Should I buy?..

[J. Borger]

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.

Jake ...... in al honesty i do not believe in that type of comparissons.
In fact i do not believe in staring at 100% crops at all!!
Pixel peeping is the worst that ever happened in the digital quality and digital vs. film discussion.
I could make you a side by side 100% crop of the Canon 1Ds vs the R-D1 ... and you will probably conclude the Canon is of better "quality". But this would be highly misleading.

Because the real proof is in a well processed image and a properly made print ................ that's difficult to show on screen.

I love the R-D1 because it produces far more filmlike results than any digital camera i ever used. Besides you can mount lenses which are among the best in the world and/or with a very unique character (which shows in the files).


If your sole interest is in ultrasharp - up to iso 3200 noise free pictures ... do yourself a favour and buy another, cheaper camera. In fact any 6-8 MP DSLR will do.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Sean Reid]

I suggest that anyone considering this camera concentrate on feedback from people who actually own it and have used it for some time. They are in the best position to talk about actual (vs. imagined or perceived) pros and cons. Opinions from people who don't have experience with the camera they're talking about are a dime a dozen on the web.

There isn't currently any camera to compare the R-D1 with save perhaps film rangefinders. I'll have some comparisons with the M7 and Ikon in an upcoming article. The natural comparison, which I'll do later this year, will be between the R-D1(s) and the Leica Digital M.
As a professional reviewer, however, I can say that the performance of the R-D1 sensor and electronics is similar to that of a Nikon D100 or D70. That's only part of the story, however, because the R-D1 uses a very different set of lenses from the Nikons and that has an important effect on how it's files look.

At the risk of sounding like I'm advertising, the long-term review I did of the R-D1 on my site consolidates a great deal of information (about the camera and how it's performed for many owners) in one place. I recommend it to anyone who is considering buying the Epson.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[jake77]

Jake ...... in al honesty i do not believe in that type of comparissons.
In fact i do not believe in staring at 100% crops at all!!
Pixel peeping is the worst that ever happened in the digital quality and digital vs. film discussion.
If your sole interest is in ultrasharp - up to iso 3200 noise free pictures ... do yourself a favour and buy another, cheaper camera. In fact any 6-8 MP DSLR will do.

Just my 2 cents.

If you need to compare this camera to film quality you more then answered my question and I will wait for the Leica to come out in digital. As far as cheap DSLRs... well I'm going to be nice and not answer that. If all I wanted was a cheap DSLR I think I would already own one, don't you?

I just can't understand all the resistance to someone posting a damned sample.

 

[LCT]

...I just can't understand all the resistance to someone posting a damned sample...

Ha ha! Good question indeed. 😉
I'm sure you'd get a lot of responses if the R-D1 was sharper than a $ 1,000 DSLR as 100% crops will inform you mainly on the sharpness of the camera.
But the problem is the R-D1 is not that sharp actually.
Even with a $ 2,000 lens, which means a more or less $ 5,000 combo, your results will *always* show less details than a D70 with a $ 100 lens like the Nikkor 50/1.8 thanks to its less aggressive anti-aliasing filter, explaining also some moiré problems BTW.
I don't use the Nikkor 50/1.8 anymore for lack of decent bokeh but i use a lot the 50/1.4D for my work and i can tell you that as far as sharpness is concerned the Nikon combo wins hands down against the R-D1 with the outstanding Summilux 50/1.4 asph.
So if sharpness is mainly what you need in a camera, forget the R-D1 Jake, it's not made for you.
Best,
LCT

 

[RML]

Lack of sharpness? Use USM in PS(P).

BTW, I haven't encountered any digital camera yet whose results don't need USM, either in-camera or in PS(P).

 

[Gid]

I just can't understand all the resistance to someone posting a damned sample.

I'm more than happy to send you a raw file if you want. The "resistance" to posting a sample might be that we don't have any. I, for one, don't shoot comparative shots with different cams. What's the point? There are plenty of images in my gallery and lots in others. I don't have a problem with the sharpness of the results. Also, you can't compare sharpness of any two cameras unless you know that the settings for both are the same, the lenses resolving power is the same etc, etc. Its a spurious exercise.

Buy or don't buy as you see fit.

 

[Gid]

Ha ha! Good question indeed. 😉
I'm sure you'd get a lot of responses if the R-D1 was sharper than a $ 1,000 DSLR as 100% crops will inform you mainly on the sharpness of the camera.
But the problem is the R-D1 is not that sharp actually.
Even with a $ 2,000 lens, which means a more or less $ 5,000 combo, your results will *always* show less details than a D70 with a $ 100 lens like the Nikkor 50/1.8 thanks to its less aggressive anti-aliasing filter, explaining also some moiré problems BTW.

LCT

Are you basing these comments on real experience of the RD-1? What moiré problems? I owned a D70 BTW and its a great camera, but I would not swap my RD-1 for a D70.

Bottom line, do you think we'd be using any cam/lens combination that wasn't sharp enough? Do you think people would be using it professionally if it took crap shots? I shoot 35mm and MF film and I'm very happy with the results from the RD-1.

 

[LCT]

...Lack of sharpness? Use USM in PS(P)....

I use RAW and USM with all my digital cameras and when i say that a D70 with a good lens is always sharper than a R-D1 with the very best Leica lenses i mean USMd RAW pics needless to say.
Best,
LCT

 

[LCT]

Are you basing these comments on real experience of the RD-1? What moiré problems? I owned a D70 BTW and its a great camera, but I would not swap my RD-1 for a D70....

Neither would i, the R-D1 is my favourite camera so far but facts are facts and compared to good DSLRs like the D70, the R-D1 is obviously not the sharpest camera.
BTW as you know it if you use both a D70 and a R-D1, as i do, there are no moire problems with the R-D1 but a lot of them with the Nikon.
Best,
LCT

 

[jake77]

Lack of sharpness? Use USM in PS(P).

BTW, I haven't encountered any digital camera yet whose results don't need USM, either in-camera or in PS(P).

I can name two. My 1Ds Mk II and the 1D Mk II I had before that. Both were used with default USM parameters meaning no in camera USM and for most images none is ever added in PS. Seeing results from the 200D and the 2Dx would leave me to believe both of these Nikons are capable of the same thing. That makes four.

I really want a rangefinder for the work I'm doing but I have no intention of sacrificing image quality to a great degree to get it. I'l wait till they get better.