What is it about this Camera??

[anaanda]

I just have one question for all you RD-1 users. What is about this camera that makes you want it even though it is faulty, ridiculously expensive and outdated. I make a decent living and I don't have $2500 to put down on a faulty body (with no lenses). I think for $3000 you could get quite an excellent set up with a used Leica or Zeiss or a Medium Format set up etc...
Is there something mystical about this camera?

so tell me... please...

 

[JeffGreene]

Not mystical, magical!

Not mystical, magical!

There's nothing mystical about the camera. It's all about the images it generates. They are remarkable. Granted there are QA problems, and I should be the last person to ignore them, I make my living as a QA Consultant, but the ability to capture relatively noise free low light images is striking. Before you denigrate the camera, you should try one. I have a 20D which just never felt as comfortable in my hands as the RD1. And unlike the Canon, I want to take the RD1 with me everywhere. So much so, that I recently purchased (this afternoon) a bag that would allow me to do so. Couple this with the glass available for it, and the result is great images! Just as Rex mentioned, I too have fallen for the camera big time!

 

[anaanda]

Hi Jeff, I am not denigrating the camera. I am actually intriqued by it (definitely jealous of those who have it and wish I had one!!) I would probably buy it in a second if i had the extra money. I am just trying to understand the rationale for purchasing the RD-1...

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Well, it is the only way to use your Leica RF glass in digital. And, if you like RF photography and you want to be able to do it digitally, there is currently only one option. I am sure that all who purchased one would prefer it if no example of the camera had QC issues. Just wait, when the Leica digital M comes out you can ask the same question, but up the dollar value to $5,000. BTW - whatever the QC issues, eventually folks are shooting with a working camera, and most seem quite pleased with the results.

Ben

 

[RayPA]

I don't own one, because of the price, but I think one allure is that it's a 'M' mount digital camera. Not many of those around. All these great lenses (and investments) now have a place in the digital world. Besides...it's a Rangefinder!! 🙂 🙂

🙂

 

[Phil_Hawkes]

I just have one question for all you RD-1 users. What is about this camera that makes you want it even though it is faulty, ridiculously expensive and outdated. I make a decent living and I don't have $2500 to put down on a faulty body (with no lenses). I think for $3000 you could get quite an excellent set up with a used Leica or Zeiss or a Medium Format set up etc...
Is there something mystical about this camera?

so tell me... please...

I'll try!!! I'm not sure I really know the reasons myself. I have 2 R-D1... so I don't have to change lenses as often. I am an amateur, and single, so I can afford to sink money into a hobby like this. I do shoot weddings for friends, and I have shot some dancing, but otherwise nothing much professional-like.

A quick summary for the reasons I like my R-D1's
-the benefits of digital and
-the benefits of rangefinder photography (the focussing style, the quality and range of lenses).


Regarding spending the money on other set-ups: I have a Hasselblad set up that has barely been used since I got the first R-D1. Why? THe Hasselblad definetley takes beter photos in the right settings, but (per image) the Hasselblad is so
expensive. Once I bought the R-D1, I could shoot without any regard for how many photos I am taking. I helped photograph a friends wedding and took about 1500 photos. If I was shooting film, that would turn out to be very expensive.

I also download the images direct to a Epson P-2000, so I can show my friends
photos of them and their loved ones within minutes. I like doing this. People don't mind me taking photos when they can see the results.

The quality you can get with the R-D1 and decent lenses is astounding. Especially the range of fast lenses. I rarely use flash. The R-D1 and Noctilux will see better than my eyes, if I'm willing to accept the softer image at f1.0. The Summicron 75/2.0 is super sharp even wide open and great for capturing people. I carry my kit around with me most of the time. Because of the low light capabilities, I can use the camera anywhere I happen to be.

I enjoy being able to toy with various options on Adobe Camera Raw to try different croppings, etc. When shooting, I just aim to get what I can on the sensor: the actual framing is less of an issue since I can crop easily.

The rangefinder seems to go awry fairly often, but I would be shooting thousands of images between re-calibrating. I re-calibrate my own cameras (not always successfully!!!).

Phil

 

[RML]

Instead of asking questions no-one can satisfactorily answer, borrow one and shoot with it for some time. Your question is like asking why shoot rangefinder, or Leica, or drive Ferrari instead of Honda, or eat only from a fine restaurant instead of tacos, or drink a fine Cabernet Sauvignon instead of Coke, or... well, you get the drift now.

 

[Sean Reid]

Anaanda,

I can't say much more about the reasons why this camera is so appealing beyond what I've said in my articles. Read the long-term review to understand why so many people love this camera despite it's foibles. BTW, when you say outdated, which of the other digital rangefinder cameras currently for sale are you comparing it to? <G>

Cheers,

Sean

 

[JeffGreene]

I know you're not denigrating the camera. Maybe its because those of us who did take that step and acquire it find ouselves falling for it because of its differences from the standard DSLR. There aren't alot of menus and submenus to work through. The designer clearly took into account the need to isolate the user from electronics. The shutter cocking lever does help to build a rhythm that also feels right. Particularly for those of us who've been using rangefinders. The analog dials are effortless to set and the camera itself is so well-designed that I was able to get started without reading the manual. I did get some first-rate guidance from others here on the forum, but for the most part was able to pick up the camera and use it. How many of us who own DSLR's can say the same about the first day with the DSLR! The beauty of the camera from my perspective is its transparency. To paraphrase Kertesz, see the image and make it!

I guess the rationale is simply that at present, the RD1 comes closest to the Digital M concept. It's the only game in town, and granted it has its warts, but then again, what doesn't?

Respectfully,

 

[anaanda]

Instead of asking questions no-one can satisfactorily answer, borrow one and shoot with it for some time. Your question is like asking why shoot rangefinder, or Leica, or drive Ferrari instead of Honda, or eat only from a fine restaurant instead of tacos, or drink a fine Cabernet Sauvignon instead of Coke, or... well, you get the drift now.

Just trying to get people's thoughts, i know there is no definite answer. I already know without shooting that I would like it better than my current Digital which is a D70. I've always shot with rangefinders so I know I'd like but ..ooh... the price (hard to justify) ..Maybe I'll get one on an installment plan!

 

[anaanda]

Anaanda,

I can't say much more about the reasons why this camera is so appealing beyond what I've said in my articles. Read the long-term review to understand why so many people love this camera despite it's foibles. BTW, when you say outdated, which of the other digital rangefinder cameras currently for sale are you comparing it to? <G>

Cheers,

Sean

I guess what i meant was that since the camera is couple years old and the Leica M digital is coming out, it is outdated. Why isn't the company Epson/Cosina supporting this camera? There seems to be a big market for it??

 

[Sean Reid]

Once the Leica is actually available for sale, there will inevitably be comparisons drawn between the two cameras and people will need to weigh cost vs. pros/cons, etc. But the camera is actually no more outdated than a Leica M7. That is to say, just because a design isn't new doesn't mean it isn't functional. This whole idea of cameras being outdated came from the computer world, we didn't use to look at things that way in the world of photography and cameras. In 1992, I was making some pictures with a Graphlex Speed Graphic. The age of design is less relevant than how useful the tool is to the photographer. If a tool doesn't work well, it doesn't matter if it was designed in 1937 or yesterday. The converse is also true.

Why does Epson seem to have lost enthusiasm for the camera? You best ask them because I don't know.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Solinar]

I guess what i meant was that since the camera is couple years old and the Leica M digital is coming out, it is outdated. Why isn't the company Epson/Cosina supporting this camera? There seems to be a big market for it??

From a marketing point of view one could argue that any rangefinder camera is outdated. Yet some folks still use them.

Have you ever handed one of your rangefinders to someone whose main shooter is an SLR fitted with an auto focus zoom lense?

 

[Sean Reid]

In fact, many reviewers criticized the R-D1 for it's lack of AF and zoom lenses. The whole hamster wheel of newer, faster, better doesn't necessarily fit well into the world of rangefinders. Was the M3 outdated by the M4....etc.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[back alley]

Was the M3 outdated by the M4?

great line and thought.
it helps explain much of my love affair with rf cams.

 

[anaanda]

In fact, many reviewers criticized the R-D1 for it's lack of AF and zoom lenses. The whole hamster wheel of newer, faster, better doesn't necessarily fit well into the world of rangefinders. Was the M3 outdated by the M4....etc.

Cheers,

Sean

What I really meant when I said outdated was that unlike film cameras, they can keep improving the technology. I wouldn't even call a pinhole camera outdated, in fact I shoot a lot with the Holga and love that camera(its about as basic as you can get)


BTW Would pictures from a Holga be acceptable on this site, its not a rangefinder in the purest sense but its definitely not an SLR🙂

 

[anaanda]

I'll try!!! I'm not sure I really know the reasons myself. I have 2 R-D1... so I don't have to change lenses as often. I am an amateur, and single, so I can afford to sink money into a hobby like this. I do shoot weddings for friends, and I have shot some dancing, but otherwise nothing much professional-like.

A quick summary for the reasons I like my R-D1's
-the benefits of digital and
-the benefits of rangefinder photography (the focussing style, the quality and range of lenses).


Regarding spending the money on other set-ups: I have a Hasselblad set up that has barely been used since I got the first R-D1. Why? THe Hasselblad definetley takes beter photos in the right settings, but (per image) the Hasselblad is so
expensive. Once I bought the R-D1, I could shoot without any regard for how many photos I am taking. I helped photograph a friends wedding and took about 1500 photos. If I was shooting film, that would turn out to be very expensive.

I also download the images direct to a Epson P-2000, so I can show my friends
photos of them and their loved ones within minutes. I like doing this. People don't mind me taking photos when they can see the results.

The quality you can get with the R-D1 and decent lenses is astounding. Especially the range of fast lenses. I rarely use flash. The R-D1 and Noctilux will see better than my eyes, if I'm willing to accept the softer image at f1.0. The Summicron 75/2.0 is super sharp even wide open and great for capturing people. I carry my kit around with me most of the time. Because of the low light capabilities, I can use the camera anywhere I happen to be.

I enjoy being able to toy with various options on Adobe Camera Raw to try different croppings, etc. When shooting, I just aim to get what I can on the sensor: the actual framing is less of an issue since I can crop easily.

The rangefinder seems to go awry fairly often, but I would be shooting thousands of images between re-calibrating. I re-calibrate my own cameras (not always successfully!!!).

Phil

Phil,
Thanks for your sincere reply. I appreciate the thoughts, just wish I could own one now, I guess I could but....

 

[RML]

Phil,
Thanks for your sincere reply. I appreciate the thoughts, just wish I could own one now, I guess I could but....

Anaanda, indeed you can! 🙂 I also had to cosider it hard and long but took the plunge anyway. I was shooting a roll a day, which was costing my a total of 6 euro (buying, dev'ing), not to mention the loads of time scanning was consuming. I made the calculations and came to the conclusion that the camera would have paid for itself in about a year, and would save me about a year as well in scanning time for thos 365 rolls of film (I still have over 200 dev'd rolls lying around from 2003 til 2005 that need to be scanned!). That time saved I use for shooting, wife and kid, friends, sports, RFF, etc. (not necessarily in that order). Going the R-D1 way has opened up aspects of photography for me that before I didn't consider (like producing books, entering contests, improving skills/technique/etc) because of lack of time.

If rf and digital shooting is your game than the R-D1 is the way to go. And thankfully that way doesn't exclude shooting (d)SLR.

 

[anaanda]

Anaanda, indeed you can! 🙂 .

good point, although I'm invested in my Xpan and scanner about $1600, and I like to shoot XP2 film which costs 5$ a roll and $3 to develop, so $8 a roll plus the time to scan etc....lets see 100 rolls equals $800 plus all the time to scan!!

One thing, I really do love having negatives, it feels so secure!...the large neg with the xpan is just super...

maybe I'll sell my xpan and get the Rd1! and couple of VC lenses

 

[rvaubel]

Let me give a concrete example of why we love our R-D1's. I just got home from the office bringing with me a new aquisition. I finally found a 21mmF2.8 Kobalux in chrome which I had been lusting after for months now. This is not a very common lens but it is beautifully built and as fast as the only 2 lenses in its class, the Zeiss and Leica. After reading this thread, I mounted my new baby and did a few test shots. The results are stunning.
Last month I had the same experience with a circa 1954 Leitz 90mmF4 Elmar collapsible. That lens was also way cool.
I use this camera for 90% of my shooting. I'm not some sort of troglodyte fixated on rangefinders exclusively. I have a 20D with a full complement of lenses. In fact, I want a 24mm TS for some archetechal photos I want to do this summer in Greece and Turkey. The R-D can't do that job. But it can do most.
Basically what it comes down to is its simple more fun and gives me more pleasure to use this camera. Put this camera in the hands of a rangefinder user, and you can't get it away from him. Until the Leica comes out, its the only game in town for M lenses. If you have a collection of Jupiters, Canons, Leicas, CV's, Zeiss like many of us have, it gives you any opportunity to use these lenses at a different equivalent focal ratio. Its a lot like getting a whole new set of lenses. Plus when you get a new one, like my new Kobalux, I can try it out on my film bodies also. Two for the price of one!

Rex