Advice for potential Epson R-D1 convert

[Benjamin Marks]

My original question didn't really have anything to do with how much the Epson R-D1 costs as much as it had to do with how viable it was as a money-making tool and how high its quality was compared to the 20D I already have. I don't care how much it costs as long as I can use it to make money and create professional results.

I'm glad this has all been helpful, or at least food for thought. As far as the comparison goes, for digital cameras, I have the digital rebel (on which I sometimes use Leica-R glass) and the Epson R-D1. Both can produce excellent results, but I reach for my RD-1 before I reach for the Canon (just the way, these days, I reach for a Leica before I reach for a Nikon). I happen to love the RD-1 because I can use my Leica M lenses on it. This thread has gone on long enough, to make it apparant to all but the most casual reader that I have more cameras than sense. 🙂

I know one pro in NYC who does a lot of catalog shooting says that she needs at least a 50 Meg file out of her camera to do serious work. Only the larger more expensive DSLRs produce that kind of file at this time. However focussing on the narrow question you've framed above (focus, Ben FOCUS . . .) , I think for what you've said you want to do the RD-1 would work great. From the point of view of a comparison, I know that the 20D is an 8 megapixel camera in comparison to the RD-1's 6 mp, but I don't have a sense of what those two extra megapixels get you in the real world. You should look at some of Sean's excellent wedding photography to see what the camera is capable of in the hands of someone who knows what he's doing -- _great_ candid shots -- and how he, as he says, has used the qualities of the RF platform to help him get the kind of results he is after.

best of luck . . . I think we all know that the goal is to make the pictures.

Ben Marks

 

[Sean Reid]

Insider,

Just ignore the posts that patronize you. It's amazing how much some people think they can infer about someone else based on misreading a couple of posts. I've had it happen to me too on this forum and you'd think some of those folks would know better. C'est La Vie!

I shoot professionally, as you know, and I don't use film at all. Used it for 20 years, still think fondly of it but do not use it to get work done. If your possible destination is an R-D1, I'd still advise that you spend as little as possible experimenting with a film rangefinder. Just get a cheap one and go play with it. As soon as you're convinced that a rangefinder is "you", go get the R-D1 if you can afford it. If it isn't right for you, sell it and away you go with SLRs. If you can hold on to the 20D (or sell it and buy a 10D to free up $700) then you won't have to worry about the things that a rangefinder isn't good at (macro, long lenses, etc.) because you'll have the DSLR for that stuff. I really agree with one thrust of Ben's posts which is: don't spend money you don't need to. Better to save it for the equipment you must buy. An M6 is a great camera but you don't need to spend $1200+ to try a rangefinder. Then again, if you want it, what the heck - the resale value should be good.

To go back to your essential question. Yes, the R-D1 is, in my experience, a wonderful professional tool. Two things about the camera can lead to pictures that may be quite different from those made by a DSLR:

1. You see the world through a framed window rather than on an SLR ground glass. That can have a profound affect on the pictures you make, despite many claims to the contrary.

2. The camera can use some of the most wonderful lenses in the world. You have many kinds of lens drawing styles to choose from. As a rule, I've found many more RF lenses I love than SLR lenses and I've owned and/or tested a lot of both.

Only a small percentage of pros currently work with rangefinders but many of them are at or near the top of their fields. If you're itching for one, do it. But if you really want to work with digital capture, I'd save your money to invest in that when you're ready.

Max print for a 35mm film scan depends on too many variables to have a clear answer. The negative itself sets the limit more than the scanner (since a drum scan can pull everything a 35mm neg has). Up to 13" by 19" though, one can get a good print from either a 6MP APS-C camera or a good 35mm film scan (each one will have it's pros and cons). Beyond that size, one might or might not get a good print from either. It took some art directors a few years to realize that the quality of a file wasn't necessarily tied to MB.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[kbg32]

Insider,

I shoot professionally as well and use both film and digital, as well as rangefinder - my personal preference, and DSLR. It depends on the job at hand, clients needs, etc.. Yes, the kind of camera you use certainly influences the kinds of images that you make.

I was a student once as well and know and understand the financial position you are in. I kept my SLR and did all the work I could with it, all the while saving up for my first rangefinder. It put me in a better position to know and understand what I wanted out of the image making process both professionally and personally.

I personally never got rid of my film SLR, because there were certain jobs that it could do at that time, that a rangefinder could not - precise framing, close focusing, more extensive telephoto lens selection, etc.. In this age of digital one can frame the shot using the LCD screen, knowing pretty much what one is going to capture.

They were lots of good suggestions here. Good luck with your decision. Appologies if you or anyone else misunderstood what I was trying to suggest.

Keith

 

[PaulN]

My $0.02

My $0.02

My 6 month old prevented me from jumping into this thread earlier, but I think I still have a few thoughts that address your original post.

First, let me give you a quick background. Like you, I've been shooting DSLRs since the D30 came out. Before that, I shot pics with my father's old Ricoh SLR from the 70s. In school, I took a course on B&W film development and absolutely loved it. Time went on, college came, and my priorities shifted away from photography. At the time, digital SLRs were a break through and cost in the tens of thousands. When the D30 came out, it cost $3k and was a break through. I was able to justify the price and went for it. It rekindled my love for photography. Time went on, and the D60 came out. 1/2 the price of the D30, and twice the pixel count. It also fixed a few other bugs. I could afford it, so I plunked down some $$. It was back ordered; I waited. It arrived. A month later, rumors spread of it being end-of-lifed. A week or two after that, the 10D arrived. It fixed all of the bugs in the D60. That experience destroyed any urge I have ever had to upgrade a digital camera.

I loved the D60, even though it had faults. Low light focusing was abysmal (and was fixed on the 10D, and improved on the 20D). I had a bunch of lenses, and a nice backpack to haul them around with. In the beginning I brought the backpack with me to every event I went to. I was the guy with the SLR and the lenses. After a year or two, I was sick of hauling the camera around with me. It was heavy. I then paired down the lenses I brought with me. Even that wasn't enough. After awhile, I stopped bringing the camera with me, as it was a pain. It was big, it was clunky. But, it took some nice pics. I liked the lenses, and I was getting shots that blew away everyone with their point & shoot digital Elphs. The camera was always in the way. Spontaneous shots were hard to come by, as it involved taking the camera out of the backpack, or finding a place to put it so that I could quickly have access to it. At a restaurant, it became a pain.

Time passed. The number of pictures I took declined. I kept reading though, and stumbled upon some old photography books from highschool on Capa, and some Magnum books. I loved the prints, and I re-discovered the rangefinder. I lusted after a Leica during high school, but could never afford one. I marveled at the pictures that were made with a rangefinder. I also laughed at the pictures of the photogs with multiple range finders slung around their neck. Can't do that with an SLR.

When I heard about the R-D1, I started putting $$ aside. It was the camera that I had been after for years. It was light weight, and extremely portable, and I could change lenses. Best of all, it would take lenses much older than I. There is something to be said for driving vintage cars and shooting with a 70 year old lense.

The R-D1 arrived and I fell in love with it. True portability, zero shutter lag, and manual focus. It fits in my hand perfectly and has become an extension of my eye. It taught me to slow down and think and to rely on myself, not a focusing servo or metering matrix.

When I pickup the D60 now, it feels huge and clunky. It also feels slow. There are no DoF scales on the lenses, and it irritates me. Manually focusing is a pain. The shutter lag is horrendous.

My wife also picked up the R-D1 and fell in love with it. She mainly used point&shoots in the past and was intimidated by the D60. It was too large & clunky. Too many buttons, too many dials. She loves the R-D1 though. The manual focus doesn't bother her, and she is quickly learning about shutter speeds & apertures. She is also taking some great pics.

The R-D1 has also taught me what the SLR is good for though. Macrophotography, gorup shots, telephoto etc. Family portraits are so much easier when you can actually be in the picture 😉 Heed the advise of others. I am glad that I kept my DSLRs, as much as I dislike using them now. They serve a purpose.

What do I shoot now? A Leica. I switched back to film and now process in my kitchen sink, and scan the negatives. My wife uses the R-D1 all the time, and the Leica comes with me wherever I go. "Your not taking the R-D1 to work again, are you?". I also can't wait to hand down the Leica to my son when the time is right. I doubt the R-D1 will be functioning at that point. I worry about the batteries & SD cards. Thats another topic though.


Changing topics, are you sure you want to go into photography full time? My hobby has become my career, and it is no longer my hobby. My career has served me well over the years, and has allowed me to indulge in this hobby, but my career is no longer my hobby now. It is a source of stress, and long hours. Photography is an escape for me and has changed the way I look at life and objects around me. I don't want to loose that.

A highschool friend of mine recently got married, and I bumped into an old friend. She is now a professional photog, went to the Kodak school, and shot the wedding professionally. She was the primary photographer, and the stress was on her to get "the pics" and it showed. At that point, I had realized that I don't want the stress of being under the gun to get "the pic" in order to bring in the $$. It is fun to take pictures and sell them if they are good. That is different from doing it day in and day out.

I'm curious to know how many ppl here are full time professional photographers, ie, that is all that they do. I would hazard a guess that most are amateurs and do it as a hobby. For those that are 'full time' has the passion remained through the years? Is it still fun?

Also, you might want to post a similar inquiry over on 'www.robgalbraith.com'. The site is geared towards full time professionals (or atleast was a few years ago)..

So in a nutshell, I went from a DSLR to a RF without using one and loved it. It changed my photography-life, and that of my wife. I'm a convert now and wouldn't trade it for the world. However, my SLRs have aren't going anywhere.

That was a long ramble.. Hope some of it is useful.