Should I move into digital RF with RD-1

[bluelight]

Hello,

I have been shooting EOS and enjoyed the speed and fast long telephoto lenses.

However, I feel that I am loosing the real enjoyment of taking pictures - to obeserve and capture what sparkles in your mind from your feelings.

Anyways, I am pondering either getting a EOS 35/1.4 for photojournalistic work or getting a RF camera. I am not considering film as the development/scanning costs will be too high as I am still learning.

Could you help me to understand what I can get from RD-1 ( or even a file RF ) and what would be a good second hand kit that I should start with.

Thanks,

Ed

 

[RichC]

You haven't given much away about your experience or equipment - more info pls! For example, how experienced are you, have you used prime lenses much and what do you like to photograph?

 

[szekiat]

off hand, i'd say that you're not going to lose much if u use the 35 1.4 on a full frame body as it is every bit as good as what the top leica 35s can offer. I personally shoot both SLR and RF and use RF mainly for documenting everyday life where i can shoot casually and the RF forms a good talking point. If i were to consider proper photojournalism, especially digitally, i'd go with the 1dmk3 or 1dsmk2 as they really come from the school of hard knocks. I'd sooner drop them then my M7 or M2 as they're more likely to survive. Face it, RFs are delicate tools compared to the pro DSLRs. What would you gain, a smaller camera, what would you lose, image quality, especially at high ISO. Having compared the M8 files (used one briefly on loan) with my 1dmk2, I'd go for the 1dmk2 everyday regardless of what size you print. You don't have to take my word for it, just try it yourself at a local leica day.

 

[bluelight]

Thanks for the responses. I have left photography a long time after school and just pick up my first Digital SLR two years ago for an event assignment. Since then, I have been hooked and invested in gear on Canon.

I enjoyed documentary tape shoot and when I shot in an Italian district in Toronto during last year's World Cup witb a 1DII, I got asked all the time if I was a reporter.

Hold a big Pro DSLR sometimes can bring me opportunities ( some people like to be on press) but I was asked to delete pictures from a Mom not wanting her kids to be shot byb strangers.

I have also been into MF lenses and my Nikon 105/2.8 also shines ( although it is really tough to focus on 30D).

That said, using a Digital RF for me is more about the experience of taking street/documentary photos and be able to be discreet.

On the other hand. it is also a major investment and I could use it for enhance my EOS gear.....

Ed

 

[bellyface]

I suggest buying a rangefinder, like a bessa R and messing with it, or heck, even those old FSU's, get the hang of the rangefinder way of life, trust me it will either make you or break you. I have a broni rangefinder so a step to a bessa R3 then R-D1 was a smooth one. One thing nice on the R-D1 is the 1:1 VF, keep both eyes open when you focus... very nice.

As for low light lenses, there are a few out there. My nokton MC 40 1.4 has been good to me, and I've been kicking around a 35 1.2, but really, it's nice. There are other alternatives, but the CV 40 is cheap compared to the leicas, although not as good, mind you, but still... great value 😉

 

[bluelight]

Thanks,


So a starter RF may work out. My concern is that I have not shot film for years and I am just nervous.....

 

[sirius]

With a one-hour developer near where you live, using film is pretty smooth work-flow these days. They can often put it on CD or upload them to a server for you. Film has a nice quality to it, there is an otherness to it---if that make any sense. Digital is more what your eyes see in the way that everything is smooth and silky. The costs of film and processing can add up...

 

[MartinL]

Thanks,


So a starter RF may work out. My concern is that I have not shot film for years and I am just nervous.....

My experience has been close enough to comment here.

I was ready to be persuaded by film and gave it some thought. My trial period (maybe 20 rolls) was all done through a mail-away processer (Snapfish). Easy and cheap. I happen to already have a fine film scanner to digitalize the negatives (sure helped to get the processor's prints for a quality baseline). I used mostly my Ebay purchased Canon and Yashica fixed lens cameras. IMO, you can get a pretty decent sense for RF and film for an initial cost of couple of hundred, including an OK scanner that will introduce you to scanning software and workflow.

Keep in mind also that you can probably recoup much of the camera cost if you want to give them up. Keep in mind also that what I'm recommending (this introductory trial) did not come even close to the performance of my high-end DSLR and lenses for my work purposes. But that wasn't the point.

End of my story (this chapter, at least) was that I got an M8 and thoroughly enjoy it, much preferring to use it over my Canon 1DII and glass. The "experiment" gave me the confidence to make the RF leap and that I wouldn't feel foolish in spending many thousands only to decide I didn't much like RF. I still use the EOS for nearly all work-related shots.

Martin

 

[bluelight]

Thanks Martin,

I am going wait for some good starter setup in the buy & sell forum and try it out. At least, I can find developer that can also provide scanning. I don't think I can afford to the "wet" workflow. 🙂-)

 

[jjcha]

I don't see the point to starting with film if you're committed to digital.

Buy a used R-D1. Shoot a bunch of shots. If rangefinders aren't for you, sell it. The value won't depreciate that much, so consider the hundred bux or so (I'd imagine that's all you'd lose, as well as shipping & handling) the cost of your trial or a rental if you will. If a digital rangefinder is for you, you've got a great system already or you can sell and "upgrade" to an M8.

But if you think you'll enjoy film, well, by all means go with film. Just if your end result is going to be digital, then tiven the resale on a used R-D1, it seems like a no brainer to me.

Best regards,

-Jason

 

[rvaubel]

Don't start with film. Rangefinders really benefit from the digital workflow. For instance the fact that the framelines of the M8 (or any rangefinder) don't exactly correspond to the image captured by the sensor, is a problem that a little chimping can bring to heel. In fact parrallax error and many other rangefinder *problems* are solved by learning the camera via chimping. A couple of hours with a digital rangefinder is worth a hundred rolls of film in accelersating the learning curve.

Going with film is just going to mire you down with scanning and all the other details of film photography. But mostly it is the time between the shot you take vs the shot you see that makes learning a film rangefinder so slow.

I'm not knocking film. I still have a full wet darkroom. But I have been saying that now for a year. Thats the last time I exposed a roll of film. 😱


By the way that's why I think digital may save the rangefinder. It's so much easier to learn the idiocentricies of the framing. When it is all said and done you have a camera that is not much bigger than a point and shoot with the file quality of a 5D.

Rex

 

[bluelight]

Thanks Jason and Rex.

I can understand your point as I gave up photography for a long time partially because the long time required to develop the skill due to processing and cycles and the lack of dark room training.

Ever since I got my DSLR, I enjoy the freedom of learning and experimenting at my own pace and I can afford to try any combination of framing and exposure without having to first of all record the shooting parameters and worrying about the development costs.

I would defintely want to explore DRF for street photograhpy but my problem is to find a copy of RD-1 ( not M8 at this moment ) at an affordable price.

The same amount of dollar can almost get me a used 5D of some amazing fast primes.

I have been using MF lenses on my 30D and I have no problem in cranking the focusing ring.

Cheers,

Ed

 

[bellyface]

just get an R-D1. Good point Rex made, it's digital, whats the waste? Personally, for me, film on RF is real nice, smooth. I experiment alot as well, with cross processing, etc, so I don't mind it really. One thing though, even if you think you should, not sell your DSLR, keep it, cause I guarantee you will reach for it for certain things, things you can't usually have on an RF system. I have 2 Dslrs, I have 2 DSLRs, 4 35mm SLRs, pentax 67, a bessa R3 and R-D1 and my broni, and each one has a specific function, trait that I just can't do without... I love my gear, it gives me great pleasure 😀 😀

 

[chrisso]

I don't see the point to starting with film if you're committed to digital.

Me neither.
I don't think RF is that steep a learning curve either.
I also think it's more fun than DSLR.
I'm totally amateur, but bought an M6 to document a music tour I was on.
Just by sheer luck and chance i took a couple of images that were as good (IMHO) as the pro's we had with us.
Then I was hooked!
(Not that I've taken many decent shots since)
Anyway, as cameras go, the RD1 (or 1s) can be reasonably priced. So too some of the available lenses.
I say "go for it".

 

[drolo61]

Just hopped on board again with RF. Used to shoot as an amateur only Nikon SLR and M6 couple of years ago. Moved into digital for some semi-pro work for my wifes company shooting kids for catalouges. We could have never afforded that exercise with film, so I went digital, relcutantly (at first) climbing up the Canon ladder (300D, 10D, 5D). Image qualitiy is where I need it now. Just recently bought a used R-D1 (as I still had some glass for it) and love it already after just a couple of shots. You need to focus (that brings you back to considering what you will be actually capturing) and the akward rewinding-the-shutter slows you down a lot (which is good). I'd say get one and try it, very most likely you will enjoy it as well. Hiw else come, taht getting a used digital camera from early 2005 still costs you about 40% of the launch price? Don't worry too much about rangefinder missalignment (as I did). I got a camera with perfectly aligned rangefinder, but now I do the missfocussing (as I used to do in my early M6 days). It fun, but you need to go wide. I cirrently use a 35mm as my longest lens, but as soon as I have enough light, 15mm rocks. It is tack sharp, gives you amazing new "insights", but dare not to come too close to the nose of your loved ones ;-))

Happy shooting anyway!

Cheers
Olaf

PS: High ISO perfromance is no where close to my 5D, but the image character is just like the early high ISO films I had at hand

 

[RichC]

Ed

I first became interested in photography 3 years ago, and bought a Canon 10D - like you, I wasn't interested in film. After a couple of years, I wanted a camera that was less intrusive (regarding both its use and its perception by others). I wanted (and still do!) a camera like a 1980s Olympus OM or a Nikon F but with a digital sensor, but no one makes such a thing (nor is likey to). The closest to my ideal is the R-D1 - which would be perfect IMHO if had an SLR-type viewfinder and a 10 MP sensor. (I live with the rangefinder view, but even after 2 years as my only camera, I still find it limiting compared with an SLR: e.g. just at the weekend I lost some shots as the camera lens was obstructed by a twig that wasn't in the viewfinder!)

Anyway, I thought about the R-D1, and what helped a lot with my decision was to buy a Canon 35/2 lens (both decent and cheap!), and spending a few weeks using only this lens plus a 50/1.8 on my 10D, to see how I liked being restricted to prime lenses of focal lengths I'd most likely use with an R-D1 - having only used zooms (24-85mm, 70-300mm), I was worried about feeling too constrained. In the event, having, usually, only one fixed focal length lens felt, suprisingly, very liberating - with simpler equipment I felt free to concentrate on what was going on around me, e.g. I soon learnt what would fit into the 35mm view, and framed shots in my head rather than in the camera (e.g. by zooming the lens).

So, my advice, if you haven't done so, would be to buy a 35/2 lens for your Canon, and go out with only that lens for a few weeks. If you enjoy that, seriously consider going down the R-D1 route.

I had to sell my Canon 10D kit to buy the R-D1, so the latter is the only camera I use.

If you'd like to know more about my experience in deciding on the R-D1, see my website (link in my signature).

 

[bluelight]

Thanks for all the suggestions pal.

I share similar feelings in what I can get out of a RF, particularly a digital one. I used to fire 8 frames a seconds just in fear that I may miss something and the almost zero costs on digital has taken away the thinking of why, what and how of capturing a moment.

The shutter clocking can actually help to slow down and think. Rather than blasting through, I can observe more on the environment and find better point of interests.

I am an amature but I need to make sure I enjoy the process. A RD seems to provide that opportunity and 6 Mega pixels should be fine unless I am selling my pcitures.

Thanks again for the input.

Ed

 

[RichC]

6 Mega pixels should be fine unless I am selling my pcitures

Probably fine even then - I've printed four recently on A3 Super paper that are currently in an exhibition and for sale, a couple of which, owing to cropping, are probably only equivalent to 4 MP!

Granted I had to be very careful processing the photos in the exhibition, I'm very pleased with how they came out, especially considering they're exhibited next to some A3 Super prints that were taken by a colleague using a full-frame Canon 5D!

(Tip: I found that, for my tastes, at A3 Super size, 6 MP images start to look a bit "plastic", owing to areas of unbroken colour. I corrected this by resampling images to A3 Super size (i.e. so I can print them at 100%), then adding digital grain using the file from here: http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/How_to/n_Digital_BW/a_Digital_Black_and_White.html?page=5. This grain file was placed as a new layer, using Overlay for the layer type, and the transparency dialled down to 40%. I may tweak this layer, adjusting transparency or contrast, changing the layer type, etc. The grain should be barely visible, just enough to add texture and create some "tooth" for visual interest.)