benroy
Member
I've had the RD-1 for a full week and have learned a few things in that time. Camera is well made, mechanical functions are fine (no horizontal, vertical alignment problems).
Metering is good, and the handling is just great. Used Leica Ms professionally for years, and enjoyed getting back to the "rangefinder feel and vision".
BTW: The purchase was influenced mainly by Sean Reid's reviews of the RD-1 and the Voigtlander lenses in Luminous Landscape...he was right on the money, as it turns out in the use of the camera and lenses.
Knock on wood...I haven't had a single problem with the camera and lenses...once I fumbled my way through the guide book (terrible job of writing!)
What I have learned: the resolution of the 6 MP Epson is not on a par with the resolution of the Canon D60...it is a stretch to get 11x17s (my standard paper size) of similar quality as those produced by the D60...Epson should include an ISO of 100 in the forthcoming (?) RD-2.
I have used Epson RAW and Photoshop's CameraRaw on my Mac...Epson RAW images have brilliant color, but lack the resolution of the PS...PS color is certainly less brilliant but the images have slightly better resolution.
Sean Reid was right on the money about vignetting in the 15/4.5 and 21/4 Voigtlander lenses...they are both nice and sharp, but you have to Photoshop the vignetting.
I think the standard print size to get maximum quality out of the RD-1 is 8.5x11...maybe as I improve my processing skills, I might be able to get consistently good 11x17s...but not now.
Thanks for the opportunity of expressing my views...I have enjoyed reading the posts in the RD-1 forum.
Metering is good, and the handling is just great. Used Leica Ms professionally for years, and enjoyed getting back to the "rangefinder feel and vision".
BTW: The purchase was influenced mainly by Sean Reid's reviews of the RD-1 and the Voigtlander lenses in Luminous Landscape...he was right on the money, as it turns out in the use of the camera and lenses.
Knock on wood...I haven't had a single problem with the camera and lenses...once I fumbled my way through the guide book (terrible job of writing!)
What I have learned: the resolution of the 6 MP Epson is not on a par with the resolution of the Canon D60...it is a stretch to get 11x17s (my standard paper size) of similar quality as those produced by the D60...Epson should include an ISO of 100 in the forthcoming (?) RD-2.
I have used Epson RAW and Photoshop's CameraRaw on my Mac...Epson RAW images have brilliant color, but lack the resolution of the PS...PS color is certainly less brilliant but the images have slightly better resolution.
Sean Reid was right on the money about vignetting in the 15/4.5 and 21/4 Voigtlander lenses...they are both nice and sharp, but you have to Photoshop the vignetting.
I think the standard print size to get maximum quality out of the RD-1 is 8.5x11...maybe as I improve my processing skills, I might be able to get consistently good 11x17s...but not now.
Thanks for the opportunity of expressing my views...I have enjoyed reading the posts in the RD-1 forum.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Welcome to RFF! Though I don't have (and am not likey to have anytime soon 
) a RD-1, I enjoy reading the observations of users like these.
One thought, and you can't do it all the time, would be to look for situations where perhaps the vignetting could be used to enhance rather than detract from the shot?
William
) a RD-1, I enjoy reading the observations of users like these. One thought, and you can't do it all the time, would be to look for situations where perhaps the vignetting could be used to enhance rather than detract from the shot?
William
R
RML
Guest
Interesting finds! Thanks for sharing.
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
Aaaaagggghhhh! One more has just been bought...that's one less in the limited available stocks....must save up now! But that would be a long time....hate to have $3000 and no RD-1 left to buy....
brightsky
Established
Yes, this is an interesting post.
benroy, which version of PS are you using? Specifically which of PS's Camera Raw. Perhaps it has greatly improved with PSCS2 and I might be willing to upgrade if that's the case.
TIA.
benroy, which version of PS are you using? Specifically which of PS's Camera Raw. Perhaps it has greatly improved with PSCS2 and I might be willing to upgrade if that's the case.
TIA.
benroy
Member
brightsky said:
Thanks for the inquiry. I'm using Photoshop Elements 3. I have CS2, but Elements is quicker and a good deal simpler for one of my limited competence.
JoshRoot
The NW will rise again.
Uh...what?
11x17 is pushing the limits of either camera. Are you saying that you don't think the sensor provides you with a good enough image in some way? Or that the noise of the R-D1 is worse than the D60?
In either case, I disagree with you. The R-D1 provides excellent images and the noise is much more pleasing than any of the Canon dSLR's I have had. Though the noise issue may be a matter of opinion.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Hmm, I dunno -- I use an R-D 1 for almost all my personal photography, and I use a Canon D60 for almost all my photography at work.
My perception doesn't agree with your observation that pictures taken with the D60 have a lot more resolution (by which I assume you mean they show significantly more detail.) Are you sure you're making an "apples-to-apples" comparison? (For example, the R-D 1 with a typical lens is considerably lighter than a D60 with a typical lens, and it doesn't have the D60's meaty right-side handgrip -- so if you're comparing handheld pictures, a lot of the difference could be explained by positing that it's simply easier for you to hold the D60 steady.)
As to size limitations, last summer I did a studio photo session with the R-D 1 and printed one of the images at 18x24 inches (on an HP Designjet 5500PS) for a display. The image seemed well-detailed to me, and people kept commenting on how good it looked -- of course, part of that could be because you don't normally examine an 18x24 print from nose-touching distance, but it still seemed to show that you can make a satisfactory image of that size from an R-D 1.
I agree that the D60 shows lower noise at its minimum 100 ISO setting -- but for most kinds of photography I haven't noticed that translating into dramatically better rendition of details.
Understand that I'm not claiming you're wrong in what you've observed -- I'm just suggesting that you may want to do some careful testing to make sure you're really getting the most out of your R-D 1, because I think it should be able to produce results for you that will be generally as good as, or better than, what you'd get with the D60 under similar conditions.
My perception doesn't agree with your observation that pictures taken with the D60 have a lot more resolution (by which I assume you mean they show significantly more detail.) Are you sure you're making an "apples-to-apples" comparison? (For example, the R-D 1 with a typical lens is considerably lighter than a D60 with a typical lens, and it doesn't have the D60's meaty right-side handgrip -- so if you're comparing handheld pictures, a lot of the difference could be explained by positing that it's simply easier for you to hold the D60 steady.)
As to size limitations, last summer I did a studio photo session with the R-D 1 and printed one of the images at 18x24 inches (on an HP Designjet 5500PS) for a display. The image seemed well-detailed to me, and people kept commenting on how good it looked -- of course, part of that could be because you don't normally examine an 18x24 print from nose-touching distance, but it still seemed to show that you can make a satisfactory image of that size from an R-D 1.
I agree that the D60 shows lower noise at its minimum 100 ISO setting -- but for most kinds of photography I haven't noticed that translating into dramatically better rendition of details.
Understand that I'm not claiming you're wrong in what you've observed -- I'm just suggesting that you may want to do some careful testing to make sure you're really getting the most out of your R-D 1, because I think it should be able to produce results for you that will be generally as good as, or better than, what you'd get with the D60 under similar conditions.
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
JoshRoot said:
The noise may be more pleasing, but I can assure you that my 20D has much less of it, I really miss an ISO 100 setting on the RD-1
P
plexi
Guest
fgianni said:
The 20D doesn`t have less noise because it goes down to ISO 100, it`s because it`s sensor is at it`s best at that ISO. The Sensor in the R-D1 works it`s best at 200. ...Epson could probably have made it go down to ISO 100, but ISO 200 would still be optimum.
This is not film....
The EOS 1Ds goes down to ISO 50, but it`s best at 100.
Last edited by a moderator:
benroy
Member
JoshRoot said:
Thanks for your comments...but I must disagree with your disagreement. I'm not talking about noise, I'm talking about resolution...producing a sharp image. If you harken back to the old days of Tri-X, you know you can have a very sharp image with grain, and with Tri-X, the grain often enhanced the sharpness. If I place an 11x17 of the same object shot with the RD-1, and with an equal focal length lens at the same ISO on a D60, the D60 image is sharper...the noise may be the same as the RD-1's, but the printed image is sharper. And...I shoot the Canon stuff on jpeg, not RAW.
J. Borger
Well-known
I prefer my R-D1 prints on super A3 to those i get from my Canon 1Ds.
Perhaps the canon prints are sharper ... but the R-D1 pictures look much more filmlike.
The look is certainly different though ....... so it comes down to personal taste.
The canon prints are sharp in an artificial/ digital way .. i can't stand that look anymore.
Have been there .. no way back for me!
Perhaps the canon prints are sharper ... but the R-D1 pictures look much more filmlike.
The look is certainly different though ....... so it comes down to personal taste.
The canon prints are sharp in an artificial/ digital way .. i can't stand that look anymore.
Have been there .. no way back for me!
Chaser
Well-known
benroy said:
If you are shooting the canon on Jpeg than it is applying in camera sharpening while the R-D1 is in raw so no in camera sharpening would be applied. Could this be part of the discrepancy between apparent sharpness of images?
LCT
ex-newbie
benroy said:
May i ask you what kind of sharpening you apply to your raw pics Benroy?
Best,
LCT
Phil_Hawkes
Established
ZorkiKat said:Aaaaagggghhhh! One more has just been bought...that's one less in the limited available stocks....must save up now! But that would be a long time....hate to have $3000 and no RD-1 left to buy....
KorkiKat: Thus far, we (RFF members) have only seen cameras with serial numbers lower than 4700, so this suggests that there are many more of the 10,000 units to come... assuming all the planned 10,000 units are manufactured. In other words, I don't think you need to be too concerned about stocks running out
Benroy: thank you for your observations. The R-D1 is my first digital, so I've never had anything digital to compare it too.
Ciao, Phil
benroy
Member
Chaser said:
Thanks for your question...I take the RD-1 RAW image into Photoshop for sharpening...first it is converted into a TIFF image and then sharpened. I do the same thing with Canon jpeg images...dowload them into Photoshop, sharpen them, and convert them to TIFF.
benroy
Member
LCT said:
You certainly may ask. The RAW image is converted into a TIFF image by Photoshop CameraRaw, and then sharpened, using the unsharp mask filter, followed up by the edge sharpness filter if needed.
benroy
Member
J. Borger said:
I don't like grain... or noise...if it is intrusive. If it is in the sky, it's intrusive. If it is in shadow detail, it's not only intrusive, it's objectionable. I shot, processed, and printed Tri-X for years...grain was never intrusive or objectionable...unless you pushed development. Are you telling me a picture has to be grainy or noisy and slightly soft to be "filmlike"? I have not , in my limited use of the RD-1, seen noise that is either intrusive or objectionable...even at ISO 400.
I wouldn't even hazard a try at ISOs above 400...afraid they would be, by your definition, too "filmlike".
My biggest concern, so far, is getting a sharper image...images just don't have the punch that Canon (or Nikon) images do. I have used or use the D60, 20D, and the 5D,
and have owned a Nikon D2X. As I mentioned in my initial comments, the 6MP Canon D60 provides images that are sharper than the 6MP RD-1...the 20D and the 5D just beat the socks off the RD-1 in sharpness (and should, with 8 and 12 MP sensors).
benroy
Member
jlw said:
You're right...I need to do more testing...I've only had the camera for a week and am reporting my intitial observations that are hardly scientifc. I'd love to see that 18x24!
I'm shooting with Canon L lenses on the D60, and Voigtlander lenses on the RD-1...that may make a difference.
Gid
Well-known
Welcome to the RD-1 club.
Have you checked the focusing of your CV lenses? Some people have reported front/back focusing issues with various lenses.
I'm very happy with my RD-1, but then I don't actively compare it against anything else - I do have other stuff - digital and film. I tend to use zone or hyperfocal focusing most of the time so I'm not really going for razor sharp, but when I have its been just fine - at least to my oldish eyes.
Gid
Have you checked the focusing of your CV lenses? Some people have reported front/back focusing issues with various lenses.
I'm very happy with my RD-1, but then I don't actively compare it against anything else - I do have other stuff - digital and film. I tend to use zone or hyperfocal focusing most of the time so I'm not really going for razor sharp, but when I have its been just fine - at least to my oldish eyes.
Gid