new digital rangefinder R-d2

[flip]

These days, I lend my 20D to my girlfriend. Subject and composition aside, I must say that she gets more detailed shots with a tamron zoom than I can with some very good quality lenses on the R-D1. I believe the sensor is a factor. Still, I like the feel of shooting the R-D1 better. I'd be thrilled if the sensor were improved. I'd be thrilled if I could click my sneakers and it would morph into an M9.

If they make another, I hope they source better glue and grip material. Using the lever as a thumb grip is a hack born of necessity.

 

[Mephiloco]

It's there for a reason: it's not some cosmetic, olde filme gimmick!

The shutter is from the Bessa range, and has a mechanical cocking mechanism. Getting rid of the lever would mean designing a shutter from the ground up = more expensive camera, more battery drain, no convenient "thumb grip" to minimise camera shake.

More battery drain my ass. Every modern slr/rangefinder for the most part has an electronic shutter. My XTi can fire off over 500 shots in raw off a single battery. The current drawn from an electronic shutter is negligible when you figure in the power consumption of the actual sensor. You might as well suggest they remove the light meter, because it's draining the battery.

As for 'designing a shutter from the ground up = more expensive' I don't think that's true either. It's not like a self cocking shutter is uncharted territory. The shutter itself would stay the same, you just replace the actual lever with a switch or motor.

I think it's also worth pointing out that the retail on a R-D1 was $3000, how much more expensive could it possibly be with a self cocking shutter?


My improvements would be more megapixels, less of a crop factor, dng support, higher iso support, maybe less magnification (or an option other than 1.0) though it's not a deal breaker for me, personally I think the 21mm and 25mm lenses are so expensive/esoteric that they don't merit framelines--external viewfinders are fine. If you have a Leica 21mm or 25mm why would you also have an m9?


Edit: I just realized that I already replied to this, so this post can probably be ignored

 

[Frankie]

All Epson/Cosina need to do is to replace the D100 CCD now used with the D300 ones...12Mp, support HC/SD and perhaps tweak the firmware.

I don't really care whether the CCD is APS or FF. Besides, such an upgrade would not upset the lens array/policy RD-1 users have been using.

The Cosina lens department might attempt a faster 21mm lens.

I would be very happy using a 21/2.8; 35/1.4 and a 50/2.5 (32/52/75 equivalent). I would use a small flash if I must.

 

[bellyface]

The lever stays. But fix the lousy battery life. I don't mind 6mpx. I have several 20x30s that can make your eyeballs bleed (sharp)

I love my R-d1, simply impresses me everytime.

 

[_mark__]

Please Epson before its too late! I have noticed recent similarities between the latest dslr's and merciless machines from the future!

 

[1joel1]

i love the wind lever.

+1. It's charming and I love it when friends ask why I don't have a digital camera 🙂

Joel

 

[jlw]

The R-D1 originally retailed for over $3000, which makes it a non-starter with so many M8s and M8.2s on the used market now.

Pfft. The original R-D 1 used the sensor architecture out of the Nikon D70 series. A $3,000 camera with a Nikon D300s sensor package would send those used M8s (with their mediocre high-ISO performance, excess IR sensitvity, etc., etc.) to the bargain bin in no time.

I agree they'd have to do a better job on initial quality, but I think they've learned where the problems are (i.e. don't have Cosina install and calibrate the VF/RF system and then ship the bodies off the Epson for the electronics installation.)

But there are two reasons this will never happen:

1) Epson made the R-D 1 to be an "image camera"... but because of the combination of initial quality problems, techno-centric reviewers who didn't "get" the concept, and the constant kvetching of prejudiced Leicaholics, all they got out of it was a black eye. I'm sure anyone at Epson who suggested a successor model would get sent to the corporate woodshed.​

2) We fanatics don't like to admit it, but rangefinder cameras are a niche market, and digital RFs are a niche of a niche. There isn't enough volume in it to cover development expenses unless you can sell at a very high unit cost. The only reason Leica is able to stay in the game is that ex-druggie rock stars, wealthy Euro gents and Middle Eastern potentates are willing and able to pay almost anything for the magic of the L-word, subsidizing the relative handful of actual photographers who use the brand. The Epson brand didn't have that advantage, and I can't think of any other plausible brands that would either.​

That's not to say someone couldn't introduce a modern-tech digital RF that would sell well enough to succeed on its own merits. But it would have to be something that could be sold as a special-purpose add-on to an existing DSLR system.

I suspect that either Canon or Nikon would have little trouble engineering an RF module that would read the distance-encoder information from their DSLR lenses and use it to drive an RF mechanism via a stepper motor. Imagine this module mated to the chassis of a D300s or 7D, or D3s or EOS-1... I'm not going to be holding my breath, though!

 

[jlw]

Leica has always been expensive but their price increases over the past five years make Zimbabwe's inflation seem almost tame. Okay, so that's an overstatement. Still.

Presumably they've had to do a lot of digital-camera research to overcome the M8's faults, and the cost of that research has to be spread over a fairly small base of cameras -- so the added cost per camera is bound to be steeper than that of someone such as Canon or Nikon, who can spread it over a much larger unit volume of cameras.

Still, the pricing on the M9 doesn't strike me as outrageous vs. the cost of a top-end Canon or Nikon DSLR. The fact that it can do so much less, photographically speaking, than a top-end Canon or Nikon DSLR is what pretty much knocks it out of serious consideration purely as a general-purpose photographic tool.

Fortunately for Leica, there's a small but sufficient clientele of well-monied people who can afford not to care about that. The problem for anyone else trying to get into the field is that there aren't enough of them to support two suppliers.

 

[CameraQuest]

I am very sure in my own mind that Epson is out of the digital rangefinder business, and will stay out. Epson found out the hard way they did know how to market such a camera.

I am almost as sure Zeiss will not make a digital rangefinder. Zeiss is having too much success with their SLR lenses to invest big in a digital rangefinder.

Mr. Kobayashi at Cosina does not like digital, but he is happy to sell lenses for digital rangefinders.

The next NEW digital rangefinder will most likely be some kind of next model digital Leica. Of course Canon, Nikon or Sony could easily develop such a camera, but like Zeiss they are too happily involved with DSLRs to want to invest their $$ in the very small digitial rangefinder market.

And that is the way it is. But I would be delighted if any camera maker proves me wrong in 2010.

Stephen

 

[back alley]

I am very sure in my own mind that Epson is out of the digital rangefinder business, and will stay out. Epson found out the hard way they did know how to market such a camera.

I am almost as sure Zeiss will not make a digital rangefinder. Zeiss is having too much success with their SLR lenses to invest big in a digital rangefinder.

Mr. Kobayashi at Cosina does not like digital, but he is happy to sell lenses for digital rangefinders.

The next NEW digital rangefinder will most likely be some kind of next model digital Leica. Of course Canon, Nikon or Sony could easily develop such a camera, but like Zeiss they are too happily involved with DSLRs to want to invest their $$ in the very small digitial rangefinder market.

And that is the way it is. But I would be delighted if any camera maker proves me wrong in 2010.

Stephen

and if all this proves to be true then i can only hope that my rd1 and my rd1s will last as long as i do.
maybe i should start collecting them for parts...

 

[djonesii]

Honestly, while I would like one, I don't think there is enough of a market for a "second" CRF ( coupled range finder ) camera.

We will see large sensor, small format cameras with interchangeable lenses. They however will be auto focus cameras, and their makers will allow some type of firmware features that give us RF folks just enough to make us want to try them. Canon and Nikon are not above trying to steal the EP-1/GF1 thunder.

As much as I like using my R-D1, it is relegated to niche use, and the G1/D300 are the work horses. The casio FH20/ Epson R-D1/ Polaroid and Graphic 4X5's and the Nikon F4s. all fill fun and important niches.

Dave

 

[menos]

I hope, the more earthbound view, presented here, promising a niche market of digital RF, owned by Leica will not prove true.

I went through a development regarding preferred cameras during the last half year, I could not foresee.
Last weekend, I actually sold a D300, several lenses (a mint 85 1.4 among them) and accessories.

I have found soo much pleasure, using Leica film bodies and the wonderful heavily used EPSON R-D1, I bought by accident.

The R-D1 is now actually my most used camera. The D300 is great, but I took less than a roll with it since I bought my first RF camera (a Leica M6).

The R-D1 actually has some advantages over the Leica M from a user perspective, that there are only very little things, I would wish for an upgrade.

The R-D1 top deck is really cluttered and I would wish Cosina, to redesign and clean this up (ever tried to pull the camera out of a jacket pocket and stuck with the flash hot shoe or advance lever?).

If Cosina could improve the rangefinder to Leica qualities, I would consider a second body along with SDHC card support and a implementation of a "my menu" as other manufacturers have (I need only regular access to "format card", "color", "film settings").
A speed up in checking focus would be welcome, but is also no deal breaker as is.
A quicker access to dpof markings of files would be nice. I use this feature now quite a bit for quick prints at my local Kodak point for handing out quick photos for friends ;-)
I can basically use the R-D1 as a film body with 1 hour development, just as in "15 min development, while shopping for food" ;-)

There really is no need for a "better display" It could even be a monochrome display, as the color reproduction of the display is off to my printer or the print lab anyway.

That would push even more into a niche product but would be an improvement for me actually (simpler is better) as I shoot the R-D1 in monochrome all the time.
Color shots only fall by accident from the RAW files in Lightroom.

Anyway, I really hope for another DRF product along Leica, as Leica goes into a very expensive direction and a crop body DRF with some functional and ergonomic differences to Leica do make a lot of sense to me.

 

[wgerrard]

I agree with Dave. The energy in RF-like digital cameras will come from the M4/3 and similar fronts. Nikon and Canon will jump on board if and when those cameras break big into the consumer market.

I suppose it is possible that Leica might license it's name for use on DRF's made by another firm, or OEM them from someone else. Leica would need to be convinced that those cameras would not cut into sales of M9's. etc.

I'm pinning my thin hopes of being able to use my small collection of M-mount lenses on a digital with no crop factor on a future M4/3 with the appropriate adapters.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I'm pinning my thin hopes of being able to use my small collection of M-mount lenses on a digital with no crop factor on a future M4/3 with the appropriate adapters.

Well, if there's no crop factor, it will not be m4/3. But I can imagine Leica and Panasonic teaming up, sometime in the future, for a "digital CL" that combines the M9 sensor (or related technology) with an EVF. I would love to see that happen, in fact.

 

[freedomland]

Still waiting for an other option. No expensive M9, I could not buy it, even if I have the money in my bag. This is money for bad situations, for accidents, for future. I do not earn so much money, but I like rangefinders. The combination of the small body and the way of framing and focusing.
I would like to do it digital, it is the cheapest way to photograph with post-processing and printing for me, ok maybe not for everyone.

A camera like the R-d1, a smaller crop, more pixels would be fine. I would buy the R-d1 if this thing have regular service and the improvements.

Thanks everyone for thinking about the future of rangefinders. No "lost world" for unexclusive rangefinders. I think without the "crazy-for-rangefinder-Epson-management" Leica would not realized the digital revolution.

The market is still there, it is not fix, many poorer people would buy a digital rangefinder if they can afford it. Hey folks, why cosina/voigtländer sells or why people buy russian lenses like Jupiter?

The problem of the R-d1 was not the small market, more the qualitiy problems and the relation to the high price, but everyone learns, see the devolopement from the M8 to M9. The fact that the market react to actions is science. More people wants to buy an M9 today than the M8 in 2006.
Thanks for reading
T.Y.

 

[menos]

Aused R-D1 is the lowest priced way, to shoot a digital RF today at around 800,- EUR for the body.

Your points basically are addressed in a second hand Leica M8, which seem to go for 1.800,- EUR at the moment.

They might fall a bit more to maybe 1.500 or 1.600 regular price.

Other than that, these might stay the only options for a long time.

I got rather lucky with my early R-D1. It has no serious issues apart from the known things about the skewed horizon.
I am comfortable, to adjust the rangefinder by myself and it works great.

The output of the files is absolutely great. People on the internet really have to "ACTUALLY WORK" with the "small" or "obsolete" "only 6MP" files before judging from theoretical print sizes and internet wizardry.

Doing big prints 56x56 or 80x80cm does need some careful shooting and a good hand at pp with the right software.

The files are very usable. The monochrome files are awesome compared to any other camera profiles I tried from Nikon. Shooting the R-D1 and going directly to a Kodak print point with the SD card is quicker and easier than everything, I tried so far.

Why not trying to hook up with someone near your place and going for some shooting together. You could try the R-D1 first hand.

 

[freedomland]

@menos
You are absolutely right. More pixels are not necessary, only more comfortable.
I am living in Germany and do not know, how to make service for camera easy as possible for me, and this guaranted for a long time and without sending it around the world.
I would like to go to the next shop, give the cam in service. I do not want to go in risk of my equipment with sending. Maybe I want to much things. Maybe it costs 8000$.

 

[Macpod]

Well, if there's no crop factor, it will not be m4/3. But I can imagine Leica and Panasonic teaming up, sometime in the future, for a "digital CL" that combines the M9 sensor (or related technology) with an EVF. I would love to see that happen, in fact.

for that to happen panasonic will need to bring out a range of autofocus lenses to please the mass market which this camera will be trying to aim at, since it needs to differenciate itself from M9. I guess the question is where would this benefit leica and panasonic. where would it fit in their product line up? does a premium full frame EVF camera make sense?

The argument for this happening is that panasonic doesnt need to worry about legacy SLR lenses so for them to bring out autofocusing lenses suitable for the RF mount is a good option. That is if they see full frame as an option at all.

 

[wgerrard]

f... that panasonic doesnt need to worry about legacy SLR lenses...

Do camera companies need to worry about their old lenses? I think the answer is yes if they want to encourage upgrade sales to existing customers.

But, if they expect more sales to be generated by moving to a new and incompatible mount, I don't think they'd worry at all. If the new mount succeeds, they will be praised as innovators. If it fails, the same people will castigate them for abandoning the old mount.