around the idiosyncrases. We have a very unique camera. Purchase of a Leica Digital M might require a car loan. LOL
Despite the fact that most here seem to have one or more quirks with their cameras, we still love them to death.
I wish Epson would get their act togerther, but I work around the idiosyncrases. We have a very unique camera. Purchase of a Leica Digital M might require a car loan. LOL
eyeman
Member
I'm still waiting for my dealer to receive the replacement bodies that were ordered last week...I gave Epson a call to get some insight on their warranty policy. I was told that they would either repair or replace any camera that is sent in under warranty and that a replacement camera might be a refurbished body. This would explain how some people here are getting replacement bodies with lower serial numbers than the units that were sent in for service. I can understand why many here are adjusting the rangefinders on their own rather than sending them back for repair. I must say that I am a bit troubled about owning a $3000.00 camera that doesn't seem to have qualified factory support here in the US. I'm enjoying this camera, but might call it a day if I'm not able to obtain a replacement that functions properly.
eyeman
eyeman
Last edited:
R
RML
Guest
Why worry? It's just money and you already spent it. My R-D1 could break down on me but that could easily happen out of warranty too. I'd be cursing and yelling, though, and considering buying an M6TTL instead.
It's just money and you already spent it. My R-D1 could break down on me but that could easily happen out of warranty too. I'd be cursing and yelling, though, and considering buying an M6TTL instead. eyeman
Member
I'm still waiting for my replacement body (approx. sixteen days now) so I asked my dealer to check the order status with Epson. New bodies should arrive next week and according to the dealer Epson states that the rangefinder issues have been addressed and resolved. Not holding out much hope for this as apparently these rangefinder issues have plagued this model since day one...so why suddenly the fix?
I must say that I'm quite pleased with the results I've been getting from my new "loaner". I've taken some 30 sec. exposures at iso 200 and only have one or two hot pixels..iso 1600 shows a few more pixels but not enough to be annoying. Using in camera noise reduction set to H for long exposure and high iso shooting. No front or back focus issues...just the vertical alignment problem. Metering may be a "tad" under in some situations but in general I find it to be very good...I'm happy with the WB and prefer the color balance to Canon. I wish it had less noise above iso 400, but I guess Canon has a lock on that one.
eyeman
I must say that I'm quite pleased with the results I've been getting from my new "loaner". I've taken some 30 sec. exposures at iso 200 and only have one or two hot pixels..iso 1600 shows a few more pixels but not enough to be annoying. Using in camera noise reduction set to H for long exposure and high iso shooting. No front or back focus issues...just the vertical alignment problem. Metering may be a "tad" under in some situations but in general I find it to be very good...I'm happy with the WB and prefer the color balance to Canon. I wish it had less noise above iso 400, but I guess Canon has a lock on that one.
eyeman
Last edited: