Please convience me.

[Nearsighted]

Why did you all buy the Epson RD-1? Was it the high cost of developing? The erge to print your own photos? What exactly influenced your decision about this purchase? I've been thinking about one for some time but I figured I'd wait a while till they worked all the bugs out of them and they became more affordable. Can anyone give me testomonials on what Epson (or Casino?) have done to improve or refine this camera since inception? What about the cost? Are they likely to come down? Thanks, Jim

 

[krimple]

Why did you all buy the Epson RD-1? Was it the high cost of developing? The erge to print your own photos? What exactly influenced your decision about this purchase? I've been thinking about one for some time but I figured I'd wait a while till they worked all the bugs out of them and they became more affordable. Can anyone give me testomonials on what Epson (or Casino?) have done to improve or refine this camera since inception? What about the cost? Are they likely to come down? Thanks, Jim

I've had my Epson since December '04. I've shot quite a lot with it, although lately I'm on a DSLR kick with my EOS 5D (easier shooting for kids). I use the R-D1 quite a bit, however. The R-D1 gets pushed aside when I want to capture sports, or work with the through-the-lens framing/DOF for macro or tight work. The R-D1 is the one I pick for pre-focusing at the hyperfocal at f/8, or for low light portraits, quick candids, etc...

My interest came from wanting a manual camera that is also digital. I enjoy shooting with manual film cameras (I've shot with a Leica CL, Mamiya 6) but also detest scanning. I am also an avid digital photographer, shooting more than 70% of my work with a Digital SLR.

The R-D1 was an expensive buy for me, but I've really enjoyed using it. I didn't buy the expensive Leica lenses--maybe someday, but for a 6 megapixel camera, I think the resolving power of the Voigtlanders is good enough for me. And it could be wider, for my tastes, but that viewfinder and the all manual feel sold me.

I shoot with the Voigtlander 15mm, 28mm, 35mm f/2.8 pan and 50mm Nokton. I have a 90mm Elmar f/4 I never use (too tough to frame).

I do not know what Epson has done to modify the camera. Think of this: they never released a firmware update that I know of. There are very few issues with the camera itself on my side, and I've thrown it in a bag every day and carried it with me all over the place. It doesn't wear particuarly well--there are some areas of lost paint, and the underside is just a dull silver metal. However, it is very reilable for me (where is that wood to knock?)

The 6 megapixel image is good enough for me, as I print most of my work at 8.5 x 11", and I have my SLR and film cameras for higher resolution if needed. I would love to see them get to 1.3 cropping factor and have a 90mm frameline as well, but that would involve changing the viewfinder. Maybe a longer baseline for more accurate focusing... But I haven't personally had a ton of issues focusing the 28mm Ultron or the 50mm Nokton.

The price is high but that's because it's a specialty camera. Epson had to come up with a reasonable price based on the R&D and tooling costs, and while $3000 is a lot of money, it can also buy you a full frame DSLR (the EOS 5D) so it's not out of the realm of current (inflated) digital prices. And btw I do most of my EOS shooting with three primes: 28mm f/1.8, 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8. The zooms only come out for sports or landscapes.

It would be great, as someone else has said on the forum, to see some company adapt a film camera to a very simple digital camera. Huw Finney on photo.net is taking a Leica MP and turning it into a digital camera--he's designing the circuit board, just put in the (AAA) batteries, and ordered a 12 megapixel full frame B&W Kodak sensor. I'd love to see that come to fruition, as it might spark some firm to actually recognize this market--what do you think would happen if there was suddenly a sub-$1,000 US simple all manual digital M-mount camera on the block?

Bottom line, if I didn't have the R-D1 I'd go get a M6 TTL and do more of my own film development again. The R-D1 gives me the best of the manual camera feel but allows me to print without sitting for hours developing film and then scanning before I can print.

Ken

 

[Frank Granovski]

There are diopters and external viewfinders here: http://www.cameraquest.com/epson_rd1_VF.htm

 

[sf]

Only reasons to buy an RD-1, or any digital camera for that matter are:

1. Variable ISO
2. No film developing cost and time
3. Take lots of pictures without changing film (nice on active trips)
4. Preview for those who need to double check their pictures.

For me, the only reason is cost - digital is cheaper (IF you plan on keeping the same digital for at least two years before upgrading). But, no matter what, it will never replace film.

If the digital workflow is attractive, you can scan your film. Might save money, depending on how much you shoot.

For the price, you could buy a great film scanner and a couple years worth of film and processing. And another camera.

 

[Frank Granovski]

There should be an RD2 out soon, yes? (More pixels/sharper picture.) 🙂

 

[Nearsighted]

Thanks you guys. I've been kicking the idea of a DSLR around for a while as well. It's the crop factor along with the price tag that have detured me from both types of digital cameras. I have a digital Olympus P&S that is great for snap shots. The full frame digital SRL that Canon just came out with is around $5000.00 US. Just a tad out of my price range. That will buy a lot of film and proccessing. Maybe when I win the lottery...

 

[Frank Granovski]

Or win the Zeiss Ikon? 🙂

 

[RML]

Why did you all buy the Epson RD-1? Was it the high cost of developing? The erge to print your own photos? What exactly influenced your decision about this purchase?

I'm shooting an average of a roll per day. At about 3 euros each, plus 3 euros for only developing, it does add up. Take the time I'm waisting with scanning, and it all seems merely expensive, time-consuming and pointless. 350 rolls times 6 euros comes to 2100 euro. I paid 2500 euro for my R-D1. Not only does it pay for itself after a year and 3 months, it also saves my tons of time. Time that I can spend on shooting and doing things with my family.

Did I mention I still have some 300 rolls of developed film (some 3 years old now) lying around that need to be scanned...?

What about the cost? Are they likely to come down? Thanks, Jim

I doubt the prices of the R-D1 are coming down in the near future. You can get some "bargains" here and there, and sometimes a 2nd hand R-D1 comes available, but even when Leica comes out with their digital M, I don't see the R-D1 make a free fall price-wise.

 

[Vagabond]

The R-D1 was an expensive buy for me, but I've really enjoyed using it. I didn't buy the expensive Leica lenses--maybe someday, but for a 6 megapixel camera, I think the resolving power of the Voigtlanders is good enough for me. And it could be wider, for my tastes, but that viewfinder and the all manual feel sold me.

I shoot with the Voigtlander 15mm, 28mm, 35mm f/2.8 pan and 50mm Nokton. I have a 90mm Elmar f/4 I never use (too tough to frame).

Ken

I find that when I travel, I shoot a lot using a 35mm focal length. This would mean using a 21 or 25mm lens on the R-D1. Is there going to be much vignetting with this? And would it require a separate viewfinder or could it be guess-timated?

Bill

 

[RML]

I find that when I travel, I shoot a lot using a 35mm focal length. This would mean using a 21 or 25mm lens on the R-D1. Is there going to be much vignetting with this? And would it require a separate viewfinder or could it be guess-timated?

The 25 won't give you much vignetting, and whatever vignetting thee is can easily be remedied in the Epson RAW converter. I always select the setting for 2 focal lengths higher (so, for a 50mm I would pass on the 75mm setting and go for the 90mm setting. For the 25mm lens I would pass the 28mm setting and go for the 35mm setting). I've found this to be a good compromise between geting rid of all the vignetting (which is rather agressive) and leaving any vignetting (which at times can be detrimental to the photo).

You can buy an R-D1-adjusted 25mm external VF from CameraQuest but it cost $175 IIRC. If you have (or can get cheap) an external 35mm VF, you might want to use that. You also can use the internal framelines for 28mm but I've found that still leaves much space for guessing, especially of course at the outside edges (plus I can't fully see the 28mm framelines with my glasses on).

 

[Sean Reid]

I don't believe in convincing anyone to buy anything but I'm reviewing two rangefinders right now for a comparison article (Ikon and M7) and while they are both wonderful cameras, I have been strongly reminded of why I no longer shoot film. Once one gets used to variable ISO, it's very frustrating not to have it. Processing and scanning film is very time-consuming and I'm glad that I only need to do it temporarily. I worked with film and in darkrooms for about 25 years and have warm feelings for it...but I will not go back to that workflow. I have these two wonderful film rangefinders to test and I have to force myself to use either one of them when I really want to grab one of the R-D1s. YMMV, what's right for me may be exactly wrong for you.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[pfogle]

As a pro, I would put a new roll in a camera for each setup, no matter how simple, so that means a minimum of a roll per shot. I would rarely get more than one usable pic out of a roll. Mostly that was because of fixed ISO and film type, and the need to separate out the shots because of differing light conditions, etc. Using clip tests for exposure in the lab virtually forces you to change rolls between shots.

Now I can choose ISO on the fly, and choose color/bw after the event. Either way, it makes life a lot easier. I tend to shoot 60-100 frames on each shot, so a 1GB card works very well for me. Shoot, change card, next shot...

I last put a film in a camera in 1999, and I have never regretted leaving film behind. Some people love film, but to me, it's only the final image that counts, and, yes film is different, but no, I don't care!

 

[hinius]

If you shoot RAW, you have really quite a lot of flexibility with exposure. You can drag up a LOT of detail from the shadows. Even though b&w film captures a greater dynamic range, I find that RAW images give me more latitude to play with than film scans.

Plus, I spent about an hour cloning out dust and scratches from some film scans last night. The more you shoot, the more time you spend spotting out dust. Sometimes I wonder why I bother, the film development workflow is such a pain in the arse (I'd rather spend my time shooting, wouldn't you?). Roll on the Digital M...

 

[Sean Reid]

B&W film certainly can capture a wide dynamic range but it depends on what one's exposure and development routine is. For the review, I've been rating Tri-X at ISO 250 and developing for 8.5 mins. in D76 mixed 1:1. That was my routine for years and years. It does yield a long-scale negative. But if one rates Tri-X at 400 or above (and develops longer, which is necessary, of course) DR decreases. In working with these film cameras (after years of working exclusively with digital) I often found myself short of ISO. If I were to switch rolls and rate the new roll at 400 (marking that on the casing) I'd be compromising some DR and grain. Moreover, I would still be under the 800 - 1600 I was really looking for in many cases. Shoot TMZ at 1600 - 3200 and you sometimes have more ISO and more grain than you want. Of course, one could carry one body with TMZ in it and one with TX but I much prefer variable ISO in one body....then there's the beauty of having a histogram to consider.

Cheers,

Sean