peter_n
Veteran
The field test is by David Alan Harvey and runs on pages 42-45 of the magazine. He likes it except for the "film" advance lever...
The cover of the mag is adorned with the camera and some Leica M lenses. Whether Leica would be pleased is perhaps open to question but Epson are probably glad of the publicity.
The cover of the mag is adorned with the camera and some Leica M lenses. Whether Leica would be pleased is perhaps open to question but Epson are probably glad of the publicity.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
peter_n said:
Awww, poor boopie! His widdle thumbie get all tired?
Thanks for the heads-up... I'll make sure to take my blood-pressure medication before I read this!
richard_l
Well-known
I doubt it. Harvey normally uses Leica M cameras.jlw said:
S
simonclivehughe
Guest
My copy came last night too. Overall it was a pretty standard American Photo review... very little real substance. Also, the 4 pictures shot by DAH were all done at 1600 ISO, which admittedly, looked pretty good, but certainly didn't knock your socks off, and at least one shot at a low ISO would have been nice.
I've been thinking about getting an RD-1 for the last week or two, and this helped to push me over the edge... I ordered mine this morning.
One question for those of you who are already experienced: is the camera actually coupled? I've had the R2 and, of course, it isn't. I see the lever on the top and was curious, as my present adapters are all 28/90s. (I did order the right ones this morning.)
I'll be using it with VC lenses: 12mm, 28mm f1.9, 35mm f1.7, 50mm f1.5 and 90mm f3.5.
I can't wait to get my hands on it tomorrow!!
I've been thinking about getting an RD-1 for the last week or two, and this helped to push me over the edge... I ordered mine this morning.
One question for those of you who are already experienced: is the camera actually coupled? I've had the R2 and, of course, it isn't. I see the lever on the top and was curious, as my present adapters are all 28/90s. (I did order the right ones this morning.)
I'll be using it with VC lenses: 12mm, 28mm f1.9, 35mm f1.7, 50mm f1.5 and 90mm f3.5.
I can't wait to get my hands on it tomorrow!!
peter_n
Veteran
You could say that for the magazine as a whole - I get it free and to be honest I think its junk.simonclivehughe said:
Good luck with your new cam!!
S
Sean Reid
Guest
The frames aren't coupled. You need to manually set them for the FOV an R-D1 "sees" with a 28, 35 and 50. The rangefinder itself is of course couples. Answers to this and many other questions in my LL review.
Cheers,
Sean
Cheers,
Sean
S
simonclivehughe
Guest
Thanks, Sean. I'm glad I ordered the correct adapters! BTW, your reviews of both the RD-1 and the use of wide angle lenses with it went a considerable way to convincing me about the RD-1. I'm not sure my wife thanks you, but I certainly do ;^)
Cheers,
Cheers,
S
Sean Reid
Guest
Hi Simon,
I'm glad it was helpful. Since one sets the frame lines manually on an R-D1, any screwmount to M-mount adapter can work for various focal lengths.
Cheers,
Sean
I'm glad it was helpful. Since one sets the frame lines manually on an R-D1, any screwmount to M-mount adapter can work for various focal lengths.
Cheers,
Sean
S
Sean Reid
Guest
I stopped by a bookstore today to pick up American Photo and Pop Photo to read the R-D1 reviews.
American Photo first: David Alan Harvey is the real deal as a photographer and the article seems honest and fair. It's not detailed technically but essentially reports on how well the Epson works as a digital Leica. And the answer is "pretty well". Harvey liked the camera and the file quality. His concern about the advance lever seeming a bit silly is just a matter of opinion. He's right about the limitation of the 42mm FOV in the finder window. Interestingly enough, that *isn't* really a function of the 1.5 sensor mag but rather of the 1:1 finder mag. In other words, Epson could consider making two versions of this camera:
Version A: 1:1 finder with max framelines for 42mm FOV
Version B: .72 (or thereabouts) finder with max framelines for 32mm FOV (21mm lens)
Many photographers might appreciate that .72 finder although I myself really do love working with the 1:1. In any case, Harvey's concern really is created by the finder mag not the sensor mag. An R3A has about the same finder FOV limitation. He's right that needing to use two windows for a 21mm lens (one for focus and one for composition) can be alkward for fast work. Epson could easily and inexpensively make a Version B camera and I want to make that suggestion to them the next time we talk.
Sean
American Photo first: David Alan Harvey is the real deal as a photographer and the article seems honest and fair. It's not detailed technically but essentially reports on how well the Epson works as a digital Leica. And the answer is "pretty well". Harvey liked the camera and the file quality. His concern about the advance lever seeming a bit silly is just a matter of opinion. He's right about the limitation of the 42mm FOV in the finder window. Interestingly enough, that *isn't* really a function of the 1.5 sensor mag but rather of the 1:1 finder mag. In other words, Epson could consider making two versions of this camera:
Version A: 1:1 finder with max framelines for 42mm FOV
Version B: .72 (or thereabouts) finder with max framelines for 32mm FOV (21mm lens)
Many photographers might appreciate that .72 finder although I myself really do love working with the 1:1. In any case, Harvey's concern really is created by the finder mag not the sensor mag. An R3A has about the same finder FOV limitation. He's right that needing to use two windows for a 21mm lens (one for focus and one for composition) can be alkward for fast work. Epson could easily and inexpensively make a Version B camera and I want to make that suggestion to them the next time we talk.
Sean
S
Sean Reid
Guest
Now for the Pop Photo articles.... (long sigh)...I was very dissapointed by the quality of both pieces.
Editor Resnick, whom I like, was not at his finest in the street smarts section. The finder is not dim, it's as bright as that in an M2 or M3 and not quite as bright as that in an M7. Hardly a failing unless one considers an M3 finder to be problematic. The shutter is louder than an M7's and I'd like a quieter one too, so no disagreement there. He found the LCD screen to be distracting...so fold it in and ignore it. Complaining about its availability on a digital camera is not a valid criticism.
Pop Photo's lab tests supposedly showed that the sensor's exposure latitude is limited. I'll bet they tested with a Leica ASPH lens and the highlights blew easily. Unless a test like that shows results from lenses with various contrast characteristics, the results are useless. The R-D1 sensor has about the same dynamic range as that found in a 10D or D100. The real factor determining dynamic range capability in that camera is the lens. Choose a contrasty lens and the highlights will blow easily. Use a more moderate contrast lens like the wonderful Voigtlander 28 Ultron and the range will be much better. That's true for any test that purports to measure a digital camera's dynamic range without specifying the related contrast of the test lens used *unless* the camera has a fixed lens.
It's similar to the many tests I see that supposedly measure a camera's noise levels at various ISO levels. Yet, the reviewer often doesn't test to see what ISO the camera is actually delivering at a given nominal speed. Some digital cameras deliver an actual 540 ISO at a their "ISO 800" setting, others deliver 1000 ISO at the same nominal setting. Why do so many testers not think things through? It makes the "results" sloppy and of limited usefulness.
The main Pop Photo review is a mess. They praise the "large" 2 inch LCD in the "What's Hot" summary and then later write "we were expecting a larger screen" in their suggested improvements section. Their "Certified Test Results" rate the camera's resolution as "Extremely High" and they then go on to criticize it's resolution later in the article. How many people worked on this article and did they even compare notes before it went to press? They write, "Even the 5MP Olympus E-1 out-resolves it". That's not remotely true. I like the E-1 and happen to have one with me right now on loan from Olympus for a "Second Opinion" review. I've been shooting the same subject with both the R-D1/Ultron 28 and E-1/14-54 side by side and the latter camera's files are *much* softer. No amount of sharpening can get them even close to the R-D1/Ultron results. I've even tried my Zeiss 18 on the E-1 and the files are still soft.
Pop Photo's "What's Not" list for the R-D1 includes criticisms such as:
- No TTL viewfinder (on a rangefinder!!??)
- no AF system (on a Leica-style rangefinder with manual lenses!!??)
- no burst mode (with a manual shutter advance lever!!??)
- no pop-up flash (for crying out loud...)
- no dedicated hot shoe (dedicated to what high tech flash?)
In short the camera isn't an auto-SLR or point n' shoot - that's the whole point. It's like criticizing a motorcycle with comments like: is missing two wheels, provides inadequate rain protection, falls over when stopped if operator is not alert, etc..
There's not much point in analyzing the review further but I'm embarrased for Pop Photo. Take this review with a grain of salt, methinks, not because it's critical of the Epson but because most of the criticisms make little sense or contradict other parts of the review.
This is the first Pop Photo I've bought in years and I want my $5.00 back.
Yours with a smile,
Sean
Sean
Editor Resnick, whom I like, was not at his finest in the street smarts section. The finder is not dim, it's as bright as that in an M2 or M3 and not quite as bright as that in an M7. Hardly a failing unless one considers an M3 finder to be problematic. The shutter is louder than an M7's and I'd like a quieter one too, so no disagreement there. He found the LCD screen to be distracting...so fold it in and ignore it. Complaining about its availability on a digital camera is not a valid criticism.
Pop Photo's lab tests supposedly showed that the sensor's exposure latitude is limited. I'll bet they tested with a Leica ASPH lens and the highlights blew easily. Unless a test like that shows results from lenses with various contrast characteristics, the results are useless. The R-D1 sensor has about the same dynamic range as that found in a 10D or D100. The real factor determining dynamic range capability in that camera is the lens. Choose a contrasty lens and the highlights will blow easily. Use a more moderate contrast lens like the wonderful Voigtlander 28 Ultron and the range will be much better. That's true for any test that purports to measure a digital camera's dynamic range without specifying the related contrast of the test lens used *unless* the camera has a fixed lens.
It's similar to the many tests I see that supposedly measure a camera's noise levels at various ISO levels. Yet, the reviewer often doesn't test to see what ISO the camera is actually delivering at a given nominal speed. Some digital cameras deliver an actual 540 ISO at a their "ISO 800" setting, others deliver 1000 ISO at the same nominal setting. Why do so many testers not think things through? It makes the "results" sloppy and of limited usefulness.
The main Pop Photo review is a mess. They praise the "large" 2 inch LCD in the "What's Hot" summary and then later write "we were expecting a larger screen" in their suggested improvements section. Their "Certified Test Results" rate the camera's resolution as "Extremely High" and they then go on to criticize it's resolution later in the article. How many people worked on this article and did they even compare notes before it went to press? They write, "Even the 5MP Olympus E-1 out-resolves it". That's not remotely true. I like the E-1 and happen to have one with me right now on loan from Olympus for a "Second Opinion" review. I've been shooting the same subject with both the R-D1/Ultron 28 and E-1/14-54 side by side and the latter camera's files are *much* softer. No amount of sharpening can get them even close to the R-D1/Ultron results. I've even tried my Zeiss 18 on the E-1 and the files are still soft.
Pop Photo's "What's Not" list for the R-D1 includes criticisms such as:
- No TTL viewfinder (on a rangefinder!!??)
- no AF system (on a Leica-style rangefinder with manual lenses!!??)
- no burst mode (with a manual shutter advance lever!!??)
- no pop-up flash (for crying out loud...)
- no dedicated hot shoe (dedicated to what high tech flash?)
In short the camera isn't an auto-SLR or point n' shoot - that's the whole point. It's like criticizing a motorcycle with comments like: is missing two wheels, provides inadequate rain protection, falls over when stopped if operator is not alert, etc..
There's not much point in analyzing the review further but I'm embarrased for Pop Photo. Take this review with a grain of salt, methinks, not because it's critical of the Epson but because most of the criticisms make little sense or contradict other parts of the review.
This is the first Pop Photo I've bought in years and I want my $5.00 back.
Yours with a smile,
Sean
Sean
Last edited by a moderator:
neilsphoto
Established
It seems odd to me DAH complains about the film advance lever, uh I mean the shutter cocking lever. Shouldn't that make the camera even more "M" like? And the alternative, an electric advance would only make noise. How could that be better?
I don't have an R-D1, yet, but the closer it is to a film camera, an "M" if you will the better as far as I'm concerned.
I don't have an R-D1, yet, but the closer it is to a film camera, an "M" if you will the better as far as I'm concerned.
richard_l
Well-known
".....The camera is a rangefinder to its core, but every once in a while you remember that you're not shooting film--and you feel a little silly flipping your thumb out after every shot." --DAH
neilsphoto
Established
Yeah he said that but having to move your thumb after firing should be more than second nature to him, hell even one of us.
Wonder why he shot JPEGs and not RAW? I'd love to have a RAW file from the camera to try out.
I don't own any digital camera at all right now. I tell myself why do I need one? I have no deadlines to meet, I don't shoot for a living anymore, the files I get from the Minolta 5400 are huge and full of detail and I don't have to worry about different FOV's from the crop factor. And would I get a DSLR for my Nikon lenses, for my one Canon USM lens or for my Leica RF lens'?
And yet I have that damn itch to try one.
Wonder why he shot JPEGs and not RAW? I'd love to have a RAW file from the camera to try out.
I don't own any digital camera at all right now. I tell myself why do I need one? I have no deadlines to meet, I don't shoot for a living anymore, the files I get from the Minolta 5400 are huge and full of detail and I don't have to worry about different FOV's from the crop factor. And would I get a DSLR for my Nikon lenses, for my one Canon USM lens or for my Leica RF lens'?
And yet I have that damn itch to try one.
DaShiv
21st century digital boy
Re the ASPH/contrast issue: I honestly haven't noticed it since I process everything pretty heavily in RAW, and I haven't had any more problems with dynamic range than on my Canon DSLRs with L lenses (but to be fair, most L lenses are pretty darn contrasty too). However, since fast lenses are often used to shoot in available light (which often has very strong contrast due to light source proximity), I'm particularly curious to see how the different fast lenses handle contrast. The 28/1.9 so far sounds great except for its size (ugh); I'd like to see if there are any other good, fast low-contrast options to try out and compare to my ASPH.
I wish the new Zeiss lenses had been faster!
I wish the new Zeiss lenses had been faster!
peter_n
Veteran
I don't have one and I really have no interest in owning one either. A regular RF camera and a film scanner seems to work fine for me, at least right now they do.
S
Sean Reid
Guest
Bob,
The 35/2 had the strongest contrast of the three I tested. In an ideal world, a sensor or piece of film would be able to handle as wide a contrast range as that lens conveys but in reality it can often provide a much wider contrast range than any camera can handle: film or digital. But those Leica ASPH lenses are still wonderful.
I didn't like the size of the Ultron 28 either in theory but in practice its not a problem. That is such a wonderful lens on the R-D1.
Sean
The 35/2 had the strongest contrast of the three I tested. In an ideal world, a sensor or piece of film would be able to handle as wide a contrast range as that lens conveys but in reality it can often provide a much wider contrast range than any camera can handle: film or digital. But those Leica ASPH lenses are still wonderful.
I didn't like the size of the Ultron 28 either in theory but in practice its not a problem. That is such a wonderful lens on the R-D1.
Sean
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Unless you've got Epson's raw-file conversion software, I'm not sure what you'd do with one. But I can put one (either a 'raw' raw or a 16-bit Photoshop conversion) on my server if you want to download it. Let me know which you want to see.
All very sensible reasoning. As I replied recently to someone else, you can't do anything with an R-D1 that you couldn't do at least as well with the same lenses on a film RF camera. You could make the argument that if you need a digital end product, shooting digitally is theoretically better because it eliminates one analog conversion step (scanning the film) but in practice, situations probably could be invented that would make either one option or the other look better.
For me, the fact that I need to produce a lot of digital images, plus the fact that there's only a limited amount of time in my life for photography, make the R-D 1 a great way to go. Eliminating the film-scanning step is a huge time-saver if you shoot a lot.
If you don't, though, why sweat it? The price of an R-D 1 will buy a nice film scanner AND a lot of film.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
neilsphoto said:
I hear you. I'm in a little better spot re: lenses - the ones I have are for Canon FD, M42 or Contax/Kiev RF so I've nothing to worry about - none of them will ever fit a digital camera! . The Epson is really the only one I've ever been seriously tempted by and it's price tag makes it easy to be virtuous... :bang: :bang: :bang:
I do keep wondering if it would be possible to gut out a used digital back and affix it to a Kiev back for a seriously insane hack though...
William
JonasYip
Well-known
> you can't do anything with an R-D1 that you couldn't do at least as well with the same lenses on a film RF camera.
You can...
... take a couple pictures inside at ISO 1600, go outside and take a couple at ISO 200, etc without wasting or unloading/loading film or carrying multiple bodies.
... do a portrait sitting, review at any time to see if you've got the shot and stop, or alternately determine that you need to keep going, or even just to appease the art director.
... not worry about whether you have daylight or tungsten balanced film in the camera, and indeed fine tune to daylight, cloudy, open-shade, tungsten, etc or even down to a specific K if you so desire. And you can change your mind later (if you're shooting raw)
... shoot in B+W... and then change it to color later if you want (again, if you're shooting RAW).
... fit many many "rolls of film" in the space of one roll of real film. Of course by the same token you can lose an entire shoot with one misplaced card.
Well, I'm just listing things off the top of my head. I actually shoot both film and digital as the need arises, but there are definite advantages to the digital work flow. And there are definite reasons for me use film at times too, when digital just won't work. It's just a matter of knowing when to use what (for your own needs, of course)...
j
You can...
... take a couple pictures inside at ISO 1600, go outside and take a couple at ISO 200, etc without wasting or unloading/loading film or carrying multiple bodies.
... do a portrait sitting, review at any time to see if you've got the shot and stop, or alternately determine that you need to keep going, or even just to appease the art director.
... not worry about whether you have daylight or tungsten balanced film in the camera, and indeed fine tune to daylight, cloudy, open-shade, tungsten, etc or even down to a specific K if you so desire. And you can change your mind later (if you're shooting raw)
... shoot in B+W... and then change it to color later if you want (again, if you're shooting RAW).
... fit many many "rolls of film" in the space of one roll of real film. Of course by the same token you can lose an entire shoot with one misplaced card.
Well, I'm just listing things off the top of my head. I actually shoot both film and digital as the need arises, but there are definite advantages to the digital work flow. And there are definite reasons for me use film at times too, when digital just won't work. It's just a matter of knowing when to use what (for your own needs, of course)...
j
JonasYip
Well-known
Oh yeah, I also could do without the manual advance lever. I mean, I like the look and feel of it and all, but on a more practical level: I shoot probably 90% vertical and there's no good way for me to shoot continuously without moving the camera away from my face between each shot. But that's just me. Maybe my forehead is too big.
With the M6TTL I of course have the same problem, but there at least I have some motor drive or rapidwinder options if I so choose.
(But I sill love the R-D1... I just don't find it all that odd that someone would find the manual shutter cocking less than ideal)
j
With the M6TTL I of course have the same problem, but there at least I have some motor drive or rapidwinder options if I so choose.
(But I sill love the R-D1... I just don't find it all that odd that someone would find the manual shutter cocking less than ideal)
j