Rather mediocre?

[Ranchu]

If that's so, all's well. I see striking differences in the lines near the numbers from 1.6 and greater, especially the vertical ones. Those vertical lines are clearly discernible in the Leica sample. They appear more or less as gray oblongs in the Epson one.

Yes, it's the megapixel difference, the Leica does the same thing further down. I accept the fact that less megapixels means less resolution. I don't consider as big an issue as The Lack of an IR filter on the Leica.

 

[popch]

It is still there, under "Zeiss" and "more".

Ah, there it is. All links in the www point to another place.

Thank you very much for the new link.

I just read the article and must say that I'm impressed by the guy's objectivity. He says that the resolution of top-of-the-line Leica lenses exceeds the resolution the R-D1 is capable of. He also says quite succinctly who the camera may appeal to.

Given my present equipment and photographic history, I would not hesitate to buy an R-D1 after reading that article. It's a very favourable review, IMO.

It's all a bit academic as I already own one, though. It makes beautiful pictures even if they might be a bit less sharp than those you can do with an M8. I don't own the kind of lenses where the difference shows.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The Leica II is a mediocre camera compared with an M3- if you agree with that statement, I guess you could agree with Puts.

The Leica II is not as technically advanced as a Leica M3 as it is an earlier design. I would use those terms.

The CCD used in the RD-1 is an older design, and is not as technically advanced as the sensor used in the M8. Kodak reformulated the sensor to increase blue-sensitivity, long a problem with Silicon sensors. They also used offset microlenses to reduce problems with optics placed physically close to the sensor.

Now- does that mean the RD-1 is mediocre? I would not use those terms. Like saying a Pentium is mediocre compared with a new CPU. It was an important step in development.

 

[not_in_good_order]

Oh, I really like R-D1's color and tonal range from sun to shadows! Very natural skins too!

Cheers,

Juan

I agree, I love way images from the R-D1 look. It produces images with a very unique color rendition.

 

[Sparrow]

mediocrity...something to aspire to...

................... 😀

 

[back alley]

................... 😀

gone for week and first thing...you zero in on my post?

how lucky can a guy get?

 

[Sparrow]

what can I say, you have a peculiar talent joe 😉



...... and on my phone too

 

[Rob-F]

Though i have not bought an R-D1, owing to the limited selection of wide-angle framelines, the large number of posts here over the past few years praising its image quality has erased any doubts I might have had. I would not hesitate to buy an R-D1 if my preference for wide-angle lenses were not such a big factor for me.

 

[back alley]

is 15 wide enough for ya?

the cv 15 is a jewel on the rd1... with or without the external finder...

 

[umcelinho]

the 12mm Heliar works really well with the R-D1, I prefer it over the 15mm as it gets a 18mm equivalent field of view (somewhat between the 15 and the 21, both which I like), so it's pretty good for those who like pretty wide angles. I usually alternate between the 12mm Heliar and the 35/1.4 SC Nokton.

 

[fotomeow]

I'm proud to be at the pinnnacle of my mediocrity, and a proud owner of a camera that may very likely turn out to be a cult classic. I aint sellin' mine.

 

[Chris101]

Puts makes some good points. Please provide names of better writers...

Ken Rockwell, Bill Pierce, Roger Hicks, Ralph Gibson ...

Perhaps Puts is deeper, or better informed, but he writes in a style that does not make me ever want to read one of his blog articles to completion.

 

[jsrockit]

You guys are really this upset because he said your camera was mediocre? Jeez, why do you care? Any rangefinder user must be used to weird comments about their camera choice.

 

[yanidel]

Still owning the R-D1, M8 and M9, the term mediocre could indeed be used when comparing R-D1 files to the M9. But there 6 years of technological advances in the M9 so it is normal and should be accepted even if we all know that the camera camera is only the tool.
The R-D1 was a pioneer and kudos to Epson for that, yet they elected not to purse the adventure. Leica did and their new produts are no match for the R-D1 both in ergonomics and quality, but again this should not come to a surprise to anybody.

 

[elmer3.5]

The first one

The first one

The Rd1 is the first digital rangefinder doesn´t have to be the best also.
Surely this camera encouraged leica to make it´s own!
Perhaps Put´s should have wrote a disclaimer about the term mediocre.
Bye.

 

[Rob-F]

is 15 wide enough for ya?

the cv 15 is a jewel on the rd1... with or without the external finder...

Yes, the 15 (22.5mm equivalent) would be wide enough for me. My 24mm, if I could use it with the camera's finder for a 36mm equivalent, might be wide enough to persuade me to go digital RF. If it had a frame for the 21mm lens, giving a 32mm equivalent, that would be better yet. But I would not like being limited to a 42mm eq. with the built-in finder.

I use a 15mm Nikkor on the D300, for 22.5mm FOV. And I use my 18mm Nikkor for a 27mm FOV. I seem to be happy enough with the D300 to not feel the need for a DRF. But if there were a wide-angle R-D1, with a frame for a 21 or 24mm, that could change my mind.

 

[Uwe_Nds]

Ken Rockwell, Bill Pierce, Roger Hicks, Ralph Gibson ...

Perhaps Puts is deeper, or better informed, but he writes in a style that does not make me ever want to read one of his blog articles to completion.

May that be partly because, as I understand, English is not his native language?

Love to read some posts from you in either German or Dutch. :angel:

Cheers,
Uwe

 

[popch]

This thread relates to a camera named Epson R-D1 and a reviewer named Erwin Puts having not a clue about it.

How about the following, then:

The Epson R-D1 has been designed to offer the speed and convenience of digital capture in combination with the familiarity and simplicity of classical filmbased photography. The ease of use, the very intuitive and simple interface, the provision of effective facilities for digital capture and manipulation, the solid body and the decent performance are very positive points. If you would not know, the camera could be loaded with film. The R-D1 is clearly not designed for the photographer who wants or needs a full-featured camera with a wide range of options and automatic support for most picture taking situations, including fill-in flash and high speed motordrives. For the price of the Epson body one can buy a high end digital SLR and a rational decision would certainly point in that direction, if you wish to employ all the convenient features of a high-tech camera body.

The R-D1 plays its (emotional) cards when the photographer wants solid state imagery and wants to take pictures with a minimum of automatic support and a maximum of personal decision making. It may be the best digital camera for the classical style of reportage and art photography now on the market. Especially the combination of a very sensitive sensor that can be used noise-free at ISO800 and a high speed 1.4 lens and an uncluttered viewfinder predestines the camera for the art of the snapshot under all circumstances.

The simple and clean interface allows the user to concentrate on the essence of photography and the rangefinder principle forces one to interact directly with the subject....

That has been written by an utterly clueless reviewer who clearly hates Epson and has been doing so since the beginning.

"The EPSON R-D1 digital rangefinder camera (march 6, 2005)" by Erwin Puts

 

[peppermill]

Still owning the R-D1, M8 and M9, the term mediocre could indeed be used when comparing R-D1 files to the M9. But there 6 years of technological advances in the M9 so it is normal and should be accepted even if we all know that the camera camera is only the tool.
The R-D1 was a pioneer and kudos to Epson for that, yet they elected not to purse the adventure. Leica did and their new produts are no match for the R-D1 both in ergonomics and quality, but again this should not come to a surprise to anybody.

Ergonomics? This is one thing i certainly think the RD1 has over the digital M's. Try changing EV compensation on the M8 🙂
Oh and how do you quickly replace the battery and SD card again ? . You are joking right?

 

[mn4367]

Still owning the R-D1, M8 and M9, the term mediocre could indeed be used when comparing R-D1 files to the M9. But there 6 years of technological advances in the M9 so it is normal and should be accepted even if we all know that the camera camera is only the tool.
The R-D1 was a pioneer and kudos to Epson for that, yet they elected not to purse the adventure. Leica did and their new produts are no match for the R-D1 both in ergonomics and quality, but again this should not come to a surprise to anybody.

As much as I like my R-D1, the M9 is superior to the R-D1 in almost all aspects; as you mentioned it, 6 years is a long period in the digital age.

But the R-D1 still excels regarding the layout of controls. Being able to see shutter speed, ISO, EV correction, WB, battery life and remaining number of shots at a single glance without having to press any buttons is a far better solution IMHO. On the M9 one must press 2 buttons to get this information. And I *really, really* miss the shutter speed in manual mode. The baseplate maybe be debatable, personally I don't like to much. I consider all this being part of the ergonomics.

I also miss the lever when holding the M9 which is very convenient with the R-D1. Only the attachment of a ThumbsUp made this feeling of 'the-next-second-it'll-slip-out-of-my-hands' go away. Sure, there's no need for a lever on the M9, but some people (not including me) begin to ask for a different body design to ease handling.

So regarding ergonomics, I doubt that the M9 is 'better'.