kds315
www.macrolenses.de
Here some info which was posted from Stephen Gandy about the R-D1 future, the M8 and other things:
I can assure you one and all that Mr. K is planning to release some new
and exciting Voigtlander 35mm rangefinder products in the coming year,
besides the new Bessa 4's in April. Voigtlander campers will be
happy. Sorry folks, I can't say more.
And no, I am not implying a new Voigtlander digital M camera.
For those who afford it, and who can justify its price, I think the
Leica M8 is likely to remain the best digital M choice for one to two
years ---by default. Epson is hurrying for the exits with the RD1.
The parts and repair situation is likely to only get worse, not better.
That leaves the M8 with its better image quality, and no other
competitors. Events may prove me wrong, but I expect to see a M8 Mark
II before I see a digital Voigtlander or Zeiss M camera. This digital
M take is not inside info, just my personal opinion. That effectively
leaves digital M wanabees either with a considerable M8 investment
(camera, IR filters), taking durability bets with the RD1, or a film
camera and film scanner. What is the best solution? Mileage varies, it
is whatever YOU decide.
Stephen
I can assure you one and all that Mr. K is planning to release some new
and exciting Voigtlander 35mm rangefinder products in the coming year,
besides the new Bessa 4's in April. Voigtlander campers will be
happy. Sorry folks, I can't say more.
And no, I am not implying a new Voigtlander digital M camera.
For those who afford it, and who can justify its price, I think the
Leica M8 is likely to remain the best digital M choice for one to two
years ---by default. Epson is hurrying for the exits with the RD1.
The parts and repair situation is likely to only get worse, not better.
That leaves the M8 with its better image quality, and no other
competitors. Events may prove me wrong, but I expect to see a M8 Mark
II before I see a digital Voigtlander or Zeiss M camera. This digital
M take is not inside info, just my personal opinion. That effectively
leaves digital M wanabees either with a considerable M8 investment
(camera, IR filters), taking durability bets with the RD1, or a film
camera and film scanner. What is the best solution? Mileage varies, it
is whatever YOU decide.
Stephen
Sailor Ted
Well-known
The third time's a charm!
The third time's a charm!
He also said:
I don’t understand why this deserves another thread however… I do not agree with his conclusion regarding a future Zeiss DRF and believe Zeiss has learned volumes from both the R-D1 and M8. I feel fairly certain we will see something from them next year but this too is just my opinion.
The third time's a charm!
He also said:
CameraQuest said:
I don’t understand why this deserves another thread however… I do not agree with his conclusion regarding a future Zeiss DRF and believe Zeiss has learned volumes from both the R-D1 and M8. I feel fairly certain we will see something from them next year but this too is just my opinion.
Last edited:
tmessenger
Established
I find it odd that everyone claims Epson has no interest in the R-D1 and is bowing out. Why did they then release the R-D1s why not just discount the R-D1 sell it out and be done with it? The R-D1s seams to have different finder adjustment screws and a new name on the case, is this an old R-D1 that they reworked or another run of cameras?
Tim
Tim
VinceC
Veteran
Tim,
I believe the R-D1s simply tweaked some existing unsold camera stock. It was not a new run of cameras.
I believe the R-D1s simply tweaked some existing unsold camera stock. It was not a new run of cameras.
ghost
Well-known
don't use your r-d1. it will eventually become a highly prized collector's item.
tmessenger
Established
VinceC said:
Why would a company go to the cost of disassembeling a camera, change the finder, repaint the front plate and re-package it just because of a software update? Why not just discount the camera release the software update sell it out and be done with it. Just dosen't make any sense to me.
Ben Z
Veteran
I hate to sound cynical but what I've been observing since the M8 came out is that an amazing number of people will put up with whatever nonsense is necessary to have a genuine Leica. No matter how much better Zeiss might address the issues there are a great number of people who will still prefer the Leica, and that will lower their potential sales in what must be a pretty small niche to begin with.
VinceC
Veteran
Tim.
They may have tweaked the finder because of widely reported problems with the original finder. Also, they may have had a stock of components in various stages of assembly short of a finished camera. In any case, disassembling to tweak the finder is not a big deal. Repainting the frontplate is also not a big deal, and cosmetic tweaks are common in manufacturing. (If memory serves correct, the new Toyota Camry of 2000 had differently shaped tail lights from the 1999 model ... the rest of the car was essentially identical). Allows you to rebrand the camera as an upgrade, and keep selling at a higher per-unit cost instead of deep discounts and a steep loss. Releasing a software update makes ZERO profit. Tweaking the old camera and rebranding it as an upgrade means recapturing a greater portion of capital investment.
They may have tweaked the finder because of widely reported problems with the original finder. Also, they may have had a stock of components in various stages of assembly short of a finished camera. In any case, disassembling to tweak the finder is not a big deal. Repainting the frontplate is also not a big deal, and cosmetic tweaks are common in manufacturing. (If memory serves correct, the new Toyota Camry of 2000 had differently shaped tail lights from the 1999 model ... the rest of the car was essentially identical). Allows you to rebrand the camera as an upgrade, and keep selling at a higher per-unit cost instead of deep discounts and a steep loss. Releasing a software update makes ZERO profit. Tweaking the old camera and rebranding it as an upgrade means recapturing a greater portion of capital investment.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Ben I'm as strong an advocate of Leica as anyone could be. Hell my offshore sailboat that I've sailed from San Francisco to Hawaii, from Hawaii to the South Pacific and single-handed from Hawaii to Midway is navigated by a Leica DGPS system so I've placed my life in their hands. I also have a pair of 7x42 marine Leica binoculars, a Leica spotting scope, a couple more pair of Leica binoculars and a Leica scope on my hunting rifle (we can have those over here) and a **** load of film camera gear plus a Digilux 1 and Digilux 2 (I liked the first version much more) but I'll say one thing. I would not purchase a defective Leica DRF camera if a sound DRF from Zeiss were an option. If I could get a mechanically sound version of my R-D1s with a range finder base of similar length to that of the M8 or Zeiss Ikon and a crop factor of no more then 1.5 I'd buy it in an instant. I don't care what badge it's sold under- I just need a DRF I can count on and so do many others here at RFf.
God I'm going to get a noise bleed up here on this soapbox
God I'm going to get a noise bleed up here on this soapbox
nrj
Member
hear hear, I think the R-D1 was a great concept and I like a lot the 1:1 viewfinder, it made my 50 summicron DR into a 75 but with much easier framelines than a 75 on a film Leica M6 would have, within its limits its a great camera - but I'm simply amazed at the QC issues though. Zeiss has a great opportunity but it may simply be too difficult to get a high quality digital rangefinder out from a standing start-the Leica M8 shows some of the issues the manufacturers have to cope with.
Ben Z
Veteran
The fact is if Leica had chosen door #2, the stronger IR sensor cover filter, and made whatever necessary corrections for any vignetting in firmware, all of this nonsense would never have happened. The same people who are now trying to convince the world the M8 is the best digital image quality on earth would still be saying the same thing, but Leica would be selling a whole lot less filters and a whole lot more cameras. The fact that there is renewed interest in the RD1 with its 3-4 year old 6MP Nikon D100 sensor and unreliability and lack of service support is less of an accolade to the RD1 than a condemnation of the M8.
Last edited:
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
>The fact that there is renewed interest in the RD1 with its 3-4 year old 6MP
>Nikon D100 sensor and unreliability and lack of service support is less of an
>accolade to the RD1 than a condemnation of the M8.
This a valid observation. If Leica had come close on the M8, I would never have bought a second R-D1. In fact I was planning on buying two M8's and would have sold my first R-D1.
Epson/CV did many things right with the R-D1 -- things that Leica should have done with the M8 (like the reversible LCD and manual shutter) but never in a million years would have copied -- that in some ways resulting in a less M-like M8 then we might have had.
I maintain that the R-D1 is far truer to the time-tested tradition of M photography then the M8 pretends to be.
The R-D1 has many flaws to be sure. But, I for one, who love the feel of a Leica M in my hands (i.e., solid, small, unobtrusive, quiet) think that Leica allowed themselves to be trumped by Epson/CV into offering a more expensive yet inferior product.
>Nikon D100 sensor and unreliability and lack of service support is less of an
>accolade to the RD1 than a condemnation of the M8.
This a valid observation. If Leica had come close on the M8, I would never have bought a second R-D1. In fact I was planning on buying two M8's and would have sold my first R-D1.
Epson/CV did many things right with the R-D1 -- things that Leica should have done with the M8 (like the reversible LCD and manual shutter) but never in a million years would have copied -- that in some ways resulting in a less M-like M8 then we might have had.
I maintain that the R-D1 is far truer to the time-tested tradition of M photography then the M8 pretends to be.
The R-D1 has many flaws to be sure. But, I for one, who love the feel of a Leica M in my hands (i.e., solid, small, unobtrusive, quiet) think that Leica allowed themselves to be trumped by Epson/CV into offering a more expensive yet inferior product.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Sailor Ted said:
This is sheer idle speculation, but there are people on RFF who seem to have a certain amount of cash to throw around... so...
I wonder what might happen if some such person were to get hold of a used R-D 1 with good electronics but a duff rangefinder (several people here own one already!) plus a brand-new Zeiss Ikon, send them both off to DAG or Ken Ruth or John Van Stelten or somebody like that along with a sack of money, and say, "Okay, Dr. Frankenstein, marry up the electronic guts of this one with the finder and RF mechanism from that one. Take your time..."
We know that Cosina manufactures the Ikon for Carl Zeiss, and we might assume that some of the key chassis dimensions are similar, so it's not implausible that this could be done...
Sailor Ted
Well-known
jlw,
Yes that is a good idea however- the top plates are different (I assume) between the two systems. Add to that the RF windows will not line up if you try and stuff the Ikon's range finder into the Epson’s top plate and well you get the idea.
On a slightly different note, I have talked to DAG (were thinking alike here) and wanted to know if the new RF mechanism from the forthcoming ultra wide CV R4M or R4A would fit into my Bessa (I'm a wide angle shooter so this would be perfect for me). His answer- I don't think so. Also he did not sound very enthusiastic when I broached the subject. I'll ask again later as I'd gladly sacrifice the new Bessa's RF if I could get it to work properly in my R-D1s- kills two birds with one stone- a better RF mechanism and I’ll resort to those pesky auxiliary finders less often.
Yes that is a good idea however- the top plates are different (I assume) between the two systems. Add to that the RF windows will not line up if you try and stuff the Ikon's range finder into the Epson’s top plate and well you get the idea.
On a slightly different note, I have talked to DAG (were thinking alike here) and wanted to know if the new RF mechanism from the forthcoming ultra wide CV R4M or R4A would fit into my Bessa (I'm a wide angle shooter so this would be perfect for me). His answer- I don't think so. Also he did not sound very enthusiastic when I broached the subject. I'll ask again later as I'd gladly sacrifice the new Bessa's RF if I could get it to work properly in my R-D1s- kills two birds with one stone- a better RF mechanism and I’ll resort to those pesky auxiliary finders less often.
dreamsandart
Well-known
Leica may have screwed up on the introduction of the M8, tell will tell if they can get it better with an updated M8. For now I'm one of these folks that started thinking more seriously of a digital M style camera because of all the M8 digital talk and thinking, and although the R-D1 has its problems am giving it a go.
One thing I don't like about the compact and most digital cameras including the M8 is going through 'menus' to make simple adjustments. The R-D1 is the most analog digital I could hope for. I wish Leica would have copied some of the features; the info dial, film speed-exposure adjustment on the speed dial, exposure lock button, Jog dial, White balance/ photo quality switch, LCD design, and simple menu to navigate. Can't say the frames are very accurate, but the 1:1 finder is nice too. My vertical alinement came slightly out of adjustment (which I'll take care of with an easy to do adjustment), but the focus with even a 50mm f1.4 is fine, just hope there are no continuing problems there as it seems too be the only major issue with repair.
It would have been nice to have an R-D1 with more picture detail, but the reality is its a 2 year old camera that does what it does with what was available 2 years ago. That said its kind of sad that this old technology is still in competition with a new M8.
Leica could have done better. Having held and tried an M8 only for a very short time at the shop I liked it, I may end up getting one IF nothing better materializes in the foreseeable future. I just can't see myself spending that kind of money just now when I like the way the R-D1 works for me now.
One thing I don't like about the compact and most digital cameras including the M8 is going through 'menus' to make simple adjustments. The R-D1 is the most analog digital I could hope for. I wish Leica would have copied some of the features; the info dial, film speed-exposure adjustment on the speed dial, exposure lock button, Jog dial, White balance/ photo quality switch, LCD design, and simple menu to navigate. Can't say the frames are very accurate, but the 1:1 finder is nice too. My vertical alinement came slightly out of adjustment (which I'll take care of with an easy to do adjustment), but the focus with even a 50mm f1.4 is fine, just hope there are no continuing problems there as it seems too be the only major issue with repair.
It would have been nice to have an R-D1 with more picture detail, but the reality is its a 2 year old camera that does what it does with what was available 2 years ago. That said its kind of sad that this old technology is still in competition with a new M8.
Leica could have done better. Having held and tried an M8 only for a very short time at the shop I liked it, I may end up getting one IF nothing better materializes in the foreseeable future. I just can't see myself spending that kind of money just now when I like the way the R-D1 works for me now.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Sailor Ted said:
I was assuming you'd have to use an Ikon top plate and modify it to accept the R-D 1's controls. Hey, it can't be much harder than swapping an Eldorado drivetrain into a Corvair, for instance, and people do crazy stuff like that all the time...
Didier
"Deed"
The release of the M8 has woken up the interest for the R-D1 again, that's quite normal in market with 2 competitors only. Trying to be as unbiased as possible (some will know I burned my fingers with a buggy R-D1) , I would say it's a good start into digital rangefinder photography. Five years ago I could not have imagined there would ever be soemthing like that.
Both cameras can make excellent pictures as shown on this and other forums. Both cameras have serious flaws that were also discussed here.
The R-D1 has QC issues in form of rf disadjustments and rf stability problems, tilted framelines and sensors, poor painting quality, inaccurate analog needles, strange underexposing from time to time, hot pixel more than we would like, and others. The M8, I don't own one just handled it at the Leica day in a local shop, has severe IR and magenta cast problems, strong noise above ISO640, is louder than most of us would have expected. Both cameras have a rather short battery life.
It is obvious these cameras need a lot of enthusiasm, because a 1:1 comparison to actual DSLR standards is not in favor of them.
I have a bit lost my enthusiasm and patience. I also lost a lot of money with sending my camera to Epson, RW, DAG and so on (three intl EMS shippings in half a year, lot of custom fees). That's the reason I'm not willed to be a paying beta-tester again - and that's what all M8/R-D1 users are!
Will switch over to DSLR for my digital needs, and wait what happens in the digital RF sector.
Didier
Both cameras can make excellent pictures as shown on this and other forums. Both cameras have serious flaws that were also discussed here.
The R-D1 has QC issues in form of rf disadjustments and rf stability problems, tilted framelines and sensors, poor painting quality, inaccurate analog needles, strange underexposing from time to time, hot pixel more than we would like, and others. The M8, I don't own one just handled it at the Leica day in a local shop, has severe IR and magenta cast problems, strong noise above ISO640, is louder than most of us would have expected. Both cameras have a rather short battery life.
It is obvious these cameras need a lot of enthusiasm, because a 1:1 comparison to actual DSLR standards is not in favor of them.
I have a bit lost my enthusiasm and patience. I also lost a lot of money with sending my camera to Epson, RW, DAG and so on (three intl EMS shippings in half a year, lot of custom fees). That's the reason I'm not willed to be a paying beta-tester again - and that's what all M8/R-D1 users are!
Will switch over to DSLR for my digital needs, and wait what happens in the digital RF sector.
Didier
Last edited:
Terao
Kiloran
I just hope my R-D1 keeps going...
Rangefinder in alignment, love the analog controls, get a nervous tick (and a sore shoulder) if I go anywhere near an SLR these days. Its absolutely good enough for me and now that I've used it to take some photos that people dear to me love I hope its around for ever (I still get off on the idea that my Dad has his RF from the '50s and I can still use it, wonder if my kids will do the same - I doubt it).
Even if I had the money I wouldn't want an M8 - its not "analogue" enough for me quite apart from the other issues. Fingers crossed here for continued support for the R-D1, or a well-built and similarly analogue camera from Cosina or Zeiss or ????
Rangefinder in alignment, love the analog controls, get a nervous tick (and a sore shoulder) if I go anywhere near an SLR these days. Its absolutely good enough for me and now that I've used it to take some photos that people dear to me love I hope its around for ever (I still get off on the idea that my Dad has his RF from the '50s and I can still use it, wonder if my kids will do the same - I doubt it).
Even if I had the money I wouldn't want an M8 - its not "analogue" enough for me quite apart from the other issues. Fingers crossed here for continued support for the R-D1, or a well-built and similarly analogue camera from Cosina or Zeiss or ????
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Didier said:
This has been true of film RFs vs. film SLRs since roughly 1958, leading most photographers to desert RFs in droves.
I don't think you can ever expect RFs in general to conform to the "standards" of SLRs, since SLRs are a higher-volume product that requires less inherent precision to produce.
And yet a few of us have continued to use RFs in spite of their difficulties and limitations, because they're a better fit for the way we like to do our photography. "Enthusiasm" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it.
Didier
"Deed"
jlw said:
JLW (sorry but I still don't know your name)
There's nothing I could not agree with. I think most of us did not follow the slr droves because they have their own reasons for that - useless to mention why we all prefer rangefinder photography. I may have been not concise enough in my post and was meaning the "standards" in terms of sensor quality, where I feel the R-D1 and M8 are running clearly behind the top horses. Though dslr's have a higher selling volume, I hope the next generation of DRF will catch up on the sensor side.
Didier