RD1s hardware different to RD1

[wintoid]

I'm quoting from Amateur Photographer...

The revised model is identical to its predecessor, the R-D1, but features a new vignetting reduction design in which the camera's micro lenses have been shifted to force more light into the pixels near the edge of the sensor.

Does that sound like a hardware difference?

 

[pfogle]

I'm quoting from Amateur Photographer...



Does that sound like a hardware difference?

yes it does... the micro lenses are moulded into a plastic sheet that goes over the sensor and focuses the light onto the sensitive bit of each pixel. Since the receptor site is smaller than the pixel size (they have to put electonic circuits into each pixel too), the micro lens produces a bright spot over the receptor, but it only works for rays close to the axis, otherwise the spot of light misses the receptor.

So you always have a compromise; if you design the micro lenses at the edges of the frame to work best with wide angle lenses, they'll be less efficient for the longer ones and vice versa. I gather it's this part of the design that held up the M8.

 

[Bob Parsons]

The revised model is identical to its predecessor, the R-D1, but features a new vignetting reduction design in which the camera's micro lenses have been shifted to force more light into the pixels near the edge of the sensor.

Microlenses are an integral part of the surface structure of the chip. See actual pictures in this pdf document. If what the Amateur Photographer is saying is true then the sensor in the R-D1s should have a different part number than the one in the R-D1. That in turn implies a new batch of sensor electronics boards being assembled, effectively a new camera. With the present level of promotion from Epson I find that highly unlikely.

I'm very interested to hear any more details about this. Can you tell me which issue of AP the statement was in? Thanks.

Bob.

 

[jlw]

When the RD-1s info first appeared on Epson's website, I remember we had a discussion about this and a few other features, such as the sensor heatsink, and whether they were new to the "s" or not.

The uncertainty was because the way Epson wrote up its material, it didn't distinguish clearly between features which were new to the "s" and those which were unique or interesting but common to both models.

When someone here mentioned that it appeared that the "s" had a new microlens array, I remember looking at the diagram in the announcement and comparing it to one I found in a Japanese magazine about the original R-D 1. The diagrams were identical, and I suspected that this was a feature which was common to both models, but not distinguished clearly in Epson's press material.

I still suspect this may be the case, and that AP simply fell prey to the same confusion we did. (After all, we probably have more RF-camera experts here than they do on their staff!)

On the other hand, it would be interesting if it IS true -- but I'd insist on some pretty authoritative confirmation for it, since almost anyone (including Epson marketing people) might make the same mistake.

 

[Bob Parsons]

I've just noticed if you go to the UK Epson site and look at the html/frames version of the promo material the index has sections "What is new compared to R-D1". The description of the microlenses (item 13, Vignetting reduction with Chip design) and heat sink (item 11, Low noise) is not included in the differences but in separate sections which would appear to be common to both cameras.

Bob.

 

[jlw]

Thanks for the link, Bob. I notice that all the things that are explicitly noted as new compared to the R-D 1 are features that are added by the firmware update.

 

[wintoid]

Can you tell me which issue of AP the statement was in?

Page 4 of the 29th July 2006 edition. I'm a subscriber, so I usually get it in the post a day or two before it hits the shops.

 

[wintoid]

The description of the microlenses (item 13, Vignetting reduction with Chip design) and heat sink (item 11, Low noise) is not included in the differences but in separate sections which would appear to be common to both cameras.

That text seems to refer to the RD1s specifically, although of course that doesn't preclude the RD1 as well.

I think I read somewhere that the RD1s is heavier than the RD1, so assuming that's true, there *must* be something different.

 

[LCT]

...there *must* be something different.

hehe! I bet you own a R-D1s right?

As far as i know there are no hardware difference at all...
... but i'm just a R-D1 owner, you know, so take it with a pinch of salt. 🙂

 

[wintoid]

hehe! I bet you own a R-D1s right?

😀 Well yes I do but it's just curiosity really. Nothing anyone could say about the spec will change the fact that I'm really enjoying the camera.

 

[fgianni]

According to the Epson website the Firmware upgrade gives RD-1 owners all the features of the RD-1s, also I think Epson did not manage to sell all the 10000 RD-1 made, so modified the remaining ones to sell them at a reduced price without getting the RD-1 owners too upset. (but this is just my speculation so consider it just an educated guess)

 

[jlw]

I think I read somewhere that the RD1s is heavier than the RD1, so assuming that's true, there *must* be something different.

Well, the extra "s" silkscreened onto the nameplate has gotta weigh something. And then there are the dust bunnies that have collected on the internal components while they've been sitting around the warehouse waiting for assembly...

If there IS a difference in the microlens array, it would be fascinating to know about -- but I think it would be difficult to determine under what circumstances (if any) it affects picture-taking results, unless somebody who owns an R-D 1 and an "s" were willing to do some very exacting tests (and somehow rule out the possibility of mere sample-to-sample variation.)

Aside from that, it wouldn't surprise me if there was a slight weight difference even if the cameras were essentially identical. For example, maybe the supplier of a switch, chip, resistor, etc. made a minor running change during production. Or maybe they decided to weigh it with the neckstrap rings installed, rather than without, or something like that.

In other words, I still doubt if there are any significant functional differences between the two, but it could well be that there are minor physical differences. And if these were old Leicas, hundreds of tweedy rich guys would be painstaking cataloging all those differences right now! ("Ah, yes, this is an R-D 1s variant XIV, which has anodized rather than enameled baseplate-attaching screws, thus adding 0.017 grams to the overall weight...")

Me, I dunno -- I jus' snap pitchers wit' mine...