Analog guage (semi) failure

Sean Reid said:
...That's a removeable cover you say?...
Click to expand...

Yes but the port looks disabled at first glance.
At least it does not communicate with my Macs.
Best,
LCT
 
LCT said:
Yes but the port looks disabled at first glance.
At least it does not communicate with my Macs.
Best,
LCT
Click to expand...

Thats a bummer. Out of curiosity, can you load up the System Profiler while the camera is attached? The easiest way to do this is choose 'About this Mac' under the blue apple, and then click "More Info". I'm curious to know what it has listed in the USB subsection. It may give away some clues as to what it is claiming to be on the system. Clearly they haven't implemented any of the universal disk access stuff.

Also, while the camera is attached to the computer, check the menu on the back of the camera. Did any new options appear? It is feasible that they may enable a debug mode once they sense power to the USB port.
 
PaulN said:
...I'm curious to know what it has listed in the USB subsection... Also, while the camera is attached to the computer, check the menu on the back of the camera. Did any new options appear?...
Click to expand...

I did it already, Paul, but nothing happens sorry.
Best,
LCT
 
Her first time

Her first time

Hey, I just pried of the cover on mine too. I can't believe I never saw it before. I have a windows machine and I'll try an see if my computer sees my camera as a USB device. I'm not a computer guy, so this makes me nervous. I dont want to defile my precious Maggie with just any USB cord. I have to find one that is worthy. After all she is a virgin.
Rex
 
fgianni said:
Mine had the same problem a couple of months ago, but I managed to fix it the following way:

1) did a partial calibration
2) switheed the camera off
3)repeat 1 and 2 untill fully calibrated.

I think it took me 3 or 4 cycles, but it has been fine since.
Click to expand...


Just a quick update. I tried fgianni's fix (above) and my analog gauge started to show improvement on the 4th try. By the 6th time, I was able to successfully move the needle to "E" as instructed. Thanks!

Just to be perfectly clear, here are the steps that I performed:

1) Partial calibration of the gauge. I then clicked "Finish" to return the screen where you select the need to calibrate.
2) Pressed "Finish" again to go back to the menu.
3) Turned camera off
4) Turned camera on
5) Go to step 1

It seemed futile for the first 3 tries. On the fourth, I noticed that the needle didn't start off at the 8 o'clock position, it was closer to 9 o'clock. By the 6th time, it was perfectly aligned. Keep trying, it _will_ work eventually.

This should go down in a FAQ or sticky somewhere.

Thanks again fgianni!

-Paul
 
PaulN said:
It seemed futile for the first 3 tries. On the fourth, I noticed that the needle didn't start off at the 8 o'clock position, it was closer to 9 o'clock. By the 6th time, it was perfectly aligned. Keep trying, it _will_ work eventually.

Paul
Click to expand...

On the first tries it seems futile only if you look at the starting position, if you look at the ending position of the needle, you should see an improvement straight from the first try, at least that is what I saw with mine.

Cheers
 
fgianni said:
On the first tries it seems futile only if you look at the starting position, if you look at the ending position of the needle, you should see an improvement straight from the first try, at least that is what I saw with mine.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Mine was the opposite. No improvement at all for the first three times or so, and then all of a sudden I noticed the starting position had changed ever so slightly. I'm glad that it did, as after the 3rd time, I had already convinced myself that I was wasting my time :) It worked though.

Thanks again!
-Paul
 
Brillant, I was having just the same problems and followed your intstructins and voila, da na it Bl**dy works. :dance:

Many thanks

Mike
 
I confirm that this procedure works...

However, pressing the Finish "button" twice seems to be an important step.
 
As previously discussed, the usb port will do nothing without the drivers and the proper software. The port won't even show up.

You need the Japanese-only diagnostic software and driver package, not available outside of Seiko-Epson Japan.
 
Plasmat said:
As previously discussed, the usb port will do nothing without the drivers and the proper software. The port won't even show up.

You need the Japanese-only diagnostic software and driver package, not available outside of Seiko-Epson Japan.
Click to expand...

It ought to be possible to reverse-engineer access to the USB port itself. I can't imagine Epson would re-invent the wheel when it came to drivers. However, even if contact was established, it would be pretty risky to go poking around in there without any documentation to go on.

Still, it's pretty frustrating to have the dratted thing there and not be able to do anything with it!
 
Why dial gauge at all?

Why dial gauge at all?

A dumb question: I wonder why Epson decided to use a dial gauge instead of a tiny LCD screen? Aesthetics and nostalgia appeal aside, wouldn't a little LCD counter be easier and less fussy to install? There'd be less complicated connections, less moving parts where trouble could start from, and probably make for a 'cleaner' top. A precise number displayed in a little non-ubiquitous screen would also be far easier to read (eg, "is that needle saying 348 or 345 shots left?") The other settings, like the battery capacity and image quality setting could probably be squeezed in there or else displayed in a little corner of the main viewing screen.

From its looks, I would suspect that the dial gauge is the costliest component (to make and install) in the RD-1, next to the ccd censor itself.
 
ZorkiKat said:
I wonder why Epson decided to use a dial gauge instead of a tiny LCD screen?
Click to expand...
I like them, and think they're more intuitive to read than an alphanumeric LCD. The image counter is only vague for 100+ images, when exactness is immaterial.

Also, remember that Epson is actually part of Seiko, who've masses of expertise when it comes to analogue displays. No one complains about quartz-driven analogue watches being unreliable and preferring LCD ones! Of course, having mechanical components, they will eventually suffer wear - but if go down that route, why not go the whole hog and have solid-state camera: the same can be said for mechanical shutters, shutter speed dials, aperture rings, etc.? Personally, I like the tactility of the R-D1 - part of my enjoyment of photography comes from the tool I use.

Yes, a few R-D1s suffer from the calibration problem, but there is a fix. Presumably, if Epson were more on the ball with their customer service, it wouldn't have been left to the users to work this out!

There have been rumours about expense, but I don't believe them: the dials presumably use the same cheap and well-proven technology as in Seiko watches. Yes, more costly than an LCD, but I doubt it's as significant as some people think.
 
RichC said:
I like them, and think they're more intuitive to read than an alphanumeric LCD. The image counter is only vague for 100+ images, when exactness is immaterial.

Also, remember that Epson is actually part of Seiko, who've masses of expertise when it comes to analogue displays. No one complains about quartz-driven analogue watches being unreliable and preferring LCD ones! Of course, having mechanical components, they will eventually suffer wear - but if go down that route, why not go the whole hog and have solid-state camera: the same can be said for mechanical shutters, shutter speed dials, aperture rings, etc.? Personally, I like the tactility of the R-D1 - part of my enjoyment of photography comes from the tool I use.

Yes, a few R-D1s suffer from the calibration problem, but there is a fix. Presumably, if Epson were more on the ball with their customer service, it wouldn't have been left to the users to work this out!

There have been rumours about expense, but I don't believe them: the dials presumably use the same cheap and well-proven technology as in Seiko watches. Yes, more costly than an LCD, but I doubt it's as significant as some people think.
Click to expand...

If there were only 12 points to read and 60 intermediate positions scattered in between, the dial display would of course be easy to read. "Exactness" in terms of remaining available memory space for shots is critical for my applications. To me, this isn't like the petrol gauge of an automobile where 'full', '1/2' or 'empty' indications would suffice- I would rather have an indicator which would instead tell me how many litres I have left, so to speak, in a digital camera gauge.

I have the impression too, that the dial gauge is far more complicated than the quartz /analogue hybrid watches which Seiko make. In these watches, the dials are more or less directly linked to the motors whose job is far simpler- tick and point at a timed, continuous pace. The dial counter in an R-D1 on the other hand does a more complicated job than this- one which may not necessarily be as simple as keeping time. A watch dial is easily adjusted by simply turning its stem. The R-D1 dial would perhaps be more effective if it had such a stem- or at least one which is in the spirit of the adjusting nipples of the traditional Leica counter dial :).

It's not fair to equate the other mechanical features of the camera with the dial gauge. The shutter dial, aperture rings, focus barrels and lever are all connected to a "real" mechanical function or part. The dial on the other hand is really attached to something that is "virtual"- it's not attached to any true, moving part (no moving film like the counters engaged with the sprockets in film cameras).
 
The dial display is exact as soon as you start getting to 20 shots remaining and below, and as easy to read as an analogue watch.

Ian
 
fgianni said:
I definitely wouldn't swap the analogue dials in my R-D1 for an LCD, they do their job much better.
Click to expand...
You couldn’t see that little clock thing with the LCD folded-away, and anyway it would spoil that cool pre-war look
 
I agree that the needle is easier to read, especially in dim light. It's like the difference between driving a car with a digital speedometer and one with a traditional dial speedometer.

With the digital readout, you have to consciously READ the numbers to determine whether you're going, say, 51 mph or 57 mph. (In many urban roads in America, this is the difference between "no ticket" and "ticket.")

With the dial readout, you quickly learn to relate the pointer to your actual speed, so it takes only a brief glance to tell whether you're in the "safe zone" or in the "better watch out" zone. The same thing applies to the Epson dial: it's easy to see, even in dim light where it would be difficult to read an exact number, whether you're still in "plenty of shots" territory or "running low" territory.
 
Last edited:
Yup, the dials are an easier, swifter, more intuitive way of absorbing information. Just from the positions of the dials I know for sure my camera is set the way I want it (awb, raw, battery full, 100 shots free on the card). And all that in the blink of an eye, even in low light circumstances.
 
I should see what you're talking about when I get my hands on one...hopefully soon! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom