Thoughts on a Digital M

[vincenzo]

The SONY R1 appeals to anyone here? http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1126565152.html
Some interesting features like the live histogram and waist level lcd position with live histogram. However it seems that the buffer for RAW is very low even compared to the RD-1. Could be a nice back-up camera but after 2 raw shots you have to wait 8 seconds before you can make another exposure. Lethal drawback perhaps

 

[fgianni]

I fear that would lead to heavy vignetting. The problem Leica (and Epson-with some succes )have been fighting is the limited acceptance angle of sensors. Which means the sensor simply cannot "see" the edge rays of a RF lens, especially a wideangle non-retrofocus one as that is much closer to the sensor than a SLR lens giving a far more acute angle. Kodak appears to have found a solution, which will make a 1.3 crop M-camera possible that can take up to 21 mm lenses (possibly even 15) without vignetting, but this technique certainly does not apply to a DSLR full-frame sensor.

Hmm 1.3 crop factor is just marginally better than 1.5, I think I won't replace my RD-1 with anything less than a full frame leica M.

 

[fgianni]

Let's also hope that, given the success of the RD-1, all of the camera makers take note that there is a real market for high quality rangefinder cameras (with provision for M mount lenses, of course).

But has the RD-1 really been a success? It has been on the market for nearly one year, and still they haven't managed to sell 10000 units.
It will take more than that to justify the cost of developing a digital M and making some sort of profit.

 

[J. Borger]

I agree about the 1.3 cropfactor Francesco... it's such an inbetweener .. have been there with the Canon 1D. I would prefer a 1.5 cropfactor above 1.3 ... so my lenses at least stay the same.

For me the full- frame discussion is not very relevant ....... i can easily live with a cropfactor.

For the R-D1 sales ..... i doubt it is a succes.
But you will be surprised what a different brandname and good distribution on a similar camera will do.

There are so many photographers out there sitting on Leica M glass who do not even know about the existence of the R-D1 ..... .
A lot of them are so used to digital they do not want to shoot their Leicas with film anymore.

From photographers i always get a lot af attention when i use the Lcd on the R-D1.. ... "Wow ..... what's that ... i did not know there was a digital Bessa/ Leica ..." Or "see you have a Digilux .... do you like it 🙂".
The enthousiasm usualy fades when i tell them it is an Epson ....!
They think i'm nuts when i tell them i prefer it to my Canon 1Ds.

Han

 

[aizan]

I never noticed this before but you look like Jacques Pepin, the chef.

 

[zeos 386sx]

But has the RD-1 really been a success? It has been on the market for nearly one year, and still they haven't managed to sell 10000 units.
It will take more than that to justify the cost of developing a digital M and making some sort of profit.

Francesco,

I was unable to quickly find any published sales figures for the Epson RD-1. That said,
I still believe the RD-1 is a success.

First, it is a professional level camera that is being used by professionals. The professionals who have written about it appear to be happy with it. That fact, alone, tends to engender sales. That's one of the reasons camera companies lend cameras to professionals for testing and review.

Second, it is clear that, in the face of the DSLR tidal wave, sales of the RD-1, though slow, have continued. That suggests a market not just for the RD-1 but for digital rangefinders in general.

When camera dealers start giving R-D1's away because they are not selling I will declare them a financial failure. While they are still being given shelf space and advertised because they are selling I consider them a success. Unlike the Digilux II, I haven't observed any reduction of the RD-1's sale price. To me that means the cameras are selling - and at full list price.

 

[VinceC]

>>still they haven't managed to sell 10000 units.<<

Ten thousand unit-sales at $2,500 average price is gross sales of $25 million. Even at 5 percent profit margin, that's $1.25 million. Knowing very little about the industry, I would guess R&D on this kind of product -- which makes use of off-the-shelf components and in-house staffs -- is well under $1 million. So nobody's getting rich, but I also don't think Epson's taking much of a loss, if any.

 

[zeos 386sx]

Leica announced 8/3/05 that they would be receiving 22.95 million Euros (28.15 million dollars) from their restructuring stock subscription.

I have to agree with Vince, I don't think Epson will lose money on the RD-1. However, the RD-1 is probably such a small part of Epsons total worldwide financial picture that even if they lost money on each camera they probably wouldn't notice.

It will, however, make a difference to Leica.

 

[fgianni]

>>still they haven't managed to sell 10000 units.<<

Ten thousand unit-sales at $2,500 average price is gross sales of $25 million. Even at 5 percent profit margin, that's $1.25 million. Knowing very little about the industry, I would guess R&D on this kind of product -- which makes use of off-the-shelf components and in-house staffs -- is well under $1 million. So nobody's getting rich, but I also don't think Epson's taking much of a loss, if any.

Vince

I would agree with you if they managed to sell the units, but since the RD-1 is a 10000 unit limited edition, the fact that it is still available for sale, and there is no shortage anywhere, shows that they still are well shost of that figure, that's why I am not sure it can be considered a success, BTW now it can be found new in the UK for £1590, that is more than £400 less than the normal price.

I am not saying the camera is not worthy, I bought one and I love it, however people thinks 6Mpixel, $3000 (or £2000), I can get a 350D for a quarter of the amount, and it'll have 8 Mpixel, and when I explain to the average photographer that since I got the RD-1 my 20D is gathering dust, they look at me like I am nuts.

 

[fgianni]

Leica announced 8/3/05 that they would be receiving 22.95 million Euros (28.15 million dollars) from their restructuring stock subscription.

I have to agree with Vince, I don't think Epson will lose money on the RD-1. However, the RD-1 is probably such a small part of Epsons total worldwide financial picture that even if they lost money on each camera they probably wouldn't notice.

It will, however, make a difference to Leica.

That is exactly my point, Epson can afford not to make money out of the RD-1, Leica cannot afford not making an healthy profit out of a digital M

On the other hand one wonders what would have happened to the RD-1 had it been branded Viogtlander instead of Epson, probably sales would have been much higher, I mean who can take seriously an Epson rangefinder camera; what's next a Fisher-Price MF SLR? 😀

 

[zeos 386sx]

BTW now it can be found new in the UK for £1590, that is more than £400 less than the normal price.

In the U.S Epson sells the RD-1 for $2999.00 (1644 GBP) as do most other retail outlets. At current conversion rates 1590 Great Britain Pounds equals 2900 U.S. Dollars. That is only 54 GBP or 99 USD off of the list price - at least in the U.S.

 

[Sean Reid]

Actually, because of the R-D1 I now take Epson very seriously as a camera maker.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[zeos 386sx]

I think the following quotes from Epson's Executive Vice-President, Norio Niwa, express Epson's attitude toward the R-D1.

"The R-D1 was designed for Leica enthusiasts interested in moving up to digital photography," Niwa says. All L- and M-mount Leica lenses fit the R-D1, which carries the most advanced digital photography technology inside a body rivaling genuine Leica craftsmanship.

"It’s admittedly a niche market, so we have no intention of increasing production or pricing it to compete with other digital cameras. We think of the R-D1 as a way of showcasing our ultraprecision mechanical technology that lies at the heart of all our imaging products."

Epson has certainly succeeded at that!

The rest of what Niwa said about Epson's photo strategy can be found at:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...ews/200407mnl.pdf+epson+r-d1+total+sold&hl=en

 

[fgianni]

In the U.S Epson sells the RD-1 for $2999.00 (1644 GBP) as do most other retail outlets. At current conversion rates 1590 Great Britain Pounds equals 2900 U.S. Dollars. That is only 54 GBP or 99 USD off of the list price - at least in the U.S.

Remeber that in the UK we pay VAT so to have a fair comparison you need to add about 20% to the US price.

 

[Jim Watts]

Francesco,
I think the 1590 GBP price you have quoted is atypical in the U.K. As far as I know there is only one North London dealer selling off one camera only at this price. I have not seen the general discounting situation that most digital cameras get into after 6 months to a year in the market.

Most of the main dealers selling the camera, Camulet, Robert White, Jacobs etc. seem to be holding to a 1999 GBP price point and even Warehouse Express the well known U.K. internet price cutter is charging this. I was told that this is because dealers get a tough price from the importer and are reluctant to offer discounts as their profit margin is lower on this camera than the main stream ranges.

I have seen only two R-D1's on sale secondhand by dealers and these were at between 1500 & 1600 GBP.

 

[simonclivehughe]

I have yet to see any real price erosion here in the US although I was able to negotiate it down to $2850 a few weeks ago when I bought my second body (at Glazers in Seattle).

 

[fgianni]

I think the 1590 GBP price you have quoted is atypical in the U.K. As far as I know there is only one North London dealer selling off one camera only at this price.

It always starts with one dealer, and anyway is enough to piss me off, I paid £1990 for it just one month ago, :bang: £400 for one month of ownership is a lot of money.

Oh well at least I had a bit of (very expensive) fun with it in the last month.

 

[zeos 386sx]

If you keep it and Epson doesn't make any more you may find it is worth more to collectors in a few years than you paid for it.

 

[washy21]

I would want an LCD but appreciate that to some degree it is a habit rather than a must.

If I really think about it I reckon I could get used to having no LCD and perhaps thinking more about the picture and if this meant that a substantially better camera could be built then I would vote for no LCD.

I suppose that Dynamic Range (or lack of) is the reason that many people check the histogram (blown highlights) but if you know your camera well you can deal with that by experience.

One final word, it is true that being able to show the subject a picture can help you build confidence with humans especially with environmental portraits street work etc.

I have been able to obtain some priceless portraits with complete strangers because I have engaged them in the process and let them chimp.