kevin m
Veteran
The camera has flaws, but it's a pleasure to use. That counts for a lot.
how does the r-d1s compare to modern digital cams?
- Thread starter drazin
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 27
- Views 3K
JonasYip
Well-known
Though I'm perfectly happy with a 6Mpx image, I wouldn't mind a higher res sensor in this case because I tend to crop a lot when I shoot RF (inaccurate framelines or whatnot).
Johnmcd
Well-known
It shines at low ISO - 800 iso in particular. Coupled with a fast prime, it is the perfect kit for interior and night.
I have a GRD also but image quality is not in the same league - my wife now uses it and I rarely grab it. The other problem with the GRD (and all P&S) is no OOF area to define the subject. This I hate.
Improvements? Longer rangefinder base is all I can think of. I shoot raw and have never had to wait with a fast SD card.
800 iso
400 iso
Cheers - John
I have a GRD also but image quality is not in the same league - my wife now uses it and I rarely grab it. The other problem with the GRD (and all P&S) is no OOF area to define the subject. This I hate.
Improvements? Longer rangefinder base is all I can think of. I shoot raw and have never had to wait with a fast SD card.
800 iso
400 iso
Cheers - John
Ed Schwartzreic
Well-known
I would say it is "vintage" and nor "obsolete." Although I have an M8, I still use my R-D1 all the time, as a back-up, where quietness is essential, and for the shear pleasure of shooting it.
jmkelly
rangefinder user
The R-D1 meets my needs. It works like my film cameras, mostly. It mounts some old glass I love, and does these lenses justice.
I like the R-D1 to the extent that I am not the least bit tempted by the M8.x much less than any of the current (and very soon to be well and truly replaced by something newer and "better") dSLRs.
I like the R-D1 to the extent that I am not the least bit tempted by the M8.x much less than any of the current (and very soon to be well and truly replaced by something newer and "better") dSLRs.
mn4367
Established
What makes a camera obsolete?
This camera will get obsolete if there are no more SD cards, computers and software left on the planet which can store, read and process R-D1 files.
Meanwhile it'll keep shooting the same beautiful pictures as it did when it was released (until it breaks and cannot be serviced any longer).
If you ask me, I recommend it because it fits my needs quite well and I'm very happy with it. So, what are your needs?
This camera will get obsolete if there are no more SD cards, computers and software left on the planet which can store, read and process R-D1 files.
Meanwhile it'll keep shooting the same beautiful pictures as it did when it was released (until it breaks and cannot be serviced any longer).
If you ask me, I recommend it because it fits my needs quite well and I'm very happy with it. So, what are your needs?
Catto
Photographer
Aw, look, it really depends what you're comparing it to. I just bought one on the weekend (at last!), and replaced my Canon G9 with it - but I'm not going to sell my EOS 1D MkIII.
The Epson is a really, really good SMALL camera, with the ability to use extremely nice lenses; the G9 is a little laggy, very noisy at high ISO, and a bit mushy for detail even at 100ISO. I'd rather have sharp, sharp glass on 6mpix than 12mpix of mushy detail, y'know what I mean? The end result in print would be similar (though with more defined depth of field on the Epson, of course), but with the R-D1, I'd have got the shot when I pushed the button, not a second later - assuming I remembered to focus, of course!
Compared to even Canon's 1000D, or 450D? They'd probably both leave the Epson for dead; but then it's a question of how you like to work, and how much you want to carry around, rather than (to some extent) the final results. If you like the experience of using a rangefinder, a dSLR isn't that. If you don't much care which you use, but want ultimate quality at the end of the day, well...a Canon / Nikon body with good glass in front of it may be the better bet.
Hope that helps,
R!
The Epson is a really, really good SMALL camera, with the ability to use extremely nice lenses; the G9 is a little laggy, very noisy at high ISO, and a bit mushy for detail even at 100ISO. I'd rather have sharp, sharp glass on 6mpix than 12mpix of mushy detail, y'know what I mean? The end result in print would be similar (though with more defined depth of field on the Epson, of course), but with the R-D1, I'd have got the shot when I pushed the button, not a second later - assuming I remembered to focus, of course!
Compared to even Canon's 1000D, or 450D? They'd probably both leave the Epson for dead; but then it's a question of how you like to work, and how much you want to carry around, rather than (to some extent) the final results. If you like the experience of using a rangefinder, a dSLR isn't that. If you don't much care which you use, but want ultimate quality at the end of the day, well...a Canon / Nikon body with good glass in front of it may be the better bet.
Hope that helps,
R!
bobdubois
Member
Hi drazin,
I think the R-D1 was "obsolete" in term of cutting edge features the day it was released. I love mine (although I might trade it for an M-8). For ease of use, versatility, macro, telephoto work, and shooting at high frame rates, it can't touch a mid-level dslr. It also isn't all that good at high ISOs. It isn't worth the money ...unless you want a relatively small, inobtrusive, quiet, camera capable of using some of the finest general purpose photographic optics ever made by the hand of man, which delivers excellent image quality at the film speeds you would typically use in your M6. If you love shooting with a rangefinder it's worth ever penny that they're going for used.
Regards,
Bob
I think the R-D1 was "obsolete" in term of cutting edge features the day it was released. I love mine (although I might trade it for an M-8). For ease of use, versatility, macro, telephoto work, and shooting at high frame rates, it can't touch a mid-level dslr. It also isn't all that good at high ISOs. It isn't worth the money ...unless you want a relatively small, inobtrusive, quiet, camera capable of using some of the finest general purpose photographic optics ever made by the hand of man, which delivers excellent image quality at the film speeds you would typically use in your M6. If you love shooting with a rangefinder it's worth ever penny that they're going for used.
Regards,
Bob