pagpow
Well-known
Anybody do any comparisons of these two in use?
RD-1 vs Panasonic DMC LC-1
- Thread starter pagpow
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 19
- Views 1K
M. Valdemar
Well-known
It's like comparing Apples and Oranges.
Two completely different cats.
Two completely different cats.
Didier
"Deed"
M. Valdemar said:
Indeed. Two different concepts. One rangefinder, one DSLR.
pagpow
Well-known
I sometimes eat oranges, sometimes apples, depending on what I'm hungry for. In choosing, I compare them. Is it not possible to compare these in terms of shooting experience, IQ, etc?
bellyface
Registered Nice Guy
i can see the need to compare, but some short falls... no 1:1 vf, instead a super dim VF, slr style system, and finally the killer, 4/3 ccd, which is still smaller than the ccd in an epson. Perhaps it has a higher megapixel, but megapixels mean nothing to us...
Didier
"Deed"
One is a manual focus rangefinder camera. The other one is a autofocus dslr. Almost everything that could have been said about these two meanwhile outdated cameras, has been said here on this forum, many, many times. So why chew it again (yawn).
Tuolumne
Veteran
Didier said:
The R-D1 outdated? Surely you jest.
/T
__hh
Well-known
the dmc-lc1 is NOT a dslr, it's a P&S digicam.... with a very good lens in front... dmc-lc1 is the pany version of the digilux 2
lemalk
Rebel Without Applause
I think you guys are mistaking the L1 with the LC1.
The LC1 isn't an SLR - it's a fixed lens "compact" camera with a really fantastic Summicron lens.
I don't have an RD-1 to compare, but the LC1 has an absolutely silent shutter and great image quality. It's only 5 megapixels, but the IQ has already made it (and its sibling the Digilux 2) a classic.
It has an electronic viewfinder and a 6-second delay to write RAW files, but it puts out some great jpegs straight out of the camera.
The LC1 isn't an SLR - it's a fixed lens "compact" camera with a really fantastic Summicron lens.
I don't have an RD-1 to compare, but the LC1 has an absolutely silent shutter and great image quality. It's only 5 megapixels, but the IQ has already made it (and its sibling the Digilux 2) a classic.
It has an electronic viewfinder and a 6-second delay to write RAW files, but it puts out some great jpegs straight out of the camera.
Didier
"Deed"
Oops I indeed mixed up the L1 with the LC1 and apologize for it. So the LC1 is not a DSLR but a (not so) compact digi. The LC1 Vario Summicron lens is said to be excellent, though there wasn't much bokeh possible dued to the rather small sensor size. Personally I'd prefer the Epson 100x because of the clear, big, bright finder, not talking about the possibility to use my LTM/M arsenal.
Tuolumne: do not misunderstand me - I use a R-D1s almost every day - I mean "outdated" compared to today's camera's specs. Both cameras have 2003/2004 electronics, but with both one can still make superb pictures.
Didier
Tuolumne: do not misunderstand me - I use a R-D1s almost every day - I mean "outdated" compared to today's camera's specs. Both cameras have 2003/2004 electronics, but with both one can still make superb pictures.
Didier
Kawabatnam
Established
Just surprised that no one seems to stress the sensor size difference: the LC-1 sensor is much much smaller than the R-D1's. Before purchasing a R-D1, in fact 2..., I had considered the L1 and even before that the LC-1 because they were so nice looking (compared to those "ugly" DSLR -industrial design is a fine topic, just maybe not for this forum), and retained some of the look and ergonomics of traditional cameras.
BUT what stopped me is the image quality: to me, beyond ISO 200 (or equivalent) the LC-1 was useless, and at ISO 800 and 1600 (and even 400 in difficult contrasty light) the L1 is no match to the Epson (wich gives me pleasing results even "pushed" at ISO 3200 when initially properly exposed). In fact, I am afraid that all this 4/3 stuff is plagued by its too small a sensor: really poor dynamics, poor sensitivity, even if internal software processing has improved things a bit from previous 4/3 cameras.
If only Olympus had fitted their 4/3 sensor in their OM bodies, then...
BUT what stopped me is the image quality: to me, beyond ISO 200 (or equivalent) the LC-1 was useless, and at ISO 800 and 1600 (and even 400 in difficult contrasty light) the L1 is no match to the Epson (wich gives me pleasing results even "pushed" at ISO 3200 when initially properly exposed). In fact, I am afraid that all this 4/3 stuff is plagued by its too small a sensor: really poor dynamics, poor sensitivity, even if internal software processing has improved things a bit from previous 4/3 cameras.
If only Olympus had fitted their 4/3 sensor in their OM bodies, then...
Last edited:
Didier
"Deed"
Kawabatnam said:
The LC-1 sensor is even smaller, it's a 2/3" (8.8 x 6.6mm). Compared to this a 4/3 sensor looks giant (18 x 13.5mm).
But I admit I also evaluated the LC-1 before I bought the Epson, and I passed on it for the same reasons as you.
Didier
usayit
Well-known
pagpow said:
What you are essentially asking the general public is which is better... oranges or apples. The answer will be of little value.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
How would that change the performance of the sensor? 😉Kawabatnam said:
Mind you, I'd love a sensor in an OM body, particularly the OM-4. But it ain't going to happen, as the production equipment, etc., was scrapped long ago.
kevin m
Veteran
Nice. I really like the "one eye dreaming" gallery.
MCTuomey
Veteran
my, my, my tokek ... lovely, eye-stopping images!
ampguy
Veteran
great portfolio
great portfolio
I like "Dad's place" a lot. nice images and sound.
great portfolio
I like "Dad's place" a lot. nice images and sound.
tokek said:
ampguy
Veteran
good points
good points
But the $799 price on these 2006 models is very tempting, as they had a fw upgrade in 3/2007 that fixed some initial quirks.
Still 4/3 sensor size and 7.5mp, and possibly not great low noise IQ at high ISO has me thinking this is pretty much a great daylight outdoors camera.
Interesting though that Amazon has such a lower price than other vendors, and it appears stocked by them, not sold through adorama, etc.
good points
But the $799 price on these 2006 models is very tempting, as they had a fw upgrade in 3/2007 that fixed some initial quirks.
Still 4/3 sensor size and 7.5mp, and possibly not great low noise IQ at high ISO has me thinking this is pretty much a great daylight outdoors camera.
Interesting though that Amazon has such a lower price than other vendors, and it appears stocked by them, not sold through adorama, etc.
Kawabatnam said:
xtian
Member
I had the Lumix LC-1 (not the L1) for a few years and it was a VERY SHARP lens. I usually just shot straight JPG with Low Sharpness/Saturation/Contrast and the images were quite amazing. For a P&S it was way too big, but it beat IQ on any other P&S and the incorporated Bounce Flash is powerful and VERY useful indoors.
I would have kept it but the autofocus was way too finicky, and manual focusing that gem is HARD. Like someone mentioned I usually just shot at ISO 100 because anything above that is quite ugly, but the bounce flash helped indoors at least and with the flash the auto white balance was very good.
Sold it to buy an Epson R-D1 =D
http://www.flickr.com/photos/offstandard/2254716991/
No post processing, straight off the camera with auto WB.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/offstandard/2255516770/
100% crop of the eye without any post processing
http://www.flickr.com/photos/offstandard/2234577440
colors are off from pic to pic because of auto WB (taken with JPG)
a few more select images here
http://www.flickr.com/gp/96454757@N00/0Wg62F
I would have kept it but the autofocus was way too finicky, and manual focusing that gem is HARD. Like someone mentioned I usually just shot at ISO 100 because anything above that is quite ugly, but the bounce flash helped indoors at least and with the flash the auto white balance was very good.
Sold it to buy an Epson R-D1 =D
http://www.flickr.com/photos/offstandard/2254716991/
No post processing, straight off the camera with auto WB.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/offstandard/2255516770/
100% crop of the eye without any post processing
http://www.flickr.com/photos/offstandard/2234577440
colors are off from pic to pic because of auto WB (taken with JPG)
a few more select images here
http://www.flickr.com/gp/96454757@N00/0Wg62F
mani
Well-known
Managed to find time to take my first 'roll' on the R-D1s last weekend (it really does feel like you're shooting film with the camera - honestly), and after outputting thru Lightroom and resizing in Photoshop I had the local lab print the fifty picture I'd taken - and was simply stunned by the sharpness, and color-accuracy of the images.
I had to do absolutely no color-tweaking to the R-D1's files whatsoever - and ISO400 allowed me to shoot in a relatively dark museum without any problems (admittedly with the Noctilux attached).
I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I don't have any reliability problems, because the camera is outstanding!
PS: I know I'm not alone in hoping that Nikon join the fray with an M-mount rangefinder sometime soon. There'd be a queue around the block....
I had to do absolutely no color-tweaking to the R-D1's files whatsoever - and ISO400 allowed me to shoot in a relatively dark museum without any problems (admittedly with the Noctilux attached).
I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I don't have any reliability problems, because the camera is outstanding!
PS: I know I'm not alone in hoping that Nikon join the fray with an M-mount rangefinder sometime soon. There'd be a queue around the block....
Similar threads
