AP review of the RD-1

Sean, isn't the ccd sensor size (being somewhat small) going to cause images to turn out "not so good" with wide Leica lenses?
 
Thanks Sean. I need to spend more time digging around your site. :D
I'm just happy to see a more expensive digital camera than my Digilux 2 out now. Maybe the owners of the RD-1 can catch some of the flak I got for spending so much money.
 
I'm glad it's helpful. It's not my site, though, it's Michael Reichman's. I just write for them from time to time.

We all spent way to much money buying the R-D1 but it's been very good to many of us.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Tom Conte said:
Bob,

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

Howdy Tom, as I recall my 24-70 got mangled by UPS on its way to your place. :D Hope you've found another copy! (I've sold mine after sending it to Canon for a full repair.)

Tom Conte said:
I'm strugging with the decision of whether or not to get an R-D1 myself.
Click to expand...

I can't in good conscience recommend the R-D1 to anyone because it's such a poor value proposition compared to other digital cameras (IMO). Then again, I wouldn't recommend a new M7 or MP either and there are lots of happy M7 and MP owners, so YMMV. If you can wait, the next-gen digital rangefinder from Leica, Zeiss, and/or Epson I'm sure will be better bang for the buck (well, maybe not the Leica). For me personally though, I used to be reluctant to take my 20D out on the streets, but with the R-D1 I've been shooting a LOT more than I used to, so I've been happy with my decision. The way I see it, the real value of something is how much use I get from it.

Tom Conte said:
There are a lot of lenses I could part with... but the 85 f/1.2L... how could you?
Click to expand...

I had earmarked it for sale (and I do need to sell it to pay for the R-D1) but I've still been holding off on pulling the trigger finger and putting it on chopping block at FM. It's so hard to let go of this lens! :D
 
For someone who loves rangefinders, the R-D1 is a wonderful thing to work with. If one is willing to sell equipment to raise the $3000, or otherwise has the means, I recommend it highly. One aspect that softens the blow somewhat is that the camera works very well with many excellent (and fairly inexpensive) older RF lenses. That somewhat offsets the total cost of owning the system. I spent $3000 on the Canon D30 when it was first released and have never regretted spending that money. Of course it paid for itself in commercial work but even if it hadn't I wouldn't have regretted it.

Sean
 
DaShiv said:
Howdy Tom, as I recall my 24-70 got mangled by UPS on its way to your place. :D Hope you've found another copy! (I've sold mine after sending it to Canon for a full repair.)
Click to expand...

Thank you again for being such an excellent seller when that happened!



DaShiv said:
I can't in good conscience recommend the R-D1 to anyone because it's such a poor value proposition compared to other digital cameras (IMO). Then again, I wouldn't recommend a new M7 or MP either and there are lots of happy M7 and MP owners, so YMMV.
Click to expand...

I understand and I think I agree. Look at my avatar, I don't wear a timex either. Something is clearly amiss in my grey matter.


DaShiv said:
I had earmarked it for sale (and I do need to sell it to pay for the R-D1) but I've still been holding off on pulling the trigger finger and putting it on chopping block at FM. It's so hard to let go of this lens! :D
Click to expand...

Don't do it. Canon made a classic in that lens. You'll just end up buying one again.

Tom
 
Sean Reid said:
For someone who loves rangefinders, the R-D1 is a wonderful thing to work with. ... I spent $3000 on the Canon D30 when it was first released and have never regretted spending that money. Of course it paid for itself in commercial work but even if it hadn't I wouldn't have regretted it.
Click to expand...

I hear you. I loved my D30 and it was also worth every penny. I still regret selling it to 'upgrade'. The R-D1 makes sense to me.

My decision is done. My R-D1 should arrive tomorrow via FedEx :D

Tom
 
Cool, let us know what you think. Have you worked with many rangefinders before?

Cheers,

Sean
 
Sean,

Long ago, yes. My very first 35mm was a Yashica RF fixed lens jobber.

Tom
 
Tom Conte said:
I hear you. I loved my D30 and it was also worth every penny. I still regret selling it to 'upgrade'. The R-D1 makes sense to me.

My decision is done. My R-D1 should arrive tomorrow via FedEx :D
Click to expand...

Congrats! Once you've gotten past the sticker shock, the R-D1 is simply a blast to use. It's as analog--and as digital--as I want it to be when I'm shooting with it. Being able to do "digital" things like changing the white balance and compression settings without needing to flip the LCD around is a very smart design, and on the other hand I can still leave the screen out for when the mood to chimp strikes me. I'm sure you'll be enjoying it as much as I have been!
 
Popular Photo and Imaging (or is it Imaging and Photo?) just published a review of the R-D1. I received it yesterday. I may have missed it in the review since I am not an ardent digital fan, but can anyone tell me what the rewind knob does?

-Paul
 
The rewind knob is used as a setting wheel for various settings: ISO, WB, menu selections, etc. It works like a charm.

Cheers,

Sean
 
pshinkaw said:
Popular Photo and Imaging (or is it Imaging and Photo?) just published a review of the R-D1. I received it yesterday. I may have missed it in the review since I am not an ardent digital fan, but can anyone tell me what the rewind knob does?

-Paul
Click to expand...

What was the review like? Can you post a synopsis?
Thanks,
Chris
 
Following from the last postings, I bought the Popular Photography issue from the newsstand. The review is by Michael McNamara and there is an interesting sidebar from Martin Resnick. I would describe the review as largely positive, though a bit schizoid. It mostly takes the camera for what it is, emphasizing its retro features. Not surprisingly, it sees the price as a downside. It suggests it is a camera one would buy with one's heart, rather than one's head. In terms of mixed messages: In a text box, the two-inch LCD is included in "What's hot,", but then the text suggests that given the price, there should be a larger LCD. Still it's a more sympathetic review than the one in the British magazine "Digital Photographer" which found all kinds of things wrong with the controls. The Popular Photography article says that the Nikon D70 "delivers better overall image quality." As someone close to buying an RD-1, I have two questions arising from the Popular Photography review. The review concludes that its resolution figures are lower than most 6MP DLSR's, even when tested with a Leica lens, and that even the 5MP DSLR outresolves it. Does this matter in the real world? Martin Resnick, whose articles on street-shooting I have admired for a while, complains about the shutter-noise compared to a Leica, and what he calls the "dim finder." The shutter noise issue has been discussed in various forums and reviews. The finder comment is more troubling, and confusing for me, because I don't know what "dim" means. That is, I don't know what the comparison would be for me. I don't own a Leica. I mostly shoot using an Olympus SLR. My Rangefinder experience is with my Mamiya 7 and an old Olympus XA. With respect to the latter, my problem was never dimness, but its size. How dim is the RD-1 finder compared to an OM camera with a fast lens, or to the Mamiya?
 
I thought that the Popular Photography and Imaging review was also schizoid, but prodominately negative. The last lines indicate that the images produced are not as good as the Leica lenses could produce. I wonder where the reviewers got the idea of what the Leica lenses could produce on a digital body since no one has done it before.
Are they comparing the images to a Leica film camera???? That would be an unfair comparison since as we all know there are significant differences in the two "storage" systems.

Martin
 
I surely do not think the R-D1's finder is dim. In fact, it is the same brightness to my eyes as my M6 TTL's finder.
 
Well...with a 6mp sensor photos are limited resolution-wise by the sensor, not the lenses. This is true of all 6mp cameras, and true of the 8mp Canon 20D as well. The Holga's lens is perhaps an exception. :) Nothing unique about the R-D1 there. Did Pop Photog expect Leica lenses to perform magic?

In my experience the R-D1 provides image quality equal resolution-wise to the Canon 10D. Better in terms of tonality. Nikon D70 photos are likely a bit crisper out-of-the-box since that camera uses a weak anti-aliasing filter. For real-world photos I doubt the difference is worth fussing over.

Much more significant is the difference in approach a person takes with an RF camera vs. an SLR. If RF cameras encourage you to be creative in a way SLRs don't then IMO that pretty much trumps everything else. I bought my R-D1 mainly because I enjoy working with RFs more than other types of cameras.

As for the "dim" viewfinder...nonsense. The R-D1 has one of the nicest RF viewfinders I've ever used. My M2's VF is better still but the R-D1 finder's 1:1 magnification reduces brightness a little. The shutter is louder than a Leica's but hardly noisy. My Canon 20D's shutter is noticeably louder.

Geez, first Damien Demolder of Amateur Photographer in the UK writes his R-D1 review as though he's forgotten everything he ever knew about RF cameras. Now we have Mason Resnick, who should also have a clue, complaining about dim viewfinders and loud shutters. The R-D1 has its faults to be sure...but this stuff is off the mark.

-Dave-
 
One of the things that we can't expect magazines such as Pop Photo to "get" is that part of the appeal of the R-D1 is all the cool old lenses it lets us use!

Here's something I shot with mine this evening. Sure, using a Nikon D70 (or the D100 I own) might have given me "better" image quality... but I couldn't have put a vintage Canon LTM 50/1.2 lens on that, and I really like the way it makes this image look! (Of course, you can see more of the effect at a larger size than I can post here.)

The ballet is the death scene from Romeo and Juliet, by the way, which means the setting is a dimly-lit tomb. How dimly lit? Well, the EXIF data says I needed an exposure of 1/239 at f/1.2 at the EI 1600 setting. Incidentally, despite the large expanse of dark background, I was able to use the straight, center-weighted meter reading with NO exposure compensation! The girl's dress is on the edge of burning out, but I can accept that to retain some detail in the faces.
 
Reviews are inevitably subjective, I suppose. My experiences, having now owned the camera for a couple of months (using it for personal and professional work).

Finder: excellent, not dim at all

shutter noise: I agree with Resnick, wish it were quieter. That said, it isn't a big issue for most work.

Resolution: I didn't do res. charts because they bear little relation to my real world professional work. The R-D1 files are sharper and better detailed to my eye than those from the Canon 10D (which I owned and worked with extensively) and the Olympus E-1 (which I'm testing right now). They don't match files from my 1Ds but that wouldn't be a fair comparison.

Either I have a magic R-D1 or the camera does much better in real-world use than it does in technical tests. Any camera that is able to show the differences between a Voigtlander 28 Ultron and a Leica 28 ASPH is resolving a good amount of detail.

It's interesting that some reviews are so critical of the camera and yet most R-D1 owners I know of are extremely happy with it. Go figure.

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