Should I buy?..

[zanydave]

Currently using an M7 & will continue to do so but I have the chance of a new RD-1 for 1250 GBP (Approx 2185 USD) I have been intrigued by the threads on here such as faulty cameras etc but I have also noted the amount of users who are very happy with the product.

should I buy considering the anouncment of the RD-1S & the arrival of the Digital M?

 

[anaanda]

If the camera were around $1100, I would buy it...but why spend a lot of money on a product that needs improvement. Its all about the priceIf you want a good digital camera that is small and an excellent value get the Nikon D50...and then buy a great lens for it...... If you have money to burn then do it...

(By the way I don't own an RD-1 but really how good can it be at $2180...)

 

[anglophone1]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20694 should answer this or try sean reid's review at www.redreviews.com.
The price seems to be rightish, although maybe a bit motre than i paid for both of mine.
clive

 

[anglophone1]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20694 should answer this or try sean reid's review at www.redreviews.com.
The price seems to be rightish, although maybe a bit more than i paid for both of mine.
clive

Oops finger slipped. www.readreviews.com

Clive

 

[ch1]

If I had M-mount lenses I'd pay the difference and get the RD-1s. I would have to think it has refinements from the earlier model (including some fixed "bugs"?).

I wouldn't regret having it after the Digital M comes out - because it will always make a great backup body (or you can sell it) if you decide to go for the Leica later.

 

[Robin Harrison]

Oops finger slipped. www.readreviews.com

Clive

And again! Try www.reidreviews.com !

My R-D1 has been in my posession for less than a week, and already I can tell that all my other cameras are going to be gathering a lot of dust in the next few months/years.

The question I asked myself was: how much is my time worth? The time spent developing/scanning film may be enjoyable to some, but I'd rather be out there shooting. I find it liberating to have the freedom to shoot without the burden of effort after the moment.

It also feels right, works well, and is the only choice if you want a combination of digital and a rangefinder camera. Simple, really!

 

[anglophone1]

Another bottle of Sancerre please.......................
Told you you wouldn't regret it Rob.
Clive

 

[Jan Brittenson]

I just ordered one as well, can't wait to receive it. I do hope Epson makes the new 1s firmware available!

 

[RML]

If the camera were around $1100, I would buy it...but why spend a lot of money on a product that needs improvement. Its all about the priceIf you want a good digital camera that is small and an excellent value get the Nikon D50...and then buy a great lens for it...... If you have money to burn then do it...

(By the way I don't own an RD-1 but really how good can it be at $2180...)

Pardon my French but I'm getting just the teeniest bit of ticked off by this kind of remarks. "If" the R-D1 were cheaper people would buy it, and "how good can it be at $xxxx?". "Better buy BrandX at $yyy". If you can't or won't spend $2000/Eu2000 (or more) on a bl**dy camera than don't but don't critizise a camera that you haven't used for real just because it seems a tat expensive to you. For me, I would never shell out Eu2500 for a dSLR because they don't suit my shooting even though I've handled them but at least that's a valid reason for not buying. Just doubting a camera's abilities just because you don't have the dough for it, makes no sense. Stop telling me I wasted my money. I'm not telling you you're wasting your money with them crappy digital Nikons or them overrated M7s, am I?

 

[rvaubel]

I've had my R-D1 for about a month now and I can't put it down. I paid full freight even knowing about possible QA problems and I couldn't be happier. I have a slight vertical aliagnment problem that I never would have noticed except for reading this and other forums for months before finally making the plunge. Wish I would start have started enjoying myself earlier!
Rex

 

[LCT]

...If you want a good digital camera that is small and an excellent value get the Nikon D50...

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
I own both a D70 and a R-D1 and i can tell you that the D70 is an excellent DSLR for the price but comparing it with the best Nikon lenses to a R-D1 with Leica glass is somewhat ridiculous IMHO.
They don't play in the same league that's as simple like that.
Best,
LCT

 

[jake77]

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
I own both a D70 and a R-D1 and i can tell you that the D70 is an excellent DSLR for the price but comparing it with the best Nikon lenses to a R-D1 with Leica glass is somewhat ridiculous IMHO.
They don't play in the same league that's as simple like that.
Best,
LCT

Not questioning what you are saying, but is there any way you could post a 100% crop taken with both cameras under similar and controlled conditions? I would really like to buy one, but I need to see if it will suit my needs.

 

[AusDLK]

Pardon my French but I'm getting just the teeniest bit of ticked off by this kind of remarks. "If" the R-D1 were cheaper people would buy it, and "how good can it be at $xxxx?". "Better buy BrandX at $yyy". If you can't or won't spend $2000/Eu2000 (or more) on a bl**dy camera than don't but don't critizise a camera that you haven't used for real just because it seems a tat expensive to you. For me, I would never shell out Eu2500 for a dSLR because they don't suit my shooting even though I've handled them but at least that's a valid reason for not buying. Just doubting a camera's abilities just because you don't have the dough for it, makes no sense. Stop telling me I wasted my money. I'm not telling you you're wasting your money with them crappy digital Nikons or them overrated M7s, am I?

What he said!

 

[lightwriter]

...Its all about the price

That's funny. I thought it was all about the photography.

If buying an expensive camera helps someone take better pictures, get out more, be more interested..etc...etc Who are we to judge. I've owned two DSLR's. DSLR's have their place but it just didn't fit my style for most of my kind of shooting. I'm more of vintage kinda guy and the RF is perfect. There is no "better value" it's either what works and what does not. To think that the R-D1 costs twice as much as my last DSLR and has almost no "features". What?!!? All that money and no onboard flash?!?! Manual focus?!?! How am I suposed to take snapshots of me and my friends at our OC marathon party. :bang: The Leica lenses cost a few times more than the DSLR's and they don't even have image/shake stabilization nor auto focus, auto aperture - heck they aren't even zooms. This does seem like a poor value. I think that I'm going to get the new camera phone/PDA/MP3 player/video game/remote control/poached egg maker. Now a value like that will NO DOUBT IMPROVE MY PHOTOGRAPHY. 🙄

It's too bad that I really ENJOY the R-D1 (yes, I actually own one). It's too bad that I LIKE the pictures I TAKE with it. It's too bad that I really love the elegant simplicity of such a TOOL. It's just too bad.... 😀

 

[Doug]

The D70 isn't even a rangefinder camera; so it's apples vs oranges. Comparing the output quality is interesting but not the most relevant issue. In my opinion, as far as the equipment is concerned, it's all about the interface.

 

[Gid]

A new RD-1 for £1250? I paid £1999 for mine just over a year ago. Best £1999 I have ever spent. If you already have M or LTM glass its a no brainer if you want a digital workflow. I shoot film as well as digital and I can tell you that the digital workflow is a lot easier and quicker. I have A3 prints from cropped RD-1 shots that look superb IMHO.

I owned a Nikon D70. It was a great camera for the money, but, as has already been said it is not a rangefinder.

For the time being the RD-1 is unique. At £1250 it is a steal. Once you actually use it you'll understand why we all like it so much.

Regards

Gid

 

[jake77]

The D70 isn't even a rangefinder camera; so it's apples vs oranges. Comparing the output quality is interesting but not the most relevant issue. In my opinion, as far as the equipment is concerned, it's all about the interface.

Image quality IS the most relevant issue for me. The size, simplicity and other basic rangefinder features almost have me sold, but it is the final product that I worry about having never used one. Can ANYONE show me side by side crops from apples and oranges? That would be soo nice to see and would literally make the discussion for me.


I realize everyone who owns one says they are sharp, but the same is true of first time 300D owners and I beg to differ. At least with the 300D there are more then a few websites that do side by side comparisons of the images against other known cameras. Perhaps there is a reason no one has done the same with the R-D1, or perhaps I'm missing something.

 

[Jim Watts]

I paid the same as Gid in the U.K. again a little over a year ago and I don't regret it at all. £1250 is a very good S/H price, the cheapest S/H I have seen from a U.K. dealer is £1500 and this one sold very quickly. Just check for the known problems posted in threads here. Do you get any warranty?

I suppose it depends on if you are prepared to wait for a U.K price on the R-D1S. I would guess based on the reduced $ price that the U.K. price will be about £1400, which would make it a good buy over the S/H one for one with a full warranty. But this price is a guess and you may have to wait a long time before U.K dealers actually have them to sell. Robert White is still advertising the R-D1 at £1999 inc Vat.

I have saved well over £600 in film & processing costs in a year. 🙂

Jim

 

[Jan Brittenson]

I bought mine from shphoto.de, priced 1896 EUR. (About USD 2175, or 1310 GBP.) Shipping was, I believe 40 EUR, via UPS insured. I ordered it yesterday, and UPS predicts delivery tomorrow (San Francisco). Oh, they do want a 3% CC surcharge, but that was fine with me, they don't charge it for bank transfers. But BT's are a PITA from here. This is for a new unit, not used.

 

[Gid]

Image quality IS the most relevant issue for me. The size, simplicity and other basic rangefinder features almost have me sold, but it is the final product that I worry about having never used one. Can ANYONE show me side by side crops from apples and oranges? That would be soo nice to see and would literally make the discussion for me.


I realize everyone who owns one says they are sharp, but the same is true of first time 300D owners and I beg to differ. At least with the 300D there are more then a few websites that do side by side comparisons of the images against other known cameras. Perhaps there is a reason no one has done the same with the R-D1, or perhaps I'm missing something.

If image quality is your issue, then I suggest you shoot MF or LF. Any specific image from the RD-1 will result from a combination of sensor, lens, focusing ability of operator, lighting conditions etc, etc. There is no other camera like this, so there is nothing to compare it with. There's enough evidence on the web about the real life performance of the camera. As has already been mentioned, Sean Reid did extensive lens tests using the RD-1 and you can see differences in sharpness etc in his comparative shots, but the differences are a function of the lenses used.

Nobody has tried to make claims for the RD-1 that cannot be substantiated. On this site we have been open about the camera's issues. I cannot remember any thread complaining about the image quality from this camera. If that is not good enough for you, then I suggest you don't buy the camera. Too much time is wasted on the minutiae of pixels, sensor size, MTF charts and not enough on the final image. Ultimately, this camera's limitations will be its operator.