Anyone telling Epson about M8 woes?

[jlw]

One thing I don't get about the RD1 (and I'm sure it's been said a million times before), why the crank lever for cocking the shutter?

Simple: The R-D 1's chassis was based on that of the C-V R3a, and the R3a has no space for a shutter-winding motor nor provision to add one. If you've seen any of those cutaway views of the R-D 1, you can see it's quite densely packed. For Epson to have included motorized shutter cocking, they'd have had to engineer a completely new chassis incorporating the motor itself, a larger battery to power it, and a different winding mechanism.

 

[Topdog1]

Epson should restart production - they have nothing to loose

Epson should restart production - they have nothing to loose

I think the introduction of the M8 has validated the category and gotten people quite interested in digital rangefinders in general. And looking at the R-D1 alongside the M8, its design decisions don't look so bad anymore. I think at $2K they'd have a seller on their hands. I don't know if production is still possible, but I think they'd sell a bunch if they could ramp it up again. Of course, I don't know if a $2K price point is feasible or not, but hey, everything is a sunk cost at this point. A digital rangfinder with great high ISO performance, wonderful colors and all analogue dials at half the price of an M8 - sounds cool!

Regards,
Ira

 

[dazedgonebye]

I like that 2k price point.
How do they get Canon to let go of a few 8 or 10 mp CMOS sensors?
Just dreaming out loud.

 

[iml]

Seen my "10mp vs 6" thread in the R-D 1 forum? I realize my observations there are limited (and have proved to be somewhat controversial) but I'm not sure that just plugging in the D80's CCD would be the way to go.

I agree.

The thing I like most about the R-D1 is its image quality, so much so that I really don't feel any need for a sensor change to 8 or 10 MP (neither of which are particularly substantial resolution increases anyway, and both of which may produce noisier high ISO results). The only reason for me wanting somebody else to enter the market at this price is to be able to use a camera with manufacturer support.

Ian

 

[Jim Watts]

I agree.

The thing I like most about the R-D1 is its image quality, so much so that I really don't feel any need for a sensor change to 8 or 10 MP (neither of which are particularly substantial resolution increases anyway, and both of which may produce noisier high ISO results). The only reason for me wanting somebody else to enter the market at this price is to be able to use a camera with manufacturer support.

Ian

I would second that but just add wider fields of view in the finder (18mm = 28mm preferably, but I could live with proper framelines for 24mm = 36mm).

 

[fgianni]

I would second that but just add wider fields of view in the finder (18mm = 28mm preferably, but I could live with proper framelines for 24mm = 36mm).

No please, I like the 1:1 finder!
Maybe offering it in two versions with different magnification finders will satisfy us both. 😱

 

[dazedgonebye]

I agree.

The thing I like most about the R-D1 is its image quality, so much so that I really don't feel any need for a sensor change to 8 or 10 MP (neither of which are particularly substantial resolution increases anyway, and both of which may produce noisier high ISO results). The only reason for me wanting somebody else to enter the market at this price is to be able to use a camera with manufacturer support.

Ian

6 to 8 isn't much, 8 to 10 isn't much, but 6 to 10...yea, that's 'much.'
Recent postings here comparing 6 to 10 mp for noise aside...the reviews I've read on the various implimentations of that Sony 10mp sensor seem to indicate that noise is well controlled...even closing in on Canon's CMOS technolgy.

 

[jlw]

6 to 8 isn't much, 8 to 10 isn't much, but 6 to 10...yea, that's 'much.'
Recent postings here comparing 6 to 10 mp for noise aside...the reviews I've read on the various implimentations of that Sony 10mp sensor seem to indicate that noise is well controlled...even closing in on Canon's CMOS technolgy.

Well, looking at results out of my own cameras, as opposed to looking at reviews, I'm still not quite so convinced.

As I said in my previous post, though (and as others have said elsewhere) there's a lot more to the noise question than the sensor itself -- in-camera postprocessing is an important variable.

The more I see of other manufacturers' struggles, the more convinced I am that there must have been some pretty good smarts in Epson's Ediart chip...

 

[RML]

I guess you're right, jlw, especially when one realises there is virtually no information available about the Ediart chip and how little Epson made headlines about the chip. Only in the very early news releases did the explicitly mention the chip but they never made known to the world what it exactly does.

 

[iml]

6 to 8 isn't much, 8 to 10 isn't much, but 6 to 10...yea, that's 'much.'

As others have said, I really don't see it, at least not in prints up to A4, which is the largest I ever need to print. I've examined raw files from most of the popular 10MP cameras on the market and I simply don't think the resolution differences between them and a well-executed 6MP camera with good lenses, like the Epson, are all that great.

Ian