Rumors about the Epson R-D2?

Nikon D200 & R-D2

Nikon D200 & R-D2

I'm surprised no one has posted about this yet. Given the fact that the R-D1 utilizes the same chipset as the D70, one has to imagine that the R-D2 will utilize the same 10megapixel chip as the recently announced D200.

No full frame sensor though.. If there has to be a multiplier, I would choose 1.5x over 1.33. In my mind, it results in more 'normal' focal lengths. 35mm becomes 52mm, which is what the leica 50mm's are anyways, and the 50mm becomes a 75mm. Having both film & the r-d1 gives me a 3 lense system, with two bodies. Best of both worlds..
 
Interesting thought, PaulIN. I wish that is the case. The sensor D200 sensor looks interesting, and it is CCD. I really don't want a rangefinder with a CMOS smooth look.
 
Sometimes I wonder if Nikon might bust loose and make a digital range finder. Didn't they bring back a rangefinder (SP) a few years back. They went ahead with the F6 in what seems to me about a as useful as having the USS Constitution, sails and all, still in the Navy.

To me the crop is what kills the d-RF. You not only need fast wides, you need them even faster if I am correct to get the same DOF. To replace a 35/2 you don't just need a 24/2 you need something faster if you want as shallow of depth of field.

What is it about 35mm FF that seems to be such a sweet spot optically? You can get good performance, with fairly small lenses, and good depth control. Is it just we've spent the last 80 years perfecting the lenses and bodies? When the first 35mm cameras came out, did all the MF users bemoan the lack of fast, wide lenses?

I really don't see a sub $1500 d-RF till after Nikon and Canon have beaten each other to a pulp and the technology is taken to the end point where new generations of cameras aren't that much different.

I plan on keeping my 20D for tele work, a FF with my 17-40 for wide angle and a d-RF for mid range and travel work. Hopefully I'll have it all by 2010.

Mark
 
perfect!

perfect!

Marc Jutras said:
Translation:

Indeed, we have already started working on the next one. We don't have a release date yet but we can say that if we, at Epson, are ending the production of compact digicams, we are definitely going for the digital rangefinder market.
Click to expand...


You totally respect the meaning of the sentences.

Bravo! (P. from Paris)
 
anselwannab said:
What is it about 35mm FF that seems to be such a sweet spot optically? You can get good performance, with fairly small lenses, and good depth control. Is it just we've spent the last 80 years perfecting the lenses and bodies?
Click to expand...

You answered your own question. There's nothing especially "sweet" about the 24x36mm format. Oskar Barnack chose it out of convenience, and we've been stuck with it ever since, awkward proportions and all. The fact that there are a lot of good lenses available in this format is simply a product of market dominance. It's exactly the same reason that there's a lot of good software available for the Windows platform, even though the underlying Windows architecture is buggy, inherently insecure crap.

Cinematographers have been working just as long with their 35mm format as we have with ours, and they've accumulated a similar (maybe even greater) inventory of well-developed lens designs with desirable properties -- all covering a smaller format than what we insist is "full frame."

There's no technical reason the same couldn't be done with smaller-format digital imagers; it's purely habit that causes 35mm photographers to insist that 24x36 is "better," rather than conceding that they want it simply because it's more convenient for them to keep working the way they're used to. I respect the second position; the first seems a bit stubborn.
 
That's an impressive-looking article, but I'm not sure the author is really as expert as he wants us to think. (Cinematographers don't seem to experience MTFs declining to zero with their "small-format" sensors... if they did, what are people paying all that money to see on the 40-foot screen at your local multiplex?)

In particular, I question whether lens MTF translates into final picture quality in quite the same way for digital images as it does for film images. (Even for the comparatively well-understood medium of film, this isn't nearly as cut-and-dried as one might think; that's why Kodak had to develop the 'subjective quality factor' system used by Pop Photo. SQF was derived from correlating MTF with picture evaluations made by actual human viewers. To my knowledge no one has performed a similar study with images that originated on digital sensors.)

When engineering microchips, the general rule is that smaller is better -- faster response time, less surface area to pick up electrical noise, etc. This leads me to suspect that there's a "sweet spot" for digital imager size that strikes the best balance between the optical benefits of larger imager sizes (which I suspect have more to do with the demands of microlenses than anything else) and the electronic benefits of smaller imager sizes.

Nikon is on record (IIIRC) as saying they've determined that this sweet spot is around the APS-size sensor, and that's why they've standardized all their DSLRs on this sensor size -- even though I'm sure they could make some money by gratifying photographers' 24x36mm prejudices and bringing out a hyper-expensive "full-frame" DSLR.
 
Nemo said:
No, I think they should use the Zeiss Ikon as a base for the R-D2. A larger base for the rangefinder and a better finder is necessary.
Click to expand...

If they do this, it would have to be a Zeiss branded camera, because the design doesn't belong to Cosina.
 
The R-d1 is for Epson important to feed their corporate image ....... so the brandname is crucial for them. THat's the only reason for Epson to make a camera like the R-D1.
I'm convinced the sales of the curent R-D1 would have been a lot higher if it had a brandname like Zeiss or Voigtlaender in the first place. But what would be the gain for Epson.... this camera is not about giant profits.
 
You are right Borger.
Anyway, I think the worse point of the R-D1 is the price.
Actually, an update of the specifications would be welcome too.
 
jlw said:
Nikon is on record (IIIRC) as saying they've determined that this sweet spot is around the APS-size sensor, and that's why they've standardized all their DSLRs on this sensor size -- even though I'm sure they could make some money by gratifying photographers' 24x36mm prejudices and bringing out a hyper-expensive "full-frame" DSLR.
Click to expand...

While I agree with most of your comment, jlw, I can't help thinking that Nikon's idea of a 'sweet spot' for sensor size is largely determined by the biggest size of chip they can economically purchase in bulk.

You're right to say that MTF isn't the whole story - a big part is the signal to noise ratio, which is reduced in smaller chips owing to noise in the shadows, reducing the usable dynamic range.

I find it interesting that people debate the DR of digital compared to film. While it's true that film can show a larger DR than digital, especially with color neg, in reality most pros shoot transparency (at least I always did) and the DR is controlled not by the film, but by using lighting to control contrast. Ironically, amateurs tend to use color neg, so they have the worst impression of digital, whereas many pros are happy with the DR of digital because it's better than the film they're used to.

So for me, the larger sensors win more because of lower noise than because of native resolution.

Regarding the comparison to movies, you can get away with much worse image quality in a moving image than you can with a still print. Also, movie cameramen tend to use wider apertures than sill photographers, so they don't suffer from the effects of diffraction which limit the use of small apertures with small sensors. I guess this effect would be worse with digital than film because of the need for anti-aliasing in the digital image, which puts a limit on the possible resolution.
 
But is it more or less likely to not appear next February? 🙂

Seriously, I have heard no convincing rumours to that effect. AFAICT Epson have no intention of making another RF.

Ian
 
I think if the RD2 was on the horizon then we would have seen a price decrease on Epson's site for the remaining RD-1 s

There have been rumors about a successor of the D200 by this summer and if you have noticed the prices for that have been dropping steadily

(for instance its 1299.97 on Amazon right now USA warranty)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
Will the long-anticipated Leica M11-V with built-in EVF arrive in 2025? Probably, but it’s taking longer than expected and rumors are still flying!
2 3
Replies
50
Views
5K
Freakscene
Freakscene
J
  • Article Article
Shooting with the half-frame Olympus Pen D3: Last of the “viewfinder Pens,” it delivers fun plus superb performance
Replies
8
Views
1K
DGS
D
PatrickT
How long do we think digital Leica M cameras will last?
4 5 6
Replies
108
Views
5K
boojum
boojum
A
Epson R-D1 screen death
Replies
15
Views
2K
ddutchison2
ddutchison2
bluestar01
Had a scare with my R-D1S shutter. Should I be worried?
Replies
8
Views
2K
analoged
analoged
Back
Top Bottom