d2mini
Member
Hi all,
I actually have two separate questions.
Right now I shoot nikon dslrs for pleasure and business. But sometimes I don't want to deal with lugging around the heavy equipment and depending on the situation I get very self conscious whipping out this giant hunk of machinery with an even bigger hunk of glass attached to it. I've been looking at small point and shoots and have tried a few but the dslr has spoiled me image wise and I just can't stand the low quality images that come out of the p&s. Edges are undefined, pixely, posterized, fuzzy, and the images have poor dynamic range and bad color. Not unexpected results when you're comparing a $300 p&s to a $2k dslr, but dissapointing nonetheless. And I always shoot full manual with my dslrs. I don't want the camera making decisions for me and applying sharpening and noise filters and such. The RD-1 on the other hand seems to produce quality images from what I can tell on the net, but have not had the opportunity to study a high-res raw file up close and personal. The problem is that I got into photography fairly recent, after everything went digital. Other than a brief period during college while taking a photo class, I don't really have any film experience, hence abosolutely no rangefinder experience. So what I'm wondering is if you think a rangefinder is what I need... quality images, manual control, relatively small, unobtrusive...?
My second question, for those that have nikon/canon/other dslr experience... how would you physically describe your images from those cameras compared to your RD-1? I've looked at flikr galleries and images posted here and there seems to be a "look" I like yet can't place my finger on what it is exactly. And it could just be my imagination, my subconscious looking for a difference and wanting to like them. But as long as the quality of the images is at least as good as my D70 (doesn't even have to match my D200) I would be happy. I just don't want to take pics and then later regret that I didn't take that same pic with my dslr instead. Ya know?
Thanks for your insight!
I actually have two separate questions.
Right now I shoot nikon dslrs for pleasure and business. But sometimes I don't want to deal with lugging around the heavy equipment and depending on the situation I get very self conscious whipping out this giant hunk of machinery with an even bigger hunk of glass attached to it. I've been looking at small point and shoots and have tried a few but the dslr has spoiled me image wise and I just can't stand the low quality images that come out of the p&s. Edges are undefined, pixely, posterized, fuzzy, and the images have poor dynamic range and bad color. Not unexpected results when you're comparing a $300 p&s to a $2k dslr, but dissapointing nonetheless. And I always shoot full manual with my dslrs. I don't want the camera making decisions for me and applying sharpening and noise filters and such. The RD-1 on the other hand seems to produce quality images from what I can tell on the net, but have not had the opportunity to study a high-res raw file up close and personal. The problem is that I got into photography fairly recent, after everything went digital. Other than a brief period during college while taking a photo class, I don't really have any film experience, hence abosolutely no rangefinder experience. So what I'm wondering is if you think a rangefinder is what I need... quality images, manual control, relatively small, unobtrusive...?
My second question, for those that have nikon/canon/other dslr experience... how would you physically describe your images from those cameras compared to your RD-1? I've looked at flikr galleries and images posted here and there seems to be a "look" I like yet can't place my finger on what it is exactly. And it could just be my imagination, my subconscious looking for a difference and wanting to like them. But as long as the quality of the images is at least as good as my D70 (doesn't even have to match my D200) I would be happy. I just don't want to take pics and then later regret that I didn't take that same pic with my dslr instead. Ya know?
Thanks for your insight!
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
These two questions are very different. First, you are uncomfortable lugging about a heavy DSLR. A small point and shoot has not been sufficient. For under a $100 why not try an older inexpensive rangefinder. On this site we have discussed the merits of the light weight Canonets, Konicas, Yashicas, etc. Many people carry them. The second question is in ref. to the quality of the images on film cameras compared to digital. Personally, I find the "glass" on the older cameras to be better than expensive (2k) DSLRs. But, this is a site where most users still use film. I shall not go into a long dissertation on the merits of film. Nevertheless, welcome aboard.
d2mini
Member
Steve Bellayr said:
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.
I am not interested in shooting film, nor was I comparing anything to film cameras.
My post is fully digital.
Thanks!
Thardy
Veteran
I like the idea of the $100 RF. It will help you decide if you can live with one ISO for 24 exposures, no zoom lens, slow operation compared to a D200, and film processing, printing, scanning etc.
Your digital RF camera v dslr questions will be answered soon because many people here have both.
It's interesting that you say digi RFs (photos) have a certain look. (compared to dslrs)
Your digital RF camera v dslr questions will be answered soon because many people here have both.
It's interesting that you say digi RFs (photos) have a certain look. (compared to dslrs)
d2mini
Member
Nope, I can tell you right now I can't live with those. I don't want any part of it. No film. Not interested. Sorry.Thardy said:
The slower operation I can live with and no zoom lens is fine. I usually use fixed focal length lenses anyway. I like to walk around with a 35mm lens because its small, fast and sharp.
And as far as seeing a difference in photos, like I said... could just be my imagination.
wintoid
Back to film
d2mini said:
As rangefinders go, the RD1 is fairly large IMHO. It's certainly fairly tall. If I put it side by side with an old film SLR, it's really not any smaller. It is smaller than a modern DSLR juggernaut though. It also meets most of your criteria, but then so would a Ricoh GR Digital, or a Canon G9.
As for the look of the images, I agree it has its own look. I currently use Canon DSLRs, and have dabbled in Pentax DSLRs. In comparison, my opinion is that the RD1 has a more gritty, organic look to it. I can't say for sure but it feels like the camera has less noise reduction or other such mucking around going on in the firmware. Whereas a Canon file will be really smooth and ultra sharp after USM, an Epson file will be less smooth (in a good way), and slightly less sharp even when bang in focus with good glass (and I do mean slightly). Epson is noisier at higher ISOs, but again in a good way, and I find the "grain" to be really quite pleasing, which is almost unique amongst digital cameras (GR digital is the next best thing IMHO). I don't worry about using it at ISO1600, it's fine.
Hope my very subjective opinion helps.
d2mini
Member
Wintoid, thanks for the info!
I was wondering about the size. It *did* look a bit big for a rf but its hard to tell in pics. I haven't seen one in person. But at least the lenses are small and like you said it should still be smaller overall than what I have now. But that's something to think about. It should be lighter than what I'm used to as well.
Your noise descriptions sounds fine too. Canon has great noise handling but Nikon never did until the just recently announced new models. So i'm somewhat used to it.
I'll look into a couple of the other options you mentioned too.
Thanks!
I was wondering about the size. It *did* look a bit big for a rf but its hard to tell in pics. I haven't seen one in person. But at least the lenses are small and like you said it should still be smaller overall than what I have now. But that's something to think about. It should be lighter than what I'm used to as well.
Your noise descriptions sounds fine too. Canon has great noise handling but Nikon never did until the just recently announced new models. So i'm somewhat used to it.
I'll look into a couple of the other options you mentioned too.
Thanks!
georgef
Well-known
I think I may be able to help, a bit...maybe
Even though I started shooting film about 20 years ago, since 1998 I have shot digital and have not developed a single roll of film, nor will I again.
As a background, I have owned aNIKON D100, a D70s, a canon 20D, 5D, 1D, 1Ds and numerous point and shoots over the years. I have since sold all and am happier with my RD1 than all the above. Here is what my experience has been in the EPSON DRF world:
Pros:
not that good. So for me (and this is meant to be a personal experience post, not a comment on anything else) I get more keepers per photo taken than I did with my DSLRs, but at the same time I also take a fraction of the images I used to.
hope it helps.
Even though I started shooting film about 20 years ago, since 1998 I have shot digital and have not developed a single roll of film, nor will I again.
As a background, I have owned aNIKON D100, a D70s, a canon 20D, 5D, 1D, 1Ds and numerous point and shoots over the years. I have since sold all and am happier with my RD1 than all the above. Here is what my experience has been in the EPSON DRF world:
Pros:
- the RD1 is by far the most enjoyable camera ergonomically I have used since my old ROLLEI 3003.
- the photos do have a "look" I could not get with my digital or film
SLRs. - The fast lenses I have are tiny and very good, and at a fraction of the DSLR AF equivelants.
- The camera is much smaller than current DSLRs (which are larger than old film SLRs, so no point comparing to those)
- no AF means I miss two out of three shots of my 16 mo old daughter.
- lenses 90mm and up are too long for the RD1s base (some people have success with the 90s, I did not).
- The images are very good, but I found using the camera in the 400-1600 ISO for my type of shooting, so I like grain in them. Even though the image files I find better than my ex D100 and D70, I do not shoot any kind of landscape to tell you I like or dislike the results in those fields.
not that good. So for me (and this is meant to be a personal experience post, not a comment on anything else) I get more keepers per photo taken than I did with my DSLRs, but at the same time I also take a fraction of the images I used to.hope it helps.
steven
Newbie
The RD1s is in my opinion a reporters camera capable for unobserved photography. In earlier days I used a canon 7 rf with a 50 1.5 and 35 3.5
and later a leica m4 and m6 with a lot of leitz lenses ( I still have them). Later I used canon slr,s and now a 5d because of the better possibility of architecture photography which I sometimes have to do semi professional. But I am always impressed by the quality of portrets and streetshot by the RD1s . Well the frame is more a indecation of what your are going to get . But I sometimes set the diagraph and distance for my belly without looking to the viewfinder and press the button. The quality of the pictures beautifull . And that with 6 m pixels .
and later a leica m4 and m6 with a lot of leitz lenses ( I still have them). Later I used canon slr,s and now a 5d because of the better possibility of architecture photography which I sometimes have to do semi professional. But I am always impressed by the quality of portrets and streetshot by the RD1s . Well the frame is more a indecation of what your are going to get . But I sometimes set the diagraph and distance for my belly without looking to the viewfinder and press the button. The quality of the pictures beautifull . And that with 6 m pixels .
d2mini
Member
Thank you, georgef! Great stuff.
I am also considering the ricoh GX100 now after reading wintoid's post.
It's pretty cheap in comparison, has a b/w setting and easy manual controls for a p&s style camera. Might be a good intermediate step for me before spending the bux for the RD-1 and lenses. Might hold me over for a bit and let me save up some cash for a good rd-1 kit. If anyone has any thoughts on that camera I'd love to read them.
Lots to think about and research...
I am also considering the ricoh GX100 now after reading wintoid's post.
It's pretty cheap in comparison, has a b/w setting and easy manual controls for a p&s style camera. Might be a good intermediate step for me before spending the bux for the RD-1 and lenses. Might hold me over for a bit and let me save up some cash for a good rd-1 kit. If anyone has any thoughts on that camera I'd love to read them.
Lots to think about and research...