JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
I just finished very quickly "developing" some pics I took this afternoon (Thanksgiving holiday in the States) with my R-D1 and a Tri-Elmar. I just want to say...this camera really makes me smile.
I'm sure the M8 is a better camera on just about every objective measure, but the pictures the Epson delivers are really very pleasing. As I was whipping through the PP in Lightroom, my wife looked over and said "you know, those pictures really look great" - and, though they're only snaps, motivated by the fact that my parents are beyond a certain age so I take every opportunity to record time we all spend together, my wife was right - they really do look fine.
It's a darned fine tool. It's a pleasure to use, even if it's not an M, and the results are just great - very pleasing.
Just wanted to share those thoughts...we now return you to normal forum traffic...
I'm sure the M8 is a better camera on just about every objective measure, but the pictures the Epson delivers are really very pleasing. As I was whipping through the PP in Lightroom, my wife looked over and said "you know, those pictures really look great" - and, though they're only snaps, motivated by the fact that my parents are beyond a certain age so I take every opportunity to record time we all spend together, my wife was right - they really do look fine.
It's a darned fine tool. It's a pleasure to use, even if it's not an M, and the results are just great - very pleasing.
Just wanted to share those thoughts...we now return you to normal forum traffic...
Johnmcd
Well-known
Well, let's see 'em 
I lost my father a little over a year ago but managed to take many images during his ongoing illness. Those images I treasure now.
Cheers,
John
I lost my father a little over a year ago but managed to take many images during his ongoing illness. Those images I treasure now.
Cheers,
John
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
Don't feel bad about it not being an M8. I still have and use mine and have already sold 4 M8's.
There's something very alive in the images...it's almost like film/negatives instead of digital. I've never had any man made device that didn't have some quirks. The Epson has a few but nothing severe.....
enjoy......later shooter
There's something very alive in the images...it's almost like film/negatives instead of digital. I've never had any man made device that didn't have some quirks. The Epson has a few but nothing severe.....
enjoy......later shooter
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
The pics, which I emphasize are personal snapshots taken under a sort of moral compulsion as my parents get old and my mother becomes quite sick, are here: (link)
They were taken with a Tri-Elmar wide open at various focal lengths, ISO = 400. Some of the many others not saved failed due to camera shake.
They were taken with a Tri-Elmar wide open at various focal lengths, ISO = 400. Some of the many others not saved failed due to camera shake.
sleepyhead
Well-known
John, glad to hear that you're putting the Tri-Elmar to good use. Happy Thanksgiving!
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
I'm really sorry the RD1 is no longer available new, and not many are seen on the used market (at least not in the UK ) I'd like to see some pictures taken with old screw mount lenses,- perhaps, dare I say it! fsu!. I use my old non AI Nikkors on a Fuji S3pro. with great results, very film-like, and nice color rendition.
Dave
Dave
Tuolumne
Veteran
JNewell said:The pics, which I emphasize are personal snapshots taken under a sort of moral compulsion as my parents get old and my mother becomes quite sick, are here: (link)
They were taken with a Tri-Elmar wide open at various focal lengths, ISO = 400. Some of the many others not saved failed due to camera shake.
Not to turn this into a tech discussion, but are you shooting jpgs or raw? I find jpgs out of the R-D1 to be terrific.
/T
Tuolumne
Veteran
That was a very touching and sensitive set. Certainly a few cuts above "snapshots".
/T
/T
Gid
Well-known
Tuolumne said:
Agreed. Enjoy your RD1.
Terao
Kiloran
Dave,
I regularly use old screw-mount stuff on my R-D1. Mostly Canon but also occasionally the Jupiter 9 (not sure if I have any from that lens up on Flickr though). Certainly a ton taken with the Canon 50mm f/1.2 and there's a whole set with the Canon 35mm f/2.8 fairly near the top on my stream (although those are from a film body when I think about it). The Canon 50mm is my favourite lens, dreamy, hazy, and just very very different...
I regularly use old screw-mount stuff on my R-D1. Mostly Canon but also occasionally the Jupiter 9 (not sure if I have any from that lens up on Flickr though). Certainly a ton taken with the Canon 50mm f/1.2 and there's a whole set with the Canon 35mm f/2.8 fairly near the top on my stream (although those are from a film body when I think about it). The Canon 50mm is my favourite lens, dreamy, hazy, and just very very different...
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
Tuolumne said:
Actually, I'd meant to add a few tech details because they reinforce my positive feelings about this camera. After a little experimentation, I'm shooting everything as follows: raw, AWB and AE. I'm finding:
- the raw is very capable of some deep processing in Lightroom - lots of detail in the shadows and seldom any really blown highlights
- as the other side of that coin, the AE is very reliable - again, seldom any highlights blown, and almost never beyond judicious recover. There is a near-exception in the group I posted, but that's been rare.
- the AWB is very good - better than my D100. I usually wind up with only minor tweaks, no significant WB adjustments
All this from a film dinosaur whose idea of advanced technology is match-needle manual metering. (I should experiment with jpgs - I haven't, but after your suggestion I probably will.)
Tuolumne said:
Thank you - I appreciate that. If they work for non-family, that's a good indication that they'll be doing what I want them to do.
/T
Johnmcd
Well-known
JNewell said:The pics, which I emphasize are personal snapshots taken under a sort of moral compulsion as my parents get old and my mother becomes quite sick, are here: (link)
They were taken with a Tri-Elmar wide open at various focal lengths, ISO = 400. Some of the many others not saved failed due to camera shake.
J,
Thanks for making those images available. Snapshots or not they are priceless. I especially like the portrait of your father (?) in mixed lighting. Beautiful mood.
This is where the RD-1 excels.
Thanks again.
John
victoriapio
Well-known
Wonderful images
Johnmcd said:
MCTuomey
Veteran
john, very nice *snaps* imho. your mother is quite beautiful - her expressions seem to caress the scene, if that makes sense.
thanks for posting and for stimulating thoughts about an R-D1.
thanks for posting and for stimulating thoughts about an R-D1.
louisb
Well-known
Lovely pictures and I am not at all surprised at the quality and 'feel' of these pictures from the M8. I think the R-D1 excels in this type of intimate available light environment especially in the 400-800 range.
Not to open the M8 vs R-D1 debate again but I very much doubt the M8 is "a better camera on just about every objective measure". Firstly, I've had several comments in the Leica forum about iso800 shots from my R-D1 being better than the M8. I find that the R-D1 excels in low-level light, capturing shade with a beautiful luminance and ambience which complements Leica glass very well. I have absolutely no complaints about the white balance on the R-D1 (see extensive discussions about this issue with the M8, elsewhere).
Then there is the issue that the camera does not seem to suffer as severely with respect to infra-red. You can also add the vastly superior casing (whenever I calculate the cost of a M8 I always have to factor in the cost of the grip because of its slippery-smooth exterior).
Yes, I want and will probably own a M8 at some point in the future because I've made an investment in Leica glass and I will continue to want a digital platform but I'd like to think I'll keep the R-D1 because it has a light signature all of its own. And as your shots demonstrate you could make a career out of photography only owning the R-D1.
LouisB
Not to open the M8 vs R-D1 debate again but I very much doubt the M8 is "a better camera on just about every objective measure". Firstly, I've had several comments in the Leica forum about iso800 shots from my R-D1 being better than the M8. I find that the R-D1 excels in low-level light, capturing shade with a beautiful luminance and ambience which complements Leica glass very well. I have absolutely no complaints about the white balance on the R-D1 (see extensive discussions about this issue with the M8, elsewhere).
Then there is the issue that the camera does not seem to suffer as severely with respect to infra-red. You can also add the vastly superior casing (whenever I calculate the cost of a M8 I always have to factor in the cost of the grip because of its slippery-smooth exterior).
Yes, I want and will probably own a M8 at some point in the future because I've made an investment in Leica glass and I will continue to want a digital platform but I'd like to think I'll keep the R-D1 because it has a light signature all of its own. And as your shots demonstrate you could make a career out of photography only owning the R-D1.
LouisB
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
Thanks Louis and all for your immensely kind words.
When I wrote "a better camera on just about every objective measure," what I was thinking was "better on paper." In other words, the specs look better...more MP...longer EBL...etc. Even if you accept that view (which I guess is up for debate anyway), real world performance often diverges from the world of paper specs.
I think I mentioned earlier that another interesting thing to me is that the R-D1, which has the same sensor (I am told) as the D100 produces pictures that are (to me) noticeably better and need noticeably less development (comparing raw to raw). That would be an interesting comment, I think, on the Epson firmware vs. the Nikon firmware.
When I wrote "a better camera on just about every objective measure," what I was thinking was "better on paper." In other words, the specs look better...more MP...longer EBL...etc. Even if you accept that view (which I guess is up for debate anyway), real world performance often diverges from the world of paper specs.
I think I mentioned earlier that another interesting thing to me is that the R-D1, which has the same sensor (I am told) as the D100 produces pictures that are (to me) noticeably better and need noticeably less development (comparing raw to raw). That would be an interesting comment, I think, on the Epson firmware vs. the Nikon firmware.