Peter Klein
Well-known
R-D1 viewfinder issues
R-D1 viewfinder issues
The Bessa L has no viewfinder or rangefinder. It's meant for scale-focusing wide angle lenses. The Bessa T has a rangefinder, but no viewfinder. You have to buy viewfinders for each lens you use.
The Bessa R, R2 and R2a have a great viewfinder, somewhere around 0.7x. They actually have an advantage over the Leica M cameras in that a glasses wearer like myself can actually see the entire 35mm frame. My eyes are set back a bit under a prominent brow ridge, so I have to be really careful about eye relief in the cameras I buy. Some glasses wearers with flatter faces than mine don't have the same problem--they can see the 35mm frame fine, and the 28mm frame is only a little cut off.
If you wear glasses, try an R-D1 or an R3a (same 1:1 viewfinder) before you buy. I experimented with an R-D1 at Glazer's in Seattle last weekend, using a few of my Leica and VC lenses. With glasses, I could only use it with a 50mm lens--the 35 and 28mm frames were partially cut off in my field of vision. Even with the 50, I could not see the shutter speed indication in the viewfinder without shifting my eye and the camera a bit. Which means I could only use the R-D1 comfortably when I wear my contact lenses, or be stuck with only a moderate tele view (50mm on the R-D1 being the equivalent of about a 75mm lens on a 35mm film camera).
That said, I really like the R-D1. If it cost about half what it does and had a .7x viewfinder like the R2(a), I'd buy it in a minute. As it is, I'm probably going to wait and see what Leica and Zeiss come out with before I leap. But the wait is hard, and the R-D1 is tempting.
I'm a confirmed rangefinder person--I've been using Leicas for years, and prefer the rangefinder way of focusing and seeing 95% of the time. And the R-D1 pictures I took are as good or better than any comparable DSLR shots I've seen. ISO 1600 is only a little noisier than the Canon 20D, very usable. ISO 400 and 800 are less noisy/grainy than comparable film. So it's a very viable available light camera.
And the pictures at all ISOs appear a bit more detailed than any other DSLR I've tested. It is a 6mp digital camera, so at a certain degree of magnification, film has more detail. But the pictures are more satisfying from the detail standpoint than any other DSLR camera I've seen in the 5-8 mp class. I know the pitfalls of generalizing based on in-camera JPGs shot in and around a camera store under time pressure. But even taking that into account, the R-D1 is one amazing camera.
Hope this helps!
--Peter
R-D1 viewfinder issues
The Bessa L has no viewfinder or rangefinder. It's meant for scale-focusing wide angle lenses. The Bessa T has a rangefinder, but no viewfinder. You have to buy viewfinders for each lens you use.
The Bessa R, R2 and R2a have a great viewfinder, somewhere around 0.7x. They actually have an advantage over the Leica M cameras in that a glasses wearer like myself can actually see the entire 35mm frame. My eyes are set back a bit under a prominent brow ridge, so I have to be really careful about eye relief in the cameras I buy. Some glasses wearers with flatter faces than mine don't have the same problem--they can see the 35mm frame fine, and the 28mm frame is only a little cut off.
If you wear glasses, try an R-D1 or an R3a (same 1:1 viewfinder) before you buy. I experimented with an R-D1 at Glazer's in Seattle last weekend, using a few of my Leica and VC lenses. With glasses, I could only use it with a 50mm lens--the 35 and 28mm frames were partially cut off in my field of vision. Even with the 50, I could not see the shutter speed indication in the viewfinder without shifting my eye and the camera a bit. Which means I could only use the R-D1 comfortably when I wear my contact lenses, or be stuck with only a moderate tele view (50mm on the R-D1 being the equivalent of about a 75mm lens on a 35mm film camera).
That said, I really like the R-D1. If it cost about half what it does and had a .7x viewfinder like the R2(a), I'd buy it in a minute. As it is, I'm probably going to wait and see what Leica and Zeiss come out with before I leap. But the wait is hard, and the R-D1 is tempting.
I'm a confirmed rangefinder person--I've been using Leicas for years, and prefer the rangefinder way of focusing and seeing 95% of the time. And the R-D1 pictures I took are as good or better than any comparable DSLR shots I've seen. ISO 1600 is only a little noisier than the Canon 20D, very usable. ISO 400 and 800 are less noisy/grainy than comparable film. So it's a very viable available light camera.
And the pictures at all ISOs appear a bit more detailed than any other DSLR I've tested. It is a 6mp digital camera, so at a certain degree of magnification, film has more detail. But the pictures are more satisfying from the detail standpoint than any other DSLR camera I've seen in the 5-8 mp class. I know the pitfalls of generalizing based on in-camera JPGs shot in and around a camera store under time pressure. But even taking that into account, the R-D1 is one amazing camera.
Hope this helps!
--Peter
insidertravels
Newbie
Local camera shops
Local camera shops
Thanks to everyone for your responses. It's all helped a lot.
I've found five small camera shops in Des Moines (I live in a pseudo-suburb about 8 miles north) - I've only been to two of them before. I'm going to check them out to see if maybe they have some rangefinders tucked away in a glass case in a place I didn't notice before. The biggest one, which I've been to before, is a major Canon/Nikon DSLR cheerleader (at least whenever I've been there), so even if they did have a few rangefinders somewhere they'd probably try to talk me out of it (they've always tried to talk me out of third-party lenses in the past as well and they like using "protection" filter hard-sell tactics). There's another shop about a half-hour north of here, but they always push Promaster products no matter what you come in there for. I'll only go there if I can't find one anywhere else. I'll probably end up ordering online from B&H or CameraQuest because the shops here always have super-inflated pricing, but I'd really like to touch one and play around with the buttons a bit before chunking down the money.
I'll be looking for Bessa R-3A probably (or the R or R-2). My vision is good enough to pass a driver's test, but I need glasses or contacts at night if I don't want to see glaring halos. I've had Lasik surgery, so my situation is a bit unique because my vision has deteriorated in the five years since then. Hopefully, a 1:1 viewfinder will work for me because I would prefer it to other options, especially since it will give me the best idea of what the R-D1 would be like. To start out, I'll probably go with a 35mm or 40mm lens at f/2 or better - preferably f/1.4. It just depends on if I can find anything used but in exceptional condition. I kind of have a phobia of buying used things, even though people buy used things from me on eBay all the time. I guess I'm always afraid I'll be the unlucky one. Bizarre, I know.
If anyone has any further advice or words of wisdom, I'm all ears. I'll probably keep this web page open in a browser tab for a few more days just to see what you all have to say.
Thanks again for your help and for taking the time to read my novel-length ramblings.
Local camera shops
Thanks to everyone for your responses. It's all helped a lot.
I've found five small camera shops in Des Moines (I live in a pseudo-suburb about 8 miles north) - I've only been to two of them before. I'm going to check them out to see if maybe they have some rangefinders tucked away in a glass case in a place I didn't notice before. The biggest one, which I've been to before, is a major Canon/Nikon DSLR cheerleader (at least whenever I've been there), so even if they did have a few rangefinders somewhere they'd probably try to talk me out of it (they've always tried to talk me out of third-party lenses in the past as well and they like using "protection" filter hard-sell tactics). There's another shop about a half-hour north of here, but they always push Promaster products no matter what you come in there for. I'll only go there if I can't find one anywhere else. I'll probably end up ordering online from B&H or CameraQuest because the shops here always have super-inflated pricing, but I'd really like to touch one and play around with the buttons a bit before chunking down the money.
I'll be looking for Bessa R-3A probably (or the R or R-2). My vision is good enough to pass a driver's test, but I need glasses or contacts at night if I don't want to see glaring halos. I've had Lasik surgery, so my situation is a bit unique because my vision has deteriorated in the five years since then. Hopefully, a 1:1 viewfinder will work for me because I would prefer it to other options, especially since it will give me the best idea of what the R-D1 would be like. To start out, I'll probably go with a 35mm or 40mm lens at f/2 or better - preferably f/1.4. It just depends on if I can find anything used but in exceptional condition. I kind of have a phobia of buying used things, even though people buy used things from me on eBay all the time. I guess I'm always afraid I'll be the unlucky one. Bizarre, I know.
If anyone has any further advice or words of wisdom, I'm all ears. I'll probably keep this web page open in a browser tab for a few more days just to see what you all have to say.
Thanks again for your help and for taking the time to read my novel-length ramblings.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
First of all, let me say, with some sympathy, that I understand your motivations. But let me save you $5,000 with some free advice. Don't buy the RD-1 and 35/1.4 now. Don't do it. Tourtured logic and a little autobiography follow.
I am surprised that no one here is advocating buying used equiptment to get your feet wet in RF. The biggest hit you are going to take financially is buying new and selling used. For getting into RF, my advice is this: find a gently used Bessa-R and a used C/V screwmount lens (the 50/1.5 or one of the 35s). The whole kit should cost less than $450 with a warranty and you will get most of that $$ back on re-sale. Then shoot 100 rolls of film over the course of a year (keep the 20D and 50/1.4 for now). The committment to shooting 100 rolls of film this year is your research investment. If you want to work in PS, have your negatives scanned. And during the year, see whether you can live without a zoom and without macro capability and without TTL flash. These can be great limitations, but you have to be prepared to work with them. I mention this because although I think it is the photographer who makes the picture rather than the camera, you will be changing a lot of variables at the same time when you move from an autofocus digi-Canon to the RD-1.
After you have shot with a rangefinder for a year THEN see whether the R-D1 or something like it is what you want. You can even keep your C/V lens and use it on the Epson if it turns out you like what the lens does. It is my opinion that the camera and lens you use is ultimately irrelevant -- they do not make the picture, they are just the last link in the chain. The first and most important link in that chain is the grey matter between your ears. Keep in mind that the product cycles in digital are rediculously short. If you bought a Leica M6 in 1990, you'd have been able to use it heavily for 10 years and sell it for at least half of what you'd paid for it, more if you'd taken good care of it. I predict that the RD-1 will be worthless (WORTHLESS) in 5 years. Now I own one, and I like it a lot. But I knew that I was committing financial folly when I bought it. I just don't see a quickly depreciating $3,000 camera and a $2,800 lens as practical for a student with massive preexisting financial responsbilities. Now I don't mean this as mean. In 1991, I traded in a Pentax LX and a suitcase full of lenses and plunked down $1,000 for a new Nikon F4s and an autofocus 50/1.4 because I had exactly the impulses you do now. My rationale was that I was going to be working for a newspaper in the middle east and I had already learned the hard way that Pentax did not have a good distribution system for parts and repair there (try completing an assignment when the re-wind knob to your camera has fallen off somewhere in the desert). I also thought that autofocus was going to help be catch all those photos I had been missing. I still have the F4, but I would have been better served had I spent the money on film and paper at the time, because my photos did not change qualitatively as a result of the technology I rationalized purchasing.
Now (and here is where I prove that I understand where you are coming from) if the preceeding seems like I have glossed over your original post and have sidestepped your concerns you are completely free to ignore the rant. I too have felt the cold sweat of having made an utterly irrational purchase of camera equipment that I could not afford. And you know what? I treasure every piece of gear that I've picked up under those circumstances and regretted selling every camera that I've traded away (still missing that old LX too, for that matter). But what I really wish is that my vision was more refined, that my photography elicited deeper emotion from those viewing it and that the grey matter between my ears was fully equal to the quality of the gear I use.
Best of luck,
Ben Marks
I am surprised that no one here is advocating buying used equiptment to get your feet wet in RF. The biggest hit you are going to take financially is buying new and selling used. For getting into RF, my advice is this: find a gently used Bessa-R and a used C/V screwmount lens (the 50/1.5 or one of the 35s). The whole kit should cost less than $450 with a warranty and you will get most of that $$ back on re-sale. Then shoot 100 rolls of film over the course of a year (keep the 20D and 50/1.4 for now). The committment to shooting 100 rolls of film this year is your research investment. If you want to work in PS, have your negatives scanned. And during the year, see whether you can live without a zoom and without macro capability and without TTL flash. These can be great limitations, but you have to be prepared to work with them. I mention this because although I think it is the photographer who makes the picture rather than the camera, you will be changing a lot of variables at the same time when you move from an autofocus digi-Canon to the RD-1.
After you have shot with a rangefinder for a year THEN see whether the R-D1 or something like it is what you want. You can even keep your C/V lens and use it on the Epson if it turns out you like what the lens does. It is my opinion that the camera and lens you use is ultimately irrelevant -- they do not make the picture, they are just the last link in the chain. The first and most important link in that chain is the grey matter between your ears. Keep in mind that the product cycles in digital are rediculously short. If you bought a Leica M6 in 1990, you'd have been able to use it heavily for 10 years and sell it for at least half of what you'd paid for it, more if you'd taken good care of it. I predict that the RD-1 will be worthless (WORTHLESS) in 5 years. Now I own one, and I like it a lot. But I knew that I was committing financial folly when I bought it. I just don't see a quickly depreciating $3,000 camera and a $2,800 lens as practical for a student with massive preexisting financial responsbilities. Now I don't mean this as mean. In 1991, I traded in a Pentax LX and a suitcase full of lenses and plunked down $1,000 for a new Nikon F4s and an autofocus 50/1.4 because I had exactly the impulses you do now. My rationale was that I was going to be working for a newspaper in the middle east and I had already learned the hard way that Pentax did not have a good distribution system for parts and repair there (try completing an assignment when the re-wind knob to your camera has fallen off somewhere in the desert). I also thought that autofocus was going to help be catch all those photos I had been missing. I still have the F4, but I would have been better served had I spent the money on film and paper at the time, because my photos did not change qualitatively as a result of the technology I rationalized purchasing.
Now (and here is where I prove that I understand where you are coming from) if the preceeding seems like I have glossed over your original post and have sidestepped your concerns you are completely free to ignore the rant. I too have felt the cold sweat of having made an utterly irrational purchase of camera equipment that I could not afford. And you know what? I treasure every piece of gear that I've picked up under those circumstances and regretted selling every camera that I've traded away (still missing that old LX too, for that matter). But what I really wish is that my vision was more refined, that my photography elicited deeper emotion from those viewing it and that the grey matter between my ears was fully equal to the quality of the gear I use.
Best of luck,
Ben Marks
R
RML
Guest
Benjamin Marks said:
Actually, Ben, a new Bessa R plus 35/2.5 C lens costs $425 from CameraQuest. So no need to buy one second hand at all.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
RML said:
Right you are! I have a very clean Bessa-R and a 35/1.7 that I am going to be selling soon too, so that's good to know. By the way, I followed the link to your webblog. Great list of films!
Ben Marks
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
RML said:
Right you are! I have a very clean Bessa-R and a 35/1.7 that I am going to be selling soon too, so that's good to know. By the way, I followed the link to your webblog. Great list of films!
Ben Marks
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Is it possible that one of the shops you know can rent equipment for a weekend ? This way you can try somtehing to see if it is really something you want. No one camera ever really satisfies what kind of jobs may come your way. The best is to have both - a rangefinder and a slr. If you just can afford one, a slr is much more versatile. If your 20D is too big, why not try a film slr like an Olympus Om1, or some other brand? They will all be smaller then the 20D, which in its own right is a fantastic camera.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
On the other hand, it might be well advised that you stick with what you have until you know exactly who you are in relative terms to the type of work you want to do and the clientele you want to attract. Judging from your posts, you have not done much in producing imagery. Certain cameras as to the kinds of tools they are, may help, but I would suggest again, instead of buying and selling your equipment, is to stick with what you have until you really know what it is you want to do. Sticking to one thing, one camera, might help you to develop your style and create imagery you might not have been able to do with all of your equipment trading.
S
Sean Reid
Guest
Ben wrote:
"I am surprised that no one here is advocating buying used equiptment to get your feet wet in RF."
Actually, I mentioned this several posts back.
"The biggest hit you are going to take financially is buying new and selling used."
True, but if one buys an inexpensive body and keeps the lenses there isn't so much of a hit.
"It is my opinion that the camera and lens you use is ultimately irrelevant."
I disagree. The camera can have a large effect on the way one works and sees the subject.
"I predict that the RD-1 will be worthless (WORTHLESS) in 5 years."
I disagree completely. The R-D1, like any camera, will retain value so long as it can produce pictures. I've been using primarily digital cameras for five years now and each one dropped to about 1/2 it's original value when I sold it after using it for about two years. But the camera only loses value when and if you sell it. My 1Ds has dropped in market value by about $3000 but I have no plans to sell it and it's earned me much more than $3000. Any digital camera will drop in value over time but a good one doesn't become worthless. Moreover, there are some tax benefits to the depreciation. For any given camera, I think the question a professional needs to ask is: "Will this camera earn me at least it's purchase price?" If the R-D1 is the right tool for the job, one can pay for it with the first assignment it's used for. All the money it earns after that puts food on the table.
I do agree with the advice about not getting in over one's head financially although insidertravel's financial situation is unknown to me and none of my business. For photographers who are on a budget, I do think it makes sense to spend money on equipment in proportion to what one is earning from photography.
Cheers,
Sean
"I am surprised that no one here is advocating buying used equiptment to get your feet wet in RF."
Actually, I mentioned this several posts back.
"The biggest hit you are going to take financially is buying new and selling used."
True, but if one buys an inexpensive body and keeps the lenses there isn't so much of a hit.
"It is my opinion that the camera and lens you use is ultimately irrelevant."
I disagree. The camera can have a large effect on the way one works and sees the subject.
"I predict that the RD-1 will be worthless (WORTHLESS) in 5 years."
I disagree completely. The R-D1, like any camera, will retain value so long as it can produce pictures. I've been using primarily digital cameras for five years now and each one dropped to about 1/2 it's original value when I sold it after using it for about two years. But the camera only loses value when and if you sell it. My 1Ds has dropped in market value by about $3000 but I have no plans to sell it and it's earned me much more than $3000. Any digital camera will drop in value over time but a good one doesn't become worthless. Moreover, there are some tax benefits to the depreciation. For any given camera, I think the question a professional needs to ask is: "Will this camera earn me at least it's purchase price?" If the R-D1 is the right tool for the job, one can pay for it with the first assignment it's used for. All the money it earns after that puts food on the table.
I do agree with the advice about not getting in over one's head financially although insidertravel's financial situation is unknown to me and none of my business. For photographers who are on a budget, I do think it makes sense to spend money on equipment in proportion to what one is earning from photography.
Cheers,
Sean
Last edited by a moderator:
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Sean Reid said:
Sean: my experience has been the same as your viz the cameras that I use. No question that a 2 1/4 square presents a different canvas than 4x5 (or any other format) and the size and hand-holdability of the camera influences how you approach your subject. All very true. Speaking for myself, the differences are greater between formats (e.g. 8x10 to 35mm) than within formats (Hassie vs. Rollei TLR or Nikon vs. Leica), but of course your mileage will vary. I was trying to be helpfully skeptical of the notion that to do documentary photography or candid portrature you'd be inherently better off with an Epson RD-1 and a 35 Summilux than the 20D and whatever fixed lens you chose (particularly if the 20D was the camera you had in hand). It is possible that one would be hobbled aesthetically, of course, but I tend to think that the development of one's aesthetic or vision or style (whatever it is that we are trying to offer the world) can be developed without vast outlays of cash.
Now as for the "worth" of the RD-1 over time you are correct in everything you say up to a point. And certainly my ALLCAPS language about worthlessness was hyperbole. But I think where we depart ways on this one has to do with how we use cameras. I am now an amateur and so there are no tax benefits for me to depreciation. I tend to think of value in terms of what I could "trade in" or sell for today to purchase something else. If I had bought a Fuji S-1 five years ago, for $2500 (or whatever they were selling for), I'd only be able to sell it today for around $525. That's what KEH sells it for. True, that is not worthless, but it is a steep slide. We are now up to the Fuji S-3 which sells for $2,500 or so at B&H and elsewhere. I did buy one of the first Sony digicams in 1997 when they were selling for $600 or so (DCS-20???); the software that came with it will not work with my XP computer, the screen on the back of the thing is all wonky; the imaging chip dumps everything into low values, the price to fix it is prohibitve . . . so I would say that it is worthless. I suppose that this is the case you discussed above when you said that a camera will retain value so long as it can produce pictures.
As for the RD-1, which I think we both use with enthusiasm, I hope it will be replaced with an RD-2 some day. When that happens (and I think that if it happens it will be on a shorter product cycle than from the M6 to the M7, for instance) our RD-1s will be like that Fuji S-1 that KEH is selling (and remember, KEH has to make a profit too, so they probably purchased it for $300 or so). I am leaving aside what will happen if SD cards are no longer produced in 5 years or if Epson stops supporting the electronics/firmware of the RD-1 or any of the other technical bugbears that no doubt await us pounce. I also assume that the shutters in our cameras are more like that in a Nikon FG than the one in an M6. When support becomes an issue, professionals who use this (or any) camera to put food on the table will say, "I need to know that my repair guy/gal can get this turned around to me in the field pronto, because otherwise -- no f8 and be there!" Hence my Pentax LX trade-in last century. ;-)
Whether the RD-1 is the right tool for the job is something that the original poster will have to decide for him/herself, of course. But, for myself, I would not advise someone unfamilliar with rangefinders who owns a perfectly fine DSLR and has outstanding student loans to sell it at a loss and purchase an RD-1 and a 35 Summilux in order to embark on a career as a professional photographer. It would be like telling a recent college grad to go into debt to buy a Maseratti, when your Ford will get you where you need to go.
S
Sean Reid
Guest
I agree with your last paragraph, which is one reason, I think, that many of us have recommended starting with an inexpensive rangefinder to test the waters.
In my mind there can be profound differences in the way one makes pictures with a rangefinder vs. an SLR. Rather than repeat my reasoning for this, I'll just link my R-D1 review where I discussed this aspect.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/epson-rd1.shtml
As such, the choice of SLR vs. rangefinder can indeed be very important to one's development as a photographer. Weight can also be important, as can size, the loudness of a shutter, the way the lenses draw, etc..
Digital cameras will depreciate, to be sure. The best ones seem to drop to about 50% of their value after two years. But let's say, shooting low, that an R-D1 is worth $1000 in two years. The question of value is still moot then unless one is planning to sell the camera. If it's still working hard and making good pictures, the resale value is irrelevant. If one is planning to sell it, the question then becomes: "Was it worth $2000 to me to use this camera for two years?" Since a working professional can often earn that much with the R-D1 in just one assignment, my answer to that question is a resounding "absolutely, yes!" It is, indeed, a different matter depending on whether or not one earns money with his or her equipment. My D30 was bought for $3000 in 2000 and sold for $1000 in 2002. My first 10D was bought for $1500 in 2003 and sold for $750 in 2005. My 1Ds cost $7200 in 2002 and is still in use. I bought my second 10D used for $750.00 just last month. So far, I've lost $2750 buying and later selling digital cameras (leaving aside tax benefits). Has it been worth it? - yes! Film and darkroom costs alone for the pictures made with those cameras would have cost much more than $2750, etc..
Insidertravels is planning to become a professional photographer. As such, she's going to need to look at equipment investment much differently than someone who does this as a hobby. Her task will be to get the tools she needs to do the work well and be paid well for it. That doesn't happen overnight and of course the more one's professional career develops, the more flexibility one has when buying equipment. I do think, however, that testing the waters with a film rangefinder is a practical step to take for anyone (who is new to RF cameras) when he or she may be spending $3000 on an R-D1 (unless that amount is quite affordable for him or her).
So, we're in agreement about spending reasonably for equipment initially (unless cashflow is not an issue) but have different perspectives on:
1) The "value" of an R-D1 over time.
2) The degree to which differences among cameras (and by extension, among lenses) can be important to one's work.
Cheers,
Sean
In my mind there can be profound differences in the way one makes pictures with a rangefinder vs. an SLR. Rather than repeat my reasoning for this, I'll just link my R-D1 review where I discussed this aspect.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/epson-rd1.shtml
As such, the choice of SLR vs. rangefinder can indeed be very important to one's development as a photographer. Weight can also be important, as can size, the loudness of a shutter, the way the lenses draw, etc..
Digital cameras will depreciate, to be sure. The best ones seem to drop to about 50% of their value after two years. But let's say, shooting low, that an R-D1 is worth $1000 in two years. The question of value is still moot then unless one is planning to sell the camera. If it's still working hard and making good pictures, the resale value is irrelevant. If one is planning to sell it, the question then becomes: "Was it worth $2000 to me to use this camera for two years?" Since a working professional can often earn that much with the R-D1 in just one assignment, my answer to that question is a resounding "absolutely, yes!" It is, indeed, a different matter depending on whether or not one earns money with his or her equipment. My D30 was bought for $3000 in 2000 and sold for $1000 in 2002. My first 10D was bought for $1500 in 2003 and sold for $750 in 2005. My 1Ds cost $7200 in 2002 and is still in use. I bought my second 10D used for $750.00 just last month. So far, I've lost $2750 buying and later selling digital cameras (leaving aside tax benefits). Has it been worth it? - yes! Film and darkroom costs alone for the pictures made with those cameras would have cost much more than $2750, etc..
Insidertravels is planning to become a professional photographer. As such, she's going to need to look at equipment investment much differently than someone who does this as a hobby. Her task will be to get the tools she needs to do the work well and be paid well for it. That doesn't happen overnight and of course the more one's professional career develops, the more flexibility one has when buying equipment. I do think, however, that testing the waters with a film rangefinder is a practical step to take for anyone (who is new to RF cameras) when he or she may be spending $3000 on an R-D1 (unless that amount is quite affordable for him or her).
So, we're in agreement about spending reasonably for equipment initially (unless cashflow is not an issue) but have different perspectives on:
1) The "value" of an R-D1 over time.
2) The degree to which differences among cameras (and by extension, among lenses) can be important to one's work.
Cheers,
Sean
Last edited by a moderator:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Insider: You have not stated the obvious, to wit, where you are located so that if perchance someone on RFF who owns an R-D1 lives realtively nearby might be able to provide you with a hands-on experience.
Trius
Trius
insidertravels
Newbie
Location
Location
First off for the poster who asked, I'm in Central Iowa (about 8 miles north of Des Moines).
Secondly, I accidentally found a Leica dealer today. He was in a small business complex with no retail storefront. And according to countless sources, he's the only Leica dealer in the area (others can order from Leica, but none stock it, and apparently there are no Voigtlander dealers here because nobody knows who the new distributor is - I kept mentioning CameraQuest, but nobody seemed to know what I was talking about). Actually, he usually works by appointment only, but I didn't know this and happened to show up when the UPS guy had just left so the door was unlocked. He was very congenial and quite helpful. He let me play with an M6 for a while (with a summicron 35mm f/2.0. After today, I'm very excited about the prospect of using a rangefinder now that it's been explained to me while I'm actually looking at one and holding it in my hand and I've had a chance to actually focus with one. It's much easier than I thought it would be from the descriptions I've read online. I was surprised how easy it was, actually.
This dealer is very trustworthy and every camera shop in town recommends him as the resident Leica expert. He tends to sell barely used mint-condition Leica gear that have been sold back to him by doctors and lawyers and such who bought one for stupid "prestige" reasons then never used it. It was literally like brand new, and had he not told me it was used, I'd have never guessed. He's selling it for what I consider a steal for a Leica M6 (only $1200 for the body, that's good, right?), and even though this particular one has the silver top and bottom, he said he gets them in all the time so he could have a black one any day (I think I'd prefer black, but we'll see). The good news is I won't have to sell my Canon 20D to afford one, should I decide to buy from him. He also spoke with me about the possibilities of mixing Leica and Voigtlander equipment, should I decide that's better for me, and he wasn't down-talking Voigtlander even though he only sells Leica.
What I need to know, though, before purchasing a film camera of any kind is what is the maximum resolution I can get out of a 35mm negative or slide scan? Some of the people I talked to today gave me different numbers...one said a top-of-the-line flim/slide scanner could produce 40 megapixel files, the other said 40 MB files. Which is more accurate? And using digital scans from 35mm film, what is the largest-sized print I could make without discernable loss in quality (I realize this is subjective and dependant upon the quality of the original negative as well)?
If I do get a film camera as my second body (to go along with my 20D, since as practically everyone said, I need at least two bodies on every professional job - especially to account for unexpected malfunctions and such), I would want to have a lab process the film negatives and scan them to CD at maximum resolution. Is this possible, or would I have to buy an expensive film scanner and do it myself?
I know I'm taking up a lot of time from all of you...I'm sorry for that. I guess I'm always just trying to learn as much as I can and sometimes don't realize when I start to become a pain in the rear.
Location
First off for the poster who asked, I'm in Central Iowa (about 8 miles north of Des Moines).
Secondly, I accidentally found a Leica dealer today. He was in a small business complex with no retail storefront. And according to countless sources, he's the only Leica dealer in the area (others can order from Leica, but none stock it, and apparently there are no Voigtlander dealers here because nobody knows who the new distributor is - I kept mentioning CameraQuest, but nobody seemed to know what I was talking about). Actually, he usually works by appointment only, but I didn't know this and happened to show up when the UPS guy had just left so the door was unlocked. He was very congenial and quite helpful. He let me play with an M6 for a while (with a summicron 35mm f/2.0. After today, I'm very excited about the prospect of using a rangefinder now that it's been explained to me while I'm actually looking at one and holding it in my hand and I've had a chance to actually focus with one. It's much easier than I thought it would be from the descriptions I've read online. I was surprised how easy it was, actually.
This dealer is very trustworthy and every camera shop in town recommends him as the resident Leica expert. He tends to sell barely used mint-condition Leica gear that have been sold back to him by doctors and lawyers and such who bought one for stupid "prestige" reasons then never used it. It was literally like brand new, and had he not told me it was used, I'd have never guessed. He's selling it for what I consider a steal for a Leica M6 (only $1200 for the body, that's good, right?), and even though this particular one has the silver top and bottom, he said he gets them in all the time so he could have a black one any day (I think I'd prefer black, but we'll see). The good news is I won't have to sell my Canon 20D to afford one, should I decide to buy from him. He also spoke with me about the possibilities of mixing Leica and Voigtlander equipment, should I decide that's better for me, and he wasn't down-talking Voigtlander even though he only sells Leica.
What I need to know, though, before purchasing a film camera of any kind is what is the maximum resolution I can get out of a 35mm negative or slide scan? Some of the people I talked to today gave me different numbers...one said a top-of-the-line flim/slide scanner could produce 40 megapixel files, the other said 40 MB files. Which is more accurate? And using digital scans from 35mm film, what is the largest-sized print I could make without discernable loss in quality (I realize this is subjective and dependant upon the quality of the original negative as well)?
If I do get a film camera as my second body (to go along with my 20D, since as practically everyone said, I need at least two bodies on every professional job - especially to account for unexpected malfunctions and such), I would want to have a lab process the film negatives and scan them to CD at maximum resolution. Is this possible, or would I have to buy an expensive film scanner and do it myself?
I know I'm taking up a lot of time from all of you...I'm sorry for that. I guess I'm always just trying to learn as much as I can and sometimes don't realize when I start to become a pain in the rear.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
insidertravels said:
Insidertravels: I think $1,200 is a great price for an M6 in good condition with a warranty!
Regarding resolution there are a couple of things to think about (and I am sure there are list-members who know more about this than I do). The maximum resolution that you can get out of a negative is often expressed in terms of lines per mm. This is very much dependant on a) your technique (e.g. tripod or no-tripod, choice of shutter speed etc.), b) quality of light c) contrast of your subject d) choice of lens, film, developer and so on. Lens testers (I am thinking of someone like Erwin Puts here) will set up the camera parallel to a test chart a certain number of focal-lengths' distance away and see with a given film and lens and developer how fine a level of detail they can resolve in various areas of the negative. The test charts have pairs of lines and the resolution of the lens in a test like this is expressed as the smallest set of lines (or the closest together) that you can see before the image all turns to mush.
Resolution of a scanner has to do with the amount of information that can be fit into your scan of an image. (and here's where my understanding drops off, so chime in list-members). The size of the scan (in megabytes, say) is related to, but not the same as resolution of the scanner. For instance, many scanners will allow you to interpolate your scans to make huge files (you are treating the scanner a little like an enlarger in this case). But the equivalent to lines per millimeter in the lens context (what you are interested in if we are talking about resolution) is how many dots per inch (dpi) the scanner can get out of a negative without interpolation. Interpolation in this case is fancy-talk for the machine or program making a guess about data to fill in between two known points. It is not uncommon to find a scanner that will scan at 4000 dpi. The size of the file (how many megabytes) will depend on whether you are scanning in color (data for red, blue and green) or just black and white (one third as much data and hence one third the size of a color file of the same subject) and what your bit-depth is (8-bit, 16-bit). Without going too far afield, bit-depth is a way of measuring how much data is associated with each pixel (a higher bit-depth means more data, allows more manipulation without degrading the image and can produce some whoppingly huge files).
For reasons of price and practicality, 13x19 is the largest print that I have made from a 35mm scanned negative at 4,000 dpi. I really am not sure what the practical upper limit is if price of the media were no object.
Whew.
Apologies in advance for (maybe) making the waters more muddy. Criticism, corrections and calumny welcome!
best regards,
Ben Marks
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Gentlemen, with all respect, this forum has gotten way overblown........
Resale value of cameras? Cost effectiveness? :bang:
This has gone way above and beyond the scope of Insidertravels knowledge and what he/she needs at this time.
Resale value of cameras? Cost effectiveness? :bang:
This has gone way above and beyond the scope of Insidertravels knowledge and what he/she needs at this time.
Last edited:
R
RML
Guest
4800 dpi is what a "consumer"neg scanner can do nowadays, without interpolation. Hi-end pro neg (drum) scanner can go even higher. I generally scan my negs at 2880 dpi, which results in scans of some 6 MB TIF-files.
I think 13'x19' might be a good size though all depends on from which distance the print is seen. There are companies which can turn a 35mm neg into a billboard sized print, which are generally not viewed from just a few feet away.
I think 13'x19' might be a good size though all depends on from which distance the print is seen. There are companies which can turn a 35mm neg into a billboard sized print, which are generally not viewed from just a few feet away.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
To some extent, but the original and follow-up posts by Insidertravels mentioned cost considerations (including resale if he did not find an RF to suit him) and thus was at least part of the original question. When you're just starting out and on a limited budget, you have to juggle a lot of considerations. :angel:kbg32 said:
I'm just glad he found a knowledgeable Leica dealer who is not a total zealot and seems to be giving him sane advice.
Trius
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Trius said:
Quite possibly Insidertravels is thinking well too ahead of the game, when one should be concentrating on making images and from there, getting work.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
kbg32: It certainly is possible to "over-think" this stuff. Been there, done that. Every time I notice myself doing that, I have to force myself to grab a camera with one lens, and just make some pictures. It sorta worked for HCB.
Trius
Trius
insidertravels
Newbie
For the most part, the advice you've all given has been very helpful (especially the super-long posts from Sean and Ben - whew, I hope you can type as fast as I can, because I'd hate to think you spent hours composing your responses). I'm grateful to have learned so much from this thread. I most appreciate those who've taken the time to go into depth with technical details. Much of it I was already familiar with, especially where DSLR photography is concerned, but I learned some extremely useful things that some posters apparently think you shouldn't have told me because they wrongfully assume it's over my head. I fear that some people who replied aren't giving me enough credit as an intelligent, driven person who knows what she wants and understands that asking questions is the ony way to expand one's knowledge. Then again, it's more difficult to correctly interpret words on a screen than it is face-to-face dialogue. I suppose a tone-of-voice indicator of some sort would be helpful
Just for the record, though, I'd like to say that any money I'd be spending on a rangefinder (or whatever second body I decide to purchase) wouldn't be adding to my existing debt. All of the equipment I've sold was purchased as a student, so I think of the very small value loss (I've been able to sell everything for almost as much as I paid for it) as part of my educational expense - and anything new I buy at this point is coming from those same proceeds by virtue of selling items originally bought with student funds and reusing those funds to buy other equipment. 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. That said, I have been seriously contemplating the advice given about not spending that much on a body that will depreciate so quickly - and at this point, I haven't made a firm decision either way. I'm really in no absolute hurry, I guess. I have my 20D and I don't suspect Canon will come out with a 30D for at least one more year (assuming they follow their usual upgrade schedule for digital EOS models), so I'm not worried about its resale value at this point.
I do, however, take exception to the few posters who continue to insinuate that I have no knowledge and have taken no pictures therefore cannot possibly know what I'm doing. I've been taking pictures for nearly two years now (Digital Rebel and EOS 20D) - just not for money (I've also shot a couple weddings in the past two months), and although that's microseconds compared to those who've had 40-year careers, I think it's unfair to judge me based solely upon the fact that I mentioned having just finished a degree program and having never used a rangefinder. Had I said I'd never taken any pictures with any camera whatsoever and never had training in photography either, then perhaps some of the less respectful comments would be deserved. Actually, I'm kind of regretting that I even mentioned school at all because it's obviously given some posters a built-in bias against my existing abilities.
I also can't figure out why a few posters have said I don't even know what kinds of pictures I want to take (apparently therefore I have no business worrying about equipment??). I think I made it quite clear which genres and styles I prefer to shoot, and just because I haven't posted any pictures on this site doesn't mean I haven't taken any. I tend to agree with Sean's theory that developing one's style and vision necessitates a close look at which type of equipment will help to best achieve one's goals. That's one of the main reasons I've been considering a rangefinder in the first place.
As of now, I still haven't decided what to do. I really, really liked the M6 rangefinder I played with yesterday - I just wish it were digital. I may decide to invest in a film-based system, but to be honest I have more misgivings about that than I do about investing in a digital system that will depreciate. I can always write off the losses, but the headaches dealing with film will add to my day aren't necessarily what I had in mind, especially since film will probably be obsolete before the end of the decade, at least for all practical and professional purposes. I'm more interested in "taking pictures" than in developing and scanning negatives. I like being able to put things I've shot online the same day I process the RAW files. I like being able to work from wherever I am with just my camera equipment and my powerbook. I really don't want to be tethered to a darkroom, lab, or even an office for that matter. I want to keep it simple. I don't need, want, or expect to earn six figures per year - ever - unless an inflation spike over the next few decades requires it.
I might ask if it's possible to rent a film rangefinder from that dealer I mentioned. That way I can try it out for more than a half-hour. But I actually think I learn more about photography by having an instant playback with histogram - because I can retake the same shots over and over again until I get them right.
Trius: You're right; I probably AM "overthinking" this stuff. It's my nature to be inquisitive and meticulous like that, which is partly why I've spent so much time trying to "simplify" my life to remove extraneous distractions. My master's degree is in Interdisciplinary Studies, which obviously means I crammed multiple subjects into a self-designed degree program - it's only been a few months since I finally decided to dump the others in favor of full-time photography, so I'm still getting used to the idea of specialization (versus being the generalist I've typically been in the past). Anyway, I've rambled enough now.
Just for the record, though, I'd like to say that any money I'd be spending on a rangefinder (or whatever second body I decide to purchase) wouldn't be adding to my existing debt. All of the equipment I've sold was purchased as a student, so I think of the very small value loss (I've been able to sell everything for almost as much as I paid for it) as part of my educational expense - and anything new I buy at this point is coming from those same proceeds by virtue of selling items originally bought with student funds and reusing those funds to buy other equipment. 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. That said, I have been seriously contemplating the advice given about not spending that much on a body that will depreciate so quickly - and at this point, I haven't made a firm decision either way. I'm really in no absolute hurry, I guess. I have my 20D and I don't suspect Canon will come out with a 30D for at least one more year (assuming they follow their usual upgrade schedule for digital EOS models), so I'm not worried about its resale value at this point.
I do, however, take exception to the few posters who continue to insinuate that I have no knowledge and have taken no pictures therefore cannot possibly know what I'm doing. I've been taking pictures for nearly two years now (Digital Rebel and EOS 20D) - just not for money (I've also shot a couple weddings in the past two months), and although that's microseconds compared to those who've had 40-year careers, I think it's unfair to judge me based solely upon the fact that I mentioned having just finished a degree program and having never used a rangefinder. Had I said I'd never taken any pictures with any camera whatsoever and never had training in photography either, then perhaps some of the less respectful comments would be deserved. Actually, I'm kind of regretting that I even mentioned school at all because it's obviously given some posters a built-in bias against my existing abilities.
I also can't figure out why a few posters have said I don't even know what kinds of pictures I want to take (apparently therefore I have no business worrying about equipment??). I think I made it quite clear which genres and styles I prefer to shoot, and just because I haven't posted any pictures on this site doesn't mean I haven't taken any. I tend to agree with Sean's theory that developing one's style and vision necessitates a close look at which type of equipment will help to best achieve one's goals. That's one of the main reasons I've been considering a rangefinder in the first place.As of now, I still haven't decided what to do. I really, really liked the M6 rangefinder I played with yesterday - I just wish it were digital. I may decide to invest in a film-based system, but to be honest I have more misgivings about that than I do about investing in a digital system that will depreciate. I can always write off the losses, but the headaches dealing with film will add to my day aren't necessarily what I had in mind, especially since film will probably be obsolete before the end of the decade, at least for all practical and professional purposes. I'm more interested in "taking pictures" than in developing and scanning negatives. I like being able to put things I've shot online the same day I process the RAW files. I like being able to work from wherever I am with just my camera equipment and my powerbook. I really don't want to be tethered to a darkroom, lab, or even an office for that matter. I want to keep it simple. I don't need, want, or expect to earn six figures per year - ever - unless an inflation spike over the next few decades requires it.
I might ask if it's possible to rent a film rangefinder from that dealer I mentioned. That way I can try it out for more than a half-hour. But I actually think I learn more about photography by having an instant playback with histogram - because I can retake the same shots over and over again until I get them right.
Trius: You're right; I probably AM "overthinking" this stuff. It's my nature to be inquisitive and meticulous like that, which is partly why I've spent so much time trying to "simplify" my life to remove extraneous distractions. My master's degree is in Interdisciplinary Studies, which obviously means I crammed multiple subjects into a self-designed degree program - it's only been a few months since I finally decided to dump the others in favor of full-time photography, so I'm still getting used to the idea of specialization (versus being the generalist I've typically been in the past). Anyway, I've rambled enough now.