Solinar
Analog Preferred
Last edited:
Erwin Puts weighs in on the RD-1
- Thread starter Solinar
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 38
- Views 5K
S
Sean Reid
Guest
It's pretty fair I think (just gave it a quick read). I just sent him this:
"Hi Erwin,
I enjoyed your R-D1 review. I'm a reviewer myself and just wanted make one factual correction in your report. You must have used a very slow SD card for your RAW cycle testing. With a fast SD card, the camera will make 2 -3 RAW exposures in succession and then pause about 2-3 seconds before the buffer empties sufficiently to make another exposure. SD cards can have a large effect on camera cycle timings so you might want to clarify which card you were testing with to get your timings."
While it may be true that the R-D1 cannot make full use of a Leica lens' resolution, neither can 35mm film. The fact is that the qualities (the drawing) of high-end lenses comes through clearly in R-D1 files.
Cheers,
Sean
"Hi Erwin,
I enjoyed your R-D1 review. I'm a reviewer myself and just wanted make one factual correction in your report. You must have used a very slow SD card for your RAW cycle testing. With a fast SD card, the camera will make 2 -3 RAW exposures in succession and then pause about 2-3 seconds before the buffer empties sufficiently to make another exposure. SD cards can have a large effect on camera cycle timings so you might want to clarify which card you were testing with to get your timings."
While it may be true that the R-D1 cannot make full use of a Leica lens' resolution, neither can 35mm film. The fact is that the qualities (the drawing) of high-end lenses comes through clearly in R-D1 files.
Cheers,
Sean
S
Socke
Guest
Hm, does he realy know what he`s talking about?
I don't like his "UJM" rethoric and his motorcycle history is all wrong.
But this is where I think he does not know what a digital picture is:
The instruction manual indicates that the JPEG compression ratio is 1:4. But in reality the ratio is 1:11 or 1:12. The file size on the memory card is about 2 million pixels, but when expanding the file to its full potential. It has a size of about 24 million pixels.
I don't like his "UJM" rethoric and his motorcycle history is all wrong.
But this is where I think he does not know what a digital picture is:
The instruction manual indicates that the JPEG compression ratio is 1:4. But in reality the ratio is 1:11 or 1:12. The file size on the memory card is about 2 million pixels, but when expanding the file to its full potential. It has a size of about 24 million pixels.
S
Sean Reid
Guest
I think he's a little stronger on lenses than he is on digital per se. He is wrong about motorcycle history but only riders like you and I may know or care about that.
Cheers,
Sean
Owner
Northeastern Motorcycle Tours
http://www.motorcycletours.com
Cheers,
Sean
Owner
Northeastern Motorcycle Tours
http://www.motorcycletours.com
S
Socke
Guest
Jep, I read further and I think the review is pretty positve.
As he points out, even a slow recycle time must not be a problem.
Given the need to focus and adjust exposure for every shot, I would be hard pressed to get close to three seconds per shot 🙂
For situations in need of 40 frames in five seconds I'll borrow a 1D MkII from one of my PJ friends 🙂
As he points out, even a slow recycle time must not be a problem.
Given the need to focus and adjust exposure for every shot, I would be hard pressed to get close to three seconds per shot 🙂
For situations in need of 40 frames in five seconds I'll borrow a 1D MkII from one of my PJ friends 🙂
R
RML
Guest
He indeed seems pretty positive, which must be quite difficult for him. I've seen some really harsh reviews by him where others were much more positive. But then again, at least he isn't one of them yea-sayers. This positive Putts report makes the R-D1 an even more attractive camera for me. 🙂
S
Sean Reid
Guest
Erwin and I have been talking by e-mail and he's revised the RAW cycle time discussion so that its more accurate. As I said above, I think he was quite fair in many respects. I do think, however, that photographers who don't have a lot of experience with digital capture may not be aware that almost all digital captures (RAW) are a bit soft because of the camera's AA filter. Some are moreso than others. A standard step for many (including myself) with digital capture is capture sharpening (I use Photokit) to regain much of what is lost by the AA filter. Some cameras reveal very good detail after that process and some do not. The Epson is in the former group. To really do a useful comparison of a film scan and digital capture, both should first be sharpened appropriately. After all, the real test is how the final print looks after using a proper workflow.
Cheers,
Sean
Cheers,
Sean
Last edited by a moderator:
justins7
Well-known
Who cares about test charts?
Who cares about test charts?
I am sorry, but anyone who uses test charts is missing the point. People who use them should stick to their Excel spreadsheets. Maybe if you only care about sharpness, fine. But that is hardly the only important thing.
I haven't used the RD-1, but I've seen great pictures taken with it. The fact of it being a useable, digital rangefinder is far more important.
Who cares about test charts?
I am sorry, but anyone who uses test charts is missing the point. People who use them should stick to their Excel spreadsheets. Maybe if you only care about sharpness, fine. But that is hardly the only important thing.
I haven't used the RD-1, but I've seen great pictures taken with it. The fact of it being a useable, digital rangefinder is far more important.
Mango, let's not join the sour-puss Photo.net Leica-bashers over there in bashing Mr Puts as well. We're all beginners at something, and the fact he is not overly knowledgeable about motorcycles and digital imaging -- and also not an artiste -- doesn't mean he's not an interestingly knowledgeable expert on lenses. It sounds like Sean is helping him on the digital imaging score.
If he's favorable about Leica lenses, and he surely is, that can reasonably follow from their optical excellence. It's so easy to be overly critical and cynical; let's instead appreciate the appreciable! 🙂
I'll be very interested to see what he will have to say about the Carl Zeiss lenses in M-mount, once they arrive... an unavoidable commentary.
If he's favorable about Leica lenses, and he surely is, that can reasonably follow from their optical excellence. It's so easy to be overly critical and cynical; let's instead appreciate the appreciable! 🙂
I'll be very interested to see what he will have to say about the Carl Zeiss lenses in M-mount, once they arrive... an unavoidable commentary.
David Kieltyka
Clicking away feverishly
Erwin's Leica Lens Compendium is a very informative book. I recommend it to anyone interested in the design aspects of Leitz & Leica lenses. Aesthetically I find he tends to conflate the quantitative and the qualitative. More--more resolution, more contrast, more recent--is simply assumed to be better. To be fair he does recognize that not everyone shares this view unquestioningly. Keeping this in mind I always find his comments worth reading even when I don't agree with his argument or conclusions.
-Dave-
-Dave-
W
wlewisiii
Guest
David Kieltyka said:
There are a fair number of people with a fairly large web presence that I would say this about. Along with Mr. Puts, Mr. Steele and Mr. Gandy come to mind. Both have extensive and valuable sites that contain much good information; but it's never a good thing to accept anyone's assertions unquestioningly. This applies to our hobbies and avocations as much as it does to news and politics.
Many ideas and thougths that are then winnowed in our own minds in the light of our own experiances, that's the way to play the game.
Or at least as well as pop philosophy can do at this time... 😛
William
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
One way to read Erwin's review s that you don't need to spring for a Summilux ASPH to get the most out of the R-D 1!
I already know that a 6-megapixel image is enough for the vast majority of my photography, and that I prefer to work with a rangefinder camera rather than an SLR.
So what Erwin has documented for me is that I don't need to feel left out because I can't afford a very expensive 50mm lens for my R-D 1 -- there'd be no visible benefit compared to using the lenses that I already own.
I doubt if that's the conclusion he was intending to convey, but it's very liberating!
I already know that a 6-megapixel image is enough for the vast majority of my photography, and that I prefer to work with a rangefinder camera rather than an SLR.
So what Erwin has documented for me is that I don't need to feel left out because I can't afford a very expensive 50mm lens for my R-D 1 -- there'd be no visible benefit compared to using the lenses that I already own.
I doubt if that's the conclusion he was intending to convey, but it's very liberating!
DaShiv
21st century digital boy
I'm not so sure about that -- I've seen side-by-side shots on "just" a 4-megapixel Canon 1D showing very clearly discernable differences between even top-notch Canon L lenses (such as between the 100-400 IS and the 200/1.8), nevermind the difference between one and a cheap consumer zoom. I can't speak with any authority about how big the differences in quality are among various rangefinder lenses -- maybe they're all of a higher caliber than SLR lenses (of course, right? 😀) -- but my inclination in any case is to disregard tests like Puts's if they disagree with what my eyes tell me from 100% file views and from prints. My experience also tells me though that any difference that I have to zoom in closer than 100% to spot won't show up in prints; indeed, many things I see at 100% won't show up in prints at all. For instance, mild sharpening halos.
YMMV, of course. And my apologies if this only fuels GAS on your part. 😀
YMMV, of course. And my apologies if this only fuels GAS on your part. 😀
DaShiv
21st century digital boy
Manolo Gozales said:
Are you saying that Puts, as a reviewer of some repute, should be held to higher factual standards than your average opinion-wielding Internet forumite?
I am... shocked, I tell you. 😀
S
Sean Reid
Guest
"So what Erwin has documented for me is that I don't need to feel left out because I can't afford a very expensive 50mm lens for my R-D 1 -- there'd be no visible benefit compared to using the lenses that I already own."
He hasn't documented that at all. As you know, lens performance includes many variables. There are indeed very visible differences among lenses on the R-D1:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml
I enjoyed Erwin's article but one can see how it feeds into a kind of mindset, that seems to have gained momentum in the last few years, regarding cameras and lenses. And the mindset is that somehow by citing numbers measuring some aspect of a camera or lens, one can describe performance generally. That's not the case.
The Canon L lenses made a big difference on even the 3.3 MP D30 - a very visible difference.
The Leica ASPH lenses are stellar performers on the R-D1, look at those corner crops again. The challenge is that they tend to be contrasty.
It aint' all about megapickles
It ain't all about resolution charts
It aint' all about MTF charts
...add your own lines as the spirit strikes you.
Sean
He hasn't documented that at all. As you know, lens performance includes many variables. There are indeed very visible differences among lenses on the R-D1:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml
I enjoyed Erwin's article but one can see how it feeds into a kind of mindset, that seems to have gained momentum in the last few years, regarding cameras and lenses. And the mindset is that somehow by citing numbers measuring some aspect of a camera or lens, one can describe performance generally. That's not the case.
The Canon L lenses made a big difference on even the 3.3 MP D30 - a very visible difference.
The Leica ASPH lenses are stellar performers on the R-D1, look at those corner crops again. The challenge is that they tend to be contrasty.
It aint' all about megapickles
It ain't all about resolution charts
It aint' all about MTF charts
...add your own lines as the spirit strikes you.
Sean
Last edited by a moderator:
Solinar
Analog Preferred
I'm an opinion wielding forumite and to me Erwin Puts review signifies that Leicadom has taken notice of the RD-1. Also, with his reputation for not being overtly friendly to non-Leica gear, the RD-1 came out smelling like a rose in my opinion.
My own take on the RD-1, is that this is a camera body that cost 3 times as much as a Nikon D70, which has fewer features overall, but its rangefinder features allows for a more traditional shooting style and allows you to do so with some of your current glass. In that last respect, I can definitely see the RD-1 complimenting a M-body in someone's camera bag.
It would have been better, if the RD-1 was twice the price of a D70 since after all we all still talking about a Cosina platform underneath it all.
My own take on the RD-1, is that this is a camera body that cost 3 times as much as a Nikon D70, which has fewer features overall, but its rangefinder features allows for a more traditional shooting style and allows you to do so with some of your current glass. In that last respect, I can definitely see the RD-1 complimenting a M-body in someone's camera bag.
It would have been better, if the RD-1 was twice the price of a D70 since after all we all still talking about a Cosina platform underneath it all.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
.....and Sean that's a good point about those corner crops and gee whiz, I hope no one is going to cry about spilt milk, because the corner taken with a 35/1.7 Ultron look better when the lens is closed down a bit to 2.8.
Azinko
Established
Presumably I'm missing something here!.......
I know nothing about digital and also I'm one of the 'numerically dyslexic',....However, my, admittedly quick, skim of the Putts review shows that this extaordinarily expensive piece of jun....sorry!, camera, compares very poorly to a decent 35mm film model,...also one has to actually wind the thing on between frames!!!!!! All this and more for a staggering 4000 US$ (UK equivalent price)......you can buy a good camera for this much! Especially since a prestigous UK authority asseses the production cost of R-D1 at about £250 (490 US$)
I know nothing about digital and also I'm one of the 'numerically dyslexic',....However, my, admittedly quick, skim of the Putts review shows that this extaordinarily expensive piece of jun....sorry!, camera, compares very poorly to a decent 35mm film model,...also one has to actually wind the thing on between frames!!!!!! All this and more for a staggering 4000 US$ (UK equivalent price)......you can buy a good camera for this much! Especially since a prestigous UK authority asseses the production cost of R-D1 at about £250 (490 US$)
S
Socke
Guest
Azinko, but you have to admit, that Puts could get get pictures of equal or less quality on his website with much less work 🙂
You can get more than decent results from the R-D1, as we have seen here. It's just like a new film, you have to get used to it.
Or do you shoot Velvia for portraits?
You can get more than decent results from the R-D1, as we have seen here. It's just like a new film, you have to get used to it.
Or do you shoot Velvia for portraits?
David Kieltyka
Clicking away feverishly
Azinko said:
Yes, you're missing the fact that the R-D1 is capable of first-class results in the hands of a capable photographer. 🙂 Despite Erwin's blurry (and likely misfocused) test chart shot the camera delivers the goods. The price is indeed high--IMO higher than it should be--but OTOH I've run the equivalent of about 50 rolls of film through mine over the past few months. A couple years of this or less and the R-D1 will have paid for itself in eliminated film & processing costs and scanning time & hassle.
-Dave-
