LCT
ex-newbie
Is my English that bad? Again, this guy said that the R-D1's IQ is rather mediocre. Either you agree or you disagree. But this has nothing to do with Leica, Nikon or my grand mother.
Last edited:
Rather mediocre?
- Thread starter LCT
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 91
- Views 9K
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
Its funny how the digital M crowd seem to want to bash the R-D1 any opportunity they get, just because its the only other digital RF out there. I bet my D2x has better IQ than the M8, but I don't go on about it every time the M8 is discussed. The Leica crowd should thank Epson for the R-D1, at the time of its launch Leica were still claiming it could not be done. With the arrival of the R-D1 Leica were left with egg on their face and had to do something about it. No R-D1, no digital M. Oh and don't start going on about Leica were talking in terms of FF, because the M8 isn't
popch
Member
There are times when looking up and actually reading the cited source can be helpful. This is one of those.
The cited article is a nearly 50 pages long history of Leitz, the well known manufacturer of cameras. There's one sentence about the R-D1. The statement was that the Leica management was taken by surprise by the brisk sales of that camera, and that it was felt that the quality of the images produced by the R-D1 could easily be topped.
The article is not a review, least of all of our beloved R-D1. The statement was that the image quality was "mediocre". Since the article does not state in exactly which respect the image quality was not qualified as "unsurpassable", we can debate all day long whether the perceived mediocrity of the images was based on fact or not.
It does not matter.
Leica went and built digital RF cameras. Epson stopped building theirs after producing a rather small number of cameras.
The cited article is a nearly 50 pages long history of Leitz, the well known manufacturer of cameras. There's one sentence about the R-D1. The statement was that the Leica management was taken by surprise by the brisk sales of that camera, and that it was felt that the quality of the images produced by the R-D1 could easily be topped.
The article is not a review, least of all of our beloved R-D1. The statement was that the image quality was "mediocre". Since the article does not state in exactly which respect the image quality was not qualified as "unsurpassable", we can debate all day long whether the perceived mediocrity of the images was based on fact or not.
It does not matter.
Leica went and built digital RF cameras. Epson stopped building theirs after producing a rather small number of cameras.
LCT
ex-newbie
This thread relates to a camera named Epson R-D1 and a reviewer named Erwin Puts having not a clue about it.
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
Popch does have a point. But whether or not Erwin has a clue about the R-D1 I wouldn't know, and quite frankly I don't care.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
He said the camera had a quirky design and the image quality was rather mediocre?
It's not like he said the thing was a pile of crap ... those two particualr observations he made are hardly worthy of being burned at the stake ... or worse still 'trial by forum!'
What's Ken Rockwell up to ... he's far more fun. 😀
It's not like he said the thing was a pile of crap ... those two particualr observations he made are hardly worthy of being burned at the stake ... or worse still 'trial by forum!'
What's Ken Rockwell up to ... he's far more fun. 😀
_mark__
Well-known
“Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself," a.c.d.
The word "mediocre" was unnecessary in the review. The RD-1 was ground-breaking for RF photography. It was not bleeding-edge sensor technology for the day, and used the same CCD as the Nikon D100. That made it affordable. In the past, there have been threads discussing spectral response of the sensor, especially low-response in the blue region. This was a sympton of earlier generation Silicon based sensors. Kodak did a lot of work in formulating Silicon sensors to increase the blue response.
"IQ" of older digital technology will always look mediocre when compared with the newest. Part of development. The M8 looks mediocre compared with the M9. I suspect most people would even-trade an RD-1 for an M9. I would even-trade my M8 for an M9. And at some point, when the RD-1 prices drop enough to add one to the collection of old digital cameras, I'll get one.
"IQ" of older digital technology will always look mediocre when compared with the newest. Part of development. The M8 looks mediocre compared with the M9. I suspect most people would even-trade an RD-1 for an M9. I would even-trade my M8 for an M9. And at some point, when the RD-1 prices drop enough to add one to the collection of old digital cameras, I'll get one.
LCT
ex-newbie
IQ is essentially a matter of tastes. I prefer that of the 5D1 over the 5D2 for instance, or that of the R-D1 over the M8 in low light and in B&W. But it's just me. I may well think (and write) that the M8 is the worst M ever made since the M4-2 but i would support such a statement of course and i'd never say that the M8's IQ is mediocre anyway for the simple reason that this is a subjective matter that cannot be supported by definition.
back alley
IMAGES
i would imagine that NOT producing the first m digital rangefinder is somewhat galling to leica...i feel sorry for them for losing that place in history...
as an amateur using an rd1 i am whole heartedly satisfied with the image quality...
will i move on to an m8... probably...an m9...that would be nice.
as an amateur using an rd1 i am whole heartedly satisfied with the image quality...
will i move on to an m8... probably...an m9...that would be nice.
They could offer the M9 with a matched Contax-Mount adapter with an indexed RF cam and claim to offer the first Contax RF compatible Digital camera in history.
That would be so awesome. Getting one up on Zeiss after all these years. The gauntlet is tossed down, they should recover their honor. A custom adapter could focus in the Leica direction, the indexed cam would correct for the focus error.
That would be so awesome. Getting one up on Zeiss after all these years. The gauntlet is tossed down, they should recover their honor. A custom adapter could focus in the Leica direction, the indexed cam would correct for the focus error.
popch
Member
The source you quoted in the OP was not a review. :bang:
Erwin Puts apparently did write a review on the R-D1 which can not be found any more on his web site. Yes, the Puts bashers will take that as an ominous sign even not knowing what used to be in the review.
There is one article which might be interesting in this context:
puts said:
http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/M8/M8/page21.html
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
Test charts! They told you, didn't they? 😉
What matters is real life pictures, isn't it? 😛 😀
Cheers,
Uwe :angel:
Ranchu
Veteran
http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/M8/M8/page21.html[/quote]
" The smaller size of the Epson image is due to the smaller sensor size. But the difference in performance is quite visible. Leica right and Epson left."
I see no difference in performance. The Epson is smaller, the Leica has a cast. That is all.
Puts is a salesman.
" The smaller size of the Epson image is due to the smaller sensor size. But the difference in performance is quite visible. Leica right and Epson left."
I see no difference in performance. The Epson is smaller, the Leica has a cast. That is all.
Puts is a salesman.
Ranchu
Veteran
The non validity of his comments is the reason I find him mediocre.
LCT
ex-newbie
You're playing with words. Take care of your head though. This wall looks more serious than your true/false reviewer. 😀
sol33
Established
It is still there, under "Zeiss" and "more".
http://www.imx.nl/photo/zeiss/zeiss/zeiss/page52.html
Puts may know a lot about lenses and film but he is far from being an expert when it comes to digital technology. His discussion of the color artifacts in his test patterns for the M9 was very revealing. I would just disregard his negative comments on the R-D1.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
Then why not explain why the comments are invalid, rather than attacking the man? That at least opens the door to an interesting discussion.
popch
Member
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.
Always presuming that the shots are what the article says, the difference in IQ is evident.
Whether it makes any practical difference for a particular owner is another story. You can be perfectly happy with your images. Anyway, most users of the R-D1 may not have lenses which produce that resolution in which case the point may be moot.
From a technical point of view the Epson's IQ is not the best there is. It may be good enough for you or me.
Ranchu
Veteran
Well, ok. I thought it was self evident. The RD is a 6 megapixel camera with a sensor designed according to prevailing norms at the time. There is nothing that makes that inherently 'mediocre'.
The M8 on the other hand, is an experiment. It has a few missteps in execution, or to be kinder a different set of compromises then are usually made when designing a camera.
Puts relates that Leica viewed the Epson as mediocre, the camera Leica designed could be said to be more so. So in my opinion, Puts is sucking up to Leica by talking sh*t about the Epson.
Why do I care what he says then?
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
