Is six-year-old digital camera, the R-D1, worth considering?

Ezzie said:
Why? Did the OP ask for views on the NEX? Again another camera, posing as an RF. Once you open the door to non RF digital cameras there are more than the NEX to be had..
Click to expand...

I was replying to Fujitsu. Of course there are others. I myself have a G1 and E-PL1 as well...
 
LCT said:
The R-D1 (or R-D1s) is the unique digital M3 available. With its 0.91x VF magnification, the M3 lets you shoot both eyes open and the R-D1 is even better at that due to its 1:1 viewfinder. I would then recommend the R-D1 to those who prefer the M3 over all other M cameras. But i would warn them that it is a discontinued camera with no serious support from Epson. Otherwise, the R-D1 is less IR sensitive than the M8 and its results at 1600 iso are better with a good raw converter. No mandatory chimping with the manual controls and reversible display. No mandatory filtering either, although IR-cut filters may be necessary with tungsten sometimes. No mandatory coding finally, all Leica and non-Leica lenses can be used freely on the Epsons. To me, the R-D1 is not only the unique digital M3, it is also the unique DRF giving me the feeling that i shoot a true Leica. Old Leica user speaking. 😉
Click to expand...

I've never owned an M3, only heard how much others like it. So not only is this an interesting comparison (and I will try to think of my RD1s as the M3 I never had), but to go as far as saying that the RD1 is MORE Leica than Leica is courageous and bemusing. I applaud your maverick thoughts, thoug some feathers may be ruffled. And why shouldnt they? The M8, with all the malfunction issues, is kind of a joke for the money. Then, when they fixed those problems in the M9, the price alone has pushed the "prestige factor" to the limits.
In this context, the RD1 is at least worthy of a trial. And a google search may reveal more repair support for the RD1 than preciously thought. Then again, repairs havnt been very necessary given the reliability of this "second rate" dRF.
 
Thanks to everyone who contributed. I still haven't made up my mind, so I may just forget about it for the time being. I'm selling an otherwise unused Elmar 24mm in the classifieds, thinking that I could very well cash in on a little used lens for a potentially little used R-D1.

But that's really not the issue. Mainly, well, my concern with getting the R-D1 is that I just wouldn't use it that much, instead deferring to the M9 or even film with the Ikon from time to time. I can only use one camera at a time, and as much as I'd like to 'have' an R-D1, I would need to use it.

I like the idea of reserving the R-D1 for B&Ws, so that's something I'm considering. Thoughts on that?
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
The "unique" digital M3 available? I thought the M9 was already on the market.
Click to expand...
With its .68x VF the M9 is a wide camera. I have not my M3 with me here but its 90mm frame must be close to the 50mm frame (pic) of the M9.
 

Attachments

  • M9_50-75_frames.jpg
    M9_50-75_frames.jpg
    93.7 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A. said:
The "unique" digital M3 available? I thought the M9 was already on the market. :angel:
Click to expand...

I think he was talking about the Minox Digital Classic Camera M3 :angel:

BuzzardKid, with regards to Eddy van Wessel, I thought I recognized that camera when I saw the documentary on those Iraqi Pjak Guerillas. But thought it was a Bessa film camera, not an R-D1.


Is the R-D1 still worth it? To me it is. Can't afford an M9 😉
 
I own both M9 and R-D1. The Epson is a bit like an old car you take out twice a year for the fun of it. The M9 is way superior in all respect but I do wish it had that 1:1 finder of the R-D1.
Were I you I would invest in a great lens for your M9 rather then a R-D1.
 
it like the range finder shootging, but .....

it like the range finder shootging, but .....

I like shooting with my rangefinder. Just like some one said, it's like taking an older British sports car out on the weekend for a spin. It works, and it works well.

But, for my every day driver to work a 30 year old rag top, no matter how much fun, is just not practical here in hot/rainy Houston.

If its an M9/M8/RD-1/ M film/CV film, that does not change. Where the M format excels is at street shooting, capturing the moment, reportage, etc ... That is a very limited set of my photographic needs. That said, I have used a rangefinder at swim meets for some things, use it on some parts of a vacation. No matter how much I want it too, it will not replace my D300.

Not only did I consider an RD-1, I got one. And every time I think I selling it, I just can't bring my self to it. I got mine at just over what the current RFF classified price seem to be, and even at a small profit, I would hold on to it, it fills a very nice niche in my hobby.

Would I advise someone who has a digital point and shoot to move to an RD-1, no way. I took a class recently with a fellow who shoots a Zeiss Icon, and I would advise him to seriously consider an RD-1.

For me, in my little niche, the RD1 is excellent, and I still have trouble justifying an extra 1K or so to upgrade to an M8. On the other hand, I do have a few CV lenses in focal lengths that I really don't use ah GAS :bang:

Dave
 
-1:1 finder
-best DRF high ISO files (shoot ISO 1600, push ISO 12800 in Lightroom v3 and have wonderful BW files)
-very quick operation with mechanical dials for all shooting functions
-very economic operation (purchase price, spare battery costs, spare charger costs, SD card costs, etc)
-lighter than other DRFs
-more ergonomic for tall hands
-winder for better integrating with parallel film shooting
-very good readability of dials in low light
-can be set in low light without light source
 
I'm with Yanidel...

Despite keeping the Epson R-D1 FAQ website (http://www.richcutler.co.uk/r-d1/) up and running, replacing my R-D1 with an M8 was a no brainer - the Leica stomps over the R-D1 quality-wise and for robustness (the R-D1 rangefinder mechanism is rather delicate and prone to going out of whack).

So, as you have an M9, I suspect you'll find the R-D1 image quality poor.

When I looked at A3 (20 inches) prints, the R-D1 ones looked mushy compared with the M8 prints - which was what made me trade in the R-D1 in the first place.

That said, even after 3 years of owning an M8, I still prefer the R-D1 ergonomics to the M8's - the Epson embraces digital whereas the Leica tries to pretend it's a film camera (rubbish secondary LCD [missing in the m9!], no direct access to white balance or ISO, etc.).

It's a pity that there will never be an R-D2 with a modern sensor ... that would be a camera I'd seriously consider! But an old R-D1, even refurbished? No....
 
RichC said:
I still prefer the R-D1 ergonomics to the M8's - the Epson embraces digital whereas the Leica tries to pretend it's a film camera (rubbish secondary LCD [missing in the m9!], no direct access to white balance or ISO, etc.).....
Click to expand...

Huh... Epson isn't trying to pretend to be a film camera with its rewind lever and film rewind knob?
 
jsrockit said:
Huh... Epson isn't trying to pretend to be a film camera with its rewind lever and film rewind knob?
Click to expand...

Not exactly - actually EPSON/ Cosina saved quite some money in engineering and tooling a new, different design from the Cosina bodies with hand wound shutter and film rewind.

As operating a digital menu is rather awkward, to do with a typical film rewind, they decided, to do a "jog dial" in the classy design of a rewind knob and likely didn't have to redo tooling in this area of the die casting mould, as of the same design for the base of the knowb/ rewind crank.

I would actually much prefer my M8.2 with the lever of my film Leicas and without the shutter recocking whirr.
 
Fujitsu said:
Nope. I´d get a Sony NEX to shoot Leica or Voigtländer digital on a budget. Digital imaging has improved siginificantly over the last 5 years with much better dynamic range, better film like colors out of the box and dramatically less noise (which becomes most important once you try to bring up shadows in post processing).

I wouldnt buy one today.
Click to expand...

The sensor is only half the battle. Even if the Sony sensor is far superior to the Epson, it still has awkward controls and goofy 'features' in a body designed to please the consumer market. The Epson is simple as an anvil to use and works like a real rangefinder. Oddly, in some ways it feels more like a film-body M than Leica's own digital offerings do. It's just a pleasure to use, and I think many owners are willing to overlook its technical shortcomings because of that. 🙂
 
menos said:
Not exactly - actually EPSON/ Cosina saved quite some money in engineering and tooling a new, different design from the Cosina bodies with hand wound shutter and film rewind.

As operating a digital menu is rather awkward, to do with a typical film rewind, they decided, to do a "jog dial" in the classy design of a rewind knob and likely didn't have to redo tooling in this area of the die casting mould, as of the same design for the base of the knowb/ rewind crank.

I would actually much prefer my M8.2 with the lever of my film Leicas and without the shutter recocking whirr.
Click to expand...

Ok, maybe not exactly...but there is no denying they tried to make their digital rangefinder as analog as possible.
 
jsrockit said:
Ok, maybe not exactly...but there is no denying they tried to make their digital rangefinder as analog as possible.
Click to expand...
Sure they did. Even the short throw of the cocking lever is a strong reminder of the 'double stroke' M3. A single stroke is enough to cock the R-D1's shutter though. Fortunately so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom