edlaurpic
Established
Having just purchased (and returned) for a refund an R-D1S that I got from a Japanese dealer, this is to provide some actual hands-on experience with the camera. (The reason I returned it was that the camera was advertised as coming with an English Language manual, but it came without one ... no hard copy book, no CD, no downloadable user's guide for the new camera. . .. everything was in Japanese.
First, the good news:
All of the features that were described in the recent release about the R-D1S appear to work beautifully. It is particularly nice not to have to deal with the double-push shutter release problem and to be able to magnify raw files as much as jpegs in the LCD. The menus are extensions of the old ones and also very easy to use and understand. I took some shots with the current model 21mm f/2.8 Elmarit in low light in a restaurant and they are beautiful, less noisy in low light areas, even nicer with more natural color (at least in the camera I got) than my original RD-1.
Now the bad news:
Both of these dealers would not promise to exchange the camera for a new one if the one purchased was defective (e.g. was not focusing correctly or was still doing the double push shutter thing), even if it were defective right out of the box. At least Epson USA, although, as near as I can tell, do not fix a returned camera, replace it with a new one if youur camera is malfunctioning. Similarly, the only way the Japanese dealers said they would deal with a malfunctioning camera is you would have to send them back the camera they would take it to Epson if something went wrong (visions of weeks or months of delays). That said, even without the guide, I was able to figure everything out pretty well. I did not test the upres capability and am not sure if the hot pixel fix worked, but I expect if I had checked I would have found that it did. Lastly, the rangefinder base length issues are still there with the camera, so about half of my dozen or so Leica lenses focused right on; the rest were slightly off (close focusing).
So this is what I have concluded:
If I can get a camera from a dealer in Europe or Japan who will agree to replace a malfunctioning camera, I might spring for the $2500 and buy an R-D1S and sell my old R.D1 . On the other hand, if I can get the firmware update in June, I see no downside in holding on to my R-D1, except for the delay in getting the new features.
First, the good news:
All of the features that were described in the recent release about the R-D1S appear to work beautifully. It is particularly nice not to have to deal with the double-push shutter release problem and to be able to magnify raw files as much as jpegs in the LCD. The menus are extensions of the old ones and also very easy to use and understand. I took some shots with the current model 21mm f/2.8 Elmarit in low light in a restaurant and they are beautiful, less noisy in low light areas, even nicer with more natural color (at least in the camera I got) than my original RD-1.
Now the bad news:
Both of these dealers would not promise to exchange the camera for a new one if the one purchased was defective (e.g. was not focusing correctly or was still doing the double push shutter thing), even if it were defective right out of the box. At least Epson USA, although, as near as I can tell, do not fix a returned camera, replace it with a new one if youur camera is malfunctioning. Similarly, the only way the Japanese dealers said they would deal with a malfunctioning camera is you would have to send them back the camera they would take it to Epson if something went wrong (visions of weeks or months of delays). That said, even without the guide, I was able to figure everything out pretty well. I did not test the upres capability and am not sure if the hot pixel fix worked, but I expect if I had checked I would have found that it did. Lastly, the rangefinder base length issues are still there with the camera, so about half of my dozen or so Leica lenses focused right on; the rest were slightly off (close focusing).
So this is what I have concluded:
If I can get a camera from a dealer in Europe or Japan who will agree to replace a malfunctioning camera, I might spring for the $2500 and buy an R-D1S and sell my old R.D1 . On the other hand, if I can get the firmware update in June, I see no downside in holding on to my R-D1, except for the delay in getting the new features.
sf
Veteran
Why do they keep doing this where they put out a number of modifications on the same product? Why not come up wiht something NEW instead of a reformation on something old?
How about a RD-2 with a much larger sensor, higher quality build, and a variable magnification VF.
Not that I'd ever buy it.
How about a RD-2 with a much larger sensor, higher quality build, and a variable magnification VF.
Not that I'd ever buy it.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
shutterflower said:
Possibly because such a complete redesign would be very, very expensive?
Actually, Epson doesn't "keep" doing this -- this is the FIRST time they've upgraded the R-D 1, even with so much as a firmware update.
(Somewhat different from the approach of certain big-name DSLR makers, who put a new camera on the market and then need to rush out three or four firmware updates to fix fairly drastic problems: "Niksnon says Firmware v. 1.07 for the new EDOX-230D addresses several issues including random file deletion, corruption of memory cards, off-color cast in flash mode, release of excessive gamma radiation, and an intermittent issue in which making a bracketed exposure while the AEL button was depressed would shoot steel needles into the user's eye." Okay, I made up a couple of those, but you know what (and whom) I'm talking about...)
Ahem, I think you've just answered your own question...
Last edited:
S
Sean Reid
Guest
I agree with JLW about your last sentence. But, the fact is that the R-D1 was certainly as much in need of these firmware changes as any DSLR from Canon or Nikon, and Epson should have done this nearly a year ago. For starters, a serious camera needs to trip the shutter when it's told to, there's no excuse for it not doing so. Next, hot pixels never should have been an issue with this camera. It takes a lot of cloning and time to fix them on a large assignment. Canon, et. al. are absolutely right to introduce firmware upgrades as soon as they are aware of problems and have found solutions. That's a mark of a company being responsive to it's customers. Epson, ultimately, has also been responsive to our feedback about the R-D1. It just was a long time coming.
Ideally, we'd like to see cameras released with such perfect firmware that no changes are needed. In reality, though, the next best option is responsiveness from the manufacturer when evidence of problems emerges.
Cheers,
Sean
Ideally, we'd like to see cameras released with such perfect firmware that no changes are needed. In reality, though, the next best option is responsiveness from the manufacturer when evidence of problems emerges.
Cheers,
Sean
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
edlaurpic said:
Did you have a chance to evaluate the buffer capacity/flush speed vs. the R-D 1?
The original R-D 1 already was pretty tight for buffer capacity when shooting in raw mode -- two or three shots in quick succession would fill it up, and then you'd have to wait for the red card-access light to stop pulsing before you could shoot again. I've been wondering if using the new raw+JPEG capability would overtax the buffer because of the extra JPEG data in each file.
Steve L
Established
"Ideally, we'd like to see cameras released with such perfect firmware that no changes are needed."-sean
Remember the Digilux 2? I think Leica's philosophy is not to release a camera until it is truly "done" and doesn't need any firmware updates - so they don't make it possible to do them, and then are probably very surprised when users find serious flaws that they simply missed...maybe they will learn their lesson in time for the Digital M....but they do seem to take a long time to learn lessons...
Remember the Digilux 2? I think Leica's philosophy is not to release a camera until it is truly "done" and doesn't need any firmware updates - so they don't make it possible to do them, and then are probably very surprised when users find serious flaws that they simply missed...maybe they will learn their lesson in time for the Digital M....but they do seem to take a long time to learn lessons...
Peter Klein
Well-known
Software is written by human beings. Human beings make mistakes. Even Japanese programmers and designers. Ergo, all serious digital cameras should have firmware update capability.
If Epson is using poor R-D1 sales in the U.S. as an excuse for not making the R-D1s available here, they have their heads in the sand. Between all the financial games noted above, the QC issues, and lackluster marketing, they need to take a hard look at their own actions. Many people simply won't spend twice the cost of a decent DSLR for a camera that often comes with a misadjusted rangefinder, can't be fixed--only replaced, and which is unknown to many Epson people in the U.S., etc. Lots of us would happily buy a digital RF if they got it right.
Then there is the problem of the short RF base and 1:1 viewfinder that is difficult for many glasses wearers. This cries out for a different RF/viewfinder design, especially for a camera that has a 1.5x crop factor. The digital "guts" of the camera seem fine to me, and the firmware update has fixed a lot of the issues we've all talked about. Get the QC right, price the camera competitively to the Canon 20D-class DSLRs, and many people might buy it. Use similar "guts" and a better RF/viewfinder for glasses wearers, and people like me would jump on board.
--Peter
If Epson is using poor R-D1 sales in the U.S. as an excuse for not making the R-D1s available here, they have their heads in the sand. Between all the financial games noted above, the QC issues, and lackluster marketing, they need to take a hard look at their own actions. Many people simply won't spend twice the cost of a decent DSLR for a camera that often comes with a misadjusted rangefinder, can't be fixed--only replaced, and which is unknown to many Epson people in the U.S., etc. Lots of us would happily buy a digital RF if they got it right.
Then there is the problem of the short RF base and 1:1 viewfinder that is difficult for many glasses wearers. This cries out for a different RF/viewfinder design, especially for a camera that has a 1.5x crop factor. The digital "guts" of the camera seem fine to me, and the firmware update has fixed a lot of the issues we've all talked about. Get the QC right, price the camera competitively to the Canon 20D-class DSLRs, and many people might buy it. Use similar "guts" and a better RF/viewfinder for glasses wearers, and people like me would jump on board.
--Peter
S
Sean Reid
Guest
Steve L said:
Hi Steve,
Leica is getting faster, though, and they have responded to issues with the DMR. One thing that I will say for Leica is that they are deadly serious about the digital M and that will show in build quality, support, etc..
Cheers,
Sean
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
...price...
I wish this weren't an issue for me, but it is.
I suspect my R-D 1 is going to be my only digital RF for a long, long time.
S
Sean Reid
Guest
Hi jlw,
Yes, there's no way around it, the digital M will cost a good deal more than the R-D1.
Cheers,
Sean
Yes, there's no way around it, the digital M will cost a good deal more than the R-D1.
Cheers,
Sean
Grober
Well-known
Mayhaps Zeiss will surprise everyone at Photokina and show a ZD, eh?