anaanda
Well-known
I considering one of these two cameras. I love Rangefinder photography but the Epson's had some issues, its expensive and I only have one Leica Lens a 50 which would be a 75 I guess on the Rd-1. The new Panasonic looks nice and has that Rangefinder look and feel. What do you all think?
ghost
Well-known
they don't really seem to be interchangeable. maybe swap your 50 for a 35 and you know what.
James Brannan
Established
I'm a little confused. Aren't these two totally different types of cameras?
saxshooter
Well-known
They are two completely different types of cameras. The Panasonic is not a rangefinder camera.
anaanda
Well-known
Yes I know its not a rangefinder camera, I wanted to get some of your thoughts on this rangefinder like SLR's potential performance as opposed to the Epson RD1. I guess I am basically asking if you think the RD1 is still a good buy?
Thanks
Thanks
saxshooter
Well-known
It's hard to answer your question not knowing what you love about rangefinder photography. Is it seeing the two images fuse in the rangefinder patch of your viewfinder knowing that it is in focus, even in a dark room, and seeing outside your frame of composition? Is it using hyperfocal distance for focusing? For me, that's why I love rangefinder photography. If so, then the Panasonic will probably disappoint you. But I am sure it will make great pictures and be less prone to the issues discussed on this forum regarding the Epson. That said, I would never give up my Epson for the Panasonic. But more for reasons that I already have digital SLR cameras and I enjoy the attributes of rangefinder focusing. Hope this helps.
James Brannan
Established
Honestly I haven't seen anything from the 4/3 group lens wise that would make me want to marry myself to the system or even make a small investment. I've used most of the Oly's but haven't had a friend with the Pana yet. Image quality is OK but I've seen nothing that would make me leave Nikon.anaanda said:
Change the above if you're the perverse type and have lenses from other systems that you insist on using and match up with any of the available converters from Cameraquest.
My opinion of the RD-1 is it is still overpriced. I haven't even seen a used one that I didn't consider overpriced. For the money I expect a certain build and quality that I don't see from the Epson. As far as image quality, I like what I can get from that sensor even at high ISO settings. For pure potential performance I'd get the Epson.
No offense meant to owners of either that frequent here. It's my honest opinion of the two.
IGMeanwell
Well-known
My question to you is do you like the sample images from the Olympus E-330 ?
If you do then the Panasonic L-1 would not be a bad choice since they are very much the same camera but with different exteriors and lenses
If you do then the Panasonic L-1 would not be a bad choice since they are very much the same camera but with different exteriors and lenses
sevres_babylone
Veteran
I can't say whether the R-D1 is still overpriced. Although in Canadian dollars, compared to what I paid, I would be paying a third to 40 percent less if I were to buy one now at Robert White. You can read about the problems in this forum. You can read why people like it in this forum, as well. Because of the problems, I would never unconditionally recommend it, but despite the problem(s), wonky framelines in my case, I have no regrets about buying mine in March 2005. If I didn't have one now, I would wait a few months to see if a Zeiss digital RF is released. The Leica is beyond my budget.
Prior to buying mine, my main camera was my Olympus OM-4T. I had used OMs for 30 years, and loved its size and how the OM system was great for travelling. Although I have an XA and Mamiya 7, I would never have defined myself as a rangefinder photographer.
I was waiting for a compact dSLR system without a crippled viewfinder, but as of March 2005 anyway that didn't exist. The size of the R-D1 was a big attraction for me. The viewfinder was also attractive. With my 35mm system, i primarily used lenses in the 40mm to 100mm range; so the move to the R-D1 and purchase of 35mm lenses and a 50mm has not been a hardship for me.
The L1's viewfinder has been criticized in some reviews. That would be a concern for me.
I don't think I would just want to use a 50mm with the Epson, but you can get the CV 35mm 2.5 for a decent price, or you could get a used 35mm in the classifieds here every so often.
I hope that is helpful.
Prior to buying mine, my main camera was my Olympus OM-4T. I had used OMs for 30 years, and loved its size and how the OM system was great for travelling. Although I have an XA and Mamiya 7, I would never have defined myself as a rangefinder photographer.
I was waiting for a compact dSLR system without a crippled viewfinder, but as of March 2005 anyway that didn't exist. The size of the R-D1 was a big attraction for me. The viewfinder was also attractive. With my 35mm system, i primarily used lenses in the 40mm to 100mm range; so the move to the R-D1 and purchase of 35mm lenses and a 50mm has not been a hardship for me.
The L1's viewfinder has been criticized in some reviews. That would be a concern for me.
I don't think I would just want to use a 50mm with the Epson, but you can get the CV 35mm 2.5 for a decent price, or you could get a used 35mm in the classifieds here every so often.
I hope that is helpful.
Terao
Kiloran
Well they're different cameras. The Panny is really just another prosumer digicam with the advantage of truly manual dial-based controls. For that reason alone it deserves an audition. However, reviews I've seen complain of some handling issues and also (of more concern) a noisy sensor even at sensible ISOs. A side-effect of Panny using a small sensor unfortunately.
In contrast, the RD-1 is a proper rangefinder (whatever that means) and despite its foibles and shortcomings I love it. I may end up upgrading to a Zeiss or a Leica M8 but for the moment I never want to use a digital SLR or compact again, the R-D1 will be with me until it dies...
In contrast, the RD-1 is a proper rangefinder (whatever that means) and despite its foibles and shortcomings I love it. I may end up upgrading to a Zeiss or a Leica M8 but for the moment I never want to use a digital SLR or compact again, the R-D1 will be with me until it dies...
garethc
Established
I think I can understand why you compare the two cameras. I got back in to photography via the Digilux 2 as it was the nearest thing I could find to the feeling I got from using cameras 20 years before. I don't like modern SLR's (and digitals) and the Digilux 2 with the aperture, zoom and focus rings on the lens along with shutter speed dial at the top felt very comfortable to me.
When I got too annoyed with the EVF I decided to move on and was tempted to wait for the Pansonic but had concerns about the 4/3 system and its apparently very dark viewfinder.
So, for me, though I had never tried an RF camera it seemed like the most natural solution. I plumped straight for the R-D1 as I didn't have time to experiment with a cheaper (film) solution such as a Bessa.
All in all I think if you want a camera that provides a pleasurable 'experience' when photographing as I do then the Panasonic is worth looking in to but for me as I said previously the often mentioned issues are too big to ignore. It might be worth looking in to the Digilux 2 but again it has some issues. It also has a wonderful lens which shouldn't be overlooked.
Lastly I woul say that my Epson has a focusing fault amongst other things and while I can't ignore Epson's rather poor QC I stil don't regret the purchase for one moment.
Hope that helps...though doubt it does!
When I got too annoyed with the EVF I decided to move on and was tempted to wait for the Pansonic but had concerns about the 4/3 system and its apparently very dark viewfinder.
So, for me, though I had never tried an RF camera it seemed like the most natural solution. I plumped straight for the R-D1 as I didn't have time to experiment with a cheaper (film) solution such as a Bessa.
All in all I think if you want a camera that provides a pleasurable 'experience' when photographing as I do then the Panasonic is worth looking in to but for me as I said previously the often mentioned issues are too big to ignore. It might be worth looking in to the Digilux 2 but again it has some issues. It also has a wonderful lens which shouldn't be overlooked.
Lastly I woul say that my Epson has a focusing fault amongst other things and while I can't ignore Epson's rather poor QC I stil don't regret the purchase for one moment.
Hope that helps...though doubt it does!
anaanda
Well-known
Thanks for all your answers..It seems even with some of the issues, people still love their RD1's
Didier
"Deed"
anaanda said:
It's NOT a rangefinder camera. It's a FourThirds DSLR.
If you like "RF look & feel" it might be the wrong camera for you, as, for instance, Michael Reichmann from Luminous Landscape wrote about it's viewfinder: "Regrettably the viewfinder on the L1 is one of the smallest and dimmest that I have ever seen" (see his L1 review here). For me, a bright, clear and sharp viewfinder is an essential part of a "RF look & feel".
The Leica Vario Elmarit kitlens seems to be a brillant DSLR standardzoom, but the camera - not shure about it.
Didier
Last edited:
ffttklackdedeng
Registered User
Didier said:
This was the deal breaker for me. The viewfinder is the most important part. Really really sad the L1 seems to fail on this.
If you don't appreciate zoom lenses (like me) you will also have a hard time finding compact normal-to-wide-lenses within the 4/3 system, too. A pity ihmo.
Robert
Last edited:
Didier
"Deed"
ffttklackdedeng said:
Personally I prefer bright RF viewfinders too. The L1 is a kind of sister model of the Olympus e-330 from which it has gotten the mirrorhouse/viewer/LCD/sensor unit. The e-330's unique feature is the live view LCD, a first for DSLR's. The viewfinder is made with mirrors not prisms, that explains why it's so dimmed. I would say the e-330/L1 are for photographers interested in the live view feature. I know a long time Leica user who said he rarely used the e-330's viewfinder but is highly satisfied with the LCD.
Btw. I edited my post, it was Michael Reichmann not Sean Reid who wrote that L1 review.
ffttklackdedeng said:
Indeed. Wide users must take the 7-14 or 11-22 zooms. There's actually a Sigma 1.4/30 but it's not really compact and with 60mm equiv. not really wide. An new Olympus prime lens around 24/1.4 is rumoured. Would be big like almost all fast wide SLR lenses, I guess.
Didier
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
And because one of these mirrors in the E-330 is transparent, passing half of the light to a sensor for live view and the other half to the focusing screen. However, the L1 doesn't have this live preview feature at all, but you're still looking through the semitransparent mirror it inherited from the E-330. As a result, the focusing screen is only half as bright as it could be (as pointed out on DPReview, http://www.dpreview.com/articles/panasonicdmcl1/). If that is true, it is one of the more idiotic design decisions in the history of photography.Didier said:
Philipp
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I hope somebody in Leica's dsign department is reading DPreview and seeing these remarks as well. The equivalent Leica body for the S-system is in the pipeline. The viewfinder is one area where they could score brownie points on next years' Photokina.
Didier
"Deed"
I believe Leica has not much to do with the camera design and production. The delivered the optical design for the 14-50mm (and have apparently sent optics quality controller's to Japan); but the body is a Olympus/Panasonic cooperation. The Leica body version of the L1 will be chrome, and maybe Leica is allowed to fiddle the in-camera software slightly as for the Digilux-2. That's it, probably. It's their first steps into consumer DSLR, so we should not expect the usual Leica pro quality standard. It's a japanese camera with a red dot, finally.jaapv said:
Didier
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Didier said:
Let's hope you are too pessimistic...
Didier
"Deed"
Jaap,jaapv said:
I fear I'm quite realistic. Knowing their small resources, Leica's involvement in that 4/3 project is very likely not bigger than in the earlier Panasonic/Leica cooperation projects. This means japanese red dotted cameras, Leica designed but Panasonic- (or 3rd party-) produced lenses, with some Leica QC here and there.
Didier