Share your Epson R-D1(s,x) photos

2qs9bpj.jpg


VC Nokton 40mm, I think I am in love with this lens (and with the subject too I am afraid :p).

Instead, I admittedly have to say that, despite it's fame (on a "lens family basis" at least), I am not convinced about the 25mm Zeiss biogon I have... and I think I am going to sell it! (too "clinical" and "cold", imho).
 
matpar said:
VC Nokton 40mm, I think I am in love with this lens (and with the subject too I am afraid :p).

Instead, I admittedly have to say that, despite it's fame (on a "lens family basis" at least), I am not convinced about the 25mm Zeiss biogon I have... and I think I am going to sell it! (too "clinical" and "cold", imho).
Click to expand...

I agree with your sentiment about the Zeiss lens. All the modern Zeiss lenses I've tried all seem to be striving for max. sharpness, leaving 'character' behind.
 
Bought, loved and sold two and regretted each time so when I got my third camera, I vowed not to sell ever. That said, it's showing its age and amount of use. The screen won't reliably flip so I leave it out, that's about the only actual problem but I got to thinking and decided to get an x, as they are a bit newer. Now I have two and won't sell either of them ever.

med_U26501I1501726797.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Looking at Wikipedia, they mention that the RD 1 uses the same sensor at the Pentax *ist D and Nikon 100. I once owned a Nikon D 100 (tried digital, didn't like it, went back to film) and while nice, the B&W conversions looked nothing like the RD 1 shots. Even allowing for different lenses and processing, I wonder why the RD 1 does so much better w/ B&W? Firmware? Rangefinder lenses are usually a little sharper than those on an SLR, but it's not that. The photos just look more like traditional film, whereas the Nikon didn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom