Epson RD-1 vs New Panasonic DMC L1

[pfogle]

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

Well, I'm still looking (like a lot of people, I guess) for a small light walk around camera, and my preferred focal length is around 28-35mm equivalent on full frame.

Gasp shock horror (this is heresy for me) I'm even tempted to consider the new Pentax K100D with the 21mm f3.2 pancake lens - this has got to be about the smallest combo on the market?

 

[jaapv]

Jaap,

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

Well, it was not a system I would buy into anyway🙄

I just found on the Leica-forum that there is a strong rumour that the Leica version will be introduced THIS photokina. It seems you are right, it cannot be anything but a rebadged Panasonic then 🙁🙁🙁

 

[AusDLK]

about the R-D1

about the R-D1

I, too, returned to photography after many years with the purchase of a Digilux 2.

I abandoned this camera because of its serious shutter lag and the lousy EVF.

After running through the gamut of M's, I settled on the M7.

Then came the R-D1. I like it but a couple of drops on an extended European photo adventure knocked the RF out of alignment so I sent it off to DAG for repair. That put me back in exclusively film world with the M7 and Hexar RF with a Tri-Elmar, 21mm Elmarit, and 12mm VC.

What I'm getting to is the 1.5x crop factor is going to be the end of the R-D1 for me. 99.9% of my images are at 50mm or less focal length and that makes the VF of the R-D1 practically useless for me. And I do not have the inclination to frequently change lenses and VFs as I must do with the R-D1.

Hopefully the M8 with the new Tri-Elmar external VF will solve this issue for me...

 

[Didier]

Well, I'm still looking for a small light walk around camera, and my preferred focal length is around 28-35mm equivalent on full frame.

Phil,
Ever thought about the Ricoh GR digital compact cam with fixed 28mm equiv. lens? Add a CV 28mm metal finder, and you may walk and shoot around very long...
Didier

 

[pfogle]

Phil,
Ever thought about the Ricoh GR digital compact cam with fixed 28mm equiv. lens? Add a CV 28mm metal finder, and you may walk and shoot around very long...
Didier

good call, Didier, I did look at one, and was quite impressed.

two things made me hesitate:
1) I don't really want to go to a smaller sensor - I like to use high ISO
2) I wasn't that impressed with the viewfinder that comes with it - it's ok but not great. And you have to use it all the time as there's no built in VF. I'd probably get that one, with the 21mm equiv accessory lens, as their VF does for both lenses. The downside is that their VF is very expensive (it costs more than the 21mm lens).

I got into the EOS system (1D - very heavy!) 'cos I thought I might go back to pro work, but now I don't think that's so likely, so I might sell the big Canon and get a smaller DSLR. I'll probably stick with the R-D1, as I do like it, but it's not really a decision based on logic 🙂

Actually, I just thought, I could just get the body, and use my CV 21D viewfinder - now that would be quite cost-effective. Hmmm... if only I could get to like the small sensor...

 

[ffttklackdedeng]

.. shoot around very long...

because of the time necessary to write the raw picture to the card? Just kidding 😀

Phil,

shooting the cute GR D in raw mode was reported to be a way to reduce the small sensor noise (with third party tools like NoiseNinja etc.). But the time between two shots in raw mode was measured to approx 12 seconds 🙁

Another small sensor related issue would be the huge DOF, at least like f8 - f11 on a 28mm / 24x36 camera and no way to reduce this

Robert

 

[sreidvt]

Well, I'm still looking (like a lot of people, I guess) for a small light walk around camera, and my preferred focal length is around 28-35mm equivalent on full frame.

Gasp shock horror (this is heresy for me) I'm even tempted to consider the new Pentax K100D with the 21mm f3.2 pancake lens - this has got to be about the smallest combo on the market?

As DSLRs go, that's not a bad idea but I'd recommend considering a used Pentax DS-2 which has a finder with .95 mag vs. the .85 mag of the K100D and K110D. I've reviewed the DS-2 and will try to get the article finished and up when time allows. The sensor makes the files look very much like those of the R-D1 (given a good lens).

Cheers,

Sean

 

[pfogle]

As DSLRs go, that's not a bad idea but I'd recommend considering a used Pentax DS-2 which has a finder with .95 mag vs. the .85 mag of the K100D and K110D. I've reviewed the DS-2 and will try to get the article finished and up when time allows. The sensor makes the files look very much like those of the R-D1 (given a good lens).

Cheers,

Sean

thanks, Sean.

My current fave is still the R-D1 with the 21mm Elmarit - if I can hold off the GAS, then I have to admit that I'm really happy with this combo. I just like buying cameras 😀

ps - my pet peeve is barrel distortion in the viewfinders - makes getting horizons level a real pain 🙁

 

[Jim Watts]

good call, Didier, I did look at one, and was quite impressed.

two things made me hesitate:
1) I don't really want to go to a smaller sensor - I like to use high ISO
2) I wasn't that impressed with the viewfinder that comes with it - it's ok but not great. And you have to use it all the time as there's no built in VF. I'd probably get that one, with the 21mm equiv accessory lens, as their VF does for both lenses. The downside is that their VF is very expensive (it costs more than the 21mm lens).

QUOTE]

Phil,
I have also been interested in the Ricoh with some reservations.
The best deal on the Ricoh GRD though seems to be as a package. Cameraworld in the U.K. do it for about 598 GBP http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/ViewPr...igital+Creative+Set+&+Lexar+1GB+133x+PRO+Card

You get the camera, 21mm lens, viewfinder, 1 gig Lexar card etc. for not much more than the camera plus viewfinder i.e. 399 + 128 = 527 GBP.

Although as I am considering buying the VC 28/35 mini-finder (which I could use on a GRD) I am not sure of the best route to take. The new Panasonic DMC-LX2EB camera also seems worth checking. 1600 ISO, 10.2 megapixels, Leica (designed) lens zooming from 28mm equivalent. Small sensor and noise compression alogorithim may prove a problem though.

Jim

Jim

 

[AusDLK]

walk around camera suggestion

walk around camera suggestion

>Well, I'm still looking for a small light walk around camera, and my preferred focal
>length is around 28-35mm equivalent on full frame.

I always have a Pansonic Lumix DMC-FX01 on my belt.

It has a 28mm (equivalent) f/2.8 lens and a nice big display. It is the easiest to use digital p&s that I have ever laid my hands on.

 

[nemjo]

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.

Philipp

AFAIK all the modern (AF, TTL) SLRs have at least one semitransparent surface in their viewfinder way, so it's not the big deal. Try a luxury SRL with a 3.5 or 5.6 glass - it'll be dim too.
So the "idiotic design decision" doesn't belong to L1(E330) exclusively.


nemjo

 

[JamesRR]

I considered the Panasonic LC1 and R-D1. For me, the viewfinder on the Panasonic was not up to par. It was electronic, and there was no way I could decently manual focus in that. The real viewfinder in the Epson was beautiful compared to the EVF.

2nd was the fact that I like to change lenses, depending on the need. I've used my R-D1 for wide angle landscape work, as well as portrait work, and general close range work. It's very versatile - and best, I feel like I'm shooting with my old manual film cameras - where I made the settings on aperture rings and ss dials.

 

[emyyl]

I am a very satisfied user of the Ricoh GR-D. Initially I was also concerned about the high noise from a small sensor. But in practice, the camera has produced some wonderful pictures, especially night pictures with slow sync flash. The shutter lag also is very small, if you use the "snap focus" or "infinity" setting.

 

[rxmd]

AFAIK all the modern (AF, TTL) SLRs have at least one semitransparent surface in their viewfinder way,

Yes, but the mirrors there are not completely semitransparent, only in some few, usually rather small places (the light and AF metering spots)! And even there they're usually not 50:50 semitransparent, but somewhat less. So when you look through the viewfinder in any SLR, with the exclusion of specialty SLRs like the Canon Pellix or high-speed F1, the overall image isn't viewed through a semitransparent mirror.

So the "idiotic design decision" doesn't belong to L1(E330) exclusively.

Yes, it does, and it belongs to the L1 only, not to the E330. In the E330, there is an additional CCD sensor behind the semitransparent mirror, used for live view. So there is some gain from the loss of brightness. In the L1 - at least in the sample DPReview had - the semitransparent mirror was still there, but with no CCD behind it, so the loss of viewfinder brightness was for no gain whatsoever. That's not a marvel of engineering by any standard. At least one could hope that in the final production models they put in a proper mirror.

Try a luxury SRL with a 3.5 or 5.6 glass - it'll be dim too.

Not particularly surprising at f5.6. Now stop down to f8, press the DOF preview lever/button and imagine that's what you see through the L1 viewfinder.

 

[peterm1]

I cannot speak for or against the Epson as I ahev never used one. But I own a Panasonic L1 and can give you my impressions of it. The L1 is beautifully built, with a metal chassis and an extremely nice stock lens. One reason I bought it was that I liked the idea of being able to use 3rd party lenses with an appropriate adapter and as I own a lot of Pentax and Nikon MF glass this was a very strong attraction. I also liked the rangefinder-like appearance of the kit. But the L1 has some downsides. First it is a big camera by comparison with a Leica M or Epson, especially with the standard lens. Second the use of third party lenses is not (always) as good as I hoped. The camera has a slighly dim viewfinder (although not so bad as some would have you believe) and a not particularly fantastic electronic rangefinder, so focussing a lens manually can be hit and miss, I have found. The focus confirmation light in the viewfinder comes on and then goes off so quickly it is hard to find the correct focus point sometimes. The autofocus mode can also struggle in dim light and it sometimes has to hunt for ages before it will focus when contrast / light is low. By comparison with my Nikon D70s it is miles behind in this department.

For all of this I have a soft spot for the camera. it is nicely made with a lens that is sharp, especially when the image stabilisation is in use and the camera generally handles color superbly. In fact the color images are lovely. For that matter it also handles black and white well - the camera has a range of "film emulation" modes including some black and white ones and I was pleasantly surprised by the way in which the camera can distinguish between different wavelenghts and hence give good contrast in black and white shots. (eg with a nice dark sky that is not washed out - a problem that is common when shooting black and white.)

Overall I would not put you off buying the L1 BUT if you already own Leica lenses I think I would carefully consider the Epson. One thing I really regret is the inability for me to make good use of my Leica glass.

 

[nrj]

I've owned both cameras though not at the same time. I really liked the RD-1 and used Leica 21, 24, 35, and 50 lenses on it. Picture quality was very good to iso 800, but not every lens worked as well - there was some resolution loss towards the edge of the frame on the wides which wasn't there with film. I loved the one to one finder and the 35 (50 equivalent on film) was great to use. Feel and handling of the camera was also very good. Unfortunately the camera was not reliable, nor could it take more than two shots in quick succession in raw. The DMC L1 is a very good camera to iso 400, in particular colour is rich and satisying and I found the images sharper than the RD-1 with the leica 14-50 (28-100 equivalent) lens. The camera body is a bit brick like to hold but over time I've come to like it a lot, the interface is well thought out and easy to use. Its well built and the controls are better to use than the RD-1. It has the best pop-up flash going because it can be used for bounce flash, and flash exposures always seem to be 'right' as does the white balance. In addition it has live view on a very good screen. Only downside is the viewfinder which is small and somewhat dim, but the size of it is about the size of the 50 framelines in my leica M6. I'd rather it was brighter and bigger but its a non issue in daylight and not that bad in low light. I'd also want the on-off switch in a differnt location but its a minor personal preference thing.

 

[RIVI1969]

I have both. When I bought the L1 I was also looking for the "rangefinder" feel which at the end I never felt. First, the camera is at least at large as my Nikon D80, but heavier and after a full day of outdoor shooting I ended up with a bad neck pain. Leaving that issue aside, the image quality is superb, as good as the RD1, and the zoom range and AF gives you more flexibility for certain types of shooting. The R-D1 gives you in the other hand the chance to use plenty of glass, I am in love with my 35mm f1.2 for example. Both cameras are great, but different.

 

[kshapero]

I have owned both but at different times. I am mainly a prime lens person so the R-D1 was a better fit for me. A better VF for MF. The L! really takes great photos with the Leica Zoom. I had a Nikon adapter and was not that pleased with the way that worked. Also AF at night was impossible.

 

[dan denmark]

may i say, i have the DL3 leica which is pretty much the same camera as the L1, i believe? i use it all the time for my current work, photographing artwork for books. i have gone the full DSLR Nikonand Fujifilm route with the S5 the last one which i gave to a relative when i got the DL3. i have the Nikkor adaptor and still use a couple of my Nikkor lenses, the 85/f2 my favorite, with the camera including a very old 1970s 55macro which i shoot with for a commercial jeweller. i love the camera for work and it sits well on a tripod but is a bit unwieldy hand-held since i am more used to the smaller Bessas and my recently acquired M3. but the DL3 sits in its case in the backseat of the ute while i keep the M3 and an RD1s in the glove box always.

all great tools for different uses. nice thing about the L1/DL3 is they look less imposing if used on the street in an RF kind of fashion, though not RFs of course. the right tool for the job means more tools than just one.

-dd

 

[nrj]

Hi dd

I'm interested in why you gave the fuji S5 away when you got the DL3.
nrj