insidertravels
Newbie
Hi there,
At the moment, I'm a bit overwhelmed. I've never used a rangefinder camera before, either film or digital, unless it was when I was very young and just don't remember, but I suspect I've never even seen a rangefinder except in online photos. This post is very long and I've probably provided much more information than you need, but I'm hoping to get some useful advice from R-D1 users and/or converts from Canon EOS DSLRs.
I currently use a Canon EOS 20D, mostly with an EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. I have bought and sold numerous other EF lenses over the past two years, but I never kept any of them for longer than about six months, but I could never quite put my finger on any good reason why I sold them - except for the fact that I HATE carrying around so much weight on my back/hips. I'm 5'8" and 130lbs., but I don't consider myself all that strong. Even if I were, my own personal "style", if you will, for everything in my life is "less is more." I just hate having so much stuff to get in the way of experiencing life. I'm also a big fan of being as unobtrusive as possible; that's the way I do web design as well. I guess it's like a universal personal aesthetic I have. I hope this makes at least a little bit of sense.
I've just finished the final project for my interdisciplinary master's degree and am about to get my business started. I can't say I'd be too excited about doing corporate photography like advertising and such. It's just not my style and it doesn't arouse my passion really. I'm more interested in photojournalistic and fine art travel and culture photography. I might do some weddings and such, but only for clients who appreciate a photojournalistic style. The one catch is that I LOVE animal photography as well, though I'm not into birds so much. Of course, a lot of it can be done without those back-breaking telephoto lenses as long as the animals are domesticated or in a controlled environment, but the pundits lead us to believe that we MUST HAVE 600mm+ if we want to be competitive - I can barely handle carrying around a 200mm+TC around for a few hours, and I'm not happy with the picture quality once I get home to my computer. I also prefer NOT to use flash. Every once in a while I'll use fill flash, but I've had two different Canon speedlites in the past but sold them both after only using each a few times. I usually expose manually using an in-camera meter because I think it's helping me to learn photography better than if I were to let the camera pick my exposures all the time.
OK, so here's my dilemma. I've started selling off my remaining EF lenses, except for the 50mm prime. As soon as I know how much money that will bring in, I was planning to sell my 20D and 50mm as well so I could buy an R-D1. I weighed the pros and cons for a fairly long time and thought I'd come to a definitive decision. But I'm having a few last reservations that I was hoping you rangefinder users could help me with.
I've never used a manual focus camera, but all my EOS lenses have had full-time manual focus capabilities, which I've had to use more often than I originally anticipated due to "hunting" issues and the like. To me, it's almost like it defeats the purpose of having auto focus if it doesn't even work properly half the time. Of course, I'm not nearly as experienced yet as most of you probably are, so this could be partially due to operator error, but I don't think I should have to compromise what I want to create simply because the machine overrules me according to its own will. I'm also a bit weary about switching to ONLY manual focus because I'm not currently familiar with how to use a rangefinder, so I'm afraid the learning curve will put me farther behind and I'm afraid I might stink at it and end up with remorse for ditching SLR.
Another problem is that if I do this, I have no choice but to sell my DSLR in order to finance the R-D1 and a Leica 35mm Summilux f/1.4 because I cannot afford to have two cameras or even two lenses for that matter - at least not until I get my business running smoothly. On forums all over the place I keep reading that professional photographers have to have Nikon or Canon or similar in order to get clients (I'm not sure if the same is true outside the U.S.). They say that customers won't take you seriously if you have such a tiny camera, even if it is of better quality, because they can't see past its physical size. They also say you need all the additional features that SLR provides, including burst rates, that fancy new Canon flash metering, autofocus, etc. What I can't figure out is if they're just saying that to scare potential competition into opting for another career path or if they really know photographers who have trouble getting work without the latest, greatest DSLR.
I thought maybe I'd get a Powershot S2 IS or a Lumix FZ20 for doing extra-long telephoto shots, since most of those would be for myself or for books, magazines, online, stock, etc. anyway and wouldn't necessarily need a full-frame sensor for quality. But maybe after getting the hang of a rangefinder I'll find that I really don't need a super-long lens like I thought I would.
If I do opt for an R-D1 and love it, I'll probably save up my pennies to get an M-Digital if and when they are released. But Leica's financial situation is a bit scary, especially since the lens I'm planning to buy costs $2500 U.S. from B&H. I need it to last me literally FOREVER, and since I take such good care of my equipment I have no doubts that it would last me my whole life barring some freak accident.
The last final reservation is the different between the 20D's 8mp sensor and the R-D1s 6mp sensor. On the samples I've looked at from this site and others, I can't tell much of a difference. Can I make just as big of prints from the R-D1 as the 20D? Will Genuine Fractals take care of quality upsizing to 20x30 and bigger because I already have a copy of that I've never used if you think it would alleviate my concerns.
Before you ask, going to film is not an option for me. I've invested way too much time, money, and energy becoming proficient at RAW processing and Photoshop, and I've got the astronomical student loans to prove it. Had I known I'd decide to become a full-time photographer when I started graduate school, I'd probably have quit then and saved myself 20 years of payback misery. Alas, the whole hindsight cliché.
Anyway, as you can see I'm really up in the air about this. Something deep inside me tells me that my personality and style would feel more at home with the simplicity and unobtrusiveness of a rangefinder. But that nagging propaganda voice is telling me that I'll starve, or end up working a desk job (something that would send a person like me to the looney bin sooner rather than later), if I don't keep my 20D and eventually upgrade to a 1DsMII. I'm not a follower by nature, which I guess is why I'm having this crisis in the first place.
Any serious advice would be greatly appreciated and taken under consideration. But please, no trolls or mean people because this is really important to me, and I can't ask anyone around here because there are no Leica dealers in this state and the camera dealers here all say Canon, Nikon, or die and insist that I need a 600mm prime lens and a bomb-proof Gitzo if I expect to compete with them. Plus, many opinions I've read online insist the only people using Leica, or rangefinders for that matter, are washed-up, curmudgeonly technophobes who'll have themselves buried with their film because the digital gurus couldn't pry it from their cold, dead hands.
I know this sounds extreme, but it's basically my creative interpretation of what I've been reading just about everywhere except this forum and the Leica forum. Apparently there aren't many people my age who would consider abandoning the auto-focus SLR realm like this (I'm 28), so I'm feeling rather annoyed that I can't seem to just accept my Canon and be done with it because it IS a very good camera.
Now that my story has become almost unnavigable at this point, I'll open it up for sincere, honest replies.
At the moment, I'm a bit overwhelmed. I've never used a rangefinder camera before, either film or digital, unless it was when I was very young and just don't remember, but I suspect I've never even seen a rangefinder except in online photos. This post is very long and I've probably provided much more information than you need, but I'm hoping to get some useful advice from R-D1 users and/or converts from Canon EOS DSLRs.
I currently use a Canon EOS 20D, mostly with an EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. I have bought and sold numerous other EF lenses over the past two years, but I never kept any of them for longer than about six months, but I could never quite put my finger on any good reason why I sold them - except for the fact that I HATE carrying around so much weight on my back/hips. I'm 5'8" and 130lbs., but I don't consider myself all that strong. Even if I were, my own personal "style", if you will, for everything in my life is "less is more." I just hate having so much stuff to get in the way of experiencing life. I'm also a big fan of being as unobtrusive as possible; that's the way I do web design as well. I guess it's like a universal personal aesthetic I have. I hope this makes at least a little bit of sense.
I've just finished the final project for my interdisciplinary master's degree and am about to get my business started. I can't say I'd be too excited about doing corporate photography like advertising and such. It's just not my style and it doesn't arouse my passion really. I'm more interested in photojournalistic and fine art travel and culture photography. I might do some weddings and such, but only for clients who appreciate a photojournalistic style. The one catch is that I LOVE animal photography as well, though I'm not into birds so much. Of course, a lot of it can be done without those back-breaking telephoto lenses as long as the animals are domesticated or in a controlled environment, but the pundits lead us to believe that we MUST HAVE 600mm+ if we want to be competitive - I can barely handle carrying around a 200mm+TC around for a few hours, and I'm not happy with the picture quality once I get home to my computer. I also prefer NOT to use flash. Every once in a while I'll use fill flash, but I've had two different Canon speedlites in the past but sold them both after only using each a few times. I usually expose manually using an in-camera meter because I think it's helping me to learn photography better than if I were to let the camera pick my exposures all the time.
OK, so here's my dilemma. I've started selling off my remaining EF lenses, except for the 50mm prime. As soon as I know how much money that will bring in, I was planning to sell my 20D and 50mm as well so I could buy an R-D1. I weighed the pros and cons for a fairly long time and thought I'd come to a definitive decision. But I'm having a few last reservations that I was hoping you rangefinder users could help me with.
I've never used a manual focus camera, but all my EOS lenses have had full-time manual focus capabilities, which I've had to use more often than I originally anticipated due to "hunting" issues and the like. To me, it's almost like it defeats the purpose of having auto focus if it doesn't even work properly half the time. Of course, I'm not nearly as experienced yet as most of you probably are, so this could be partially due to operator error, but I don't think I should have to compromise what I want to create simply because the machine overrules me according to its own will. I'm also a bit weary about switching to ONLY manual focus because I'm not currently familiar with how to use a rangefinder, so I'm afraid the learning curve will put me farther behind and I'm afraid I might stink at it and end up with remorse for ditching SLR.
Another problem is that if I do this, I have no choice but to sell my DSLR in order to finance the R-D1 and a Leica 35mm Summilux f/1.4 because I cannot afford to have two cameras or even two lenses for that matter - at least not until I get my business running smoothly. On forums all over the place I keep reading that professional photographers have to have Nikon or Canon or similar in order to get clients (I'm not sure if the same is true outside the U.S.). They say that customers won't take you seriously if you have such a tiny camera, even if it is of better quality, because they can't see past its physical size. They also say you need all the additional features that SLR provides, including burst rates, that fancy new Canon flash metering, autofocus, etc. What I can't figure out is if they're just saying that to scare potential competition into opting for another career path or if they really know photographers who have trouble getting work without the latest, greatest DSLR.
I thought maybe I'd get a Powershot S2 IS or a Lumix FZ20 for doing extra-long telephoto shots, since most of those would be for myself or for books, magazines, online, stock, etc. anyway and wouldn't necessarily need a full-frame sensor for quality. But maybe after getting the hang of a rangefinder I'll find that I really don't need a super-long lens like I thought I would.
If I do opt for an R-D1 and love it, I'll probably save up my pennies to get an M-Digital if and when they are released. But Leica's financial situation is a bit scary, especially since the lens I'm planning to buy costs $2500 U.S. from B&H. I need it to last me literally FOREVER, and since I take such good care of my equipment I have no doubts that it would last me my whole life barring some freak accident.
The last final reservation is the different between the 20D's 8mp sensor and the R-D1s 6mp sensor. On the samples I've looked at from this site and others, I can't tell much of a difference. Can I make just as big of prints from the R-D1 as the 20D? Will Genuine Fractals take care of quality upsizing to 20x30 and bigger because I already have a copy of that I've never used if you think it would alleviate my concerns.
Before you ask, going to film is not an option for me. I've invested way too much time, money, and energy becoming proficient at RAW processing and Photoshop, and I've got the astronomical student loans to prove it. Had I known I'd decide to become a full-time photographer when I started graduate school, I'd probably have quit then and saved myself 20 years of payback misery. Alas, the whole hindsight cliché.
Anyway, as you can see I'm really up in the air about this. Something deep inside me tells me that my personality and style would feel more at home with the simplicity and unobtrusiveness of a rangefinder. But that nagging propaganda voice is telling me that I'll starve, or end up working a desk job (something that would send a person like me to the looney bin sooner rather than later), if I don't keep my 20D and eventually upgrade to a 1DsMII. I'm not a follower by nature, which I guess is why I'm having this crisis in the first place.
Any serious advice would be greatly appreciated and taken under consideration. But please, no trolls or mean people because this is really important to me, and I can't ask anyone around here because there are no Leica dealers in this state and the camera dealers here all say Canon, Nikon, or die and insist that I need a 600mm prime lens and a bomb-proof Gitzo if I expect to compete with them. Plus, many opinions I've read online insist the only people using Leica, or rangefinders for that matter, are washed-up, curmudgeonly technophobes who'll have themselves buried with their film because the digital gurus couldn't pry it from their cold, dead hands.
I know this sounds extreme, but it's basically my creative interpretation of what I've been reading just about everywhere except this forum and the Leica forum. Apparently there aren't many people my age who would consider abandoning the auto-focus SLR realm like this (I'm 28), so I'm feeling rather annoyed that I can't seem to just accept my Canon and be done with it because it IS a very good camera.
Now that my story has become almost unnavigable at this point, I'll open it up for sincere, honest replies.
insidertravels
Newbie
Addition to previous post
Addition to previous post
I'm sorry, I just realized that what I wrote about Leica photographers at the bottom of my first post didn't make it perfectly clear that for all practical purposes I don't agree with what I've read online. I don't want to belittle those who think Leica is too old school for them, but for me, I just can't get into the vibe all that well dragging around a two-ton DSLR brick - and I guess I'm mostly looking for confirmation that you can make a living at this without an SLR. I've even read on the Leica forums that some photographers are selling work taken with a Digilux 2, so I know it should be possible, but I'm still conflicted at this point because it is a big investment. But what good does it do me to have a camera at all unless I can carry it with me everywhere? With my 20D, I only take it with me when I'm specifically going somewhere to take pictures. If I had an R-D1, I think I'd take it with me every time I leave the house.
Addition to previous post
I'm sorry, I just realized that what I wrote about Leica photographers at the bottom of my first post didn't make it perfectly clear that for all practical purposes I don't agree with what I've read online. I don't want to belittle those who think Leica is too old school for them, but for me, I just can't get into the vibe all that well dragging around a two-ton DSLR brick - and I guess I'm mostly looking for confirmation that you can make a living at this without an SLR. I've even read on the Leica forums that some photographers are selling work taken with a Digilux 2, so I know it should be possible, but I'm still conflicted at this point because it is a big investment. But what good does it do me to have a camera at all unless I can carry it with me everywhere? With my 20D, I only take it with me when I'm specifically going somewhere to take pictures. If I had an R-D1, I think I'd take it with me every time I leave the house.
Buy the lens from one of or sponsors. You will get better price and better support.
sf
Veteran
DSLRs vs. RD-1
DSLRs vs. RD-1
I do not own the RD-1, nor have I ever owned any digital camera besides my old Nikon D70 (which I sold). The reasons pros and amateurs buy DSLRs is for the following reasons:
lenses - they can use all their old lenses on the digital body
the lenses, because you are pushing light through larger spaces, are
clearer than those micro-looking things in some point and shoot digitals.
They can buy lenses that have quality optics and will make the most of
the CCD.
Viewfinders - DSLRs have nicer viewfinders than the little digitals, and some
people really prefer the TTL viewing. They can switch between all
those lenses, and see exactly what is going to the film. Never have
to buy aux. viewfinders.
CCD size - the size of the CCD is directly related to the quality of the image it
produces. I am not entirely sure why, but it is. Dynamic range and
resolution are the major factors. Also, some of the sensors, like the
one in the S3 pro by Fuji (thanks to the poster who showed me that),
use two different breeds of sensor to capture higher range. Those little
compact sensors can't pull that off.
Other benefits of DSLRs Battery packs, accessories, manual controls (my D70 gave me more control over the shot than any film camera - I had control over exposure, aperture, ISO, white balance, grain, contrast, sharpness, etc) - don't get that with most of the little guys. Also, the DSLRs look more 'pro'. Some shooters feel puny holding little digitals.
The RD-1 is one option that offers every thing the DSLRs and more, and more.
It accepts more lenses than any DSLR. All the M-range of lenses. Voigtlander, Leica, Zeiss, etc. It has no mirror slap. It is quiet, small, well built, and offers total control just like DSLRs. And it is inconspicuous. You can take DSLR quality shots (or better), while holding something that doesn't attract the eyes of every person in the vicinity. I have not looked through the VF of the RD-1, but I am sure it is just as nice as any DSLR. THe only thing you give up, is the ability to see, TTL, the exact perspective of any lens you use. But, you get that LCD at 2 inches.
Really, all factors taken into consideration, the RD-1 offers more options, will take better pictures, and is smaller. Only issue is, if you have a million Canon or Nikon lenses and zero M-mount lenses, you will have to buy lenses.
DSLRs vs. RD-1
I do not own the RD-1, nor have I ever owned any digital camera besides my old Nikon D70 (which I sold). The reasons pros and amateurs buy DSLRs is for the following reasons:
lenses - they can use all their old lenses on the digital body
the lenses, because you are pushing light through larger spaces, are
clearer than those micro-looking things in some point and shoot digitals.
They can buy lenses that have quality optics and will make the most of
the CCD.
Viewfinders - DSLRs have nicer viewfinders than the little digitals, and some
people really prefer the TTL viewing. They can switch between all
those lenses, and see exactly what is going to the film. Never have
to buy aux. viewfinders.
CCD size - the size of the CCD is directly related to the quality of the image it
produces. I am not entirely sure why, but it is. Dynamic range and
resolution are the major factors. Also, some of the sensors, like the
one in the S3 pro by Fuji (thanks to the poster who showed me that),
use two different breeds of sensor to capture higher range. Those little
compact sensors can't pull that off.
Other benefits of DSLRs Battery packs, accessories, manual controls (my D70 gave me more control over the shot than any film camera - I had control over exposure, aperture, ISO, white balance, grain, contrast, sharpness, etc) - don't get that with most of the little guys. Also, the DSLRs look more 'pro'. Some shooters feel puny holding little digitals.
The RD-1 is one option that offers every thing the DSLRs and more, and more.
It accepts more lenses than any DSLR. All the M-range of lenses. Voigtlander, Leica, Zeiss, etc. It has no mirror slap. It is quiet, small, well built, and offers total control just like DSLRs. And it is inconspicuous. You can take DSLR quality shots (or better), while holding something that doesn't attract the eyes of every person in the vicinity. I have not looked through the VF of the RD-1, but I am sure it is just as nice as any DSLR. THe only thing you give up, is the ability to see, TTL, the exact perspective of any lens you use. But, you get that LCD at 2 inches.
Really, all factors taken into consideration, the RD-1 offers more options, will take better pictures, and is smaller. Only issue is, if you have a million Canon or Nikon lenses and zero M-mount lenses, you will have to buy lenses.
insidertravels
Newbie
That's what my gut is telling me
That's what my gut is telling me
Deep down, I know I'd be happier with an R-D1 - if for nothing else other than its size. As of right now, only one of my Canon lenses besides the 50mm hasn't sold yet, so I should be able to afford the Summilux 35mm f/1.4 that I want. Now, I just have to see if I can scratch together enough for the R-D1 body (since selling my 20D and 50mm lens will only get me about half of what I need).
I guess the short version of my main question has to do with the learning curve. Is it difficult to learn to use a rangefinder? I understand the whole perspective issue, I think, but I've read of many QC problems with the R-D1 that most of you know how to identify and fix because you're experienced with rangefinders. If I get my R-D1 in the mail and start to play with it, how will I know if it has one of those alignment issues people keep talking about? Is it obvious that something's wrong with it when you get it, or do you need a rangefinder-trained eye to spot the problem?
I'm sorry; I know these posts are rather involved. I really want this to work out for me because I can't afford another costly switch after this (I already upgraded my canon once before, and I've swapped lenses multiple times in the quest for one I liked).
That's what my gut is telling me
Deep down, I know I'd be happier with an R-D1 - if for nothing else other than its size. As of right now, only one of my Canon lenses besides the 50mm hasn't sold yet, so I should be able to afford the Summilux 35mm f/1.4 that I want. Now, I just have to see if I can scratch together enough for the R-D1 body (since selling my 20D and 50mm lens will only get me about half of what I need).
I guess the short version of my main question has to do with the learning curve. Is it difficult to learn to use a rangefinder? I understand the whole perspective issue, I think, but I've read of many QC problems with the R-D1 that most of you know how to identify and fix because you're experienced with rangefinders. If I get my R-D1 in the mail and start to play with it, how will I know if it has one of those alignment issues people keep talking about? Is it obvious that something's wrong with it when you get it, or do you need a rangefinder-trained eye to spot the problem?
I'm sorry; I know these posts are rather involved. I really want this to work out for me because I can't afford another costly switch after this (I already upgraded my canon once before, and I've swapped lenses multiple times in the quest for one I liked).
S
Sean Reid
Guest
I may be able to help you with this question but I would need to more about specifically what kind of professional work you'd want to use the camera for and who you imagine your clients to be. The R-D1 is going to be very well-suited to some professional work and not well-suited to others. Be as specific as you can about what you want to do with the camera and we can give you a better sense of how it will work out.
Cheers,
Sean
Cheers,
Sean
insidertravels
Newbie
Thanks for responding
Thanks for responding
Thank you to everyone who has replied. In response to the last post from Sean, I'll try to be even more specific than I was in my original post.
As I said before, I'm mostly interested in photojournalistic work and fine art photography, but I haven't had the opportunity to do much of it yet - I'm particularly interested in travel photography. I like candids the most; I'm not into taking posed pictures unless they're like environmental portraits such as those one would take while traveling in a different culture, and I don't like manufactured scenes like advertisements, fashion, still lifes (unless they were already that way when I found them in nature). I'm not sure I could even bite my tongue long enough to do a corporate job that required me to shoot things I wouldn't be shooting on my own (For instance, I wouldn't shoot any subject matter for industries that made me uncomfortable). That stuff doesn't interest me at all. I want to shoot things I'm passionate about: environment, travel, culture, animals.
I think perhaps a good niche for me to get into for client work, at least until I can afford to finance around-the-world photo trips, would be pet photography. I really enjoy trying to capture an animal's soul in photographs. Knowing what they do about my personality and my passions, my spouse and my professors all have suggested this genre to me on multiple occasions, and I don't think it's very well represented where I live. Then again, I don't know if it's something people want here or if it's more suited to a more progressive part of the country.
I want to be as unobtrusive as possible and I want to shoot all day long without coming home with a backache. I want my gear to take exceptional, professional-quality pictures (of course, I know it's the photographer not the camera, but you know what I mean) but I don't want my camera to scream "car-priced professional camera" even if it is just as expensive as a DSLR. I want to stop worrying about equipment and start focusing on improving my work and mastering my style, but I feel bogged down with this Canon 20D. I feel as if the camera's running me and not the other way around. I want to carry my camera everywhere I go, every time I leave the house.
When I'm starting out, I'll probably take on other jobs as well because I expect it will take me a while before I have enough income to "pick and choose," if you know what I mean. If I do weddings, it will be in a photojournalistic style because "photo studio" portraits aren't my cup of tea - I think I would get bored doing that. I'm interested in really truly learning photography, not just making money from it, although I will need to make at least enough to survive. I can always supplement my income with web design and by selling prints, but I think I'll probably have to attract some contracted clients if I want to keep from starving.
I hope this is the information you were looking for. If not, I'll gladly elaborate more if it will help.
Thanks again for responding everyone!
EDIT: Also, I have my heart set on the Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux Asph, but the cheapest I can find it is $2650. I know in your articles on Luminous Landscape, you gave glowing reviews of the Cosina Voigtlander lenses. I just checked the prices on those and it seems one could buy 7-8 of those for the price of the one Leica lens. I've always been taught that with lenses, you get what you pay for. Is this always true, or are they mostly talking about the difference between regular and "L" canon glass, for instance?
I'm not willing to sacrifice quality, but I don't want to assume that nothing but the Leica lens will achieve it. If I were to go with Voigtlander glass, I'd probably get a 12mm lens plus D-viewfinder (plus I'm also under the impression I'd need a screw-to-bayonet adapter of some kind to use the CV lenses on the R-D1, but I could be wrong) as well since I'd have more money left over and I like extreme wide-angle shooting for landscapes.
I couldn't tell too much of a difference from your online crops, but my eye's not yet trained as well I suspect. Any advice on this?
Thanks for responding
Thank you to everyone who has replied. In response to the last post from Sean, I'll try to be even more specific than I was in my original post.
As I said before, I'm mostly interested in photojournalistic work and fine art photography, but I haven't had the opportunity to do much of it yet - I'm particularly interested in travel photography. I like candids the most; I'm not into taking posed pictures unless they're like environmental portraits such as those one would take while traveling in a different culture, and I don't like manufactured scenes like advertisements, fashion, still lifes (unless they were already that way when I found them in nature). I'm not sure I could even bite my tongue long enough to do a corporate job that required me to shoot things I wouldn't be shooting on my own (For instance, I wouldn't shoot any subject matter for industries that made me uncomfortable). That stuff doesn't interest me at all. I want to shoot things I'm passionate about: environment, travel, culture, animals.
I think perhaps a good niche for me to get into for client work, at least until I can afford to finance around-the-world photo trips, would be pet photography. I really enjoy trying to capture an animal's soul in photographs. Knowing what they do about my personality and my passions, my spouse and my professors all have suggested this genre to me on multiple occasions, and I don't think it's very well represented where I live. Then again, I don't know if it's something people want here or if it's more suited to a more progressive part of the country.
I want to be as unobtrusive as possible and I want to shoot all day long without coming home with a backache. I want my gear to take exceptional, professional-quality pictures (of course, I know it's the photographer not the camera, but you know what I mean) but I don't want my camera to scream "car-priced professional camera" even if it is just as expensive as a DSLR. I want to stop worrying about equipment and start focusing on improving my work and mastering my style, but I feel bogged down with this Canon 20D. I feel as if the camera's running me and not the other way around. I want to carry my camera everywhere I go, every time I leave the house.
When I'm starting out, I'll probably take on other jobs as well because I expect it will take me a while before I have enough income to "pick and choose," if you know what I mean. If I do weddings, it will be in a photojournalistic style because "photo studio" portraits aren't my cup of tea - I think I would get bored doing that. I'm interested in really truly learning photography, not just making money from it, although I will need to make at least enough to survive. I can always supplement my income with web design and by selling prints, but I think I'll probably have to attract some contracted clients if I want to keep from starving.
I hope this is the information you were looking for. If not, I'll gladly elaborate more if it will help.
Thanks again for responding everyone!
EDIT: Also, I have my heart set on the Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux Asph, but the cheapest I can find it is $2650. I know in your articles on Luminous Landscape, you gave glowing reviews of the Cosina Voigtlander lenses. I just checked the prices on those and it seems one could buy 7-8 of those for the price of the one Leica lens. I've always been taught that with lenses, you get what you pay for. Is this always true, or are they mostly talking about the difference between regular and "L" canon glass, for instance?
I'm not willing to sacrifice quality, but I don't want to assume that nothing but the Leica lens will achieve it. If I were to go with Voigtlander glass, I'd probably get a 12mm lens plus D-viewfinder (plus I'm also under the impression I'd need a screw-to-bayonet adapter of some kind to use the CV lenses on the R-D1, but I could be wrong) as well since I'd have more money left over and I like extreme wide-angle shooting for landscapes.
I couldn't tell too much of a difference from your online crops, but my eye's not yet trained as well I suspect. Any advice on this?
Last edited:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I can't answer (or even address, to some extent,) all of your questions, but as someone who has used both SLRs and RFs (including Leica,) I don't think anything you have stated about the type of photography you want to do, nor your aesthetic, should keep you from getting an RF. I can't speak to the R-D1, as I have not handled one much less owned it, but I do covet it. 
That being said, the major difference I see between an RF and an SLR (digital or otherwise) is macro/close focus. I have been considering moving primarily to RF after shooting with Olympus OM for many, many years. But I don't think I will ever completely ditch the OMs because of macro.
But for the general work you describe (journalistic approach, reportage, travel, candid, etc.,) the RF is the way to go. And I totally share your preference for minimal equipment, light weight, bare essentials, etc.
On a final note: You are an intelligent, thoughtful person. I understand the concern over potential clients not taking you seriously if you don't shoot with Canon or Nikon. My guess is that the quality of your work will outweigh clients who are shallow enough to focus on brand.
Follow your vision.
Trius
That being said, the major difference I see between an RF and an SLR (digital or otherwise) is macro/close focus. I have been considering moving primarily to RF after shooting with Olympus OM for many, many years. But I don't think I will ever completely ditch the OMs because of macro.
But for the general work you describe (journalistic approach, reportage, travel, candid, etc.,) the RF is the way to go. And I totally share your preference for minimal equipment, light weight, bare essentials, etc.
On a final note: You are an intelligent, thoughtful person. I understand the concern over potential clients not taking you seriously if you don't shoot with Canon or Nikon. My guess is that the quality of your work will outweigh clients who are shallow enough to focus on brand.
Follow your vision.
Trius
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Another thought regarding status-concerned clients: Who can complain about shots made with a Summliux?
Trius
Trius
K
krimple
Guest
As a suggestion for learning the ways of a rangefinder: before you go and sell everything just to get an R-D1, get ahold of a Canonet or a Yashica GSN camera, and shoot about half a dozen rolls of film through it. You'd be using a rangefinder patch, getting the mechanics down, etc., and you can use 1 hour labs and color film to figure out whether you're getting it.
The R-D1 works just like a manual rangefinder camera because it is--with a CCD instead of film. So I suggest you get comfortable shooting with a film Rangefinder first, one that you can trade back onto ebay once you're done playing--besides, if you order an R-D1 be prepared to wait a while as they are usually back-ordered.
I'd also suggest only getting 2 or 3 lenses max once you get the R-D1, then gradually adding what you think you need. You don't have to own Leica lenses to get great quality shots. I have the 50 f/1.5 Nokton VC lens, and it's a beaut. The 28 1.9 Ultron VC is also an amazing lens, and both together are less than $600, and will blow away anything you shot on the D70.
You can do a 28, 35, 50 kit with VC lenses for under $1G. Then you can add a 12mm or 15mm ultra wide and finder, for about $600 more at most. Short telephoto is more problematic with the R-D1, as it is NOT suited for anything > 90mm or faster than f/2 at that aperture. You'd have to focus with the range finder and then compose with the aux finder, which is a PITA.
And you're right--it's a perfect companion camera. I bring my R-D1 everywhere with me. I usually have the 35 f/2.5 pan or the 28 Ultron lens attached to it, and it sits in my work bag, ready to pull out for shots around the area. The only things it can't do are macro and close-up sports. For that, i still have the 20D and a 70-300 lens. I don't use much else with the 20D, as it is a behemoth.
Sorry for the rambling reply, but I think you'd find it easy to slip into using an R-D1 once you get used to film rangefinders for a few weeks. They really function quite the same.
Ken
The R-D1 works just like a manual rangefinder camera because it is--with a CCD instead of film. So I suggest you get comfortable shooting with a film Rangefinder first, one that you can trade back onto ebay once you're done playing--besides, if you order an R-D1 be prepared to wait a while as they are usually back-ordered.
I'd also suggest only getting 2 or 3 lenses max once you get the R-D1, then gradually adding what you think you need. You don't have to own Leica lenses to get great quality shots. I have the 50 f/1.5 Nokton VC lens, and it's a beaut. The 28 1.9 Ultron VC is also an amazing lens, and both together are less than $600, and will blow away anything you shot on the D70.
You can do a 28, 35, 50 kit with VC lenses for under $1G. Then you can add a 12mm or 15mm ultra wide and finder, for about $600 more at most. Short telephoto is more problematic with the R-D1, as it is NOT suited for anything > 90mm or faster than f/2 at that aperture. You'd have to focus with the range finder and then compose with the aux finder, which is a PITA.
And you're right--it's a perfect companion camera. I bring my R-D1 everywhere with me. I usually have the 35 f/2.5 pan or the 28 Ultron lens attached to it, and it sits in my work bag, ready to pull out for shots around the area. The only things it can't do are macro and close-up sports. For that, i still have the 20D and a 70-300 lens. I don't use much else with the 20D, as it is a behemoth.
Sorry for the rambling reply, but I think you'd find it easy to slip into using an R-D1 once you get used to film rangefinders for a few weeks. They really function quite the same.
Ken
S
Sean Reid
Guest
The lens question first, because it's easiest.... I find the Leica 35/1.4 Asph to be the best 35mm lens I've ever used, hands down. I find its way of drawing to be just magical. So, yes, there is a difference. The Zeiss 35/2.0, however, is a compelling lens as well (different drawing, different strengths and weaknesses) and it only costs $1000.00 The CV 35/1.7 is a very good lens which I own and use professionally. I don't love it the way I love the Leica 35 but it does a workmanlike job and the price is right. You can certainly produce very high quality files with the R-D1 and the better CV lenses. They are sufficient to satisfy an art director, a stock agency, etc. They can be used for a double page spread quite successfully.
I think you've got a lot to figure out and an interesting road to follow. The reality is that if you do work professionally you will own several cameras...and you'll change them around...and you'll lose money each time but that will be OK because a good camera soon pays for itself in terms of the work it produces. I'd suggest buying a used Bessa rangefinder and an inexpensive but good lens, like the CV 35/2.5. Use it for a month or so and see how you like rangefinders. Then sell it, go back to digital and either keep your camera or get an R-D1.
The R-D1 can be used for mostly any professional work that a traditional rangefinder can be used for (except that one must keep in mind its small RAW buffer - never a problem for me but problematic for some others). I think rangefinders are at their best working with lenses of 18 - 75mm (FOV in 135mm film camera terms). They're not great when used very close up, as mentioned above, and they're not great for long lenses (IMHO). With long lenses on a rangefinder one is either looking at a tiny patch of the viewfinder or focusing with the primary finder and framing with an aux. finder on the shoe. Neither is desirable, in my experience. If those animals are going to sometimes be far away from you then an SLR may be a better bet. People do use 90mm lenses on the R-D1 (135mm FOV) but I wouldn't.
One of the great Vietnam war photographers, whose name escapes me right now, shot Leicas when he could get in close and SLRs when he couldn't. That's about the way I work.
If you like rangefinders, you'll likely end up owning both kinds of bodies and using each as needed.
So...try a Bessa and use it for a month or so doing the kind of work you want to be doing for the next 6 mos. (let's say). It's worth fussing with film for a month to try out the camera type. If it works and you love to use it, perhaps get the R-D1. A year or two from now your camera needs may be very different from what they seem to be right now. As such, its usually best to get the tool you need for the work you plan to do in the near future.
Don't worry about the brand of your camera, per se, with respect to perceived professionalism. If your work is good, no one that matters to your career will likely care about that. Stock agencies and magazines usually set a minimum requirement of 6MP on an APS-C sensor camera and the R-D1 meets that standard.
Cheers,
Sean
I think you've got a lot to figure out and an interesting road to follow. The reality is that if you do work professionally you will own several cameras...and you'll change them around...and you'll lose money each time but that will be OK because a good camera soon pays for itself in terms of the work it produces. I'd suggest buying a used Bessa rangefinder and an inexpensive but good lens, like the CV 35/2.5. Use it for a month or so and see how you like rangefinders. Then sell it, go back to digital and either keep your camera or get an R-D1.
The R-D1 can be used for mostly any professional work that a traditional rangefinder can be used for (except that one must keep in mind its small RAW buffer - never a problem for me but problematic for some others). I think rangefinders are at their best working with lenses of 18 - 75mm (FOV in 135mm film camera terms). They're not great when used very close up, as mentioned above, and they're not great for long lenses (IMHO). With long lenses on a rangefinder one is either looking at a tiny patch of the viewfinder or focusing with the primary finder and framing with an aux. finder on the shoe. Neither is desirable, in my experience. If those animals are going to sometimes be far away from you then an SLR may be a better bet. People do use 90mm lenses on the R-D1 (135mm FOV) but I wouldn't.
One of the great Vietnam war photographers, whose name escapes me right now, shot Leicas when he could get in close and SLRs when he couldn't. That's about the way I work.
If you like rangefinders, you'll likely end up owning both kinds of bodies and using each as needed.
So...try a Bessa and use it for a month or so doing the kind of work you want to be doing for the next 6 mos. (let's say). It's worth fussing with film for a month to try out the camera type. If it works and you love to use it, perhaps get the R-D1. A year or two from now your camera needs may be very different from what they seem to be right now. As such, its usually best to get the tool you need for the work you plan to do in the near future.
Don't worry about the brand of your camera, per se, with respect to perceived professionalism. If your work is good, no one that matters to your career will likely care about that. Stock agencies and magazines usually set a minimum requirement of 6MP on an APS-C sensor camera and the R-D1 meets that standard.
Cheers,
Sean
S
Sean Reid
Guest
Ken just made the same suggestion about the film RF while I was typing.
Sean
Sean
insidertravels
Newbie
Which Body?
Which Body?
Does it really matter which body? B&H has a Bessa-L that comes with a 25mm Skopar f/4.0 lens for $368.95. Is that a good one? I've never really used a film camera (short of the old disposables I used to use before I had a clue about real photography), so I'd have to take the rolls to a lab - and another concern is would I be able to sell it for little-to-no loss in a month or two? I'd prefer one as modern as possible (as many features as the R-D1 has, minus the digital sensor of course) without being prohibitively expensive, unless such a suggestion is oxymoronic.
To elaborate on some of the things you've all said:
I originally thought I'd use macro a lot, but I had two macro lenses and rarely used either except as a regular lens, so I just sold them this week in fact. I might want to do some of that in the future, but I won't know until the urge arises. But I can't afford to keep them sitting around at this point. Perhaps I'll have more disposable cash in the future, but right now I can't spare for things I don't use all the time. What about close-up macro filters? Are they incompatible with a rangefinder? Just curious.
Also, I'm not at all interested in shooting sports...not even a little bit. So, I don't really need the burst rate offered by the higher-end EOS models. I can definitely see its usefulness for wildlife photography, but in a way I think it's a crutch that inhibits my growth as a photographer. It's almost like I take too many shots in hopes that one is great instead of being patient and anticipating the decisive moment. I always end up with so many virtually identical files to weed through and I think it slows me down more than I'd like. I realize there are other, less drastic, ways I could remedy this than changing to a rangefinder, but I guess it's the combination of everything that has me leaning in this direction.
According to B&H, they're not backordered on the R-D1, but I guess their online database could be inaccurate. If I do take the plunge, I'd only be getting one lens to start with, the 35mm, then expanding later to include 50, 21 or 28, and 12 or 15.
I don't foresee needing ultra-telephoto capabilities for pet photography, should I decide to market myself toward those clients - because it's not difficult to get close to pets. In fact, pictures of my own dogs turn out much nicer when I'm as close to them as possible without getting slobber on my glass. On a safari in Africa, however, I realize I'd need to break out at least a 400mm monster to get even remotely close enough. But by the time I can afford to go to Africa, I should be able to afford a 1DsMII or an R9/Digital-Module-R anyway, so I'm not too worried about that. The only non-pet animal photography I presently do is of squirrels and rabbits in my backyard or of residents at the zoos.
Ugh, this is driving me batty.
:bang:
Which Body?
Does it really matter which body? B&H has a Bessa-L that comes with a 25mm Skopar f/4.0 lens for $368.95. Is that a good one? I've never really used a film camera (short of the old disposables I used to use before I had a clue about real photography), so I'd have to take the rolls to a lab - and another concern is would I be able to sell it for little-to-no loss in a month or two? I'd prefer one as modern as possible (as many features as the R-D1 has, minus the digital sensor of course) without being prohibitively expensive, unless such a suggestion is oxymoronic.
To elaborate on some of the things you've all said:
I originally thought I'd use macro a lot, but I had two macro lenses and rarely used either except as a regular lens, so I just sold them this week in fact. I might want to do some of that in the future, but I won't know until the urge arises. But I can't afford to keep them sitting around at this point. Perhaps I'll have more disposable cash in the future, but right now I can't spare for things I don't use all the time. What about close-up macro filters? Are they incompatible with a rangefinder? Just curious.
Also, I'm not at all interested in shooting sports...not even a little bit. So, I don't really need the burst rate offered by the higher-end EOS models. I can definitely see its usefulness for wildlife photography, but in a way I think it's a crutch that inhibits my growth as a photographer. It's almost like I take too many shots in hopes that one is great instead of being patient and anticipating the decisive moment. I always end up with so many virtually identical files to weed through and I think it slows me down more than I'd like. I realize there are other, less drastic, ways I could remedy this than changing to a rangefinder, but I guess it's the combination of everything that has me leaning in this direction.
According to B&H, they're not backordered on the R-D1, but I guess their online database could be inaccurate. If I do take the plunge, I'd only be getting one lens to start with, the 35mm, then expanding later to include 50, 21 or 28, and 12 or 15.
I don't foresee needing ultra-telephoto capabilities for pet photography, should I decide to market myself toward those clients - because it's not difficult to get close to pets. In fact, pictures of my own dogs turn out much nicer when I'm as close to them as possible without getting slobber on my glass. On a safari in Africa, however, I realize I'd need to break out at least a 400mm monster to get even remotely close enough. But by the time I can afford to go to Africa, I should be able to afford a 1DsMII or an R9/Digital-Module-R anyway, so I'm not too worried about that. The only non-pet animal photography I presently do is of squirrels and rabbits in my backyard or of residents at the zoos.
Ugh, this is driving me batty.
:bang:
K
krimple
Guest
Sounds like your needs are mostly easy to satisfy with RF camera technology. First off, the Bessa-L--isn't that a rf-patch only viewport in the center of the frame, with the expectation that you use an external finder for all framing? I'd say the L is NOT a good example of more traditional RF technology--yes, it's a cheap entry into a LTM lens system, but it's not the same shooting style as the R-D1, with its' viewfinder with various framelines. The closest you can get to this is either a Leica CL and 40mm lens, (around $600) or a Canonet or Yashica GSN, which both have viewfinders with a frameline superimposed in the field, plus an RF patch in the middle.
It's funny -- Sean and I had the same viewpoint, probably because RF shooting is a style of work that is contemplative, and because RF photography is almost a religion in approach, I'd still suggest you find a cheap rangefinder and click away before switching systems. Mostly because it's so darned expensive to switch you'd better be comforable in shootiing rangefinders first.
Why did I switch? Well, I had a Leica CL for a while as my primary film camera, and also a Mamiya 6 RF (think of it as a big 6x6 RF) that I shot while learning B&W technique last year. I loved RF shooting, with the ability to pre-set focus by scale, shoot in low light with high quality results, and just the overall way those cameras just get out of your way. So when the R-D1 came out, I knew it was the camera for me. Since you're not going to be doing much macro, etc., here's another suggestion:
if you really like shooting with rangefinders, get the R-D1, and get a new super-zoom camera with macro mode like the Canon S2 IS to satisfy your needs for those times you want to get a good macro or long telephoto shot. It wouldn't run much more than a lens, and would probably fit in a bag along with the R-D1 kit nicely. I'm thinking of doing this and selling my 20D kit so I don't stay invested in two lens systems.
Ken
It's funny -- Sean and I had the same viewpoint, probably because RF shooting is a style of work that is contemplative, and because RF photography is almost a religion in approach, I'd still suggest you find a cheap rangefinder and click away before switching systems. Mostly because it's so darned expensive to switch you'd better be comforable in shootiing rangefinders first.
Why did I switch? Well, I had a Leica CL for a while as my primary film camera, and also a Mamiya 6 RF (think of it as a big 6x6 RF) that I shot while learning B&W technique last year. I loved RF shooting, with the ability to pre-set focus by scale, shoot in low light with high quality results, and just the overall way those cameras just get out of your way. So when the R-D1 came out, I knew it was the camera for me. Since you're not going to be doing much macro, etc., here's another suggestion:
if you really like shooting with rangefinders, get the R-D1, and get a new super-zoom camera with macro mode like the Canon S2 IS to satisfy your needs for those times you want to get a good macro or long telephoto shot. It wouldn't run much more than a lens, and would probably fit in a bag along with the R-D1 kit nicely. I'm thinking of doing this and selling my 20D kit so I don't stay invested in two lens systems.
Ken
insidertravels
Newbie
Bessa-R
Bessa-R
B&H has a Bessa-R for $299 - according to the picture, it looks quite similar to the R-D1 (I suppose that makes sense since CV actually makes the R-D1 as well).
There's also a Bessa R-3A for $549. It seems better - 1:1 viewfinder, improvements over R2 and earlier models (I'm not familiar with the differences between all of these yet, though, I'm still looking).
There are also rangefinders from Bronica, Mamiya, Hasselblad (XPan, which I assume I don't want for my purposes), etc. But those are much more expensive and are all medium-format so they wouldn't use Leica lenses, correct?
Then, of course, there's the Zeiss Ikon, but it's not released yet and costs more than my 20D - if it were digital, I'd jump at that price.
Also, in Voigtlander lenses, which moniker is best quality? Is there a sort of hierarchy, such as Summilux being the holy grail of Leica? Just curious. So far on B&H I've found Skopar, Ultron, and Nokton. It seems the Skopar ones are less expensive but the Nokton ones have wider maximum apertures. Is this the only difference between them?
I'd prefer not to go with a slower lens, since my favorite is available light photography and I frequently use my Canon Ef 50mm wide open. I really think I need at least f/1.4 or I won't be happy.
Bessa-R
B&H has a Bessa-R for $299 - according to the picture, it looks quite similar to the R-D1 (I suppose that makes sense since CV actually makes the R-D1 as well).
There's also a Bessa R-3A for $549. It seems better - 1:1 viewfinder, improvements over R2 and earlier models (I'm not familiar with the differences between all of these yet, though, I'm still looking).
There are also rangefinders from Bronica, Mamiya, Hasselblad (XPan, which I assume I don't want for my purposes), etc. But those are much more expensive and are all medium-format so they wouldn't use Leica lenses, correct?
Then, of course, there's the Zeiss Ikon, but it's not released yet and costs more than my 20D - if it were digital, I'd jump at that price.
Also, in Voigtlander lenses, which moniker is best quality? Is there a sort of hierarchy, such as Summilux being the holy grail of Leica? Just curious. So far on B&H I've found Skopar, Ultron, and Nokton. It seems the Skopar ones are less expensive but the Nokton ones have wider maximum apertures. Is this the only difference between them?
I'd prefer not to go with a slower lens, since my favorite is available light photography and I frequently use my Canon Ef 50mm wide open. I really think I need at least f/1.4 or I won't be happy.
insidertravels
Newbie
Oops, I didn't see your reply
Oops, I didn't see your reply
Krimple,
I didn't see your reply until I posted my last message. Yes, I did read more on the Bessa-L and found out it is without viewfinder. Definitely not a good choice. I found some others that I posted above, but I haven't found the ones you mentioned yet.
My original idea was to do what you suggested: get the R-D1 for most shooting then using an S2 IS for macro and telephoto (since I don't foresee doing it that often). I'm still leaning in that direction, except the S2 IS doesn't have RAW, only JPG and I really prefer shooting in RAW (funny, when I started I hated it and my first few hundred decent shots were done in JPG - but after that I guess I finally started to get the hang of RAW processing).
I really do want that : to just get the machine out of my way so I can concentrate on what I'm shooting. I frequently get frustrated with my 20D because it's so obtrusive and people are always making comments when they walk by me. I feel like I'm carrying a brick around my neck and at the end of the day I feel like I've been carrying a whole bag of bricks.
I'll keep looking for those other models you mentioned to see what pricing I find.
Oops, I didn't see your reply
Krimple,
I didn't see your reply until I posted my last message. Yes, I did read more on the Bessa-L and found out it is without viewfinder. Definitely not a good choice. I found some others that I posted above, but I haven't found the ones you mentioned yet.
My original idea was to do what you suggested: get the R-D1 for most shooting then using an S2 IS for macro and telephoto (since I don't foresee doing it that often). I'm still leaning in that direction, except the S2 IS doesn't have RAW, only JPG and I really prefer shooting in RAW (funny, when I started I hated it and my first few hundred decent shots were done in JPG - but after that I guess I finally started to get the hang of RAW processing).
I really do want that : to just get the machine out of my way so I can concentrate on what I'm shooting. I frequently get frustrated with my 20D because it's so obtrusive and people are always making comments when they walk by me. I feel like I'm carrying a brick around my neck and at the end of the day I feel like I've been carrying a whole bag of bricks.
I'll keep looking for those other models you mentioned to see what pricing I find.
R
RML
Guest
I would suggest you direct your info-hungry eyes to http://www.cameraquest.com, not only for all the camera and lens info you might need and want but also for good prices on those cameras and lenses. You really can't step into Voigtlander RF cameras without having at least a peek at Stephen Gandy's site.
aizan
Veteran
since you're not sure what sort of professional work you'll be doing, hang on to the 20d and 50/1.4. pick up a digicam or film rangefinder while saving up for the r-d1 and summilux. konica minolta has a couple digicams with anti-shake and raw capability (especially the a2 that has a super fine evf), and you can try out rangefinders with a bessa r or compact rf from the 70s. see mr. gandy's profiles on the canonet g-iii and olympus 35rd.
S
Sean Reid
Guest
I would buy a Bessa R which costs less than $300 new (http://www.cameraquest.com/voigrf.htm). Use it with whichever CV lenses you want to.
It has no automatic exposure at all, which is perfect for a beginning professional photographer. One learns a lot by setting a camera manually, as you mentioned above. Have the film scanned to CD and experiment for a couple of months. If you work with it daily, you'll soon know how well you like RF cameras (without having spent $3000).
If new, certainly consider getting it from CameraQuest because Stephen Gandy there is knowledgeable, supports this forum and knows the cameras better than almost anyone in the US. Stephen sells one with a 35/2.5C lens (which is an excellent lens on the R-D1) for $425.00. Otherwise, buy one used. Any lenses you buy for it you can, of course, also use on the R-D1 if you decide to get one.
There aren't many small-sensor cameras that one can use professionally w/o limitations. There are exceptions to that but you may have a hard time selling pictures made with a small-sensor camera to a magazine or stock agency. I generally don't do any professional work with any camera that doesn't have at least 6MP on an APS-C sensor (except for the Olympus E-1).
Cheers,
Sean
It has no automatic exposure at all, which is perfect for a beginning professional photographer. One learns a lot by setting a camera manually, as you mentioned above. Have the film scanned to CD and experiment for a couple of months. If you work with it daily, you'll soon know how well you like RF cameras (without having spent $3000).
If new, certainly consider getting it from CameraQuest because Stephen Gandy there is knowledgeable, supports this forum and knows the cameras better than almost anyone in the US. Stephen sells one with a 35/2.5C lens (which is an excellent lens on the R-D1) for $425.00. Otherwise, buy one used. Any lenses you buy for it you can, of course, also use on the R-D1 if you decide to get one.
There aren't many small-sensor cameras that one can use professionally w/o limitations. There are exceptions to that but you may have a hard time selling pictures made with a small-sensor camera to a magazine or stock agency. I generally don't do any professional work with any camera that doesn't have at least 6MP on an APS-C sensor (except for the Olympus E-1).
Cheers,
Sean
Last edited by a moderator:
Jim Watts
Still trying to See.
Most of the photography that you state you would prefer to do is well suited to rangefinder cameras, but only some experience of shooting with this type of camera will establish whether this camera type really works for you. As you have no experience of rangefinder cameras the only sensible approach is that already stated by Sean & Ken.
Approaching the choice from the opposite direction I brought a Canon 20D in about the middle of last year, but only because I wanted a digital workflow and I thought the R-D1 would not become available in the U.K. and the digital Leica M was a long way off. The 20D is a fine camera capable of professional quality results in a wide range of situations, probably a greater range than the R-D1, but like all cameras it has its drawbacks, weight and size not being the least.
When the R-D1 did appear and I got my hands on one in December of last year I immediately knew it was the better camera for me (not necessarily the better camera) and I had to have one . The reason that it is the better camera for me though is I have already had over 40 years experience of shooting with this type of camera. I know and like what they can do and can accept their limitations. I have had some past experience with SLR's and yes I could have adapted to the 20D and saved spending more money. I have kept it because of the things it can do better than the R-D1, although it does not see much use now because by choice and probably old habits I reach for the R-D1. You need to be sure that any change of equipment is not just the start of some expensive quest for the perfect camera (which does not exist). Its only possible to find a camera (or cameras) that work for you in most situations and the limitations of which do not get in the way of you working.
If you are hoping to work professionally (and want to eat) you may not have the luxury of free choice in the assignments you take, at least in the early stages of your career (I hope you don't find you need to make too many compromises) so some flexibilty in the equipment available to you would be a help. Also no professional I know would consider working on any job without some sort of backup camera.
So keep the 20D if you can. Buy a Bessa, I would suggest the R3A as this is closest to the R-D1 and although more expensive seems to have a better percentage second hand value than the Bessa R, so may be cheaper in the long run. Buy either VC 40mm f/1.4 (no adapter needed) or 35mm VC lens (and adapter) . Work with both cameras for a while and then sell either the R3A or the 20D if you want to still buy an R-D1.
Good luck with your final choice and career.
Approaching the choice from the opposite direction I brought a Canon 20D in about the middle of last year, but only because I wanted a digital workflow and I thought the R-D1 would not become available in the U.K. and the digital Leica M was a long way off. The 20D is a fine camera capable of professional quality results in a wide range of situations, probably a greater range than the R-D1, but like all cameras it has its drawbacks, weight and size not being the least.
When the R-D1 did appear and I got my hands on one in December of last year I immediately knew it was the better camera for me (not necessarily the better camera) and I had to have one . The reason that it is the better camera for me though is I have already had over 40 years experience of shooting with this type of camera. I know and like what they can do and can accept their limitations. I have had some past experience with SLR's and yes I could have adapted to the 20D and saved spending more money. I have kept it because of the things it can do better than the R-D1, although it does not see much use now because by choice and probably old habits I reach for the R-D1. You need to be sure that any change of equipment is not just the start of some expensive quest for the perfect camera (which does not exist). Its only possible to find a camera (or cameras) that work for you in most situations and the limitations of which do not get in the way of you working.
If you are hoping to work professionally (and want to eat) you may not have the luxury of free choice in the assignments you take, at least in the early stages of your career (I hope you don't find you need to make too many compromises) so some flexibilty in the equipment available to you would be a help. Also no professional I know would consider working on any job without some sort of backup camera.
So keep the 20D if you can. Buy a Bessa, I would suggest the R3A as this is closest to the R-D1 and although more expensive seems to have a better percentage second hand value than the Bessa R, so may be cheaper in the long run. Buy either VC 40mm f/1.4 (no adapter needed) or 35mm VC lens (and adapter) . Work with both cameras for a while and then sell either the R3A or the 20D if you want to still buy an R-D1.
Good luck with your final choice and career.
Last edited: