dealy663
Member
Yesterday I took my R-D1 out for its first full day of shooting. I'm really happy with the pictures. On this day the camera saw everything from bright outdoor sunshine, to extremely low light indoors. Most of the images it handled quite well, though there were also a small number of shots where the camera had some poorly rendered bright lights.
On the theater photos it was extremely low light. I shot them at f/1.4, iso 1600 and less than 1/10th second. I was doing my best to hold still and brace the camera against my knees. I find the noise that this camera generates to be very easy to deal with in ACR, and also found that ACR generally is able to fix the hot pixels that show up with longish exposures at high ISO. Epson photo raw just didn't measure up IMHO.
So take a look and see what I got out of the camera. My monitor isn't profiled so the colors might not be exactly right. Also it always seems that my images look so much worse when viewed over the web, than when I'm editing the file in Photoshop.
Let me know what you think.
http://grandprixsw.com/test/2006/December/Griffith Observatory/index.html
P.S. In spite of the nice photos the camera probably isn't going to work out for me and I'm leaning towards selling it.
On the theater photos it was extremely low light. I shot them at f/1.4, iso 1600 and less than 1/10th second. I was doing my best to hold still and brace the camera against my knees. I find the noise that this camera generates to be very easy to deal with in ACR, and also found that ACR generally is able to fix the hot pixels that show up with longish exposures at high ISO. Epson photo raw just didn't measure up IMHO.
So take a look and see what I got out of the camera. My monitor isn't profiled so the colors might not be exactly right. Also it always seems that my images look so much worse when viewed over the web, than when I'm editing the file in Photoshop.
Let me know what you think.
http://grandprixsw.com/test/2006/December/Griffith Observatory/index.html
P.S. In spite of the nice photos the camera probably isn't going to work out for me and I'm leaning towards selling it.
sevres_babylone
Veteran
I'm sorry it's not going to work out for you. I actually looked at the pictures before I continued to read your post where you talk about the low shutter speeds, and when I saw what showed as #20 (I thought they were airplane seats, not theatre seats, oh well), which stood out for me, and looked at the technical info, I thought to myself that I continue to be amazed at shots that succeed at 1/8 second or so, that I wouldn't have even attempted before getting my R-D1 (I did come from SLRland). Thanks for sharing, and good luck with whatever decision you make.
fraley
Beware of Claws
Derek, you got some good shots. I'm wondering how you converted some of them to b&w? In photoshop or in-camera? Also, why do you think the camera won't work out for you? I'm tempted to buy one but also looking at Leica M film cameras.
Thanks,
Michael
Thanks,
Michael
dealy663
Member
B/W in Photoshop
B/W in Photoshop
I do my B/W conversions in photoshop, this allows me to choose from several different ways to accomplish the conversion. These were all done with 2 hue/saturation/brightness layers, where the top one was set to monochrome, and I adjusted the lightness of the individual colors on the bottom one. The in camera B/W mode is pretty good, I like it better than the one in my D200. When shooting in low incandescent light it is very difficult to get reasonable color reproduction, so I will frequently make those ones in b/w.
Even though I like the look of the photos, and the low light shooting is certainly better than my DSLRs the R-D1 has some serious shortcomings as a general purpose camera. Its great as a small, lightweight, low light camera. Its biggest shortcoming in my opinion is the focusing mechanism. I'm not all too confident that I've got my subject in focus when using it. So I'm frequently going back and forth trying to verify focus. The long term reliability of the rangefinder is also a pretty big concern of mine.
Here are some more photos that I shot with the R-D1. Note the ISO and shutter speeds on numbers 9 and 10. In spite of the slow speeds these photos look pretty darned good to me.
http://grandprixsw.com/test/2006/December/Grove and Beverly Center/index.html
B/W in Photoshop
fraley said:
I do my B/W conversions in photoshop, this allows me to choose from several different ways to accomplish the conversion. These were all done with 2 hue/saturation/brightness layers, where the top one was set to monochrome, and I adjusted the lightness of the individual colors on the bottom one. The in camera B/W mode is pretty good, I like it better than the one in my D200. When shooting in low incandescent light it is very difficult to get reasonable color reproduction, so I will frequently make those ones in b/w.
Even though I like the look of the photos, and the low light shooting is certainly better than my DSLRs the R-D1 has some serious shortcomings as a general purpose camera. Its great as a small, lightweight, low light camera. Its biggest shortcoming in my opinion is the focusing mechanism. I'm not all too confident that I've got my subject in focus when using it. So I'm frequently going back and forth trying to verify focus. The long term reliability of the rangefinder is also a pretty big concern of mine.
Here are some more photos that I shot with the R-D1. Note the ISO and shutter speeds on numbers 9 and 10. In spite of the slow speeds these photos look pretty darned good to me.
http://grandprixsw.com/test/2006/December/Grove and Beverly Center/index.html
Terao
Kiloran
The low-light performance of the R-D1 and Nokton 40mm continues to amaze and inspire me 
tmessenger
Established
It takes a bit of time to get use to RF focus but I find I can now nail focus everytime even in low light that would give my AF camera fits.
Tim
Tim
Joe Mondello
Resu Deretsiger
dealy663 said:
I also think your pictures are very good but I have to wonder why the camera "isn't going to work out" for you?
dealy663
Member
The rangefinder mechanism is weak
The rangefinder mechanism is weak
I've had my camera for 8 days, it came out of the box misaligned, and Epson says that there are no replacements available. They offered to give me my money back, or suggested I bring it to a local camera shop to have it adjusted. So I did that today, and it cost me money. While the camera is currently aligned, I'm fully expecting it to be messed up again because I think that the RF design is poor. Now I've done this because I liked the photos I was able to get, and I will exercise this camera for a while longer. If it manages to remain in alignment I'll keep it. But if it goes off again just from normal use, then it isn't really worth it for me.
This whole rangefinder camera thing is incredibly expensive when compared to my DSLRs. For example, I've been looking around for a 24mm f/2.8 lens. The best I can do is about $1000 for either used Elmarit, or a new Biogon. For that kind of money in the SLR world I could get a new Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 zoom. To me I can see where the 17-55 has $1000 worth of technology and design built into it, I just don't feel the same way about the actual value of the 24mm prime.
So the conflict is between the joy of the extremely low light photos and small size compared to my rational desire to spend my money effectively. Believe me, if I could afford an M8 and 4 Leica lenses I would. But that just isn't my reality.
The rangefinder mechanism is weak
Joe Mondello said:I also think your pictures are very good but I have to wonder why the camera "isn't going to work out" for you?
I've had my camera for 8 days, it came out of the box misaligned, and Epson says that there are no replacements available. They offered to give me my money back, or suggested I bring it to a local camera shop to have it adjusted. So I did that today, and it cost me money. While the camera is currently aligned, I'm fully expecting it to be messed up again because I think that the RF design is poor. Now I've done this because I liked the photos I was able to get, and I will exercise this camera for a while longer. If it manages to remain in alignment I'll keep it. But if it goes off again just from normal use, then it isn't really worth it for me.
This whole rangefinder camera thing is incredibly expensive when compared to my DSLRs. For example, I've been looking around for a 24mm f/2.8 lens. The best I can do is about $1000 for either used Elmarit, or a new Biogon. For that kind of money in the SLR world I could get a new Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 zoom. To me I can see where the 17-55 has $1000 worth of technology and design built into it, I just don't feel the same way about the actual value of the 24mm prime.
So the conflict is between the joy of the extremely low light photos and small size compared to my rational desire to spend my money effectively. Believe me, if I could afford an M8 and 4 Leica lenses I would. But that just isn't my reality.
Joe Mondello
Resu Deretsiger
I hear ya.
BTW, I have recently purchased a 17-55DX for my D200 and it was more like $1200-$1300.
Here's what I did in terms of lenses for my new RD-1. I bought a new 40mm 1.4 Nokton, a used 15mm 4.5 Super Heliar and a used 28mm 1.9 Ultron all for about $1K combined.
That said, I am keeping all my Nikon gear (which is extensive) as the D200 is my main go-to camera.
I really find I enjoy having more than one way to look at things.
If you decide to sell it, give a heads-up around here first.
BTW, I have recently purchased a 17-55DX for my D200 and it was more like $1200-$1300.
Here's what I did in terms of lenses for my new RD-1. I bought a new 40mm 1.4 Nokton, a used 15mm 4.5 Super Heliar and a used 28mm 1.9 Ultron all for about $1K combined.
That said, I am keeping all my Nikon gear (which is extensive) as the D200 is my main go-to camera.
I really find I enjoy having more than one way to look at things.
If you decide to sell it, give a heads-up around here first.