Rather mediocre?

[anu L ogy]

How is an issue like this getting so much attention. People like puts (and Ken Rockwell - I saw his named used and figured that he should be included in this statement too) are not going to teach us a damn thing about photography. They will tech us which lens is scientifically superior to the next, but thats hardly photography.

 

[bellyface]

there are a few things mediocre about the R-D1, the battery, lcd and menus, but it's no slouch in image quality. pretty funny.

 

[gliderbee]

(and Ken Rockwell - I saw his named used and figured that he should be included in this statement too) are not going to teach us a damn thing about photography. They will tech us which lens is scientifically superior to the next, but thats hardly photography.

Not to defend KR (he's big enough to do that himself if he thinks it's necessary), but for what I've read of him (and I like to read his opinions, although I do not always agree with them (ex. his review of the Hexar RF, where he has no clue imho)), the least he is concerned with is the "scientifically superiority" of any gear.
Mostly, he's stating just the opposite, i.e. that a good photographer can make good pictures no matter what gear is used.

 

[popch]

good photographer can make good pictures no matter what gear is used.

Yes, of course, but no one has yet explained to me how the good photographer makes a sharp picture with a lens which does not make sharp pictures. Photographers have been known to make sharp pictures, even good photographers.

 

[anu L ogy]

I geuss, but I dont understand why he reviews gear on his site, rather than making a site where he teaches people legit information that will improve their photography. His gear reviews are technically driven, but his articles on composition teach you to forget the subject and concentrate only on structure.

Here's another secret: in photographic art, it's never about the subject.

It's always about the underlying compositional structure. Subjects that may be there are chosen because they support or create a structure, not the other way around.​

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Yes, of course, but no one has yet explained to me how the good photographer makes a sharp picture with a lens which does not make sharp pictures. Photographers have been known to make sharp pictures, even good photographers.

Hi popch,

All lenses can be sharp... Even plastic Holgas' lenses are enough for the users and viewers, because what an image gives us, has no relation -at all- with sharpness...

All common lenses offer more sharpness than we need. Puts' and that kind of reviews are especially relevant when all that can be said about an irrelevant image is that the lens used is the best and latest aspherical from the best brand... When an image is great, it would be just as great if taken with 20 different lenses, old or new by any brand...

Puts will disappear forever very soon, and the great photographers with less than technically perfect photographs will stay with the world -thank God- to share with us the beauty of human life: that's what photography is about...

I also feel that when a photographer moves away from human emotions (Ansel Adams to name one) comes a special need for technical considerations like impressive sharpness and bigger formats, or seeing photography as a pictorial end where secondary things like dodging and burning end up being considered the most important ones... Could it come after some kind of emptiness? I enjoy real landscapes a lot more than all those landscapes painted by him with lots of internal contrast after massive dodging and burning. Three fuzzy images by Frank, Atget and Cartier-Bresson, move my floor, my heart and mind, more than all Adams' works...

Fortunately there's space for all of us and our preferences inside the huge thing photography is... Even Puts has his own space. Maybe his photography has some space too somewhere. I haven't seen it and I'm not interested in calling it mediocre.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[popch]

... what an image gives us, has no relation -at all- with sharpness...

All common lenses offer more sharpness than we need.

Juan - thank you for your thoughtful words.

In a way I tend to agree. In many instances technical issues are much overrated.

However, there are some kinds of pictures I like as well which do require technical perfection. Those kinds of pictures I want to sharp, undistorted and free of flares and other artifacts.

In such instances engineers come in with their quantitative assessments and measurements.

It's a bit comparable to painting. Dali isn't half as impressive if rendered hölderinesque or impressionistically.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Juan - thank you for your thoughtful words.

In a way I tend to agree. In many instances technical issues are much overrated.

However, there are some kinds of pictures I like as well which do require technical perfection. Those kinds of pictures I want to sharp, undistorted and free of flares and other artifacts.

In such instances engineers come in with their quantitative assessments and measurements.

It's a bit comparable to painting. Dali isn't half as impressive if rendered hölderinesque or impressionistically.

Take into account that from all the technical aspects you just named, sharpness is the least important.

What I mean is that Dalí's great technical skills DID NOT depend on the brand of his brushes... But on him! As Vermeer's or Rembrandt's or Freud's...

In photography we can prefer low barrel distortion (I do) and precise exposure and development (I do), but as sharpness is a thing that can depend on many unexpected factors, and most of the times is below lens possibilities, it's not really important, and an amazing sharpness adds nothing to any image...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[anu L ogy]

Well said Juan. I totally agree.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Well said Juan. I totally agree.

Thanks, Jim...

Sometimes things are sadly exaggerated on internet forums... Most cameras are great, and the R-D1 is no exception. Apart from its great tone and IQ, it's a very beautiful machine.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Roger Hicks]

... I dont understand why he reviews gear on his site, rather than making a site where he teaches people legit information that will improve their photography....

Dear Jim,

Because there are more people who care about gear than who care about learning to take better pictures. Because gear is a LOT easier and quicker to write about. And because people are always willing to accuse someone else of mediocrity as a photographer, even when, for the accuser, mediocrity would be an aspiration.

As I've said in many books and articles, I'm not the best photographer in the world, but if someone learns something from what I've written/illustrated; looks at my pictures; says "I could do better than that"; and then goes and does something better than that; then, I have succeeded.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Thardy]

Juan, i and others I suspect really enjoy your writing. Have you ever though of starting a blog?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thanks for your kind words, Thomas...

On the contrary, apart from feeling I can't really write comfortably in english, I tend to feel I don't have enough time for shooting and printing, and sometimes I think I should spend less time here, but I enjoy too much reading RFF members for their experience and humor...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[anu L ogy]

Roger,

Although I think its natural human emotion to claim you can do better when you look at someones pictures I have tried to condition myself to avoid making those statements. Reading articles on gear is anothing thing I generally try to avoid. As for your writing, when I visit your site, I like to read your articles on composition, and whatnot because they can get me in the mood to take pictures. I never leave saying I can do better, but I leave saying "I can apply that."

On a side note, your travel website, and your travel history reminds me of my Uncle Gary. http://www.cyclingscholar.com/

 

[Pico]

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

He is a writer, and not a photographer, why should we look to better writers to inform us of cameras and lenses?

And he is clearly marinated in Leica/Leitz. It is not a big surprise that critics such as he has a favored view.

I no longer read his crap.

 

[thomasw_]

You guys are really this upset because he said your camera was mediocre? Jeez, why do you care?...

Hard to believe but true. The reason for this in one word: semantics.

How about the following......"The EPSON R-D1 digital rangefinder camera (march 6, 2005)" by Erwin Puts

Ah, the irony of getting upset over semantics.....Puts seems to have a rocket in his pocket for the RD1 in that blurb; does that mean he never knew of its usefulness as a photographic tool? He seems in the know back then....

How is an issue like this getting so much attention.......

How so? Semantics. Some people are mediocre readers. So the guy is not a precise analytical philosopher, and could have used a more exacting term or a happier phrase....get over it. It is not a legal document or contract 😉

 

[Rob-F]

He is a writer, and not a photographer, why should we look to better writers to inform us of cameras and lenses?

And he is clearly marinated in Leica/Leitz. It is not a big surprise that critics such as he has a favored view.

I no longer read his crap.

well, he does photograph naked ladies. I guess that's how he determines how much detail was resolved by a given lens?

 

[1joel1]

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

He's a good writer and brings valid points, but he sure could use a copyeditor.

 

[yanidel]

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?

I am using the M9 in all manual so EV compensation is a no issue to me 😉
Here is why the M9 is superior to R-D1 in ergonomics :
- though the R-D1 has a ISO dial, it is difficult to change when you have big fingers + you can't read it at night. M9 and ISO button and a bit of practice mean you can change ISO without looking at screen. At night, obviously screen can help.
- the M9 shutter is more precise, the R-D1 you never really know when it will trigger.
- the M9 shutter is very silent, the cloing of the R-D1 could wake up dead people.
- menu system ... ever zoomed with the R-D1 to check focus on the bottom right corner ?
- speed dial on M9 has half stops, R-D1 full stops.
- framelines on M9 are brought up automatically, R-D1 you can be 10 minutes framing 28mm with 50mm lens on. Fun!
- continuous shooting ... I don't use it but let's do a speed contest.
- AWB, file size, etc ... yes there are dials but I'll am still faster through menu system on M9 than wheel + selector on R-D1

I have shot extensively with both camera and obviously thr M9 is not perfect. But overall ergonomics are way better than R-D1 once one gets used to it. R-D1 has got nice dials, but fails in many other accounts.

 

[Keith]

I am using the M9 in all manual so EV compensation is a no issue to me 😉
Here is why the M9 is superior to R-D1 in ergonomics :
- though the R-D1 has a ISO dial, it is difficult to change when you have big fingers + you can't read it at night. M9 and ISO button and a bit of practice mean you can change ISO without looking at screen. At night, obviously screen can help.
- the M9 shutter is more precise, the R-D1 you never really know when it will trigger.
- the M9 shutter is very silent, the cloing of the R-D1 could wake up dead people.
- menu system ... ever zoomed with the R-D1 to check focus on the bottom right corner ?
- speed dial on M9 has half stops, R-D1 full stops.
- framelines on M9 are brought up automatically, R-D1 you can be 10 minutes framing 28mm with 50mm lens on. Fun!
- continuous shooting ... I don't use it but let's do a speed contest.
- AWB, file size, etc ... yes there are dials but I'll am still faster through menu system on M9 than wheel + selector on R-D1

I have shot extensively with both camera and obviously thr M9 is not perfect. But overall ergonomics are way better than R-D1 once one gets used to it. R-D1 has got nice dials, but fails in many other accounts.

Has Tom not made a rapid winder for the Epson yet? :angel:

😀