Sure are a lot of R-D1"s for sale lately

+1 yanidel, to everything you've been saying.

i find it amusing that leicasniper is so obsessed with image quality that he seems to consider the R-D1 primitive?

the little thing he seems to forget is that a great photographer can get an amazing image out of a crappy camera. the same cannot be said in reverse.
 
So, someone explain this to me:

GIVEN:

1) You like shooting with a digital RF
2) You have one Epson R-D1S; you do not have an M8
3) You are trying to sell it now in anticipation of what might be announced later this year (and assuming you do NOT have insider info)

QUESTION: If you sell that R-D1S now, that means you do NOT have a DRF to shoot with between now and if/when that new DRF comes out. So, in the meantime, you're shooting film or a DSLR or something else (nothing wrong with that). So, is not having a DRF for a few months worth the decision to sell it now?

I myself expect to sell any camera gear for less than what I paid. But the joy I got in the time that I owned such equipment is worth the depreciated value.

Just my $0.02 (which we know is worth less today than it was 6 months ago).
 
Pitxu said:
He is not obsessed with IQ, neither does he consider the R-D1 primitive.

He just likes to argue.

Take a look in the gallery. Today 'sniper has uploaded a sublime image "Genesis2". Yesterday also, a wonderful "Genesis".

These photos could have been taken with ANY camera, film or digital, (with adequate focal length).
Absolutely no need for 12MP nor $3000 lenses.

Those are two great images leicasniper, so why do you argue against yourself?
Click to expand...
I have noticed he likes to argue, but it is interesting and the goal of a forum. I am sure there is a bit of playing devil's advocate in all of that too.
I am currently reading/looking at the latest book on R. Capa which is amazing by the way (>900 pictures). The biggest print is probably a A4 equivalent. So let put him to a test : prove that a let's say D3 or M8 shot shows way better than a RD1 on a 10x15. 99% of people that will look at pictures of R. Capa will look at them in books and around that size.
My own test of the M8 and RD1 (a short one though) showed that the lens is the difference at these sizes, not the camera. And the 800-1600 shots were better on the RD1 noise wise, not bad for a crappy camera .... ;)
Ah finally, Capa used mostly a Contax (and apparently died with it), not the best at the time ...
 
leicasniper said:
Pitxu, my point only is to wonder why a great photographer would deliberately choose a crappy camera. Sure, he might be able to get a great photo, but I'm not aware of a "great photo from crappy camera" award. ;)
Click to expand...

because it is the photographer that is great - not the camera.
 
leicasniper said:
Pitxu, my point only is to wonder why a great photographer would deliberately choose a crappy camera. Sure, he might be able to get a great photo, but I'm not aware of a "great photo from crappy camera" award. ;)
Click to expand...
Well, the world press awards gave the top reward to a picture that really did not stand out IQ wise ... I am refering to the british soldier in the trenches.
As an example a French photographer called Patrick Taberna used a M6 for its photography and when people would learn about it, they would say : "No wonder your pictures look so good". So he bought a Lubitel and now shoots exclusively with it. I personnally appreciate a lot his work made with the crappiest USSR camera ... have a look at www.patricktaberna.com
Prices of his pictures (he prints 10 samples of each) start at $1000 and go up as the samples get sold. So here you have an artistic workflow where he uses the crappiest tool to get out the most of it.
 
leicasniper said:
I don't disagree with you at all that 10x15 photos printed in a book (with the possible exception of photogravure) pretty much equalizes cameras. As does 72dpi images on the web. And if that's your goal, then it certainly makes no sense to buy $5,000 cameras and $3,000 lenses. But I routinely print 17x22 inches on my Epson 3800 and I can tell you the quality of the equipment does make a difference at that size.
Click to expand...
I think nobody will deny it, but you target 1% of the audience while 99% of pictures and photographers will not be use any further than a computer or A4 prints eventually.
 
I just recieved my Rd1 from Hong kong,$1617.CDN. my 28/1.9 came the same day.
I wanted one since they came out an since I lost my M2 in a bad deal in Vancouver, B.C.
I still have my Leica dark room an a bunch of R-5s an Contax.
Went to digit when my wife fell invalid an didn't have time for much developing etc.
But now with the Rd1 things are nice again.
I have a Dig 1 & a Dig 3 which I like but not the same as the Rd1.
Started photoing in 1957 with a Ziess guess at everything shooter.
Geordi
 
leicasniper said:
I think RFF is the only place I've ever read that image quality is not the number one criteria. It's always been mine. Perhaps that's why I have trouble understanding the devotion to old digital cameras.
Click to expand...


Perhaps its because you have different priorities?


Perhaps it is that some of us care about the concept, content, and quality of the work itself rather than slight and banal differences between the image quality of a 6mp ccd camera and a 10mp ccd camera.


Perhaps some of us would rather be photographing and taking great photographs rather than spending time worrying about how crappy a camera we use.

Of course, who am I to speak. I'm just someone using a crappy camera. *gasp*

Guess I should stop photographing! OH NO. OH MY.


Perhaps I should refer to Alex Majoli and his work with point and shoot digital cameras to produce amazing photojournalism work for the likes of Magnum and Nat. Geo?

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844


Perhaps you have just been schooled? Yeah. I think so. ;)
 
Last edited:
RD-1s are still holding their value well in the Japanese market.
This one is already up to 159,000 yen (approx. US$1,463) on
the Yahoo Japan auctions (equivalent of Ebay here) with two days to go.
 
Hi leicasniper,

I really don't understand what this "discussion" is about. Why do you have to prove that R-D1 users are all wrong by choosing the wrong tool?
 
leicasniper said:
I've never said they are using the wrong tool. The size of the hammer depends on the gauge of the nail.
Click to expand...

You also use classic debate structures in your resoning LEICASNIPER; unfortunately, they are designed to prolong and encircle an argument, not determine an exit path. We can keep going on this forever.:D

For me, if I get a photo out of a shoot I really like, I am satisfied; if I had a smile everytime I held the camera, I am also fulfilled;
...The RD1 makes me smile....internally for the most part...:)
 
leicasniper said:
Here's the exit path. Use whatever camera makes you happy. I express my opinion like everyone else here. But who cares what my opinion of of the RD-1 is?

Folks seem to personalize their camera choices to the point that saying something negative about a camera is interpreted as a personal attack. RF's more than SLR's, for some reason.
Click to expand...

LOL! you do make me smile, leicasniper!

help me out here, as you still haven't answered my question:

which camera(s) do you currently use?
 
Similarly, David Burnett used a Holga for some of his coverage of the 2000 election:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/010706.htm

So, yes, occasionally a great photographer will deliberately use a crappy camera.

yanidel said:
Well, the world press awards gave the top reward to a picture that really did not stand out IQ wise ... I am refering to the british soldier in the trenches.
As an example a French photographer called Patrick Taberna used a M6 for its photography and when people would learn about it, they would say : "No wonder your pictures look so good". So he bought a Lubitel and now shoots exclusively with it. I personnally appreciate a lot his work made with the crappiest USSR camera ... have a look at www.patricktaberna.com
Prices of his pictures (he prints 10 samples of each) start at $1000 and go up as the samples get sold. So here you have an artistic workflow where he uses the crappiest tool to get out the most of it.
Click to expand...
 
leicasniper said:
Here's the exit path. Use whatever camera makes you happy. I express my opinion like everyone else here. But who cares what my opinion of of the RD-1 is?

Folks seem to personalize their camera choices to the point that saying something negative about a camera is interpreted as a personal attack. RF's more than SLR's, for some reason.
Click to expand...


aahh there we go again..ok: Your points were mainly based on the (in-)ability of the RD1 to capture an image compared to what else is available today. The counter argument for the most part has been that that comparison may be irrelevant. Personal feelings have not entered this equation.

Countering one's views on a subject is not a defense against a personal attack. I neither designed nor payed for the production of the RD1. It holds no sentimental value to me other than it is a good tool, and I do not take the model's criticism personally. If the new DIKON or M9 is better, my RD1 may be the nicest shelf ornament I have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom