New RD-1x

mani said:
Hi Keith - I'll try to do some carefully controlled test shots for you, when my M8 gets back from Solms. I took a couple-hundred shots or so with the camera I had over the christmas holidays, but none of them under really controlled conditions. However, it was obvious that in low-light the character of the grain from the RD1s is much better.

Naturally, in really low-light the D90 totally blows the other two cameras away - with nice film-like grain too! But I don't like using it (and 'officially' I gave it to my partner now - so I have to ask her permission when I borrow it) 😉
Click to expand...


That would be interesting Mani ... the high ISO images I've seen from the Epson impressed me with the lack of noise and what there is is very grain like I must admit ... I just thought they lacked a little sparkle compared to the M8's files if you know what I mean!

Handy for you having both cameras to compare for your own evaluation ... because we all lie terribly about our cameras around here! 😛
 
Keith said:
That would be interesting Mani ... the high ISO images I've seen from the Epson impressed me with the lack of noise and what there is is very grain like I must admit ... I just thought they lacked a little sparkle compared to the M8's files if you know what I mean!

Handy for you having both cameras to compare for your own evaluation ... because we all lie terribly about our cameras around here! 😛
Click to expand...

I'm self-deceiving enough to think that I'm quite objective about my cameras. 😉
Seriously, no-one in their right mind should buy either an M8 or an RD1 these days really - with all their faults and shortcomings and unreliability. But somehow we love them, eh?
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Trius, many others here beside me have panned the price as being much to high. Why is it my value system you protest?
Click to expand...

It is because you have said the exact same thing over and over again. It is because you have said the exact same thing over and over again. It is because...
 
Generally, and not specific to the Epson, would a seven to 10 year old digital camera be financially worth repairing even if repair service was available? If history is an example, buying a working, used seven year old camera would be much less expensive than repair.
 
mani said:
I think given enough post-processing, you might even be able to make an IXUS shot look better than the RD1 - but I like the grain that the Epson gives at higher ISOs (800 is the real sweet spot imo).

What I find is that the M8 tends to start smudging shadow detail at higher ISO, regardless of the exposure. Hair, for instance: the detail is simply gone in the files from the M8, whereas with the Epson, the grain draws the detail.

Furthermore, the banding is a lot more marked in the M8 files.

I know that it's now become a mantra that you have to "exactly nail the exposure" on the M8 to overcome it's low-light limitations. This is just another way of blaming the user for the camera's faults.
Click to expand...


I am not talking about "enough processing" I am talking about proper processing. If you are smuding your shadow detail you are not processing the M8 files properly. I agree that if you process the M8 in the same manner as the RD-1 you will get a better file from the RD-1. But adjust processing for the sensor and the M8 is generally better. :bang:

There is no mantra here - I am as hard as anyone on the M8's flaws - but I sure can't blame the camera if I don't bother to adapt to it's characteristics - or can I?

EDIT: I just realized that I didn't specify that I am talking about RAW processing only. IT seems you may be a JPG only shooter, and in that case, you will usually get better files from the RD-1 and I see your point.
 
Last edited:
noimmunity said:
I just noticed this: Epson states that the R-D1xG will be serviced for 7 years after the end of production.
Click to expand...

That's a terrific commitment, not far off what one would expect for the M8.

Funnily enough, I think one of the most significant improvement to the R-D1 has come from its development partner, Cosina, namely the introduction of a fast 28mm lens. When I got rid oy my R-D1 (after a mega tax bill) it was not so much the need for the $$$ from the sale, it was more to do with the cost of a reasonably fast lens that would give me an approximate 40mm FOV.

IN any case, we all thought that, with the departure of the engineer responsible for the R-D1, it was an orphan product. Now it looks to have somone rooting for it within Epson, that's an entirely good thing.

Strange, really: Leica are known as quirky niche cameras - now there's another competitor, in production, with something even quirkier and more niche...
 
An expensive letter

An expensive letter

back alley said:
amazing!
a new rd1-x announced the day after i buy a rd1s.

i don't know what to think.
Click to expand...

The same applies here except that I would say we have little or nothing to worry about.

I paid 900 Euros for an R-D1 in perfect condition as opposed to probably more than 2000 Euros for the new R-D1

Since the new firmware update will make the two indistinguishable aside from the model number, I think we can both be happy that we didn't pay 1000 Euros for an x 😉

Peter
 
Paul T. said:
Funnily enough, I think one of the most significant improvement to the R-D1 has come from its development partner, Cosina, namely the introduction of a fast 28mm lens. When I got rid oy my R-D1 (after a mega tax bill) it was not so much the need for the $$$ from the sale, it was more to do with the cost of a reasonably fast lens that would give me an approximate 40mm FOV.
Click to expand...

Well the Cosina 28/f1.9 was presented in 2000, the R-D1 in 2004 if I remember correctly.

Philipp
 
gdi said:
I am not talking about "enough processing" I am talking about proper processing. If you are smuding your shadow detail you are not processing the M8 files properly. I agree that if you process the M8 in the same manner as the RD-1 you will get a better file from the RD-1. But adjust processing for the sensor and the M8 is generally better. :bang:
Click to expand...

Let's not get into a fight about the sensor characteristics of the M8 here shall we - it's not the place. Michael Kamber did a pretty thorough review of the way the M8 handles low-light, and the smudging of detail in the RAW file is what I'm talking about.
No need to get defensive about it - any simple test in low light will show that the M8 irretrievably loses detail in the shadow areas - RAW or jpeg (which I NEVER shoot, incidentally*).

Anyway, I do like a lot of what the M8 can do, otherwise plainly I wouldn't have bought one again. But low-light, high ISO shooting is not its strength, and I frankly don't understand why anyone would want to say it was.

*one extra note - I never understand the need people have to patronize other forum members about whom they know nothing, whatsoever. I have no idea whether you're a pro photographer or a schoolboy. Likewise your knowledge of my work or expertise. Let's keep it civilized eh?
 
rxmd said:
Well the Cosina 28/f1.9 was presented in 2000, the R-D1 in 2004 if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true now you mention it, I personally always felt the bulk of that lens offset the advantage of a lovely compact camera like the R-D1.

Now, more importantly, did we ever ID the member who hinted this camera was in the works? And can we all interrogate him ruthlessly as to an improved 1;3 crop model? I volunteer to be first with the bright lights and the "we have way of making you talk" questions, although of course I understand that this is an unfashionable modus operandi.
 
After thinking it over for the past couple of days

I decide to eat my words

"Yes, the R-D1xG is a good news to me."

I don't have to worry about parts and supplies any more. For my favorite digital camera, the R-D1s.

As for who's gonna buy an R-D1xG at this price? That's Epson's problem, not mine. ;-)

------

Also an idea came to mind.

I think Epson originally had two plans:

(1) "If Leica releases a full-frame M9, then we just finish our research and release our full-frame R-D2;"

(2) "If Leica release an M8.2, that's only got a few minor changes, but priced ridiculously higher, then we'll just do the same."

XD
 
mani said:
Let's not get into a fight about the sensor characteristics of the M8 here shall we - it's not the place. Michael Kamber did a pretty thorough review of the way the M8 handles low-light, and the smudging of detail in the RAW file is what I'm talking about.
No need to get defensive about it - any simple test in low light will show that the M8 irretrievably loses detail in the shadow areas - RAW or jpeg (which I NEVER shoot, incidentally*).

Anyway, I do like a lot of what the M8 can do, otherwise plainly I wouldn't have bought one again. But low-light, high ISO shooting is not its strength, and I frankly don't understand why anyone would want to say it was.

*one extra note - I never understand the need people have to patronize other forum members about whom they know nothing, whatsoever. I have no idea whether you're a pro photographer or a schoolboy. Likewise your knowledge of my work or expertise. Let's keep it civilized eh?
Click to expand...


LOL!!

I wasn't defensive about anything., I just posted information confirming another member's comments about the relative performance of the two cameras. It wasn't directed at you, however, you felt the need to respond to the facts I offered with silly insulting comments.

If anyone has been patronizing, it is you with you comments on IXUS and mantras. Now calling me a schoolboy? Because I have been able to take time to listen to others who have helped me in learning to get the best out of the M8? And finish with a call to keep it civil? LOL! If you think my comments about JPGs were patronizing then you, obviously misunderstood - I simply realized that my comments were not pertinent to M8 JPGs and making that clear.

Hey, enjoy your RD-1, I would - but please don't try to bully others into not providing information or tips to others in getting the most from their camera. If you have used a simple test to prove the RD-1 superiority, then great - I and others have chosen not to take the simplistic approach and expend slightly more effort to get much better results.

So I would suggest you take your own advice and try to be civil and don't attack those who have different experinces than you.
 
Economic stimulus

Economic stimulus

Well, I just have to say that if anyone needs help working toward the cost of the RD1X, I'd happily assist them by purchasing their RD1/RD1S! I'm a charitable sort, in that regard. 😛
 
You have heard this before, I know, but please explain:
Why is the RD-1 so expensive? It is essentially an antiquated sensor (roughly or D70) in a Bessa R3A rangefinder body. So it should cost at most $600. (Nothing wrong with 6 Megapixels, it's enough)

One can get a Nikon D40 PLUS a Bessa R3A for less than $1000.

Now $2000 (conservative estimate) for RD-1s or x is highway robbery!

And please, no Leicaca M8.002 excuses. I dont care how much that thing costs.

Do not misunderstand me, Comrades, I would love one for $600. I want to use my Jupiter 12 and my Russar on it.

But never at these prices...

So why is it so DAMN expensive? I have yet to read a satisfactory answer, except, that there are people who will pay this price.
 
Semushkin, as Roger Hicks frequently points out, not everything made was made for all of us. If we're poor, we buy Feds. If we're well enough off to have money we need for nothing else (or foolish enough to spend the money on cameras we should be spending on the mortgage), we buy new Leicas. Life ain't fair.

While I agree the price is silly high, there are lots of folks who can and will buy it because they want it.
 
Semushkin said:
So why is it so DAMN expensive? I have yet to read a satisfactory answer, except, that there are people who will pay this price.
Click to expand...

Sean Reid speculated back when it first came out that the top plate with that lovely analog dial must cost a good chunk of change. add in the recocking lever which, to my understanding, costs more than the auto-rewind on a Leica M8, the screen that flips around, and there you have it!

you may be perfectly satisfied with a box that you can put your lenses on. i happen to love the Epson for the top plate (the ability to see all you need without ever needed the menu), cocking the shutter, and flipping my screen to make it look like a film camera. whilst they are somewhat cosmetic niceties, IMO, they add to the wonderful user experience -- at a cost. you, or others, may not feel it's worth. it is to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom