kbg32
neo-romanticist
Last edited:
Unfavorable review of RD-1 at Trusted Reviews
- Thread starter kbg32
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 24
- Views 2K
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
It's frustrating to read a "trusted" (by whom? Morons?) review in which the writer's negative evaluation is based so clearly on his own limitations rather than those of the product -- especially when there's no option to offer a reply.
His lack of knowledge about rangefinder cameras is illustrated by such comments as:
"The viewfinder is the most important part of a rangefinder camera, so it’s odd that this one has no dioptric correction" (can he name an interchangeable-lens, optical-rangefinder camera that DOES? I can't.)
"it [the viewfinder eyepiece] also has no rubber cushion, so you risk scratching your glasses lenses." (Mine does; you can see from the pictures that someone had unscrewed the eyepiece ring on his review unit, and apparently he couldn't be bothered to check. Of course, he might have unscrewed the eyepiece ring to attach a diopter-correction lens, but he already demonstrated in the previous paragraph that he doesn't know about those either.)
"On a film rangefinder camera the mechanical shutter means that you can still take a picture with dead batteries, but of course you can’t do that with the R-D1, so why have a mechanical shutter?" (Apparently he doesn't know enough about cameras to know that the R-D 1, like the Leica M7, has an electronically controlled shutter -- or that EVERY digital camera with an interchangeable lens has a 'mechanical' shutter, and that these shutters have to be wound, either by a motor or by the user's thumb.)
In short, when he says "I really don't get the point of the Epson R-D 1," that's a realistic assessment -- of his inability to get the point of things, not necessarily of the camera.
But realistically, this probably IS a rather valid review for readers whose limitations are similar to the reviewer's. The sort of person who doesn't have much understanding or technical knowledge of photography, who wants something E-Z to use with lots of built-in features, who doesn't want to think very much about the photographic process -- in short, the sort of person who would buy a camera based on shallow reviews on general-coverage consumer websites -- probably is the WORST sort of candidate to buy an R-D 1.
His lack of knowledge about rangefinder cameras is illustrated by such comments as:
"The viewfinder is the most important part of a rangefinder camera, so it’s odd that this one has no dioptric correction" (can he name an interchangeable-lens, optical-rangefinder camera that DOES? I can't.)
"it [the viewfinder eyepiece] also has no rubber cushion, so you risk scratching your glasses lenses." (Mine does; you can see from the pictures that someone had unscrewed the eyepiece ring on his review unit, and apparently he couldn't be bothered to check. Of course, he might have unscrewed the eyepiece ring to attach a diopter-correction lens, but he already demonstrated in the previous paragraph that he doesn't know about those either.)
"On a film rangefinder camera the mechanical shutter means that you can still take a picture with dead batteries, but of course you can’t do that with the R-D1, so why have a mechanical shutter?" (Apparently he doesn't know enough about cameras to know that the R-D 1, like the Leica M7, has an electronically controlled shutter -- or that EVERY digital camera with an interchangeable lens has a 'mechanical' shutter, and that these shutters have to be wound, either by a motor or by the user's thumb.)
In short, when he says "I really don't get the point of the Epson R-D 1," that's a realistic assessment -- of his inability to get the point of things, not necessarily of the camera.
But realistically, this probably IS a rather valid review for readers whose limitations are similar to the reviewer's. The sort of person who doesn't have much understanding or technical knowledge of photography, who wants something E-Z to use with lots of built-in features, who doesn't want to think very much about the photographic process -- in short, the sort of person who would buy a camera based on shallow reviews on general-coverage consumer websites -- probably is the WORST sort of candidate to buy an R-D 1.
Last edited:
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Did you read this paragraph?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The camera I was lent for testing came with a very nice 35mm Voigtlander lens, a fairly standard focal length for this type of camera, which according to the handy chart on the flip side of the monitor, equates to 53mm. However I found that the coverage of the lens was slightly less than the 28mm setting on the viewfinder.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL, the camera comes with a 35mm lens, and he notes that the lens coverage was less than the 28mm setting on the viewfinder!
What a surprise, any reason why he did not select the 35mm brightline?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The camera I was lent for testing came with a very nice 35mm Voigtlander lens, a fairly standard focal length for this type of camera, which according to the handy chart on the flip side of the monitor, equates to 53mm. However I found that the coverage of the lens was slightly less than the 28mm setting on the viewfinder.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL, the camera comes with a 35mm lens, and he notes that the lens coverage was less than the 28mm setting on the viewfinder!
What a surprise, any reason why he did not select the 35mm brightline?
R
RML
Guest
The dust on the ccd he's talking about looks more like rain drops or splodges of sumfin' on the lens to me.
Furthermore, it's now blasphemy ot go from film RF to digital RF?
Really? I bet that most users don't even know how to produce the kind of DOF that is in this picture, seeing that most people just use their $800 digicam at f8.
Besides, did he shot anything else than JPG? If he had, he'd be able to see how the raw converter handles vignetting nicely. Anyway, not too long ago there was a thread here where one of us said that nowadays we complain about vignetting whereas in earlier times we were spending hours and hours in the darkroom just to get some vignetting to put emphasis on the subject of the shot.
If there's one general complaint when it comes to digicams then it must be the never-ending, infernal list of menus and submenus that makes it awkward to use them. IMO the dials on the R-D1 are one of the features any digicam could do with. Reading an LCD isn't the problem (as long as you don't shoot outdoors with bright skies or sunlight), it's having to keep looking and looking around for a setting that's hidden under tons of menus.
Yeah, really useful. Even on my cheapo Eos 3000 (analog SLR) there were more features than I ever needed when I learned to think for myself and set aperture, shutter time and focus by myself.
He also didn't read the manual at all. If he had he'd found out that the jog dial isn't only used for skipping through the shots but has a function in other function menus as well.
All in all, a crap review. Yes, the R-D1 is expensive. Yes, it isn't a digital SLR. Yes, it's different from the never-ending line-up of digital p&s and SLR's. Yes, it's not for everyone. But if a reviewer knows jack sh*t about RF cameras he shouldn't presume he can write a proper review about one.
Furthermore, it's now blasphemy ot go from film RF to digital RF?
Really? I bet that most users don't even know how to produce the kind of DOF that is in this picture, seeing that most people just use their $800 digicam at f8.
Besides, did he shot anything else than JPG? If he had, he'd be able to see how the raw converter handles vignetting nicely. Anyway, not too long ago there was a thread here where one of us said that nowadays we complain about vignetting whereas in earlier times we were spending hours and hours in the darkroom just to get some vignetting to put emphasis on the subject of the shot.
If there's one general complaint when it comes to digicams then it must be the never-ending, infernal list of menus and submenus that makes it awkward to use them. IMO the dials on the R-D1 are one of the features any digicam could do with. Reading an LCD isn't the problem (as long as you don't shoot outdoors with bright skies or sunlight), it's having to keep looking and looking around for a setting that's hidden under tons of menus.
Yeah, really useful. Even on my cheapo Eos 3000 (analog SLR) there were more features than I ever needed when I learned to think for myself and set aperture, shutter time and focus by myself.
He also didn't read the manual at all. If he had he'd found out that the jog dial isn't only used for skipping through the shots but has a function in other function menus as well.
All in all, a crap review. Yes, the R-D1 is expensive. Yes, it isn't a digital SLR. Yes, it's different from the never-ending line-up of digital p&s and SLR's. Yes, it's not for everyone. But if a reviewer knows jack sh*t about RF cameras he shouldn't presume he can write a proper review about one.
S
Socke
Guest
Contax G1 and G2, Zorki and FED, Leica screwmounts.jlw said:
At close to 3000 Euro you could expect one to be include 🙂
I wouldn't call them "people with limitations" sounds a bit like "pyhisicaly or mentaly disabled".
A rangefinder is a very specialized camera which shines in it's intended use but it's not very flexible.
If you want macro, long telephoto, exact framing with every lens at every distance, DoF preview and so on a SLR is a much better choice.
He correctly states that the argument to see outside of the frame is invalid with a normal lens on the R-D1.
And he states, that he doesn't grok the concept behind a rangefinder. Given all this, the review isn't to bad, it just says that the Epson is not for every task and every user.
taffer
void
I think I read some more reviews from this guy, he was pissed off by an electric guitar where he had to actually PLAY THE STRINGS HIMSELF ! I mean, he had to use HIS OWN HANDS !
INCONCEIVABLE.
Obiously, that guitar was pure crap, everybody knows that even the simplest Casio toy keyboard has automatic rythms...
He's probably right and all RD-1 should be sold for peanuts, preferably to sacrificed and ignorant people such as RFF members 😉
INCONCEIVABLE.
Obiously, that guitar was pure crap, everybody knows that even the simplest Casio toy keyboard has automatic rythms...
He's probably right and all RD-1 should be sold for peanuts, preferably to sacrificed and ignorant people such as RFF members 😉
ywenz
Veteran
"It has none of the usual handy features like auto-bracketing, continuous shooting or a movie mode"
enuff said...the reviewer is an idiot.
enuff said...the reviewer is an idiot.
justins7
Well-known
This guy is a moron.
This guy is a moron.
As soon as I read "It’s a six megapixel camera with no autofocus," that's when it was all too obvious.
It's like starting a review of a bicycle by remarking "It has no engine."
And "On the downside they are slow and fiddly to operate." I can use my Leica IIIC 100x faster than ANY digital camera I've ever used (counting start-up time, etc.)
😡
This guy is a moron.
As soon as I read "It’s a six megapixel camera with no autofocus," that's when it was all too obvious.
It's like starting a review of a bicycle by remarking "It has no engine."
And "On the downside they are slow and fiddly to operate." I can use my Leica IIIC 100x faster than ANY digital camera I've ever used (counting start-up time, etc.)
😡
ywenz
Veteran
Sounds like it was written by a 16 year old tech geek whose camera knowledge is only limited to the advancements made last few years with digital P&Ss..
S
Socke
Guest
justins7 said:
But I can change film faster on any camera I've used 🙂
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Socke said:
Sorry... I should have said "current-production" optical rangefinder cameras. (The G1 and G2 don't have optical rangefinders; they have non-TTL autofocus units.)
As long as we're splitting dioptric hairs, the Leningrad also has diopter correction -- as long as you don't mind the possibility of the eyepiece falling out if you "correct" too much!
What, the eyepiece ring? It IS included, as long as some dimwit reviewer doesn't unscrew it and lose the dratted thing.
I'm tempted to say this reviewer IS mentally disabled!
What's "normal"? I can see outside the 50mm and 35mm framelines just fine. (Actually, you can see outside ALL the frames if you keep the other eye open -- readily possible with the R-D 1's 1:1 viewfinder.)
If that's all he had said, I'd have been fine with it. What he ACTUALLY said (in his conclusion) was:
The Epson R-D1 is an exercise in nostalgia for people with more money than sense. Brick-like handling, poor results and a major inherent design flaw make it an expensive and pointless novelty item. The only analogy I can think of would be stuffing a turbocharger into a wood-framed Morris Traveller and then asking the same price for it as a brand new Mercedes. Who’s going to buy it?
Well, I did buy one, and I like it better than any other digital camera I've ever owned or used, and it's by far my most-used and most useful digital camera. Expensive, yes; pointless, no.
Incidentally, I wonder what he means by "brick-like handling"? Bricks actually handle pretty well, and if I ever get within range of the reviewer, I'll bung one at him to prove it.
brightsky
Established
Bingo!
Bingo!
You hit the nail on the head. The Internet is not idiot proof, as this demonstrates. No one with a modicum of sense would pay any attention to that "review."
Bingo!
ywenz said:
You hit the nail on the head. The Internet is not idiot proof, as this demonstrates. No one with a modicum of sense would pay any attention to that "review."
Sonnar Brian
Established
Well, after reading that review I'm sure some of us collectors would be interested in taking those obsolete, hard to use Digital RF's off of your guys hands. Maybe they will be useful to display next to the Nikon E3 and Kodak DCS200ir.
Do you think the reviewer would like my DCS200 better? It can store 50 shots on its internal SCSI drive before you download the images one at a time via SCSI. But it is an Autofocus SLR!
Do you think the reviewer would like my DCS200 better? It can store 50 shots on its internal SCSI drive before you download the images one at a time via SCSI. But it is an Autofocus SLR!
Last edited by a moderator:
S
Socke
Guest
jlw said:
And I'm still undecided. If it had a view/rangefinder for a roughly 60° FoV lens I'd allready have one.
I've been tought that a normal lens has a focal lenght close to the diagonal of the frame and or the FoV close to one human eye, on 135 a 45-55 on 120 a 75-85 and on APS-C a 30-35 lens. A 50 on APS is a short telephoto for me and a 35 on film a semi-wide.
On APS cameras I use a 17-35 zoom mostly and have a 24/2.8 when I don't want to carry the bulky zoom. On film I use 28, 35 and 45/50 mostly, 90 and 135 may be once a month.
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
I own one, but was indecided for a while, the absence of a movie mode was putting me off 😀
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Also I was very disappointed I could not buy a 18-300 f1.4 Vario-Summilux
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
That review made me realise how stupid I have been in buying one, so I decided to sell, you can have mine for £2500, and I'll throw in a couple of crappy non-epson batteries, PM if interested. 😛
kiev4a
Well-known
Playing a little Devil's advocate here, but the reviewer just seems to be giving a personal opinion. Different strokes for different folks. There aren't any cameras past or present, that I know of, that have received totally glowing reviews -- Nikons and Leicas included. Suggesting the reviewer is retarded because he doesn't see the camera to way an owner sees it doesn't accomplish much.
I think the RD-1 is interesting because you can use all those LTM lenses on it -- but not interesting enough to pay the going price for one. Of course, I probably wouldn't spend that much for any camera--film or digital--but that's just me.
You can find hundreds of review saying don't waste you money on old Russian cameras -- they are junk. And the reviewers are right in some respects. A lot of people would be miserable having to tinker with a Zorki, FED or Kiev. They aren't for everyone. But Leicas and G2s aren't for everyone either and neither is the RD-1 or the Canon or Nikon digital SLRs. Every camera has its good points and deficiencies.
Anyone using reviews to make a choice should read as many as possible and then weigh the pros and cons before making a decision. Calling a reviewer a moron because he doesn't like your favorite camera doesn't really provide any additional information on which to base one's decision.
I think the RD-1 is interesting because you can use all those LTM lenses on it -- but not interesting enough to pay the going price for one. Of course, I probably wouldn't spend that much for any camera--film or digital--but that's just me.
You can find hundreds of review saying don't waste you money on old Russian cameras -- they are junk. And the reviewers are right in some respects. A lot of people would be miserable having to tinker with a Zorki, FED or Kiev. They aren't for everyone. But Leicas and G2s aren't for everyone either and neither is the RD-1 or the Canon or Nikon digital SLRs. Every camera has its good points and deficiencies.
Anyone using reviews to make a choice should read as many as possible and then weigh the pros and cons before making a decision. Calling a reviewer a moron because he doesn't like your favorite camera doesn't really provide any additional information on which to base one's decision.
S
Socke
Guest
Francesco, make that 1500 Euro and I might forget about the ZI and 35mm Biogon and all the film I won't get processed at Fuji 🙂
einolu
Well-known
i like the name of the website "trusted reviews", heh.
