AP review of the RD-1

M

mfs

Guest
Just read the review of the RD-1 in AP. The review wasn't all that good. The chief complaints were sRGB only, hot pixels at higher ISO levels, complaints about the center weighted meter causing underexposure, significant vignetting with lenses < 50mm, and the price.

The review praised the good noise control, and color reproduction.

I was disappointed especially with the lack of Adobe RGB.

The metering complaints are not new. Center weighted means just that. The meter can be fooled with strong peripheral illumination (inherent in the sensitivity pattern).

The vignetting issue is inherent in the lens-sensor geometry, and Leica's comment about using a new sensor design to overcome this problem is interesting. But which sensor will they use?? I assume that the new mystery sensor will have some type of improved micro lens design to help with the inherent edge effects of a deeply recessed rear lens element. Unfortunately, Leica's digital version is just talk at this point, and I expect the cost to be only stratospheric!!

What do you RD-1 users think about the review???

Martin
 
I've commented on this review before on another forum. In short:

hot pixels: have seen none at high ISO

metering: generally excellent outdoors, far better than my $8000 Canon 1Ds Indoors tends to be under by 1/2 to 2/3 stop but is consistent so EV correction is simple. R-D1 meters better than many DSLRs including all three I've owned from Canon.

vignetting: depends on the lens; I explored this at length in my lens review

price: wish it were $2000 instead, hard to say what Epson's costs were, spread over only 10,000 units

sRGB: t'would be better if it had an Adobe RGB option but that's not nearly as important as many people make it out to be. Epson printers work in SRGB space as do many custom lab printers

Overall, it's still my favorite digital camera of all that I've tested or owned.

Sean
 
And another comment...

You don't have a choice of color space with JPEG, but when developing RAW images, you can select Adobe or sRGB for the output image.
 
Re: AP review of the RD-1

mfs said:
Just read the review of the RD-1 in AP.
Click to expand...

By "AP" do you mean Amateur Photographer, the British photo equipment magazine?

Or American Photo, the US-based trendie/celebrity/fashion photo lifestyle periodical?


Not having read the actual review, I'm reluctant to comment in depth -- other than to say that I like my R-D 1 a lot (I'd go so far as to say that it's the only digital camera I've ever really liked) and I'm not about to send it back just because somebody else didn't!

Some specifics:

-- Hot pixels: Yeah, I've got two that show up at EI 1000 and above. I'd rather have zero, but it's still better than the Nikon D100, the only other digital camera I've used extensively at high ISOs.

-- sRGB color space for JPEGs: That bothers me in principle, but in practice I can't see any effect on the results.

-- Vignetting: I don't own any lenses wider than a 35, so I can't say I've ever noticed it.

-- Price: In terms of build quality it feels comparable to the top-end Canon and Nikon DSLRs. Do reviewers complain about those being overpriced? I don't need magazines to tell me whether or not something is worth the money to me; I can figure that out for myself. I wish the R-D1 hadn't been so expensive, since I had to sell a lot of other pretty nice equipment to afford it -- but I don't regret it.
 
I really appreciate all of your replies. I find that the best review is from actual users.

BTW AP is Amateur Photographer magazine. I find their reviews are far more objective than U.S. magazines whose reviews sometimes seem like extensions of manufacturers websites.

Sean - your extensive reviews in Luminous Landscape were really great. I must admit that those reviews have sparked my interest in purchasing the RD-1!!

I would appreciate any additional comments from other users.

Thank you for your input.

Martin
 
Ken,

That's a good point about RAW conversion color space options. if someone is really going to notice the increased gamut of Adobe RGB they're likely to also want the maximum quality that RAW provides.

mfs,

Thanks. The various summaries of this article I've read have all hit the same key points. I think the key question one has to answer when deciding whether or not to buy this camera is: How much do I want to work with a digital rangefinder? I myself have been waiting for years for a camera like this but if it weren't a good camera I would have given it a negative review. It turns out that it's an excellent camera so then the second question becomes: Can I afford $3000? What can I sell to buy this?

Cheers,

Sean
 
Think $3700 or $3900 and you might be able to see AP's point of view (a UK magazine).
If I could have walked into a store and picked one up for $2999, I probably would have done so by now.
 
Hi Chris,

There's still that Calumet option. Would you believe they still have not picked up that second R-D1? DHL just called today.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Sean Reid said:
It turns out that it's an excellent camera so then the second question becomes: Can I afford $3000? What can I sell to buy this?
Click to expand...

For me it turned out to be:

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS

...which was most of my DSLR lenses. In a way it's a terrible investment, since my R-D1 will depreciate much faster than those lenses would. But it's a rangefinder, it's digital, and I'd have to delve into selling body organs, not camera equipment, if I were to afford the eventual digital M.

Now I have the camera in my hand though, I'd do it again in a heartbeat. Those Canon L lenses were massive.
 
I was finally able to read the AP review yesterday and found it disappointing. Mainly so because the author is familiar with RF cameras and should've had a good idea of what to expect from the R-D1. But instead he's chosen to write with the tone of someone annoyed by having to think about what he's doing rather than simply pointing & shooting.

He also exaggerates the vignetting issue. While it's certainly a genuine issue with wider lenses the article implies it's a problem with all lenses out to 90mm. This is of course not true at all.

Then there's the comments on unreliable metering. Mainly what he's complaining about is the meter's tendency to preserve highlight info when you aim it at something bright. Well, duh...it's behaving the way centerweighted meters are supposed to behave. Now sometimes a photo will contain specular highlights too bright to be captured accurately without compromising the rest of the photo. In these cases you should let them clip, and the R-D1 will indeed do this if you meter a midtone area and lock the exposure. But you have to actually evaluate the scene with your brain and aim the meter accordingly. Do this and you'll get very accurate exposures. Aim & fire without thinking and "unreliable metering" is what you'll get.

The point made about the camera going into sleep mode at inconvenient times is valid. But it's also an issue shared by all but a handful of digital cameras, and in my experience the R-D1 "wakes up" faster than most. The real issue here IMO, unmentioned in the review, is that the R-D1 doesn't assertively let you know it's going into sleep mode. It just shuts off, and you won't know this unless you look at the analog dials and notice they've moved back to their default positions. I work around this by tapping the shutter release every so often while I'm taking photos. A better strategy would be for Epson to include an Always On mode. And of course I'd expect the R-D2, should one ever be made, to wake up instantly. And have a huge RAW buffer (the small-ish buffer is another genuine issue not commented on in the review).

-Dave-
 
You know, it's funny because Bob Shell (a very experienced camera reviewer) said the guy who wrote this AP review has a good reputation and yet he (the AP review author) really seems to have missed the boat. That's not to say that the R-D1 doesn't have weaknesses - it, of course, has several - but rather that this analysis of the camera just seems to have gone very wide of the bull's eye.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Although I don't own an RD-1, from the examples I've seen in the LL review I don't regard vignetting a huge issue any more.
Regarding focussing etc....
All the online pics I've seen so far, here and at the Leica Digital Forum, have been very pleasing to the eye. The users have not reported struggling with focussing and/or light meter inaccuracies.
The only thing I haven't squared away in my mind is the price vs picture quality issue (speaking about the slightly inflated UK price).
Sean, Calumet refused to sell me your spare RD-1, saying they had to allocate a camera from stock for me. Once you added in their preferred 'express' shipping method and the extra tax that incurred, the price became that little bit too close to the UK RRP.
I would imagine they've forgotten you have the second body. :cool:
 
DHL is supposed to be picking it up today. I'm almost sure they did forget. Is it worthwhile for you to look into a less expensive shipping method? How about getting one from Singapore or Japan?

Cheers,

Sean
 
Well, not to hi-jack the topic, but there have been some decent deals on Ebay and I'm not afraid of Ebay in general, but I would have preferred to grab a body from a recognised dealer or someone I know.
We'll see.
 
If this thread shifts into a discussion of the best places to buy an R-D1, I hardly think anyone will mind.

Cheers,

Sean
 
That's a good price. Do you know if the warranty is valid in the US?

Cheers,

Sean
 
Going back to the main topic (not that I'm bored with talking about cheaper RD-1's)......
I find some magazines are quite conscientious about speaking to their target market.
Maybe Amateur Photographer thought £2000+ was a lot of money for an amateur to pay for an arguably niche product with 'issues'.
 
All sensors have some hot and/or dead pixels. We just don't see them because the firmware interpolates around them. Or should. I wonder if Epson isn't properly mapping out hot pixels before pronouncing a camera ready-to-ship.

In any case my R-D1 has no persistent hot pixels. Sometimes I get one or three in ISO 1600 shots but when I do they're never in the same place.

-Dave-
 
I'm a new poster here. I have an R-D1 with a Japanese Warranty (bought from one of the members of this forum, actually). I sent the Warranty filled out with the help of a Japanese speaker back to Japan, and got back a form saying it was registered, but that the Warranty was only good in Japan, which was what I expected. Nonetheless I would think that any major repair would have to go back there anyway.

Don Goldberg (DAG) helped me with a minor RF adjustment problem 2 months ago, and his knowledge base must be growing, so one might consider contacting him for minor repairs our o warranty.

Ed
 
DaShiv said:
For me it turned out to be:

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS

...which was most of my DSLR lenses. In a way it's a terrible investment, since my R-D1 will depreciate much faster than those lenses would. But it's a rangefinder, it's digital, and I'd have to delve into selling body organs, not camera equipment, if I were to afford the eventual digital M.

Now I have the camera in my hand though, I'd do it again in a heartbeat. Those Canon L lenses were massive.
Click to expand...

Bob,

Interesting to see you over here, as you know I'm an FM'er.

I'm strugging with the decision of whether or not to get an R-D1 myself.

There are a lot of lenses I could part with... but the 85 f/1.2L... how could you?

Best
Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom