New Epson RD-2

Pipedreams indeed.. But have the manufacturers really found a suitable form factor for a digicam yet?

So far the lines have evolved from basically film camera designs and they don't seem to cut it with me, anyway..

The "I am unworthy" stance required with most P&S digicams while framing up a shot makes me laugh..

The SLR's are o.k but with autofocus is this too, really necessary?

What a problem!
 
dang, I just don't recall the magazine and I have regular day job with no time to re-read. Paraphrasing, the mag said " Epson engineers were considering a new RD-2 given the hot resale market for the RD-1 years after production." A production run of 10K is no big deal for these guys -- just upgrade the sensor whatnot, they already have the shell.

Right now my D200 and 50/1.4 Zeiss are fabulous, but would prefer a smaller form factor to ride along with my M6 and MP as well as to use my M-mount glass.oh well, never mind.
 
back alley said:
do people really think nikon might jump into making a drf?
Click to expand...

Yes. You wait. M mount. With mixed optical/lcd RF, full frame-sensor, a few bits less per color than the DSLR and menu-driven coding. Finally the technology is there - it just has to be used.

They'll do it just for fun.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 🙂

Roland.

PS: and it won't kill Leica. After all one will be able to use the new 28 Summilux and 0.95 Noctilux on it 🙂
 
Last edited:
35mmdelux said:
dang, I just don't recall the magazine and I have regular day job with no time to re-read. Paraphrasing, the mag said " Epson engineers were considering a new RD-2 given the hot resale market for the RD-1 years after production." A production run of 10K is no big deal for these guys -- just upgrade the sensor whatnot, they already have the shell.
Click to expand...

An R-D1 with just an updated sensor wouldn't be enough at this point. Aside from making the sensor full sized, they should also increase the baselength and substantially increase the battery life. To do this, they'll probably have to rework the body or at least the top section. They should also redo / modernize the meter readout in the VF. Switching to a CMOS sensor might help with the battery life. Another nice touch would be a live-view option for close-up shooting or for easily testing focus.
 
Why not no crop factor at all? I'd rather deal with the light falloff and have the option of cropping if it's really bad. I'd love a system that let you profile lenses for falloff yourself, with a bunch of common lens profiles built-in. Of course the camera doesn't know the aperture you're using, so automatic correction becomes difficult. It's easy enough to just fix it in post unless it's really severe.
 
Sam N said:
An R-D1 with just an updated sensor wouldn't be enough at this point. Aside from making the sensor full sized, they should also increase the baselength and substantially increase the battery life. To do this, they'll probably have to rework the body or at least the top section. They should also redo / modernize the meter readout in the VF. Switching to a CMOS sensor might help with the battery life. Another nice touch would be a live-view option for close-up shooting or for easily testing focus.
Click to expand...
You are asking for two much. I would be satisfied with the bigger sensor (10-12 mpx) would work with me if it was only this. Live-view is for DSLR, not rangefinders in my opinion. But the main things I would ask for is :
- 4000, why not 8000 speed.
- faster interface.
- bigger screen.
This could be reached with the current body I believe.
 
tokek said:
...why not 64000 iso and a packet of crisps to go with it .........
Click to expand...
I don't get the point of your post. Probably a cynical response to a request that is asking nothing technically unachievable.

Overall there are two kind of people on that thread. The ones bored by them (and the generated expectation) but still post and the ones that even if this is only highly improbable product (RD2) like to discuss it.
One thing I am sure of is that the most people on the internet voice a desire of a RD2, it can only do good to the chances of such a product happening. I will be the first one to say that chances are little, but pure negativity (which is different to humour) is valueless to such a thread.
 
higher ISO is much more important compared to faster shutter times IMO.

you get much more valuable images than using faster shutter times. Images with a lot of bokeh are mere crap 🙂 1/8000? use aperture F80 instead lol

5000$ is certainly bargain if Nikon DRF manages to handle full frame sensor so one can use higher iso. Maybe it happens when lower end DSLR get full frame sensors. Never underestimate our engineering regarding fullframe and RF 😀

1.1-1.2 crop factor is still okay.
 
tomasis said:
higher ISO is much more important compared to faster shutter times IMO.

you get much more valuable images than using faster shutter times. Images with a lot of bokeh are mere crap 🙂 1/8000? use aperture F80 instead lol

5000$ is certainly bargain if Nikon DRF manages to handle full frame sensor so one can use higher iso. Maybe it happens when lower end DSLR get full frame sensors. Never underestimate our engineering regarding fullframe and RF 😀

1.1-1.2 crop factor is still okay.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to define the most consensual list of requirements of potential RD2 buyers, just trying to list mine based on my usage of this camera and the kind of pictures I take.
I like very much the grain of 800-1600 and think it gives a special look on the pictures. Therefore my priority requirement is not to improve the ISO capability. If I needed 6400, the D300 or D3 are probably a better tool.
Yet shutter speed has been an issue many times in bright sun, especially on pictures were I need a wide aperture for reduced DOF. I know the M8 has 8000, it would be great on a RD2. I think many of the RD1 users like the creative capability of this camera, this is not about having perfectly sharp and noise free images shooting a mouse in a tunnel.
As for F80, is that a plane ?😉
 
tokek said:
fukya15.jpg


....... you may go back to jumping up and down on the beach yelling "Hey fish come here"
Click to expand...

Nice picture!
 
tokek said:
Thanks
.
.
.


........ but this is starting to sound like a Leica wish thread over at LUF ...better use what you have and enjoy, learn and grow with it all. snap blink and remember
Click to expand...
I agree and don't get me wrong, I find the RD1 a wonderful camera and after hesitating a long time for the M8, I will stick with it, so much fun and easy to use. Yet forums are for discussions. Each of us can have their opinion of what is valuable to discuss or useless. A RD2 wish list might be useless in terms of actions it will generate, but why not discuss?
 
An RD1s with an M7 viewfinder would be enough for me, to be honest... or actually any Leica viewfinder.

Then again, if Nikon do have that M-mount RF in prototype, I wanna know where to sign-up.
 
yanidel, if I need iso 6400, it should be a RF which could give me images. not that damn heavy plastic DSLR crap, right? 🙂 If you like short DOF at day, how about medium format, if you dont mind big bulky things. Of course, it needs more different RF cameras to sell for people with different preferences.

I dont understand why CV is doing nothing. I dont think that Epson need to take responsibility for all whole stuffs. CV could take care of all mechanical stuffs while Epson helps CV with software stuffs so it will be CV who produces cameras. Rd1 looks like just a Bessa. Not anything of a manufacturer of printers and scanners except this logo on the body, lol

It is the viewfinder 1.0x which hold me from selling Rd1. I could swap rd1 to M8 easily for other preferences but not for VF. Of course not only VF, also good high ISO, ergonomics etc. If iso 1600 is decent for me, but it is still not enough, I still want 2-3 stops more 😉 then I could skip Noctilux as a choice 😀
 
Last edited:
tomasis, size matters ... 😀 medium format is too big, RD1 is more or less what I expect, maybe just a little bit tinier (especially heigh) would be better.
I read Epson worked with CV on the RD1 as the case is basically the same as the Bessa's.
I agree on the 1.0 finder, it is great. Yet would love to have 21mm framelines. yet I know everything is not possible. As for your ISO comment, as you said, can't make a camera with everybody's preference, this is not my priority one. Hope the Noctilux Fan Club does not read your post, it would be considered an heresy to buy a Noctilux just for the extra stops ... 😉
 
sjw617 said:
I can not see Nikon doing a new RF. They would have to design new glass also, since many people would not have old RF Nikon glass. I do not think they would make an M mount camera. Why give the lens sales to someone else? It does not make sense.
I doubt anyone oher than Leica will ever put out a digital RF. The market is very small. The 14,000 M8's sold are nothing to a company like Nikon or Canon.

Steve
Click to expand...

Nikon and Leica are not competing. So why wouldn't Nikon build it.

Nikon has the resources to do something like that. The past has proven there are companies that do things just because.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Epson RD-1 support in DxO Photolab [tutorial]
Replies
0
Views
513
prmortimer
P
M
Does anyone have experience with carbon inksets?
Replies
13
Views
3K
mrtoml
mrtoml
S
Finepix S1 bridge camera
Replies
0
Views
272
seany65
S
Rob-F
Glimmerglass: Who is using it? How do you use it?
Replies
1
Views
416
Dogman
Dogman
Vince Lupo
Epson V850 vertical line
Replies
11
Views
712
DownUnder
D
Back
Top Bottom