C
ch1
Guest
When the Digi-M comes out the R-D1 will be history. Just buy glass and wait.
What is it about this Camera??
- Thread starter anaanda
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies: Replies 65
- Views: Views 4K
back alley
IMAGES
copake_ham said:
not necessarily george. the m is gonna be expensive and many wont be able to afford it.
but if the price of the rd were to come down a bit...
joe
C
ch1
Guest
anaanda said:
You pay $5 for a roll of XP-2! OMG!
Ever heard of eBay? Try Hunt's Photo there!
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
anaanda said:
Cloppety-clop, cloppety-clop, here comes Billy Goat Gruff... okay, let's give this guy the benefit of the doubt and assume he's NOT simply being a troll.
For me, the basic answer is simple: I need to shoot digital, and I prefer to shoot with a rangefinder camera.
The rest of the "question" seems to be nothing more than deliberately provocative emotionalisms that don't really deserve a response, but:
-- "faulty"? -- Mine isn't; it has worked perfectly from Day 1.
-- "expensive"? -- Compared to what? I know people who wear $2,500 suits; that's more than I would spend, but if they can afford it and like it, so what?
-- "outdated"? -- Oh, cameras come with sell-by dates now, like milk? The point of a camera is to take good pictures, and my R-D 1 takes good pictures.
I've tried to be as logical as I can with this answer, but I suspect I'm wasting my time.
C
ch1
Guest
back alley said:
Joe,
My thinking is that Epson is not really a camera maker. The QC issues are very troublesome and their customer support is "pee poor".
I figure the Digi-M comes out. The RD-1 disappears. And a year or two down the road Kobayashi-san Jr. convinces dad to "bite" the bullet and Cosina comes out with a R2/3D to meet the "middle market" demand!
The "herd" is gathering. Everyone want to put their "M-glass" on a digi w/o the Epson QC issues.
S
Sean Reid
Guest
anaanda said:
This is a trap that a lot of people have fallen into I think. Yes, the technology keeps changing with digital cameras but that doesn't mean that older models necessarily become obsolescent. Again, I believe that computers have done a lot to move us into this way of thinking.
Of course they can keep "improving" the technology in film cameras and that's just what manufacturers have tried to do for many decades. Think about all of the technological changes that happened to small format cameras even before digital. Did they make the Canon EOS film cameras with sophisticated auto-everything better than a Leica rangefinder? Clearly the latter uses much older technology than the former. Is a camera with a manual film advance outdated because some cameras now fly at 8 FPS? Are prime lenses outdated because of zooms? Did the SLR make the rangefinder outdated (some did argue that at one time)? Do EVFs make SLRs outdated? (they're newer <G>)
There was a time just a few years ago when digital cameras, on the whole, were mostly immature technology. They didn't quite provide the quality needed to replace film for many professionals and amateurs. That's no longer the case. For most intents and purposes, the R-D1 produces files that are a match for scanned 35mm film. People may quibble about exactly how the two mediums compare but I know from doing a lot of professional work with this camera that it's files are up to what clients expect from small format. There are aspects of the camera that could be improved, of course, but it isn't outdated. No camera is outdated so long as it works as an effective tool.
The introduction of the Leica this fall will not make the R-D1 obsolescent although it may make people less forgiving of any QC problems with the Epson. Now that digital cameras have matured (in many case) to the point where they're effective tools perhaps we can stop looking at them the way we've looked at computers and instead look at them as we've always looked at cameras.
I have a friend who is working on projects now that will exhibited in major museums. He works with an R-D1 and a Canon 10D. That 10D has been superceded (in a technological sense) by at least three successive new Canon models. Yet, it still does the job he needs it to do.
Cheers,
Sean
S
Sean Reid
Guest
copake_ham said:
No, that's wrong. The R-D1 may not be in production forever but it isn't going to become obsolescent because of the Leica. I just wrote about this above so I won't repeat. How long have you worked with your R-D1?
Sean
S
Sean Reid
Guest
copake_ham said:Joe,
My thinking is that Epson is not really a camera maker. The QC issues are very troublesome and their customer support is "pee poor".
I figure the Digi-M comes out. The RD-1 disappears. And a year or two down the road Kobayashi-san Jr. convinces dad to "bite" the bullet and Cosina comes out with a R2/3D to meet the "middle market" demand!
The "herd" is gathering. Everyone want to put their "M-glass" on a digi w/o the Epson QC issues.
Do you own an R-D1? I'm thinking that perhaps you don't and so I'm not quite sure what experience your derogatory comments are based upon. Before you wind yourself up any more about this camera, perhaps you should work with one for a year.
Anaanda,
As you sort through these various replies, consider thinking about the responses you're reading from people who actually own and work with the camera vs. people who don't. See if you notice a trend. <G>
Sean
Last edited by a moderator:
anaanda
Well-known
jlw said:
Thanks for all the good responses. People are emotional about this camera. IThe Rd-1 seems to give a lot of joy to the people using it, that's a great testament to the camera, that's the only thing that matters...By the way what is a troll?
S
Sean Reid
Guest
A troll is not you. A troll is someone who intentionally tries to stir up controversy so that he or she can potentially savor the resulting arguments. I understand that's not what you're doing at all, you're just wondering why people are so into this camera.
Cheers,
Sean
Cheers,
Sean
Flinor
Well-known
I'll try to be as succint as possible: I have M and LTM lenses. I prefer rangefinder cameras. I wanted to try digital.
My signature says it all.
My signature says it all.
C
ch1
Guest
Sean Reid said:
No, I do not.
And, frankly, I would not buy one based on everything I have read here on RFF for the past year!
My comments are not derogatory at all. They are observational.
There are at least as many, if not more, negative comments here about this camera than there are positive ones. Do a search!
In just the past two days we've seen a thread about analog battery reading failures. And then there was the "angst" thread about the fact that if you buy a RD-1S from Japan how do you get it serviced in the US? etc. etc.
I appreciate that you are the RFF "guru" for this piece of gear. But I do not think I am wrong in stating that there is a large contingent of M-glass holders here (of which, BTW, as a Nikonian, I am not presently a member!) who are going to hold back until the Digi-M comes out!
There is a very good reason why a lot of RF folks HAVE NOT dropped two-plus grand on this camera!
Dougg
Seasoned Member
This is simply human nature; we complain about problems much more readily than we exclaim about lack of problems.copake_ham said:
And this biased result affects our perception of the state of affairs.I recall reading at least two comments recently from new owners of Bessa-R cameras saying how they were surprised at how much nicer the camera is than they expected from all the commentary they'd read first. That commentary was heavily loaded with problems and other negative comments about a shoddy "plasticky" feel that led them to underestimate the camera.
I expect the same is true of many other products discussed online or in letters to magazine editors. Your OWN experiences will almost surely differ!
rvaubel
Well-known
Deciding to purchase an R-D1 is a unique buying experience because it is your one and only choice if you want a digital rangefinder that will accept all M and LTM lenses.
Prospective purchasers need to realise that their is a SMALL additional risk with regards to QA and warranty issues that one would not be taking if one was buying a DSLR. Mostly the QA problems are with regards to accuracy of the rangfinder. Remember too, that members of this forum tend to be a lot more picky about quality than the average buyer. Plus everyones radar is on alert with regards the RD. I am aware of very, very minor rangefinder issues on my camera that I would have never noticed on my Leicas.
That being said the chances of getting a good sample are about as good as with any camera. If you are displeased with your camera, Epson will replace it. If you general accept the camera body but want the rangfinder to be tweaked a little bit, Dag or many other leica service people can do it.
Thats about the long and short of it. Do you want to play now are do you want to wait in class until the cloud goes away?
Be brave, little fellow
Rex
d
Prospective purchasers need to realise that their is a SMALL additional risk with regards to QA and warranty issues that one would not be taking if one was buying a DSLR. Mostly the QA problems are with regards to accuracy of the rangfinder. Remember too, that members of this forum tend to be a lot more picky about quality than the average buyer. Plus everyones radar is on alert with regards the RD. I am aware of very, very minor rangefinder issues on my camera that I would have never noticed on my Leicas.
That being said the chances of getting a good sample are about as good as with any camera. If you are displeased with your camera, Epson will replace it. If you general accept the camera body but want the rangfinder to be tweaked a little bit, Dag or many other leica service people can do it.
Thats about the long and short of it. Do you want to play now are do you want to wait in class until the cloud goes away?
Be brave, little fellow
Rex
d
pfogle
Well-known
I think this sums it up... most of us who have the R-D1 bought it because we 'thought we'd like it...' - and really, that's all you can say. You probably wouldn't get better pix than with the D70, but you will get different pix, and that maybe important to you... or notanaanda said:
C
ch1
Guest
pfogle said:I think this sums it up... most of us who have the R-D1 bought it because we 'thought we'd like it...' - and really, that's all you can say. You probably wouldn't get better pix than with the D70, but you will get different pix, and that maybe important to you... or not
Most of you who bought the RD-1 did not have any other option. You wanted a digital RF - and it was the only thing available. You are the users who have created the QC (or lack thereof ) record.
Soon there will be the Digi-M. And that, as I said, is when the RD-1 will become "history".
As to the D70 - I own one. Very pleased with it. I have never had any problem with it. And I do not think it has anything like the troubled QC history of the RD-1. And I also didn't pay $2K+ for it!
I will note that the likely resale value of the D70 is probably as dismal as the RD-1. But my "sunk" cost is much lower.
Enjoy. G'night.
LCT
ex-newbie
copake_ham said:
I wonder if you're competent enough to patronize this way George.
Are you sure the digital M will have a 0.9x or 1:1 viewfinder?
If not, the R-D1 will remain the only digital M3 so far.
And how about the 75mm FoV?
Will we have to crop pics and pixels to get it with the Leica?
Best,
LCT
S
Sean Reid
Guest
copake_ham said:
George,
I have no need to do a search, I did the research for what I believe is the most extensive and complete long-term review of this camera yet done. You obviously haven't read it. It was done with a reasonably good sized sample (given how rare the camera is) and came to it's conclusions systematically based on actual data from owners.
You, on the other hand, are making a very loose and unsubstantiated set of comments based on what you think you've learned from this forum. You also don't own the camera and so are not speaking from any first-hand experience. In short, you're on very shaky ground which is why you may find that you're raising the ire of some people who actually have first-hand knowledge of how this camera works as a tool.
Your comments aren't observational at all. They're an attempt at being a summation and they're not an accurate summation either. They couldn't be, because you don't even have access to the data that would be needed to make a useful summary. Observation, in a scientific sense, requires first-hand experience.
Of course it's true that many people are waiting for the digital M instead of buying the R-D1. And that's fine. If you simply wanted to make that point, I'd have no objections. But you've tried to advise people about a camera you, ultimately, know very little about. That, as I said, puts you on shaky ground.
I don't normally quarrel with people on forums but you may find that some people who actually know this camera are going to take issue with you on this.
Sean
Last edited by a moderator:
Jim Watts
Still trying to See.
I have had my R-D1 for nearly 18 months. No real problems with it and no failures. In that time I have shot enough frames with it for it to have nearly paid for itself in film costs. If I had waited for a digital M I would have been deprived of a fine photographic tool for at least 2 years, even if I could afford the final asking price of the Digital M when it finally arrives. If I can afford one and the built in finder gives better coverage for the moderately wider angle lenses I prefer I will consider getting one. Not because it is more up to date or even (better) tool, but (if it meets MY criteria) it will better fit MY purpose for certain uses. I of course I will still retain my excellent R-D1 for the normal to moderate telephoto lenses I also have.
Sean hit the nail fully on the head when he said "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". Provided the photographic tool functions and gives the quality of results for the purpose you intend them for 'better' or 'more up to date' is irrelevant and probably a waste of money. Fitness for purpose is what counts.
If I want the best technical quality in large prints - I dig out my 40 years + old obsolete Linhoff Technica IV - because it fits the purpose.
If I want high quality large prints of "street pictures" - I dig out my obsolete Plaubel W67.
If I want panoramics - dig out my now obsolete XPan or Horizon 202.
I might occassionally dig out my obsolete Leica M4 (that I have had from new for 30 years - no need to replace it) if I want the look that 35mm film gives.
I might even dig out my obsolete Canon 20D bought in desperation because I doubted a digital rangefinder camera digital (that generally better fits MY purpose) would ever appear. This camera has now been replaced by a more up to date model and the 20D can be brought for less than half I paid, which means its not worth selling. BUT it's certainly not worth half the replacement 30D replacement as a functional tool.
Unfortunately its the camera manufactures need to drive the market that determines that a new model should come out every 18 months and unfortunately too many purchasers believe it when it is suggested that if they have a "better camera" they will take better pictures rather than trying to find one (of whatever vintage) that fits with their style of picture making.
To continue Sean's computer analogy. I have just brought a new computer - but only after 6 years and only now because the previous one is no longer fit for the purpose (file sizes now too big) . This was the only reason to change. . If I had believed the manufacturers and the computer press I should have replaced it at least 4 years ago!
Sean hit the nail fully on the head when he said "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". Provided the photographic tool functions and gives the quality of results for the purpose you intend them for 'better' or 'more up to date' is irrelevant and probably a waste of money. Fitness for purpose is what counts.
If I want the best technical quality in large prints - I dig out my 40 years + old obsolete Linhoff Technica IV - because it fits the purpose.
If I want high quality large prints of "street pictures" - I dig out my obsolete Plaubel W67.
If I want panoramics - dig out my now obsolete XPan or Horizon 202.
I might occassionally dig out my obsolete Leica M4 (that I have had from new for 30 years - no need to replace it) if I want the look that 35mm film gives.
I might even dig out my obsolete Canon 20D bought in desperation because I doubted a digital rangefinder camera digital (that generally better fits MY purpose) would ever appear. This camera has now been replaced by a more up to date model and the 20D can be brought for less than half I paid, which means its not worth selling. BUT it's certainly not worth half the replacement 30D replacement as a functional tool.
Unfortunately its the camera manufactures need to drive the market that determines that a new model should come out every 18 months and unfortunately too many purchasers believe it when it is suggested that if they have a "better camera" they will take better pictures rather than trying to find one (of whatever vintage) that fits with their style of picture making.
To continue Sean's computer analogy. I have just brought a new computer - but only after 6 years and only now because the previous one is no longer fit for the purpose (file sizes now too big) . This was the only reason to change. . If I had believed the manufacturers and the computer press I should have replaced it at least 4 years ago!
Last edited:
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
anaanda said:
I don't get particularly emotional about the R-D 1. I do get emotional about people seeming to imply that I'm an idiot or an injudicious consumer because I chose to buy a camera that they have heard is unreliable and overpriced.
I had "heard" all those things, too; I did my own research, made my decision, and haven't regretted it.
Sorry that my original answer sounded so intemperate, but it really is very tedious constantly having my good judgment attacked by people whose knowledge of the R-D 1 consists solely of Internet hearsay.
PS -- Here, for the first time anywhere on the Internet, are some actual comparison pictures!!! The first, taken by me yesterday evening, is an example of the type of photo you can make right now with an R-D 1. The second is an example of the type of photo you can make right now with a Leica Digital M...
Last edited: