New RD-1 owner's observations.

J. Borger said:
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!
Click to expand...

A lot of people complains about the "look" of pictures taken with the Canon CMOS sensors compared to other CCDs.
This is probably due to the way some software renders the much wider Gamut of the Canon CMOS.

In Photoshop changing the rendering intent does help.

As a matter of principle I think starting with a sensor with a wider Gamut is better than with a narrower one (capture more information), only you need to be careful how the out-of-gamut colours are rendered.

Also if you get a monitor capable of rendering the full Adobe RGB gamut (very expensive unfortunately) you will notice that the Canon CMOS looks much less artificial.
 
I use my 1Ds with Canon L glass (35/1.4L and 135 f2.0 mainly) and my r-d1 with modern & older Leica glas (summicrons & summiluxes). I will repeat again ..... up to super A3 my R-d1 prints are not so bitingly sharp as those from the Canon ..... but more pleasant to look at: far from soft and not grainy at all up to iso 400. More than acceptable at iso 800.
For less grain be sure to play with the sliders of "noise reduction" (up) & "edge enhance" (down) in the Epson raw converter. Like all digital files noise wil increase if you underexpose.
If you sharpen a high iso print be sure to sharpen in a mask or use an appropriate action that does this for you.. so you do not sharpen the grain (i use the FM action for the Nikon D70/ D100 (same sensor) for sharpening).
Perhaps i'm kicking in open doors here with my remarks but you should really reconsider your lenses (less likely) or processing of the R-d1 files if your prints are not up to those of the D60.
If we may agree the Nikon D100 is up to the Canon D60 resolutionwise the R-D1 should have a serious edge using quality RF lenses which outresolve the Canons.
 
fgianni said:
A lot of people complains about the "look" of pictures taken with the Canon CMOS sensors compared to other CCDs.
This is probably due to the way some software renders the much wider Gamut of the Canon CMOS.

In Photoshop changing the rendering intent does help.

Also if you get a monitor capable of rendering the full Adobe RGB gamut (very expensive unfortunately) you will notice that the Canon CMOS looks much less artificial.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip ... but the end of my Canon days is near .... as soon as the Digital M hits the shelfs i will sell my Canon gear. Because a RF suits me better.
About the Cmos/CCD i must agree that the Canon 1D (classic) files had the most pleasant look to me .. it was CCD indeed.
I do not know if this explains what i do not like anymore about the Canons.
This is higly subjective territory of course.
 
Not sure about the D60, but depending on camera settings, with the Canon DLSRs that I've used, if JPGs are coming out of the camera, they will usually already be at least somewhat sharpened, unless you have set the sharpening to zero. Does the D60 not also produce a RAW image, or is it set to JPG because of the workflow at your firm?
 
benroy 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.
Click to expand...

Thank you Benroy.
Do you use the same unsharp mask settings as for the D60?
Also did you try the Epson raw converter?
I use the Epson raw plug-in exclusively for this purpose and all my sharpenings are done through Fred Miranda's Nikon CS Pro (medium setting), as the R-D1 sensor is the same as that of the Nikon D100.
This way my results with R-D1 and Leica lenses are globally as sharp as those from the D100 or D2H with sharp Nikon primes.
BTW my D70 is even sharper, with moiré problems though.
See below the kind of sharpness i've usualy got with R-D1 and Leica 28/2.
FWIW
Best,
LCT

EPSN0134-afterweb.jpg


EPSN0134-aftercropweb.jpg
 
LCT said:
I use the Epson raw plug-in exclusively for this purpose and all my sharpenings are done through Fred Miranda's Nikon CS Pro (medium setting), as the R-D1 sensor is the same as that of the Nikon D100.
Click to expand...

I use exactly the same workflow ... same FM action for sharpening and love the results. Can only recommend it.
B&W or color .... in my experience the results from the Epson Raw convertor are superiour in many ways to the results i get from converting raws with Photoshop CS.
 
There are just too many variables here to cover it all with a blanket "my d60 is better than the R-d1" statement.

-Different lenses
-Different workflow (i.e. in camera sharpening)
-Were comparison shots taken on a tripod?
-How good are you at focusing a rangefinder camera? It takes practice.
-Is your RF adjusted correctly.
-Etc etc

List goes on and on. It may very well end up that you like your D60 better. And that's fine. But you've got to compare the correct things if you want to actually decide on something other than gut feeling.
 
Benroy,

I'm glad you like the camera. If I understood you correctly, you're comparing JPEGs from the D60 to converted RAW files from the R-D1. Is that correct? If so, you've got a confounding variable in your comparisons (in-camera sharpening). If you haven't already, I'd compare RAW to RAW using the same workflow. For color work with the R-D1, I strongly prefer C1. Working from a RAW file with no sharpening, the files from any of the following cameras are a bit soft because of the AA filter: D30, D60, 10D, 20D, R-D1, E-1. There are probably many others on that list but those are cameras I've tested directly. Files from the 5D, 1Ds, 1DsMkII and R9/DMR are fairly sharp from RAW even w/o sharpening.

Epson's sharpening in PhotoRAW may seem over-agressive when viewing the files at 100% but as a preliminary step towards output sharpening, it's actually quite effective. If I do the conversion in C1 (as I normally do for color) I usually bring R-D1 files through capture sharpening in PhotoKit when they're first opened. In short, when you hit the right worfkflow, I think you'll find the R-D1 files sharpen as well as those form other 6MP cameras.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sean Reid said:
Benroy,

I'm glad you like the camera. If I understood you correctly, you're comparing JPEGs from the D60 to converted RAW files from the R-D1. Is that correct? If so, you've got a confounding variable in your comparisons (in-camera sharpening). If you haven't already, I'd compare RAW to RAW using the same workflow. For color work with the R-D1, I strongly prefer C1. Working from a RAW file with no sharpening, the files from any of the following cameras are a bit soft because of the AA filter: D30, D60, 10D, 20D, R-D1, E-1. There are probably many others on that list but those are cameras I've tested directly. Files from the 5D, 1Ds, 1DsMkII and R9/DMR are fairly sharp from RAW even w/o sharpening.

Epson's sharpening in PhotoRAW may seem over-agressive when viewing the files at 100% but as a preliminary step towards output sharpening, it's actually quite effective. If I do the conversion in C1 (as I normally do for color) I usually bring R-D1 files through capture sharpening in PhotoKit when they're first opened. In short, when you hit the right worfkflow, I think you'll find the R-D1 files sharpen as well as those form other 6MP cameras.

Cheers,

Sean
Click to expand...

Thanks, Sean, for your input, which I value. I assume C1 is Capture One? What is Photokit? I use jpeg > tiff with all my Canons (5D, 20D, D60)...images are sharper and less noisy than the Canon Raw versions...also quicker and easier to process jpeg images.
I spent literally years of my professional career in the darkroom...I don't want to spend an equivalent amount of time processing digital images on my computer.
 
C1 is indeed Capture One DSLR. Photokit Sharpener is a program for a multi-stage sharpening workflow and I recommend it highly. If you're comparing perceived sharpness from files recorded as JPEGs, it's tough going because each camera has it's own kind of sharpening at various settings. Hard to compare because of that. RAW vs. RAW with both converted in the same program (with no sharpening at all) will give you useful comparative info. if it's needed.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sean Reid said:
C1 is indeed Capture One DSLR. Photokit Sharpener is a program for a multi-stage sharpening workflow and I recommend it highly. If you're comparing perceived sharpness from files recorded as JPEGs, it's tough going because each camera has it's own kind of sharpening at various settings. Hard to compare because of that. RAW vs. RAW with both converted in the same program (with no sharpening at all) will give you useful comparative info. if it's needed.

Cheers,

Sean
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. You didn't carry the "each camera has its own sharpening at various settings" far enough..the sharpening levels are also different for each lens.
 
Sean Reid said:
C1 is indeed Capture One DSLR. Photokit Sharpener is a program for a multi-stage sharpening workflow and I recommend it highly. If you're comparing perceived sharpness from files recorded as JPEGs, it's tough going because each camera has it's own kind of sharpening at various settings. Hard to compare because of that. RAW vs. RAW with both converted in the same program (with no sharpening at all) will give you useful comparative info. if it's needed.

Cheers,

Sean
Click to expand...
Sean,
If one is only interested in processing ERF, is C1 Pro worth the cost or is the LE version sufficient?
-Carlos
 
benroy,

You're right and I agree about customizing sharpening for each lens (and each picture).

Carlos,

I've never owned LE so I'm not sure. I'd suggest you try the trial version of it and see if it's missing anything you want.


BTW, I'm testing a set of B&W profiles for C1 that are looking really good so far.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Benroy, now you're selling your RD , I'd love to know what it will be replaced with. Retro to a Mamiya 7 and film maybe? ;- )

just a little photography humour and curiosity

good luck with the sale!
 
jan normandale said:
Benroy, now you're selling your RD , I'd love to know what it will be replaced with. Retro to a Mamiya 7 and film maybe? ;- )

just a little photography humour and curiosity

good luck with the sale!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the note...I have no intentions of returning to a film camera. I could not get the RD-1 to produce images that were as good as I was getting with my 6 mp Canon D60. RD-1 is a delight to handle and mechanically sound, but...
 
Benroy
Is I understand it, your images from the D60 were JPEGs converted to TIFFs. How much sharpening was applied under JPEG?
Is I understand it, your images from the R-D1 were RAWs . Were these also converted to TIFFs? Was any sharpening applied under RAW?
Just curious.
Rex
 
Nevermind
I found the answers to my questions in your earlier posts.
One final variable is the issue of backfocus. I had to go thru 3 samples to find one that would achieve critical focus. Did you do the ol' "picket fence" test?
Rex
 
rvaubel said:
Nevermind
I found the answers to my questions in your earlier posts.
One final variable is the issue of backfocus. I had to go thru 3 samples to find one that would achieve critical focus. Did you do the ol' "picket fence" test?
Rex
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion. I have used the RD-1 and the four lenses at f/11 - f/22...so that somewhere on the image, there should be some areas that are critically sharp...not the case. Images are sharp enough to make very nice 8.5x11s, but not sharp enough to be acceptable on an 11x17.
 
Resolution

Resolution

Strange. My sample produces pictures that seem to be at pixel level resolution. The noise at 200ISO (very little) is the limiting factor in the ability to discern small details (after sharpening)
One thing I did notice in your post was your reference to shots at F16 not being in focus thruout the rather wide DOF. Well, from my experience, I test at wide open with a lens that can handle it in order to reduce diffraction effects that increase the "circle of confusion" blur. I'm sure you have enough samples at a larger lens opening to discount this but just mentioning it.
Rex
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom