back alley
IMAGES
zm 25/2.8...plenty fast at 1600iso on the rd1.
IF I didn't decide to go for the M8 a few years back, I would have given the RD1 a try. However, compared to the M9, X100, and Fuji X-Pro1 (my current cameras)... I just think it wouldn't hold up for my wants/needs. Yes, I do occasionally print as large as 24x36" ... so the 6mp does matter.
People seem happy to pay $3000.00 for the new Xpro with a couple of lenses .... I don't see that as particularly good vaue!
May I ask why?
Gazzah
RF newbie
I stand corrected -> 24mm Summilux - $6500- gulp..... Dont think I will be searching for one any time soon..
Sorry about the text colour; pressed the wrong button!
The ZM 25/2.8 is almost 50% more than I paid for the camera - I will have to be content with what for now - I have spent far to much in the last 2 weeks...
Sorry about the text colour; pressed the wrong button!
The ZM 25/2.8 is almost 50% more than I paid for the camera - I will have to be content with what for now - I have spent far to much in the last 2 weeks...
back alley
IMAGES
the slower cv 25/4 is a great lens on the rd1...no finder needed.
djonesii
Well-known
the slower cv 25/4 is a great lens on the rd1...no finder needed.
+1!
MikeL
Go Fish
I think the RD-1 is one of those cameras that maintains its value due to some quality other than (or at least addition to, since it is hard to separate demand) its scarcity.
The Panasonic LC1/Digilux 2 is another one that comes to mind. While many other cameras quickly or already had better specs (especially the EVF, autofocus speed), what one got out of the lens+sensor was/is good enough for a lot of people, and it maintained its value better than other cameras.
The Panasonic LC1/Digilux 2 is another one that comes to mind. While many other cameras quickly or already had better specs (especially the EVF, autofocus speed), what one got out of the lens+sensor was/is good enough for a lot of people, and it maintained its value better than other cameras.
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
I think the shutter cocking lever was a marketing mistake. fine in use, but I think it turned some folks off, seems kinda....poseur. Bigger and louder than a Leica. Honestly, other than that, I can't see why people wouldn't try it. Maybe now, the idea that it might not be supported? Certainly if they had continued the series there would be greater comfort in adopting the R-D1, though I wonder if the price would dive with newer models? Guess we'll never know. I don't have one right now, and that's the right choice for me, but I REALLY enjoyed the R-D1. The X100 is ALMOST as fun!
doug
doug
huntjump
Well-known
I think the shutter cocking lever was a marketing mistake. fine in use, but I think it turned some folks off, seems kinda....poseur. Bigger and louder than a Leica. Honestly, other than that, I can't see why people wouldn't try it. Maybe now, the idea that it might not be supported? Certainly if they had continued the series there would be greater comfort in adopting the R-D1, though I wonder if the price would dive with newer models? Guess we'll never know. I don't have one right now, and that's the right choice for me, but I REALLY enjoyed the R-D1. The X100 is ALMOST as fun!
doug
I generally agree with you, except i'd argue the shutter cocking lever has only attracted serious RF users, not turned them away. My guess would be all the people who would have gripes with the R-D1 wold not list the shutter crank as one of them (though i could be wrong).
I think it was really smart on Epson's part, for it conserved battery life by not having to build in that motor (and we know the epson's battery life is an achilles) + it does give it that retro/film camera feel (especially with the reversible lcd!)
If Epson continued the series with an R-D2, i'd be the first in line so long as it was under $4Gs
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
why folks with m mount lenses that want to shoot digital refuse to try the rd1!?
I'm pretty sure there are lots of people who have M-mount lenses and try the RD1. In fact, I've never met anyone who owns an RD1 that doesn't have at least one M-mount lens.
Me missin' somethin'?
huntjump
Well-known
I'm pretty sure there are lots of people who have M-mount lenses and try the RD1. In fact, I've never met anyone who owns an RD1 that doesn't have at least one M-mount lens.
Me missin' somethin'?
Gabriel, he meant why do users who own M-lenses not TRY an R-D1, as opposed to why do R-D1 owners not own M-Lenses (what you articulated).
The usual gripe is lack options for a true RF in which to mount M lenses, and thus Back Alley's point was why not try the R-D1. The discussion then unfolded from there. I think it'd be silly for an R-D1 owner with a native M-mount camera to not have any M-lenses!
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I think the shutter cocking lever was a marketing mistake. fine in use, but I think it turned some folks off, seems kinda....poseur. Bigger and louder than a Leica.
Oooooh! "Back in the day" (pre-2007) it was quite a ruckus (no, Auto-de-Fe evoking) to suggest otherwise.
Oh, how times change. Unless, of course, one doesn't know what "Twitter" means
Godfrey
somewhat colored
i bought an R-D1. had some issues with the LCD and worried about getting it repaired, but didn't really like the camera much anyway - it didn't fit my hands terribly well and the controls were funky. i sent it back for a refund.
i debated between the M8 and M9 for a bit, decided i preferred the same format as my M4-2, and went for it. fits my hands better, controls work just the way i want. it produces beautiful results. cost a bunch but i can afford it.
the M9 is simply the camera i wanted, the R-D1 wasn't.
i debated between the M8 and M9 for a bit, decided i preferred the same format as my M4-2, and went for it. fits my hands better, controls work just the way i want. it produces beautiful results. cost a bunch but i can afford it.
the M9 is simply the camera i wanted, the R-D1 wasn't.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Gabriel, he meant why do users who own M-lenses not TRY an R-D1, as opposed to why do R-D1 owners not own M-Lenses (what you articulated).
The usual gripe is lack options for a true RF in which to mount M lenses, and thus Back Alley's point was why not try the R-D1. The discussion then unfolded from there. I think it'd be silly for an R-D1 owner with a native M-mount camera to not have any M-lenses!![]()
Ah.
I think the main issue is obvious: most people fear what they don't know, and it's even worse when one reads more negative things about it than good things. I think the main reason why the RD-1 still fetches a relatively high price is because it's not the target of the same noise machine that the Leica brand attracts.
For those too shy to try "digital", in the OP's case, it's a surer bet to buy a new m4/3 or Sony NEX and resell (or gift away) to others if the experiment isn't to their liking, than a cult camera such as the RD-1.
Gazzah
RF newbie
Having been away from digital for a few years I find myself groping for the lever on the x-pro 1 after every shot..... So looking forward to getting one back again.
paradoxbox
Well-known
maybe i'm an oddball but i have no m mount lenses!
i chalk it up to the fact that i also use my LTM lenses on my bessa R and my russian cameras.
i chalk it up to the fact that i also use my LTM lenses on my bessa R and my russian cameras.
Sparrow
Veteran
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.