Beniliam,
What's the translation of the Baudelaire quote? I'm afraid I don't have any Spanish.
All,
I appreciate the comments about the article. I am consciously trying to move the discussion of cameras and lenses in a different direction from where I've seen it headed for a long time. It's been the case in all my reviews since 2003, but I went furthest out on a limb with this latest article. It's likely that the vast majority of photographers will never read this fast lens review because they have no interest in rangefinders in general or the R-D1 in particular. That's too bad, I think, because much of the discussion in the review concerns ideas that are worth considering for all serious photographers. We're in a very small world here at RFF.
We're also in a unique position because we have so many different kinds of lenses to choose from for L and M mount cameras. In a sense, we've got access to many of the lenses that shaped much of the history of 20th century photography. And while there are, of course, differences between the look of digital and film captures, much of the look created by a specific lens on film is still there on digital. I have a real affection for the Canon 28/2.8, possibly in part because its drawing has been etched in my mind by years of looking long and hard at the work of Garry Winogrand. It's an iconic lens, even though (in objective terms) it's "flawed" in many respects. At this exact moment in time, I see the R-D1 as the most versatile small format digital camera one could work with (in terms of drawing). My close friend, photographer and critic Ben Lifson, began with digital capture using a Canon DSLR but he never warmed to it after 40 years of using Leicas. After using my R-D1 for a few minutes, he put all his Canon DSLR stuff up for sale and never looked back. Our mutual friend, Jim Rubino, sent Ben some early color work made with the R-D1 and a CV 35/2.5. Ben told me he just stared at those pictures on his monitor. "The color", he said, "it just keeps coming at you".
Regarding the E-1, my review is here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/e1-2nd.shtml I had to send my review E-1 back to Olympus this week, but it is my favorite DSLR. I would very much like to use it as my only DSLR for weddings and other small-format commercial work (carry 2-3 R-D1 bodies and 1 E-1 body). The 1Ds would then be used almost exclusively for architecture since, in my mind, it is really more of a medium format tripod camera. The E-1's big limitation for me, unfortunately, is the same now as when I bought (and then sold) one in late 2003. For my standards, it is not a good camera in low light. I'm not real happy with even the (nominal) ISO 800 files. I wrote the E-1 noise profiles that are on the Neat Image site but when I filter noise I'm really only willing to filter the chrominance noise. I don't like the waxy softness that comes from, even the best, filtering of luminance noise. Moreover, compared to the Canon DSLRs, the E-1 is actually a 1/2 stop less sensitive at higher ISOs. It's ISO 800 is really providing the same sensitivity as the Canon would be at about ISO 640. Add in the fact that the 14-54 is only as fast as F/2.8/F3.5 and the E-1 is really down 2 - 3 stops under a 10D or 20D. As much as I've tried to rationalize around that problem (because I love the E-1) there's no getting around the Canon's superiority in low light. The R-D1 can deliver a good ISO 1600 and use fast lenses, so it does great in that respect. If I had three R-D1 bodies, I could then use the E-1 only for ISO 100 - 400 photography (with or without flash) and it does beautifully for that kind of work. Oly has $$ probs. right now but I hope they get past it and deliver a successor to the E-1 with 8-10 MP and a Panasonic sensor that does beautifully at a true ISO 1600. The new F/2 Oly zooms will be an asset as well. If that ends up being the case, I'm going to sell off some Canon gear and switch to Oly for most DSLR work.
As to the question about how the two compare...If I were to answer with complete candor, I'd have to say that there's no comparison in my mind. The R-D1 has access to the finest (in my opinion) small-format lenses ever made (and so many variations of drawing to choose from). As such, in my mind, it's untouchable even with only 6MP. Clearly cameras like my 1Ds and the new 1Ds MkII provide higher resolution, etc. but I cannot make those cameras draw like an R-D1 no matter what lens is on them (including the Zeiss primes I use). That is also true of the Leica, of course, which, with its tiny 35mm negative, has always been somewhat of a sketching camera. After using the R-D1 with my favorite lenses, every other digital camera leaves me somewhat cold.
Cheers,
Sean
