mn4367
Established
I have an R-D1 with firmware upgrade. I try to to protect it from hard bumps although it has received one or two without getting misaligned. I wouldn't consider it as robust as my F3 is (this is really an iron block which can serve as a hammer if no hammer is around 
) but the R-D1 doesn't seem to be too sensible.
For ISO performance my experience is that it is still very good for a camera that appeared 2004. It is not a 5D, but ISO 1600 shots are very usable, the noise isn't 'digital', to me it looks more film-like. I really have no complaints.
I carry the R-D1 unprotected with the standard Epson strap, thats very comfortable for me and I can take it whereever I go.
I'm still fiddling around with my website, so take the attached shot as a preliminary example, taken with the VC 15/4.5, not handheld but handfixed on a fence.
If you want to go rangefinder digital, the Epson is one of two options and I recommend it (and if I look around RFF I'm not alone).
) but the R-D1 doesn't seem to be too sensible.For ISO performance my experience is that it is still very good for a camera that appeared 2004. It is not a 5D, but ISO 1600 shots are very usable, the noise isn't 'digital', to me it looks more film-like. I really have no complaints.
I carry the R-D1 unprotected with the standard Epson strap, thats very comfortable for me and I can take it whereever I go.
I'm still fiddling around with my website, so take the attached shot as a preliminary example, taken with the VC 15/4.5, not handheld but handfixed on a fence.
If you want to go rangefinder digital, the Epson is one of two options and I recommend it (and if I look around RFF I'm not alone).
Attachments
mn4367
Established
Just found another one, taken at ISO 800 with the Zeiss Biogon 35/2 (I think).
And the second one shows that the R-D1 is also capable when shooting at very, very low light. Taken at night in december, exposure time was about 5 minutes (at ISO 200, sorry for that...). If you look carefully you can see the curved lines of the moving stars.
And the second one shows that the R-D1 is also capable when shooting at very, very low light
. Taken at night in december, exposure time was about 5 minutes (at ISO 200, sorry for that...). If you look carefully you can see the curved lines of the moving stars.Attachments
Last edited:
mn4367
Established
Hmm, that's a good point. When deciding to go digital the D200 was on my radar too. It seemed to be a good replacement for my F3 and surely is an exceptional camera. But I was somehow attracted by this rangefinder-thing and I finally gave it a try. I can honestly say that I'm very happy with it and my impression is that my photos are getting better than before, at least they are different in a positive way (personal opinion), although others should to judge on this. This is partly due to the fact that I can easily take it with me every day. If digital M-mount rangefinders will be around and available in the future, I *think* I'll never got back to digital SLR.eric.schmiedl said:
Completely off-topic but nevertheless very funny: About ten times in the last six months people I never saw before asked me what kind of camera this is. It is a different thing, but I like it...
Joe Mondello
Resu Deretsiger
eric.schmiedl said:
Whoa, looks like I overdid the highlight recovery and it went all blue! eek
Actually under good lighting I really like the color from the R-D1, although it might be described as "romantic" rather than "accurate."
Joe Mondello
Resu Deretsiger
eric.schmiedl said:
Part of the reason is that an M8 is still $4800 and the R-D1 is the ONLY other digital RF M-mount camera, so as a second body for an M8 shooter (which is how I now use mine) it actually makes economic sense.
It especially makes sense for folks who already own M-mount Leica, Zeiss or other glass (some of which is terribly expensive) who want to go digital without spending the $4800 for the M8.
As for the comparisons with the D200, etc, these are completely different animals. Rangefinder shooting is different than SLR shooting and lots of people (especially around here) prefer RF to SLRs in general.
BTW, the R-D1 originally listed for $3,000 and was only just discontinued last week.
The sensor in the R-D1 IIRC is the same one used in the D100, and its high ISO performance is quite good.
Plus its a cool camera!
jjcha
Established
eric.schmiedl said:
You can't compare them. I left the D200 at home for my recent trip to Tokyo and brought the R-D1. D200 is an excellent camera, but for the photography I was doing, I didn't miss it at all.
Best regards,
-Jason
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
I've use it under low light since I got it. It works very well at 1600 and Noise Ninja can help it over the rough spots. Here are two galleries where it's was heavly used.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=612743
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=694649
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=612743
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=694649
georgef
Well-known
eric.schmiedl said:Uh oh. Here I thought the R-D1 used the Voigtlander VF/RF, which is supposed to be as bright as it gets... as someone who's been shooting mostly with really old, very dim RF patches, I HATE DIM RANGEFINDERS
Is this normal?
I was at a wedding last weekend and was shooting for myself mainly, as my friend was the dedicated photog of the event; side by side, I could see and focus with my RD-1 and my nokton 40 f1.4 in dim enough light to void his CANON 5D. When he used his 1DmkII it would focus fairly reliably, but under existing light, both hunted a bit. The RD-1's viewfinder was brighter than both the Canons. It was actualy almost as bright as the clear view, a very interesting point since the RD1 has 1:1 view, meaning same as the naed eye; I ensde up seeing through both eyes throughout the night...until the extensive enjoyment of alchool made that one unreliable LOL.
Here is a shot at f1.4, ISO 1600, 1/30sec. unprocessed except for size. By the way, this was shot with only the light of the table lamp present!
...Oh I am sooooo hooked to this camera!
cheers, george
Attachments
R
RML
Guest
The R-D1 isn't worth $2000. It's a piece of crap. More likely it's worth $250 second hand. I'll buy yours for that amount, and than happily use it until its dying day. I paid 2500 euro totally for mine. Never regretted it, never will. If $2000 is too much for you, then don't get one. Otherwise, stop whining and sell your blood to get one.
eric.schmiedl
Member
Right, so a new question:
Will the R-D1 perform well in situations that aren't "traditional" rangefinder situations? I'm talking photo shoots with five strobe heads and that sort of thing. I know it's technically capable of it, but I haven't seen anyone do it. Why? Will the R-D1 handle well in situations that aren't the sometimes interesting sometimes flat shots that define "rangefinder style"? (I was talking with the lecturer in a photojournalism class last term, and he went so far as to say that "these days, if you see someone with a Leica, you know they're not a professional." I know that this is not technically true, but I haven't seen any work that really breaks out of "rangefinder style," and it worries me...)
RML- Cameras are tools, like a hammer or a computer or a pencil. Shooting with a rangefinder is 'nice,' in the sense that working on a Mac is nice. I've shot great images with a Nikon D1 because that's all I had close at hand, I've shot decent images with a Speed Graphic because that's what I had in my bag (ericschmiedl.com/blog), and I've done work on a Windows computer that's as good as my work on a Mac because my Mac is in the shop.
Right now, I have to decide whether to get a R-D1 now and an S5 once I've made another $1800, or an S5 now and maybe an R-D1 later once the prices come down if I can find one and have a use for it. The 4th of July is coming up, a number of highly lit/produced portrait projects are coming up, who knows what gigs I'll get hired for... all things the S5 and my broad kit of Nikon glass would excel at, while the R-D1 with the sole prime (28/1.9 CV) I could afford to get with it would likely work -- barely. Word is the S5's image quality is the best of anything in the Nikon mount and only a close second to the Canon 5d. Just the thing I want in a camera. On the other hand I have a wedding job coming up too, and an R-D1 would be nice for that -- low light and a chapel with lighting that screams "DELTA 3200 LOOK!", the usual. I really, really want to do anything I can to minimize the amount of film I shoot. It's a horrendous time sink. Plus I've spent so much time thinking about getting a "real" rangefinder that it might be worthwhile to shell out the money already and get things over with. and I am NOT gonna pay >$100 for a film camera. The question is whether I can afford to shell out $rd1 + $CV28/1.9 to satisfy an obsession.
Here's what I think I'm going to do. I'm going to call Calumet and see where the newspaper's S5 is at in the repair chain. If it looks like I'll be able to pick it up relatively soon, I'll give the R-D1 a shot. If it's going to be a few weeks or months, my digital rangefinder adventure will have to wait.
It's a real shame that my main body doesn't work anymore. (I was getting out of a cab, the camera slipped and hit the pavement...)
Will the R-D1 perform well in situations that aren't "traditional" rangefinder situations? I'm talking photo shoots with five strobe heads and that sort of thing. I know it's technically capable of it, but I haven't seen anyone do it. Why? Will the R-D1 handle well in situations that aren't the sometimes interesting sometimes flat shots that define "rangefinder style"? (I was talking with the lecturer in a photojournalism class last term, and he went so far as to say that "these days, if you see someone with a Leica, you know they're not a professional." I know that this is not technically true, but I haven't seen any work that really breaks out of "rangefinder style," and it worries me...)
RML- Cameras are tools, like a hammer or a computer or a pencil. Shooting with a rangefinder is 'nice,' in the sense that working on a Mac is nice. I've shot great images with a Nikon D1 because that's all I had close at hand, I've shot decent images with a Speed Graphic because that's what I had in my bag (ericschmiedl.com/blog), and I've done work on a Windows computer that's as good as my work on a Mac because my Mac is in the shop.
Right now, I have to decide whether to get a R-D1 now and an S5 once I've made another $1800, or an S5 now and maybe an R-D1 later once the prices come down if I can find one and have a use for it. The 4th of July is coming up, a number of highly lit/produced portrait projects are coming up, who knows what gigs I'll get hired for... all things the S5 and my broad kit of Nikon glass would excel at, while the R-D1 with the sole prime (28/1.9 CV) I could afford to get with it would likely work -- barely. Word is the S5's image quality is the best of anything in the Nikon mount and only a close second to the Canon 5d. Just the thing I want in a camera. On the other hand I have a wedding job coming up too, and an R-D1 would be nice for that -- low light and a chapel with lighting that screams "DELTA 3200 LOOK!", the usual. I really, really want to do anything I can to minimize the amount of film I shoot. It's a horrendous time sink. Plus I've spent so much time thinking about getting a "real" rangefinder that it might be worthwhile to shell out the money already and get things over with. and I am NOT gonna pay >$100 for a film camera. The question is whether I can afford to shell out $rd1 + $CV28/1.9 to satisfy an obsession.
Here's what I think I'm going to do. I'm going to call Calumet and see where the newspaper's S5 is at in the repair chain. If it looks like I'll be able to pick it up relatively soon, I'll give the R-D1 a shot. If it's going to be a few weeks or months, my digital rangefinder adventure will have to wait.
It's a real shame that my main body doesn't work anymore. (I was getting out of a cab, the camera slipped and hit the pavement...)
Last edited:
RichC
Well-known
I took the first three photos here:eric.schmiedl said:
http://www.bhcc-online.org/gallery/v/RichC/tempus+fugit/
and this
http://www.bhcc-online.org/gallery/v/RichC/misc/Blood+Orange.jpg.html
with my R-D1. They're all set-up "studio" shots using up to three hot lights (which I prefer to strobes).
The R-D1 is my only camera (I used to have a Canon 10D). It's slower to use than an SLR: for example, in the above photos I used 50 and 90 mm lenses, and focus and framing needed a few test shots to nail to my satisfaction (but, then again, I used to take test shots with my 10D too...). That said, being digital, it's not onerous checking test shots on the LCD or on the computer.
I don't feel especially restricted. There are, of course, a few obvious areas that an R-D1 is useless in, notably close-up macro photography, action (wildlife, sports) and long telephoto, but for pretty much everything else the R-D1 is fine, if occasionally awkward.
I notice that Leica allows you to "test drive" an M8 for £45/$90 for a few hours - not cheap, but perhaps worth doing to see if a digital rangefinder suits you.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
eric.schmiedl said:
I use my R-D 1 for studio-strobe shooting a lot. I actually prefer it over a DSLR for this type of work, because you can see whether or not the strobes fired at the right time, rather than having to guess.
The main limitation you might encounter in using it this way is that the X-sync speed is only 1/125... not bad, but not as good as a leaf-shutter camera.
(Note that many current DSLRs advertising higher sync speeds may not be able to achieve them with AC-powered strobes; for example, the Canon I use at work has a claimed top X-sync speed of 1/200, but that only works with Canon's dedicated flash units; in practice I can't use anything higher than 1/160 because of the relatively long discharge time of my Speedotron power packs. So, 1/125 may not be as big a step down as it appears.)
Another thing to keep in mind when using the R-D 1 with AC-powered flash units is that the flash sync circuit is polarized -- it will fire when connected one way but not the other. If your AC strobes have an H-type sync connector, that's no problem -- just turn the connector over to reverse the polarity. If they use a coaxial or other special connector, you might have to cut the cable and switch the wires. Better yet, use a "sync isolator" or, even better, a radio slave unit -- either of these will both solve the polarity problem and eliminate the risk of a flash with excessive trigger voltage blowing out the R-D 1's sync transistor!
I couldn't lay hand on a lot of examples of R-D 1 studio shots quickly, but I've attached a few...
Attachments
eric.schmiedl
Member
Damn, I'm impressed... good work guys
Didier
"Deed"
The topic (D)SLR or (D)RF has been discussed here many times. I can not estimate from your post what's your favourite shooting preference. Personally I prefer RF over SLR (if digital or not) in all cases except for kids, animals, sports and macro. I do use the Epson R-D1s as everyday AND as lowlight camera. The only thing to take care about it, is to handle it carefully, not knocking it because of the rangefinder disalignement issue. Usually one battery & one 2GB SD card do the job for my needs. If I feel I'll need more, then there are always some charged accus and freshly formatted cards ready on my desk. Mostly I carry one lens only, but don't ask me what my selection criterions are - I don't know it myself and just pick any lens by mood.
Didier
Didier
R
RML
Guest
Eric, I hope you noticed the in my posting. No offence meant. For me, like you, the camera is a tool. For me, the R-D1 is one of the best (if not the best) tools I've used so far.
in my posting. No offence meant. For me, like you, the camera is a tool. For me, the R-D1 is one of the best (if not the best) tools I've used so far.RFNewbie
Established
The R-D1 works fairly well in low light.....more noise than my Canon 1D mk2 but a heck of a lot easier to carry. In the last 8 months, I have used my R-D1 at least once a week and the 1Dmk2 maybe 5 times.
Here's a couple of pics from last weekends Waterfire event in Providence, RI using the R-D1 and a Zeiss 21mm f/2, (ISO200, 8s & 3s).
Here's a couple of pics from last weekends Waterfire event in Providence, RI using the R-D1 and a Zeiss 21mm f/2, (ISO200, 8s & 3s).
Attachments
Last edited:
eric.schmiedl
Member
Thank you RFF classifieds and Stephen Gandy for the price-is-right R-D1 and 28/1.9, respectively.
Tonight's shooting:
(literally, I took the R-D1 for a walk around campus for an hour or two)
http://flickr.com/photos/schmiedl/712052216/
http://flickr.com/photos/schmiedl/712052178/
Tonight's shooting:
(literally, I took the R-D1 for a walk around campus for an hour or two)
http://flickr.com/photos/schmiedl/712052216/
http://flickr.com/photos/schmiedl/712052178/
Last edited:
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Wow -- looks like you're off to a great start with your R-D 1!
pfogle
Well-known
Ray Kilby
Established
I have recently purchased an M8 but I keep going back to the RD1. It's a great camera. It has it's problems, but they are outweighed by the advantages. The dial on the top is great as it automatically gives you all the info you need. filesize, colour temp, number of used frames, battery life. The iso and speed and settings are also easy to view as it has a traditional dial. In low light you might need a small pen torch. I have one on my strap. Here are so very low light pics I took for a friends 5oth birthday bash. It was set at 1600 and I swapped around the speed without reading the meter from 15th to 30th depending how I felt. and the aperture much the same, from 2. to 5.6 . Hope you find this useful. http://homepage.mac.com/raykilby/PhotoAlbum20.html
Ray.
Ray.