BillBingham2
Registered User
My wife is on me to shoot digital, shoot digital, film costs too much.
While some of the newer DSLRs are getter better (e.g. E-410) I’m an RF guy. The M8 is way out of my range to buy or carry. An M8 could pay for ¼ of my new car.
I’m in Chicago and wondering what folks in the US have done as I do not remember Epson over here being too much behind the R-D1. I have some of the glass I need, will need to buy some new stuff.
I'm wondering about what am I getting myself in for?
Any thoughts, comments, experience?
Thanks.
B2
While some of the newer DSLRs are getter better (e.g. E-410) I’m an RF guy. The M8 is way out of my range to buy or carry. An M8 could pay for ¼ of my new car.
I’m in Chicago and wondering what folks in the US have done as I do not remember Epson over here being too much behind the R-D1. I have some of the glass I need, will need to buy some new stuff.
I'm wondering about what am I getting myself in for?
Any thoughts, comments, experience?
Thanks.
B2
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Bill, can I be invited to your garage sale when you start raising the funds? 
Seriously, I've always thought an R-D1 would be a great tool to have - I was just never comfortable with all the reported quality issues. They do seem to be capable of magnificent results after they are sorted out and firing on all cylinders.
Seriously, I've always thought an R-D1 would be a great tool to have - I was just never comfortable with all the reported quality issues. They do seem to be capable of magnificent results after they are sorted out and firing on all cylinders.
gavinlg
Veteran
I liked the r-d1 I had but didn't keep it. I found my canon 30d was cheaper, much MUCH stronger and more durable, more versatile, and with combined with a olympus OM zuiko 24 f2/2.8 makes for a good, small walk around package equivalent to a 35mm f2/2.8. If you wanted to get even smaller, you could get the 400d or XTI as it's called in the US.
The r-d1 sensor definetly isn't as good as the 30d/xti one. Files are sharper from the canons and require less processing. night shots the r-d1 has weird artifacts visible in the photos and the monochrome mode I found to be poor - much rather a roll of neopan 1600.
After a few weeks being in my bag everyday and walking around the city here, I found my r-d1 was wearing in the corners, which was pretty poor. However it's very portible, but another durability issue is that I dont trust the swivelling LCD screen.
I'd buy either a pentax DSLR like the k100 or k10 with some of those pentax pancakes or a canon 20/30d/Xti with some zuiko glass + adapter or even the canon EF glass is excellent.
This is all my opinion.
The r-d1 sensor definetly isn't as good as the 30d/xti one. Files are sharper from the canons and require less processing. night shots the r-d1 has weird artifacts visible in the photos and the monochrome mode I found to be poor - much rather a roll of neopan 1600.
After a few weeks being in my bag everyday and walking around the city here, I found my r-d1 was wearing in the corners, which was pretty poor. However it's very portible, but another durability issue is that I dont trust the swivelling LCD screen.
I'd buy either a pentax DSLR like the k100 or k10 with some of those pentax pancakes or a canon 20/30d/Xti with some zuiko glass + adapter or even the canon EF glass is excellent.
This is all my opinion.
akptc
Shoot first, think later
I love my R-D1. Trust it more in low light situations than my K10D. It is so good that most of the time I do not look at the LCD at all, just shoot.
Gid
Well-known
I have an RD1 and an M8. I prefer the handling of the RD1 by a mile. Image quality wise there isn't a whole lot in it, but the M8 does have the edge. I've had my RD1 for almost 3 years and have never had any problem apart from needing to adjust the RF/VF - a very easy DIY job. It is the closest a digital can get to analogue. I respectfully suggest that fdigital was unlucky or unrealistic because I have never experienced any of the problems he mentions and I've never heard anyone else mention them either. File quality at ISO1600 is very good and still good pushed to 3200, particularly in B&W - IMO much better than scanned 400 ISO film and streets ahead of the M8.
The key issue with the RD1 is service, but this is not really any worse than any other electronic camera that is no longer produced - e.g. Hexar RF. Epson will provide support for about another 5 or 6 years, just as Sony has promised for KM cameras. You have Steves cameras (IIRC) in the US who have performed various repairs, mainly with regard to shutters, but the instance of complete failure seems low, to date. Buying an RD1 will mean taking a risk, so if you're risk averse you need to think about it.
Overall, this camera is a joy to use. There do not appear to be many unhappy owners (they are usually the noisiest) and you don't see that many for sale. I'd say try one and if you don't like it you'll most likely be able to sell it at no loss.
Good luck.
The key issue with the RD1 is service, but this is not really any worse than any other electronic camera that is no longer produced - e.g. Hexar RF. Epson will provide support for about another 5 or 6 years, just as Sony has promised for KM cameras. You have Steves cameras (IIRC) in the US who have performed various repairs, mainly with regard to shutters, but the instance of complete failure seems low, to date. Buying an RD1 will mean taking a risk, so if you're risk averse you need to think about it.
Overall, this camera is a joy to use. There do not appear to be many unhappy owners (they are usually the noisiest) and you don't see that many for sale. I'd say try one and if you don't like it you'll most likely be able to sell it at no loss.
Good luck.
maddoc
... likes film again.
The Epson RD-1s was my start into the RF world (I used mainly a D1x before that) and I had never any problem / issue with the Epson. The quality of the photos was very good and up to what I got from my D1x (or D70) What I liked most was the foldable LCD monitor and the direct access to all important controls without bothering through menus. The manual shutter cocking lever may be anachronistic but I don't need any motor drive / rapid winder at all.
The reason I sold the Epson ? I bought a Leica and went back to film ... no digital for me until the storage / archiving problem is solved.
The quality of the photos was very good and up to what I got from my D1x (or D70) What I liked most was the foldable LCD monitor and the direct access to all important controls without bothering through menus. The manual shutter cocking lever may be anachronistic but I don't need any motor drive / rapid winder at all. The reason I sold the Epson ? I bought a Leica and went back to film ... no digital for me until the storage / archiving problem is solved.
Steve Litt
Well-known
I have had my RD-1 about 18 months and its been 100% since day one.A lot of the early issues were corrected with the firmwire update and I am very happy with the prints I get from mine.As for low light I find I can shoot at 1600 iso with my 1958" 50mm cron wige open and get film like results.I found compared that my Canon DSLR (10D) gave plasticky images and ended up selling it and getting among other things a Leicatime half case with the proceeds.I am an amateur and shoot 90% B/W the 10% color- creeping in since getting the RD-1! We wont all have the same experience or expectations.If I could afford it I would buy a second RD-1 body.Its up to you, Go for it...!
Regards
Steve
Regards
Steve
Burkey
Well-known
I've had excellent results from my RD-1 and have just added a 21mm Skopar P to my lens inventory to go with it. Bill, I suggest looking around the RF digital gallery area. I think you'll some great examples of what the RD-1 is capable of if used as a tool in "knowing" hands. Good luck.
SteveM(PA)
Poser
My framelines are a little cockeyed, but the 28mm skopar I've recently received has been sort of revelatory. Wearing glasses, the cockeyed frame is just barely visible behind the viewfinder window, which becomes the (non-cockeyed) frame. In this scenario, shooting right-eyed, with the true 1:1 viewfinder, it's as if there is nothing in front of my eyes, no imperfect camera/framelines...just a rangefinder patch, floating there.
And as I've said before, occasional reckless shooting with your rangefinder lenses, which had previously been, in your mind, strictly married to film and it's related time and expense, is very fun.
And when you set the camera down (carefully) on your desk it makes a solid thunk, like a hot mug of Sanka.
I still like my film cameras more, though. I like the look of film, and working with my (relatively) compact 135 rf lenses, which I've had little success with on this camera.
And as I've said before, occasional reckless shooting with your rangefinder lenses, which had previously been, in your mind, strictly married to film and it's related time and expense, is very fun.
And when you set the camera down (carefully) on your desk it makes a solid thunk, like a hot mug of Sanka.
I still like my film cameras more, though. I like the look of film, and working with my (relatively) compact 135 rf lenses, which I've had little success with on this camera.
victoriapio
Well-known
B2,
I come from a different background. I was a Leica RF/Nikon SLR user back when I was a full time photojournalist. At one point I needed more SLR equipment and sold my Leica kit.
Twenty years later (as in right now) I am using Canon DSLR full frame equipment and stumbled across the R-D1s. Wow. It is much more enoyable to use for my everyday shooting and I am culling some of my huge Canon kit. I like the ergonomics, even thumbing the "advance" to cock the shutter (pretty quiet camera).
Let's talk image quality. I have a Canon 1Dsmk2 and the image quality is unbelieveably good and far superior to the R-D1s. However I am working on a big print project for my employer and I will be using a few R-D1s images in the publication because the IQ is good enough for a color/newsprint insert publication. Bottom line the image quality could be better but given that the sensor is showing its age, one can't complain too much unless you need consistantly larger than A3 print sizes.
Service - My Epson is only six or so weeks old - no problems with it at all and I bought it used. It is built tougher than it looks and while obviously some bodies had issues, the same is true of the M8. I feel in the future some repair firms will establish themselves for Epson models and from some of the earlier posts on this thread it sounds like there may be some already.
Digital workflow - the workflow from a digital RF is different than my Canon. Once you learn it, good results are predictable and if you frame very carefully with no cropping, the results are often outstanding.
Glass - buy the best glass you can afford, period.
I will own some sort of digital SLR and digital RF for the rest of my life. If I ever give up a system, it will be the DSLR. Right now the RF is the R-D1s. If I continue to like the digital RF I may eventually move to the Leica just for the better IQ. But who knows, perhaps Zeiss, Bressa, Nikon or some other company might enter into the digital rangefinder realm sometime in the not too distant future with another alternative body?
BTW, for some of my R-D1s images - click to my R-D1s web site gallery.
It is a tough choice... best of luck with it.
O.C.
I come from a different background. I was a Leica RF/Nikon SLR user back when I was a full time photojournalist. At one point I needed more SLR equipment and sold my Leica kit.
Twenty years later (as in right now) I am using Canon DSLR full frame equipment and stumbled across the R-D1s. Wow. It is much more enoyable to use for my everyday shooting and I am culling some of my huge Canon kit. I like the ergonomics, even thumbing the "advance" to cock the shutter (pretty quiet camera).
Let's talk image quality. I have a Canon 1Dsmk2 and the image quality is unbelieveably good and far superior to the R-D1s. However I am working on a big print project for my employer and I will be using a few R-D1s images in the publication because the IQ is good enough for a color/newsprint insert publication. Bottom line the image quality could be better but given that the sensor is showing its age, one can't complain too much unless you need consistantly larger than A3 print sizes.
Service - My Epson is only six or so weeks old - no problems with it at all and I bought it used. It is built tougher than it looks and while obviously some bodies had issues, the same is true of the M8. I feel in the future some repair firms will establish themselves for Epson models and from some of the earlier posts on this thread it sounds like there may be some already.
Digital workflow - the workflow from a digital RF is different than my Canon. Once you learn it, good results are predictable and if you frame very carefully with no cropping, the results are often outstanding.
Glass - buy the best glass you can afford, period.
I will own some sort of digital SLR and digital RF for the rest of my life. If I ever give up a system, it will be the DSLR. Right now the RF is the R-D1s. If I continue to like the digital RF I may eventually move to the Leica just for the better IQ. But who knows, perhaps Zeiss, Bressa, Nikon or some other company might enter into the digital rangefinder realm sometime in the not too distant future with another alternative body?
BTW, for some of my R-D1s images - click to my R-D1s web site gallery.
It is a tough choice... best of luck with it.
O.C.
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Bill, take the plunge, get the E-410, for the price, it's excellent especially if you like to shoot color.
Add the $100 adapter and you can use the best OM Zuikos out there (getting cheaper by the week).
EDIT: Whoops just realized this is in the Epson R-D1 sub-forum... Er, or you can get the R-D1 also, Bill :angel:
Add the $100 adapter and you can use the best OM Zuikos out there (getting cheaper by the week).
EDIT: Whoops just realized this is in the Epson R-D1 sub-forum... Er, or you can get the R-D1 also, Bill :angel: