Michael Reichman's R-D1 Review

The review seems pretty fair but a bit on the thin side -- he goes into considerably more depth when writing about DSLR's like the *ist D, Fuji S3, etc., especially when he discusses image quality.

I mention this because oddly enough, it's the digital imaging side of the R-D1 that really won me over (that and Leica optics, of course). Just this weekend I shot an event using the R-D1 side-by-side with the 20D with ISO 1600 on both, and the R-D1 files held up much better under some tortured RAW conversion (due to tricky lighting) than the 20D files did (both converted via RSE). And last month I batch converted some high-ISO RAW files with the R-D1, 20D, and a friend's D70 files (all using ACR) shot side-by-side at the same event, and of the three, the D70 lagged noticably behind the other two's fairly similar noise performance. This was especially striking to me since supposedly the R-D1 and the D70 used the same Sony CCD.

Michael's gripes were mostly about usability (accessory finders needed for wider than 42mm FOV, manual wind lever, etc) and are certainly understandable. However, since he shoots almost entirely in digital, I would have pegged him to recognize how well Epson handled the image processing. Ultimately, it seemed like it came down to the "not a Leica" factor since he specifically mentioned at the end that the Digital M is probably what he's really looking for instead -- a sentiment shared by many other Leica shooters on PN, the LUG, and elsewhere. It seems like a shame to me, since the R-D1 (just like the VC Bessa) is a perfectly good and useful camera in its own right -- digital or not, rangefinder or not. I probably needed to have owned an M myself to understand where the others are coming from. :D
 
Hi Bob,

Michael didn't go into more depth because I had already covered most of that ground. Two things about where Michael is coming from, IMO.

1. He wears glasses and likes WA lenses. For both those reasons, a .72 finder would likely suit him better.

2. He may be finding that he's not quite as into rangefinders as he once was. I think the current AF Canon DSLRs really work well for him and they've come to feel natural for him. That really is personal preference issue.

Horses for course mostly,

Sean
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do not see any relevance in a review like the one Michael Reichman puts up .............. there is hardly any info in the article ..... . and nothing new for sure.
Besides he is writing towards a highly irrelevant endconclusion .......... who cares if M. Reichman personaly likes or dislikes a rangefinder ??
There is nothing wrong preferring a DSLR ....... but it is irrelevant as part of a review.
He also makes me wonder how a digital Leica could change his general attitude towards rangefinders in the digital age....??

Han
 
Last edited:
Sean Reid said:
2. He may be finding that he's not quite as into rangefinders as he once was. I think the current AF Canon DSLRs really work well for him and they've come to feel natural for him.
Click to expand...

That was my take on his review. If I had to summarize it in one sentence, that sentence would be "I'm not really a rangefinder guy anymore."

Having switched to digital, he hadn't really had a chance to find that out until he tried an R-D 1. Most of his specific criticisms of the actual camera seem either irrelevant or nitpicky -- like test-driving a Porsche Boxster S and basing your entire impression on the fact that your hair got messed up, the whole soccer team won't fit, and it won't tow your boat. Those observations may be true, but they're not useful. What it really comes down to is, "This just isn't my kind of car."

As to the Leica-forum people who are dissing the R-D 1 compared to what they hope the putative Leica Digital M will be... well, it's easy to imagine the perfect camera. And I'm sure it will be great WHEN and IF it appears. In the meantime, promises don't get me any pictures!
 
I think its pretty fair. He makes his personal preferences clear. The only point I really disagree on is 1600 iso noise levels in comparison to the Canon 20D. I have a 20D and "technically" the Canon maybe lower but my subjective experience (from prints) is that the nature of the noise is more like film grain, less "digital" and more acceptable. Also if you need to pull the shadows up further there is no tendancy to "noise banding" as on the 20D.

All these reviews are interesting and as usual probably tell as more about the reviewers than the camera. There will be another review in next months (May no. 46) Black & White Photography, one of the better U.K. mags. which often features pictures and articles from rangefinder users, so it might prove interesting.
 
Jim,

I agree with you on the noise issue. I also shoot primarily in B&W with the R-D1 and the B&W RAW conversions at ISO 1600 look much better to me than the color RAW conversions at the same ISO. The files can pushed harder than my 10D files could. I haven't used a 20D because by the time it came out I was already moving away from SLRs (except the 1Ds for certain work).

Cheers,

Sean
 
One thing MR didn't complain about with moving to digital RF - now I have to remember to take off the lens cap!
 
I don't think it's fair to criticize Michael R. for stating his preferences. He's never claimed to be objective except maybe when doing lens tests with the DxO software. All of his reviews are based on his particular likes & dislikes. I think Jim (jlw) has it right: he's just not into RF shooting any more. And the issue with the R-D1 and wide lenses is real. It doesn't bother me since my taste these days is for a "normal" to slightly long field-of-view. The R-D1 just happens to mesh perfectly with this. But for other people I can see the issue being a show-stopper.

-Dave-
 
Hmmm . . . Looks like a Zeiss lens mounted on the RD-1 in the picture at the top of the article (a courtesy photo from Epson).
 
Personally I find Reichman very much an acquired taste - neither his writing nor his photography does much for me - but I think he is spot on with most of the observations he makes about the RD-1. I don't share his taste for wider lenses so I don't have a problem with the 1:1 finder (in fact, much prefer it to the 0.72 on my Leica Ms) but I do agree with him on the other usability issues - especially, the slow image review on the rear LCD and the non-sticky settings on both the camera and in the Mac software. I would even go further and say that the analogue dials are a mistake and much inferior functionally to a simple digital LCD on the top plate. I also think he is rather kind about the build quality of the RD-1. For me, the build quality is only really adequate for a digital camera in this price range (though I have to confess to being a bit fussy in this regard) and is one of the things I think Epson need to address if they are going to take the camera forward to compete against a future digital M product from Leica. Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad I took the plunge with the RD-1 back in November - it has surpassed all expectations I had of it - but I think it's a mistake to not acknowledge that the camera has a number of weaknesses that I wish Epson had been able to avoid.
 
Last edited:
Leica is still planning to release the digital M in 2006.

Sean
 
David Kieltyka said:
... the issue with the R-D1 and wide lenses is real. It doesn't bother me since my taste these days is for a "normal" to slightly long field-of-view. The R-D1 just happens to mesh perfectly with this. But for other people I can see the issue being a show-stopper.
Click to expand...

Yes this is the main point IMHO.
I'm perfectly happy with a mere 28/40/50mm combo on the R-D1 but it's not the case for everyone obviously.
Best,

LCT
 
jlw,

There's no way you could get an appropriate wedding together. There's so much you need to arrange and she may not even know about this wedding yet. It's mid-April already... Clearly you're not only dreaming about rangefinder accessories.

I'm afraid that Leica may have slightly better odds. They play their cards pretty close to their chest as well.

Cheers,

Sean
 
I didn't say I could do it, I just said I'm planning it!

And I'm sure Leica's plans are farther along and much better developed (and more realistic) than mine. But they could still face a lot of mis-steps on the way to the altar.

If they can do as good a job at being second as Epson did at being first, I'm sure there will be a lot of happy digital campers in Leica-land... but probably at least as many kvetchers as well!
 
Well, yeah :p (and of course so was I) but behind all that there's still a message about the gap between what people hope for and what they can actually get.

I think one of the curses of the Internet Age is that it's so easy for aspirations to outpace reality that whenever Leica gets around to delivering their camera, and whatever it's like when it gets here, it's still going to be a disappointment to some people, and those people are likely to be very vocal about how disappointed they are. (On the other hand, there will be people who will be delighted just because it has the magic L-word on it, even if it's slightly underdone and crappy, so I suppose you could say it's a wash.)

Just makes me glad I'm not in the camera business!
 
Re: the noise issue,

I just tried Sean's advice about the shadow and hightlight points in PhotoRaw, and it's pretty amazing what you can do.

However, I shot the street backlit at sunset at ISO 400, and found using RSE you can get the same results using the shadow and hightlight sliders, and the difference in detail and noise was astounding. Where the shadows are lightened (worst case for noise) the ER files are gritty and lack detail, whereas the RSE file looks like a 20D - smooth and sharp.

Attached are the files, compressed so the effect isn't quite as dramatic, but check out the television arials.

Shot on the CV 21mm at f8. The one on the left is EPR, the one on the right is RSE

Phil
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom