N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Chrisso
I am sure glad I scan my own negs after hearing your experience! Happy hunting.
Bob
I am sure glad I scan my own negs after hearing your experience! Happy hunting.
Bob
One final question for the converted......
- Thread starter chrisso
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies: Replies 61
- Views: Views 6K
justins7
Well-known
I went through the same debate, as I'm sure many have. Ultimately I bought a 35mm Canon film scanner ($500) that is magnificent, but SLLLOOOWWWW. It seems like the best compromise in this interim period before a real useable and cheaper digital rangefinder is available.
A scanner seems like the best bridge to digital; the RD-1 will be a worthless brick in 2 years.
A scanner seems like the best bridge to digital; the RD-1 will be a worthless brick in 2 years.
chrisso
Established
That is an interesting point if view......and one I can understand.justins7 said:
Funny how I posted a topic, aimed at confirmed RD-1 users, in an RD-1 forum, but so far most have been sceptical.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Chrisso
Funny how I posted a topic, aimed at confirmed RD-1 users, in an RD-1 forum, but so far most have been sceptical.
Just out of curiosity , can you elaborate on the sceptical part? Thanks
Bob
Funny how I posted a topic, aimed at confirmed RD-1 users, in an RD-1 forum, but so far most have been sceptical.
Just out of curiosity , can you elaborate on the sceptical part? Thanks
Bob
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I don't want to get into what seem to be some fairly emotional arguments brewing, but let me say a couple of things as BOTH an R-D1 user and somebody who loves film:
1) A good film scanner is a great solution if you mostly want wet prints and just need a digital image occasionally. Once you get beyond that, the problem is that scanning and prepping take a lot of time.
I have only a limited amount of time per week that I can devote to photography, and I quickly discovered that this amount of time would cover either a darkroom-based solution or a scanner-based solution... but not both.
The only reason I got into digital cameras was that I need to produce a lot of digital images, but I don't have the time to do a lot of scans.
2) If what you love about film is shooting in black-and-white, there's a dirty little secret about film scanners: grain aliasing.
A short explanation of this is that the regular pattern of the scanner's CCD interacts with the random pattern of film grain to produce an image in which grain is much more prominent than in the same image printed with an enlarger.
(You can read a much more scientific explanation at this link.)
Basically, there's NOTHING you can do about it that doesn't affect sharpness, except shoot only chromogenic b&w films. I really wanted to settle on a scanner-based solution for my b&w shooting, but I just couldn't live with the exaggerated grain.
3) I don't feel that the R-D1 will be "a useless brick in a couple of years." Why would that happen? (unless the special battery poops out and Epson doesn't offer replacements.) The images it produces in three years will still be as good as those it produces now, and that's good enough for most of what I shoot.
Don't fall for the planned-obsolescence sales pitch used in the computer industry; the fact that you can now buy a new computer that's faster doesn't really make your old one any slower, and the fact that somebody will have introduced a camera with a gajillion megapixels by then doesn't mean my six-megapixel images will somehow stop meeting my needs.
4) What should you do? For one thing, DON'T sell the M6 if you really like it; you'll probably wind up regretting it, no matter how logical the reasons for letting it go.
If you can easily afford to splash out $3000 for an R-D1 without selling the M6, go ahead and do it; it's a nice camera and a good way to get digital images with the lenses you already have (as long as you don't shoot a lot of superwide images; the R-D1's 1.53x crop factor 'unwides' them.)
If the $3000 would be kind of a stretch, start out by spending a few hundred dollars on a consumer scanner -- you'll probably have to go with a flatbed if you want to scan your medium-format negs. Experiment with this and see how comfortable you are with it.
If you decide you want to stay married to film and just have an occasional fling with digital, the scanner-based solution probably will do it for you; and the scanner will still be useful (for your old negs) even if you later decide to divorce film and get married to digital instead.
On the other hand, if you quickly find you love the flexibility of digital images, but curse the amount of time you spend scanning, spotting, etc., then you may want to move to a digital camera sooner rather than later.
Yes, these are random thoughts, but they're thoughts from someone who has been there...
1) A good film scanner is a great solution if you mostly want wet prints and just need a digital image occasionally. Once you get beyond that, the problem is that scanning and prepping take a lot of time.
I have only a limited amount of time per week that I can devote to photography, and I quickly discovered that this amount of time would cover either a darkroom-based solution or a scanner-based solution... but not both.
The only reason I got into digital cameras was that I need to produce a lot of digital images, but I don't have the time to do a lot of scans.
2) If what you love about film is shooting in black-and-white, there's a dirty little secret about film scanners: grain aliasing.
A short explanation of this is that the regular pattern of the scanner's CCD interacts with the random pattern of film grain to produce an image in which grain is much more prominent than in the same image printed with an enlarger.
(You can read a much more scientific explanation at this link.)
Basically, there's NOTHING you can do about it that doesn't affect sharpness, except shoot only chromogenic b&w films. I really wanted to settle on a scanner-based solution for my b&w shooting, but I just couldn't live with the exaggerated grain.
3) I don't feel that the R-D1 will be "a useless brick in a couple of years." Why would that happen? (unless the special battery poops out and Epson doesn't offer replacements.) The images it produces in three years will still be as good as those it produces now, and that's good enough for most of what I shoot.
Don't fall for the planned-obsolescence sales pitch used in the computer industry; the fact that you can now buy a new computer that's faster doesn't really make your old one any slower, and the fact that somebody will have introduced a camera with a gajillion megapixels by then doesn't mean my six-megapixel images will somehow stop meeting my needs.
4) What should you do? For one thing, DON'T sell the M6 if you really like it; you'll probably wind up regretting it, no matter how logical the reasons for letting it go.
If you can easily afford to splash out $3000 for an R-D1 without selling the M6, go ahead and do it; it's a nice camera and a good way to get digital images with the lenses you already have (as long as you don't shoot a lot of superwide images; the R-D1's 1.53x crop factor 'unwides' them.)
If the $3000 would be kind of a stretch, start out by spending a few hundred dollars on a consumer scanner -- you'll probably have to go with a flatbed if you want to scan your medium-format negs. Experiment with this and see how comfortable you are with it.
If you decide you want to stay married to film and just have an occasional fling with digital, the scanner-based solution probably will do it for you; and the scanner will still be useful (for your old negs) even if you later decide to divorce film and get married to digital instead.
On the other hand, if you quickly find you love the flexibility of digital images, but curse the amount of time you spend scanning, spotting, etc., then you may want to move to a digital camera sooner rather than later.
Yes, these are random thoughts, but they're thoughts from someone who has been there...
It sounds to me like there's a problem somewhere along the line. The Leica M6 and Mamiya 7II are superb cameras well able to produce stunning sharp negatives. So where's the problem?chrisso said:
If you've been able to get sharp enlargements from the negatives. then it would appear the problem is in the scanning. On the other hand, if your 8x10 or 11x14 enlargements are also fuzzy, that argues the problem is elsewhere.
If you get fuzzy enlargements with both the Leica and the Mamiya, that's another bit of useful data... suggesting operator error. If this is the case, I'd be concerned that photos from a new expensive RD-1 would be fuzzy as well.
I just think that it would be a good idea to pin-point the fuzzy problem before applying an expensive solution.
M
mourges
Guest
I currently use a film scanner - the Nikon LS 2000. It is quite a few years old, but it still does the job for me.
I've also been through 4 digital cameras in the same time frame as I have had the scanner - the urge to upgrade was too great!
The $ value of the RD1 will diminish over the next few years, however that shouldn't be compared to the personal value to you, and your photography. If you are looking to sell the camera in a few years then you would have an issue. If you have a look at the Nikon D2H you can see overnight the $ value went from $3200 to $2000.
In your position, you already have some great cameras and if the only thing that is annoying you is the lack of decent scanning, I'd buy a scanner. The scanner will last you longer - you don't get hot pixels etc.
Whichever way you go there will be a learning curve (Photoshop etc) but at least with scanning, as you get better you can go back and rescan. If I get a better scanner, I'll certainly rescan my negatives, but my 2 megapixel digital images will always be 2 meg images.
I've also been through 4 digital cameras in the same time frame as I have had the scanner - the urge to upgrade was too great!
The $ value of the RD1 will diminish over the next few years, however that shouldn't be compared to the personal value to you, and your photography. If you are looking to sell the camera in a few years then you would have an issue. If you have a look at the Nikon D2H you can see overnight the $ value went from $3200 to $2000.
In your position, you already have some great cameras and if the only thing that is annoying you is the lack of decent scanning, I'd buy a scanner. The scanner will last you longer - you don't get hot pixels etc.
Whichever way you go there will be a learning curve (Photoshop etc) but at least with scanning, as you get better you can go back and rescan. If I get a better scanner, I'll certainly rescan my negatives, but my 2 megapixel digital images will always be 2 meg images.
doubs43
Well-known
"the RD-1 will be a worthless brick in 2 years."
Maybe...... maybe not. I bought a Fuji-S602Z a couple of years ago and upgraded to a Sony F-828. Is the Fuji now a worthless brick? Not at all. I use it often and my wife is learning how to use it now that she's outgrown a P&S Vivitar.
IMO it greatly depends upon the individual and how they view things. For some who must have the "latest & greatest", it's passe as soon as something "better" comes along. For others, they'll use it until it falls apart or until they're forced to upgrade.
Walker
Maybe...... maybe not. I bought a Fuji-S602Z a couple of years ago and upgraded to a Sony F-828. Is the Fuji now a worthless brick? Not at all. I use it often and my wife is learning how to use it now that she's outgrown a P&S Vivitar.
IMO it greatly depends upon the individual and how they view things. For some who must have the "latest & greatest", it's passe as soon as something "better" comes along. For others, they'll use it until it falls apart or until they're forced to upgrade.
Walker
S
sfaust
Guest
"the RD-1 will be a worthless brick in 2 years."
I disagree, as it appears most others do also. Sure the value may drop over that time, but the prints and images that it makes will won't change, nor will its usability. In fact, as printer technology gets better and better, it will no doubt create better printed images than it does now
And look at it this way. The price will drop enough that you can pickup a second one very cheaply. Then you'll have two bodies, one for B&W and one for color!
I disagree, as it appears most others do also. Sure the value may drop over that time, but the prints and images that it makes will won't change, nor will its usability. In fact, as printer technology gets better and better, it will no doubt create better printed images than it does now
And look at it this way. The price will drop enough that you can pickup a second one very cheaply. Then you'll have two bodies, one for B&W and one for color!
R
RML
Guest
jlw said:
This is indeed what I've experienced. I shoot a lot (on average over a year perhaps a roll a day) and scanning everything is just too time-consuming. I currently have about 125-150 unscanned rolls, the oldest dating from September 2003. I simply don't have the time to scan them all. A digital RF like the RD-1 will save me tons of time; time that I can then spend on my wife and little girl.
chrisso
Established
Nikon Bob said:
It just seemed that a lot of the comments yesterday were from people who had looked at the RD-1 and decided it wasn't for them (for whatever reason).
Doug,
Let's put this thing to bed. I think I have pinpointed the source of my fuzzy images. The only time I'm unhappy with the sharpness is when I'm working with an outsourced scan.
I only mentioned it because I had assumed the pro place would use top of the line equipment. Maybe they don't, maybe they don't have it set up properly, maybe they note I'm an amateur and deliver a half assed job. I don't know. It was my round about way of saying I was worried about settling for a cheap to mid priced scanner.
Thanks to everyone for the advice. I guess I'm crawling toward an idea of what I should do. You are all helping me to narrow the options however and I'm persuaded not to sell my M6.
denishr
アナログ侘・&#
Brian Sweeney said:
Hehehe, I like it, Brian
Denis
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
chrisso
The only thing that stops me from getting the RD-1 is the price. I really like the anolog user inputs on it and that is probably why my Oly C5050 gets so little use. I just hate the menu, menu, button, button way of operating the Oly. I wish Nikon would come out with a digital version of the FM2n for the same reason. Come to think of it a digital back would be fine too, so I could enjoy the best of both worlds with the same camera. Stuff dreams are made of. Let us know when you have finnished crawling towards a verdict.
Bob
The only thing that stops me from getting the RD-1 is the price. I really like the anolog user inputs on it and that is probably why my Oly C5050 gets so little use. I just hate the menu, menu, button, button way of operating the Oly. I wish Nikon would come out with a digital version of the FM2n for the same reason. Come to think of it a digital back would be fine too, so I could enjoy the best of both worlds with the same camera. Stuff dreams are made of. Let us know when you have finnished crawling towards a verdict.
Bob
S
sfaust
Guest
>>> Come to think of it a digital back would be fine too, so I could enjoy the best of both worlds with the same camera. Stuff dreams are made of. <<<
This is exactly why I am considering a medium format solution. Change the back between film or digital, even between each shot if you like. As they are about the same price as the high end of the DSLRs. Probably far more practical that getting the R-D1 which I've been serious considering now for a while.
This is exactly why I am considering a medium format solution. Change the back between film or digital, even between each shot if you like. As they are about the same price as the high end of the DSLRs. Probably far more practical that getting the R-D1 which I've been serious considering now for a while.
peter_n
Veteran
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!chrisso said:
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
sfaust said:
Could you elaborate on which medium-format cameras with digital backs are about the same price as high-end DSLRs?
All the medium-format digital backs I've seen are about the same price as a really good used car...
S
sreidvt
Guest
The R-D1 will not be a worthless brick in two years. Even a Canon D30 made in 2000 is still a very useable camera and I've often recommended it to photography students on a very limited budget. I have no idea what the $$ value of the R-D1 will be in two years but I don't really care. There are a lot of pictures that can be made with that camera in those two years.
Sean
Sean
T
tlianza
Guest
Hi to all,
Just to add my two cents... I own an RD1,M6,M7 and a Mamiya 7 as well as Dslrs and Nikon and Leica SLRs. My own experience has been that below 11X17 images, digital is normally a winner regardless of format, regardless of film type. I own a Nikon ls 8000 scanner and it does a fine job on the medium format and I can take those images to much greater size than the digital image files. If you buy an RD-1 you will probably just use your leicas less. It's very convient and very easy to produce images. I haven't taken thousands of images, but the RD-1 works better in mixed lighting than any of the DSLRs that I have and it seems to handle highlight detail far better than the Olympus E1 or Nikon D100. Having said that, a Leica with Ektachrome GX100 or Fuji ASTIA will do a far better job with highlights and the image will enlarge to sizes greater than 11X17 with ease and great detail. If you love rangefinders, own leica(s) and some lenses, the RD-1 is a very good addition. It certainly makes NO sense to me, outside of that context however. I still have a wet darkroom and I still use my Scanner often. Now if I can only find time to actually take some pictures....
Just to add my two cents... I own an RD1,M6,M7 and a Mamiya 7 as well as Dslrs and Nikon and Leica SLRs. My own experience has been that below 11X17 images, digital is normally a winner regardless of format, regardless of film type. I own a Nikon ls 8000 scanner and it does a fine job on the medium format and I can take those images to much greater size than the digital image files. If you buy an RD-1 you will probably just use your leicas less. It's very convient and very easy to produce images. I haven't taken thousands of images, but the RD-1 works better in mixed lighting than any of the DSLRs that I have and it seems to handle highlight detail far better than the Olympus E1 or Nikon D100. Having said that, a Leica with Ektachrome GX100 or Fuji ASTIA will do a far better job with highlights and the image will enlarge to sizes greater than 11X17 with ease and great detail. If you love rangefinders, own leica(s) and some lenses, the RD-1 is a very good addition. It certainly makes NO sense to me, outside of that context however. I still have a wet darkroom and I still use my Scanner often. Now if I can only find time to actually take some pictures....
DaShiv
21st century digital boy
tlianza said:
I can certainly believe the holding highlights part--typical of Canons, my 20D still likes to blow out highlights on a regular basis, although less so than the Digital Rebel it replaced. Nikons are reputed to be better at holding highlights and I'm glad to hear that the R-D1's processing is similarly capable.
I'm a bit confused by your mixed lighting comment though. Do you mean that it has a better built-in white balance, or that it doesn't clip individual color channels as easily under severe lighting (red channel under tungsten for example), or...?
chrisso
Established
At this point I'm leaning towards buying a good scanner, because I know I have a library of past photographs I will want to scan at some point in the future.
On the other hand, I love the idea of the RD-1, the ability to see ones work in progress (no more wasted rolls of film). I'm also concerned about being left behind by the digital movement. It's already a steep learning curve IMO.
I had similar difficulties shifting from the analog music domain to digital a few years ago.
On the other hand, I love the idea of the RD-1, the ability to see ones work in progress (no more wasted rolls of film). I'm also concerned about being left behind by the digital movement. It's already a steep learning curve IMO.
I had similar difficulties shifting from the analog music domain to digital a few years ago.