hhoolee
Newbie
(Please excuse what may be a long-ish post.) Hi, this is my first post and am glad that I discovered the site. I have been an SLR user for many decades and only now have discovered rangefinder cameras. I have taken a particular interest in possibly purchasing a rangefinder and have been researching what to me is a new photographic field. The smaller sizes and lighter weights of both bodies and lenses is very appealing to me. The optical quality also is attractive. However, the most significant barrier for me is that I really do not want to return to film, now that I have discovered the digital format. With many dollars invested in Canon equipment, I am quite satisfied with the image quality and ease of controlling my final images. I suppose I could shoot negs/transparencies and scan them, but that would be a last resort. And I definitely do not want to return to darkroom work as I did in the 1970s.
My fully loaded bag weighs about 25 lbs (no exaggeration). Adding in a Gitzo, food, water and miscellaneous items, I am quite loaded own. I can find a lighter replacement for my Canon 1D Mark II, but like the image quality. And the lenses would still be heavy. Fortunately, I am not a long-distance hiker, but do go out often doing landscape photography.
What has caught my eye is the Epson R-D1. At only 6 Mp, the image quality likely is not up to film. Although there are a range of opinions as to what megapixel density equals film (some say 8, other say 11 or more), it seems to me that Epson's 6Mp may be unsatisfactory.
One question I have is who among you have used or still use both digital SLRs and RFs- specifically the Epson? I continue to hear about the legendary Leica glass and assume that a Leica lens on a 6 Mp camera might look quite good. As you know, there are many Canon digital users who extol Zeiss glass as being far superior to Canon. And I assume that Leica and Zeiss glass are generally equivalent. The Epson is tempting. If I actually purchased it and a lens and really liked it, I could sell my current equipment and buy some good RF glass.
Another question is whether Leica will be offering a digital body (besides its fixed lens model) in the near future and what its specifications are reputed to be.
I understand that rangefinder camera users will most likely remain in the minority, as most photographers like the ease of SLRs with their automated features, or P&S cameras. But it also seems that there is a resurgence of interest in rangefinder camers. Who knows, in a few years there may be a few viable digital RF cameras from which to choose. Any comments you may have will be much appreciated.
My fully loaded bag weighs about 25 lbs (no exaggeration). Adding in a Gitzo, food, water and miscellaneous items, I am quite loaded own. I can find a lighter replacement for my Canon 1D Mark II, but like the image quality. And the lenses would still be heavy. Fortunately, I am not a long-distance hiker, but do go out often doing landscape photography.
What has caught my eye is the Epson R-D1. At only 6 Mp, the image quality likely is not up to film. Although there are a range of opinions as to what megapixel density equals film (some say 8, other say 11 or more), it seems to me that Epson's 6Mp may be unsatisfactory.
One question I have is who among you have used or still use both digital SLRs and RFs- specifically the Epson? I continue to hear about the legendary Leica glass and assume that a Leica lens on a 6 Mp camera might look quite good. As you know, there are many Canon digital users who extol Zeiss glass as being far superior to Canon. And I assume that Leica and Zeiss glass are generally equivalent. The Epson is tempting. If I actually purchased it and a lens and really liked it, I could sell my current equipment and buy some good RF glass.
Another question is whether Leica will be offering a digital body (besides its fixed lens model) in the near future and what its specifications are reputed to be.
I understand that rangefinder camera users will most likely remain in the minority, as most photographers like the ease of SLRs with their automated features, or P&S cameras. But it also seems that there is a resurgence of interest in rangefinder camers. Who knows, in a few years there may be a few viable digital RF cameras from which to choose. Any comments you may have will be much appreciated.
Huck Finn
Well-known
Hi, hhoolee, welcome to Rangefinder Forum!
I do not use the Epson RD-1, but I can offer some relevant information.
For a review of Leica & other glass on the RD-1, read the article by Sean Reid on www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml . . . Sean has also participated in conversations re this subject on this forum. Look at back posts.
Rumors have been rampant about a Leica digital body. 2006 seems to be the most likely date.
Zeiss, which has also been rumored to be in development for a digital body, is releasing a line of M-mount lenses in 2 stages: February & May. Hasselblad is the distributor outside Japan. Information can be found at www.zeissikon.com . . . so you have your choice of Leica, Zeiss, or the excellent Voigtlander lenses . . . & even a few from Konica-Minolta & Rollei.
Best of luck with your research,
Huck
I do not use the Epson RD-1, but I can offer some relevant information.
For a review of Leica & other glass on the RD-1, read the article by Sean Reid on www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml . . . Sean has also participated in conversations re this subject on this forum. Look at back posts.
Rumors have been rampant about a Leica digital body. 2006 seems to be the most likely date.
Zeiss, which has also been rumored to be in development for a digital body, is releasing a line of M-mount lenses in 2 stages: February & May. Hasselblad is the distributor outside Japan. Information can be found at www.zeissikon.com . . . so you have your choice of Leica, Zeiss, or the excellent Voigtlander lenses . . . & even a few from Konica-Minolta & Rollei.
Best of luck with your research,
Huck
Last edited:
GeneW
Veteran
I suspect the RD-1 is fun to use (I enjoy shooting digital) but, besides the price, there's a big showstopper for me. The APS-size sensor introduces a crop factor on lenses. So a 50mm lens is more like 80mm and it's hard to get very wide angle. A full-frame sensor would solve this but at what size and cost? The full-frame Canon 1Ds DSLR is a monster -- beautiful, but a monster.
The lens crop issue is less of an issue for DSLR, especially if you're a nature photographer and can benefit from the extra (apparent) reach of the tele lenses. But it's a bummer in traditional RF terms. Among other things, it throws out the traditional relationship of each focal length -- an "80mm" lens with 50mm DOF characteristics is weird ...
Obviously it's a personal thing. I'm sticking with 35mm for RF -- any 35mm negative is a scan away from being digital ...
Gene
The lens crop issue is less of an issue for DSLR, especially if you're a nature photographer and can benefit from the extra (apparent) reach of the tele lenses. But it's a bummer in traditional RF terms. Among other things, it throws out the traditional relationship of each focal length -- an "80mm" lens with 50mm DOF characteristics is weird ...
Obviously it's a personal thing. I'm sticking with 35mm for RF -- any 35mm negative is a scan away from being digital ...
Gene
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I use an R-D1, a digital SLR (Nikon D100) and various film RFs (Bessa R2, Canon 7s, Canon P, Canon VI-T.) At the moment, the only film SLR I own is a Nikon F, but I've spent a lot of time behind those, too.
Where I think you're going astray in your reasoning is in falling for the industry hype to the effect that number of megapixels = picture quality. This simply isn't the case. All other things being equal, pixel count determines only one thing: How big a print you can make before the individual pixels become visible.
To give you a case in point, I work for a very large company that makes packaged food products. The pictures of the food on those packages are very, very important for sales appeal. Until a couple of years ago, we had those photos shot on 8x10-inch film. Now we have the same images shot by the same photographer, but using a digital capture back. The digital images are at least equal to the 8x10 images in terms of final image quality.
Yet the digital capture equipment produces a file size of only 2,048 x 2,048 pixels. A mere 4 megapixels replacing an 8x10 film image with equivalent quality? That's right.
The reason it works is that our final reproduction sizes -- usually no larger than 10 x 10 inches -- are well within the limits of a 4-megapixel image. (Actually, the main reason we used 8x10 film originally, instead of a smaller size, was that it's easier to handle on a drum scanner.)
That information won't directly decide your question of whether or not an R-D1 will deliver an image you like with whatever lens you decide to use. A lot of factors go into digital-image quality, including noise level, bit depth, color accuracy, and how the imager behaves with the particular lens you want to use.
But as long as you keep in mind that pixel count and image quality are completely separate issues, you'll be able to make a much more informed decision.
As to whether a lens engraved "Made In Germany" (or at least designed by a German company, in the case of the Zeiss lenses) really will produce a visibly better image than a lens made elsewhere... well, that's more of a religious question...
Where I think you're going astray in your reasoning is in falling for the industry hype to the effect that number of megapixels = picture quality. This simply isn't the case. All other things being equal, pixel count determines only one thing: How big a print you can make before the individual pixels become visible.
To give you a case in point, I work for a very large company that makes packaged food products. The pictures of the food on those packages are very, very important for sales appeal. Until a couple of years ago, we had those photos shot on 8x10-inch film. Now we have the same images shot by the same photographer, but using a digital capture back. The digital images are at least equal to the 8x10 images in terms of final image quality.
Yet the digital capture equipment produces a file size of only 2,048 x 2,048 pixels. A mere 4 megapixels replacing an 8x10 film image with equivalent quality? That's right.
The reason it works is that our final reproduction sizes -- usually no larger than 10 x 10 inches -- are well within the limits of a 4-megapixel image. (Actually, the main reason we used 8x10 film originally, instead of a smaller size, was that it's easier to handle on a drum scanner.)
That information won't directly decide your question of whether or not an R-D1 will deliver an image you like with whatever lens you decide to use. A lot of factors go into digital-image quality, including noise level, bit depth, color accuracy, and how the imager behaves with the particular lens you want to use.
But as long as you keep in mind that pixel count and image quality are completely separate issues, you'll be able to make a much more informed decision.
As to whether a lens engraved "Made In Germany" (or at least designed by a German company, in the case of the Zeiss lenses) really will produce a visibly better image than a lens made elsewhere... well, that's more of a religious question...
DaShiv
21st century digital boy
It's almost certain at this point that the R-D1 won't go down in history as the only digital rangefinder ever. Leica themselves have announced they're working on a digital M (rumored to have similar specs to their digital R-module, which is 1.37x crop and 10 mp, with a release speculated for 2006). It was announced right before news of the R-D1 was made public--it must have been an interesting week at Solms:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007Jo9
Zeiss, when they made their announcement of their new Zeiss Ikon and a new line of M lenses to go with it, also included this revealing tidbit in the FAQ section of their website:
"Q: Will there be a digital ZI camera?
A: This may be a future possibility. However, we presently cannot comment on any details.
Q: Are the Carl Zeiss T* ZM-mount lenses ready for use with the future digital camera?
A: Yes."
The second question there seems to indicate that Zeiss definitely has a plan for digital, sooner or later. You can read the FAQ for yourself here:
http://www.zeissikon.com/faq.htm
Lastly, Epson themselves appears to be working on an, ahem, R2-D2.
A relevant quote from Philip Amato, Epson's product manager:
"Given Epson's ongoing pursuit to exceed industry standards for digital imaging technology, performance and quality, it is safe to assume we will continue the development of high end digital image capture devices for the professional photographer"
Taken from this article by Sean Reid (scroll to the bottom, the section "What's Next For Epson?"):
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml
Overall, I'm optimistic that things will only get better for digital rangefinders from here on out. In the meantime, the R-D1 is a great and very usable camera in its own right! It's not a perfect camera, but that's okay since I'm not a perfect photographer, either.
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007Jo9
Zeiss, when they made their announcement of their new Zeiss Ikon and a new line of M lenses to go with it, also included this revealing tidbit in the FAQ section of their website:
"Q: Will there be a digital ZI camera?
A: This may be a future possibility. However, we presently cannot comment on any details.
Q: Are the Carl Zeiss T* ZM-mount lenses ready for use with the future digital camera?
A: Yes."
The second question there seems to indicate that Zeiss definitely has a plan for digital, sooner or later. You can read the FAQ for yourself here:
http://www.zeissikon.com/faq.htm
Lastly, Epson themselves appears to be working on an, ahem, R2-D2.
A relevant quote from Philip Amato, Epson's product manager:"Given Epson's ongoing pursuit to exceed industry standards for digital imaging technology, performance and quality, it is safe to assume we will continue the development of high end digital image capture devices for the professional photographer"
Taken from this article by Sean Reid (scroll to the bottom, the section "What's Next For Epson?"):
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml
Overall, I'm optimistic that things will only get better for digital rangefinders from here on out. In the meantime, the R-D1 is a great and very usable camera in its own right! It's not a perfect camera, but that's okay since I'm not a perfect photographer, either.
Last edited:
ddunn
John
The Leica Digilux 2 looks and handles a lot like an M-series Leica. It has a Summicron zoom that is the equivalent of a 35 to 90. It's not a rangefinder (focus with the Electronic View Finder or the LCD). However it has manual focus with accurate foot/meter distances marked. The DOF of the short focus lens means you can estimate the distance & the pic will probably be sharp.
The Panasonic LC 1 is the equivalent & cheaper.
The Panasonic LC 1 is the equivalent & cheaper.
S
Socke
Guest
ddunn said:
And it is very slow when it comes to RAW images and compared to any APS-C digital camera it is unusable at higher ISO.
I waited for it, tried it, and bought a dSLR