Another review, and some thoughts.

M

mfs

Guest
Photo Technique magazine has just published a short review of the RD-1.

It is one of the most favorable reviews that i have seen.

The author states that the images are among the sharpest that he has seen from a six magapixel camera.

His one main criticism is the winding lever. No mention of the QC problems.

I'm still on the fence with this camera. Part of me says go for it since it is available, and although expensive, may appear reasonably priced as compared to the Leica digital M, and the possible Zeiss product. The Zeiss product if it is developed will probably be made by Cosina. So, will the same QC problems exist????

But, I'm still concerned about the RD-1's QC. It seems that the rangefinder, or the frames lines are frequently either misaligned, or tilted. Did the rangefinder get misaligned before, or after Epson installed the elctronics???? Also, Epson's idea of a repair is to replace the camera with another which may be better, or worse than the original. Some of the members of this site have had several models, and eventually seem to accept some degree of misalignment as a final choice. Sooner, or later they will run out of replacements. What do they do then????

$3000 seems like a lot of money for a product with this type of QC history. Would we tolerate this type of recurrent problem in a Canon, or Nikon DSLR??? I think not. Yet we seem to grudgingly proceed with Epson's production limitations.

Does anyone know if the more recent units are more, or less prone to these problems???

Meanwhile, my fine Leica glass just sits, and waits.


Martin
 
Martin: My decision is to wait for the ZI digital, for a couple of reasons.

First, I don't think sensor technology is quite mature enough yet. I grant that the images I've seen from the R-D1 are lovely and that their B&W conversion is the best I've seen. But I think the next couple of years will see a maturing of sensor design and implementation that will reward the patient. In the meantime, I am looking to get the new Zeiss film body, and probably the Zeiss 28.

Second, I believe a Zeiss digital will benefit from Zeiss quality control, even if built by Cosina. (Everyone speculates that Cosina will build such a camera, but it is, of course, pure speculation as Zeiss has not said that will be the case.) Epson is not really a camera company. My belief is that the QC problems of the R-D1 are, at least partially, a result of their inexperience in camera design/manufacture. IF a ZI digital is built by Cosina, we will have a strong QA tradition on top of Cosina's manufacturing experience. JMO.

In the meantime, I'll continue to shoot film. Life is analog, anyway.

Trius
 
If you have Leica glass it is a no brainer. Get an RD1 while you can. I had NO glass. Ditched my old DSLR and bought into the RD1 with 2 new lenses. After a couple of weeks or so with the Rd1 and I am floored at the quality I have been getting. PLUS its so easy to use, so light, built very well and the black and white is just as good as film to my eyes.

I invested nearly $6k in this camera with just two lenses, but when I had over $10k in a Canon 1ds system, the quality I was getting was not as good as what I get from the Rd1, plus it weighed a ton! It had more MP but the Rd1's 6 is plenty for me.

WHy wait 1 1/2 to 2 years if you have the glass and want a digital RF? I am 100% happy with my RD1 and was thinking today. They have already went through at least half of the cameras, say about 5,000. I have read complaints from about 8-10 people max (inlcuding me with a bad pixel problem at 1st) - There are many more happy owners than unhappy and it appears that even the unhappy owners love the camera so much they don't want to NOT have it.

My Rd1 performs perfectly. I have a bad pixel but I dont care. When I shoot raw its not there. Only JPEG.

Once I added the 50 Summilux I realized this wasmy favorite digital ever.

Just added some new shots to my Pbase page, all B&W, all with the 50 summilux.

http://www.pbase.com/videoman/oak_creek_canyon_05

When the digital M arrives, Ill probably sell the epson to help fund it, but until then, Ill enjoy it daily. Oh, and I kind of like the winding lever, but Im one of the few that do I guess.
 
GLad i'm not the only nut who prefers the R-D1 to the Canon 1Ds .
I already sold a couple of Canon Lenses but kept 5 and the camera ...... i just hope there will be another digital rangefinder after the R-d1 (Leica, Zeiss, Epson ..... i do not care) ..... it's that uncertainty which keeps me from selling all Canon stuff .....

Han
 
Thanks for the postings. It is always hard to get a true prospective from any web based source since the problems are always discussed, and it is hard to get an idea about how frequently these problems really occur. I wonder if I should start a poll to try and get a rough idea??? Or, should I just go out, and shoot!!

Martin
 
SteveRD1 said:
when I had over $10k in a Canon 1ds system, the quality I was getting was not as good as what I get from the Rd1, plus it weighed a ton! It had more MP but the Rd1's 6 is plenty for me.
Click to expand...
Interesting. At what size do you usually print and do you reckon the R-D1 files print okay (i.e. without any distracting artifacts) at 18x12?
Cheers
Vincent
 
Most of my prints are 8.5x11 with some 13X19.

I think that that is probably approaching the limits of a 6 Mpixel sensor. If cropping is needed, the maximum size would probably be 8.5x11 or less depending on the size of the crop.

Martin
 
I'm waiting for a digital rangefinder which accomodates a FoV comparable to 35mm on film. I don't like external viewfinders :)

And IMHO it speaks for the R-D1 that so many owners can live with its shortcomings and work around them instead of returning a slightly faulty copy. There must be something to it which balances a couple of stuck/hot pixels and tilted framelines and slight misalignment of the rangefinder.
 
Steve: Those new b&w images are quite lovely. I am constantly impressed with the R-D1's b&w conversion. Combined with the quality of the sensor and the glass you have, it's a winning package.

That doesn't change my own decision, however. You asked "WHy wait 1 1/2 to 2 years if you have the glass and want a digital RF?" Well, I don't have the glass right now. When I'm ready, I'll be looking at Zeiss glass as well as Leica and CV. Second, I don't really want a digital RF right now. I have other photographic priorities right now, so spending $6K or so on an R-D1 outfit would just be crazy talk... just ask my wife! ;) I should have made that clear in my original post.

But I still stick by the strategy and reasoning I stated. For me, it works. And if I wait patiently for a ZI digital RF, I think the combination of ZI lenses and a ZI body will be the most logical choice in sorting out the "crop factor"/frameline issues.

Trius
 
You can print very big with the files from the R-D1 with exellent results, i've been printing a lot from this camera, and both me and my clients are very happy....

The thing is to use a good upscale algoritm, wich i used to get with Smartscale but after the release of the new Adobe CS2, i use this instead, i use the setting Bicubic Sharper, and it produces very sharp good looking big prints from my Epson 9600...

See link:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showfull.php?photo=13551

Best Regards

Alexander Tufte
 
Wow!!!!

And I thought that 13x19 was big!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All of this talk is making me nervous. I'd better stay away from B&H today. Lock up my plastic until reason returns.

Thank you all for the really helpful responses.

You are all a great resource.

Martin
 
I was just looking over shots from 2 years ago with the 1ds from teh same location I used the Rd1 yesterday. Its amazing how much more I enjoy the Rd1 files. As far as printing, Ive printed 20X40 from a d2h 4mp file and made a poster out of it. Looked great. I have yet to try any large prints from the Rd1, but I rarely do go over 13X19 and even that size is rare for me.

Trius, sorry about that. I somehow mixed up your post with MFS's post. It appears he has the glass. Waiting is probable the SMART thing to do, but Im an imaptient person. Im sure the Zeiss or DM will be even better than the Rd1, but who knows when they will arrive?

Anyway, if you get one Martin, let us know!
 
Hi Martin (mfs),

I thought you might like my perspective on buying the R-D1. I don't want to convince you to buy one it if it isn't right for you. Especially if you can't afford the cost.

First a bit about what I do photography-wise...I am an amateur trying to build up my equipment and skills so that one day in the future I might try being professional if I want to leave my current job. I have photographed a cousin's wedding as main photographer and other weddings as a kind of back-up photographer. I sometimes take photographs of events such as birthdays, exhibition openings ... just small things. I travel a lot for work, and so I do a fair bit of travel photography. I also do some landscape photography. My photos are almost exclusively available light photography.

Now about the R-D1. While my decision for buying the R-D1 was partly (mostly :) ) emotional, there was some logic behind the decision. The biggest factor was (believe it or not) cost. M-lenses let you take photos at the limit of DOF, at the limits of exposure time,... what I mean to say is, M-lenses encourage experimenting. Since I wanted to get the most out of my shots, I was using profesional film and professional developing. This made experimenting quite expensive, and the feedback loop was quite long.

I have had the R-D1 since February, and it has (possibly) already paid for itself in terms of the equivalent costs in film and processing that I would have to pay to take the number of photos. I have learnt more, and I am getting a higher rate of useable photos than with film.
* I get more usable photos now because I now know my limits on DOF and exposure time(I now have a better I dea of when my shaking or other people's motion will affect the photo).
* I get exposures correct more often because I can take a few shots and check if I am clipping the highlights or shadows. (You have to be careful because the screen shows the photos as lighter than they really are).
* I have more control over light balance.
* I download my photos onto an Epson P-2000 that viewer, so people can view the photos minutes after the event.
* Last (but not least) I can often salvage a decent photo from a bad shot by judicious use of photoshop.

I guess these last few factors are the same for all digital cameras ... but not all digital cameras let me use my Leica lenses :D

I am lucky that I could afford the up-front cost. Right now, the R-D1 is the best camera for me to have. It is the economic way for me to learn and improve my photos, while producing professional-level results. I love it, and have never regretted having bought it. I do admit that I have been frustrated with it once or twice, but I get over it.

If I was an experienced rangefinder photographer, and if I wasn't taking many photos at the moment, then it might have been worthwhile for me to wait for a "better" camera... but that isn't me right now.

I hope that doesn't paint too rosy a picture of the R-D1... it is simply my perspective (at the moment).

You mentioned that you have some Leica glass waiting for a camera...what lenses do you have?


Cheers,
Phil
 
mfs said:
PI'm still on the fence with this camera. Part of me says go for it since it is available, and although expensive, may appear reasonably priced as compared to the Leica digital M, and the possible Zeiss product. The Zeiss product if it is developed will probably be made by Cosina.
Click to expand...

I just want to point out that there is no guarantee that a Leica or Zeiss digital M-mount camera will ever appear.

We know that Leica is working on one, but we don't know whether the company itself will survive in its present form long enough to complete it. Zeiss has never positively said it will make such a camera. I would guess that if the R-D 1 turns out not to be a long-term success, that would decrease the chance that Zeiss would take the plunge.

Even if another digital M camera does appear eventually, it might not necessarily be an improvement: for example, it could be excessively large, or inconvenient to operate, or impractically expensive.

I point this out only because I keep reading opinions to the effect that "I won't buy an R-D 1 because it isn't as good as [competitor] will be" -- when in fact the R-D 1 exists now, its strengths and weaknesses are known, and it can be bought; whereas right now, everything else is just speculation.
 
Exactly right! We all assume there WILL be a Digital M, and we assume it will be just like the Analog M. This may not be true. I would lik eto believe the digital M will be just like a film "M" but we have no idea what it will be like, or if it will ever appear.

The Epson is available now, and I just used it today for the 1st time for a paid job and the results are incredible. Much better than what I was getting with any previous digital SLR or the D2.

I have also found Leica glass to be simply amazing. It is pricey but WOW, I can shoot at f1.4 and get great, sharp incredibly colorful images. B&W is unbeatable by any other digital as well.

I shot a model tonight with the Rd1 and 50 Summilux, some at 1.4 and the tones, the color, and the "look" is there. I used to shoot weddings years ago (1998, video, then photo) and dabbled a bit again 2 years ago with a D2h. I am thinking of returning to weddings and if possible, I would love t o use only the Rd1. Of course I would need two of them, but I feel I could get amazing results with this camera and Lecia glass.

I am sort of a photography newbie, only starting with digital back in the Canon D30 days. Not much experience with film. Ive been tempted to buy an M7 simply because I LOVED teh body and feel but I dont think film is the way of the future, so I really hope Leica comes through with a Digital M. Hopefully it wont be $6k as some have said. Im thinking more like $4500 max.

The Epson is here NOW and nothing is like it. The image quality when shooting Raw and using Epsons converter software is the best digital I have seen. Im even hoping Epson releases an RD2 down the line, but I bet they will make it less expensive by removing the analog dials.
My opinion is that if you have Leica glass, and want to go digital, the Rd1 is worth it for sure.

I agree with everything Phil has stated above. If you do order one just wait until it arrives and you unpack it. You will feel right then that your money was well spent.

Steve
 
Thank you all for your comments. The future of digital RF's is not clear. If the RD-1 is not a financial success, then the likelihood of future competitors is indeed remote.

The RD-1 is not perfect. All of us would agree. But, it may be the only digital RF ever built.

As to my Leica glass inventory.

I have some lenses that date from the 1970's. A 50 mm Summicron, and 90 mm Tele Elmarit.

Over the years I have slowly added a 35 mm Summilux Asph., 28 mm Elmarit Non-asph., and just recently (with hopes of a RD-1 for an equival. FOV of 35 mm) a used 21 mm Elmarit Asph.

So, in terms of great glass, I am all set up for a digital RF.

But which one??

So that is my quandry. Not a bad one to be in considering that I have the glass in place.

Again, thanks for all of your advice.

Martin
 
Thank you all in this thread for your thoughts. It seems I'm not the only one on the fence....
For myself I've decided to wait until Feb/March next year, as Leica's plans should be a lot more clear by then. If the worst comes to the worst there surely will be a used RD1 out there.
 
No, there is no guarantee that Zeiss will produce a digital RF, nor that Leica's development will make it to market, for whatever reason. So the choice TODAY is pretty limited! ;)

But I do think that the chances of both Zeiss and Leica introducing a digital M are pretty good. I doubt that Leica would have been given life support if the decision makers weren't assured of a digital M to breathe new life into sales.

As for Zeiss, it's true (AFAIK) that they have never stated they will produce a digital RF beyond any shadow of a doubt, BUT the new lenses have been designed with "a foreseeable digital camera" in mind. Given the design of RF lenses and Zeiss whole branding effort for the film ZI, it would be logical to assume a digital camera of similar design.

Now, if I WERE serious about buying a digital camera in this league today, I certainly would be plopping down my plastic for the R-D1 and some lenses. No doubt about it, the images I've seen convince me it's a great machine.

Lest you think I am GAS-less, I did order a couple of Domke bags today for my RFs and OM gear! :D
 
Trius said:
As for Zeiss, [...] the new lenses have been designed with "a foreseeable digital camera" in mind.
Click to expand...
Which leaves us guessing what the sensor size / "crop factor" of that hypothetical Digital Ikon will be... I for one am very reluctant to invest in any of the new Zeiss M glass not knowing what field-of-view a given focal length might translate to in the future.
Cheers
Vincent
 
Socke said:
I'm waiting for a digital rangefinder which accomodates a FoV comparable to 35mm on film. I don't like external viewfinders :)
Click to expand...
Same here. Having to use an auxiliary viewfinder for any field-of-view wider than that of a 53mm lens on 24x36 film is the primary reason why the R-D1 is not for me.
Vincent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom