Worth it? 2012

R

radical7

Olivier Duong
Local time
10:35 AM
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
82
Hi guys, I was looking for a film rangefinder, but it looks like the Epson would fit the bill quite well. My question is, is the image quality worth it since we are in 2012? Do any of you use it on a daily basis? Does the image quality hinder you? It's the only area I am sweating about, the image quality, so I would love your input since we are in 2012 and i am looking for a camera that will last. Also for some reason the fuji Xpro does NOT tempt me like the Epson, anybody know why?
 
I've had mine for a few months, so I made the decision to purchase one in 2012. Check the thread about RD-1 photos and decide for yourself if the image quality suffers.

Also for some reason the fuji Xpro does NOT tempt me like the Epson, anybody know why?
Click to expand...

because like the demotivational posters often say "You are unique- just like everyone else." :)
 
nothing about the rd1 hinders me.

but then, one is either satisfied with it or they are not.

if you want an affordable digital rangefinder experience...your options are limited.
 
it's a nice camera with a nice sensor. doesn't have the resolution of the m9, but it takes very nice pictures.
 
Whether the image quality is good enough depends entirely on what you shoot and what you will do with the files.
ISO 200 or 400 is good in color. The noise at ISO 1600 in b&w looks like film grain.
For printing 8x10 or 11x14, or for online display they're perfectly fine.
Is it worth it? Depends on what combination of characteristics works best for you. Prices are running about $1200 for an R-D1. An M8 goes for about, what, $1800? Now you do the trade offs on VF magnification, RF base length, IR cut filters, resolution, high ISO performance, SD card support, etc.
 
I really want to try a rd1. They seem to becoming a cult camera, haven't heard anyone not enjoying theirs.
 
Having decided that a digital is definately in my future Im' looking at a X100 the new OM-D and now this Epson, trouble is they all have good and bad points and I can't decide between them.
The only good point is that an RD could be re sold with little loss if it was found to be unsuitable same for the lenses.
Seems like a lot of money for an old digital camera but if it gets the images I'm after who who am I to care about its age.
The fact that Keith seems to love his RD isn't helping as he has tried all the cameras I'm looking at.
 
bgb said:
Having decided that a digital is definately in my future Im' looking at a X100 the new OM-D and now this Epson, trouble is they all have good and bad points and I can't decide between them.
The only good point is that an RD could be re sold with little loss if it was found to be unsuitable same for the lenses.
Seems like a lot of money for an old digital camera but if it gets the images I'm after who who am I to care about its age.
The fact that Keith seems to love his RD isn't helping as he has tried all the cameras I'm looking at.
Click to expand...


LOL ... The poor RD-1 is being neglected due to the OMD at the moment ... but that old Epson can definitely do things the Oly can't so it won't be going anywhere shortly! :D

Putting IQ aside ... the RD-1 has more character than any digital camera I have ever used and that alone is enough reason not to part with it for me!
 
bgb said:
Considering the cameras you have now and the ones you have owned that's high praise indeed.
Click to expand...


Seriously ... when I first got that camera and figured out how to use the crazy Epson raw converter I was blown away by how different the files it produces are to anything else I own that is digital. The OMD is a lovely camera but the black and white conversions from the Epson are way better to my eyes than anything I've managed from the Olympus.

And then there's the user experience of shooting the world's first digital rangefinder! :eek: :D
 
To me the RD-1 and the digital M's make sense if you have so much experience with a film RF camera that its operation has become a conditioned reflex. I suspect that's what back alley might have been alluding to when he said that the RD-1 didn't hold him back - it works exactly like the film camera he's most familiar with.

Since RFs seem new to you, I think you should stick with your original intention and go for a film RF camera, because even with the digital M's, you are sacrificing a lot to duplicate the exact feel & function of a film camera.
 
radical7 said:
Back alley, care to elaborate when you said nothing in the rd1 hinders you? Thanks
Click to expand...

i tend to rate/measure things, especially photo gear, on it's ability to stay out of my way.
i rate rangefinders highly because they work well, fit my needs, make great images and they stay out of my way.
the rd1 behaves like a rangefinder...it is a rangefinder...and it's digital so it meets my needs nicely.
i do have prints made regularly, by a lab...print size is usually 8x10, 8x12 or some weird size that fits the image best. i rarely have 11x14 or larger made but i do have 11x14 prints on my wall.
i have a 12mp nikon d200 that should work better for me but it doesn't, the colours are dreadful in comparison and take more work in post processing to get them where i like them...b&w is just not the same.
i would rather have smaller prints of images that satisfy me than larger prints of lesser images.
for me, the rf is king and queen of the parade...if i had to choose between digital and rf i would pick rf...thank goodness the rd1 makes that a moot point.
 
Sounds good backalley just the sort of thing I wanted to hear.

What about the size of the camera? Same as an OM-2 or about the same as a Yashica GSN? I have large hands and while I can carry and use the GSN all day without problems I tend to get cramp in my hand trying to hold onto the OM-2. Even my Nikon F80 is better with the MB-16 battery pack attached.

I also shoot left eyed only is that an issue with the RD? Does the winder stick into your face?

Sorry for all the questions but if I decide to get one of these it will be a leap of faith as it's unlikely I will be able to try it out first.

:bang:
 
if you can find one, get a 'bridge' grip for the body...i too shoot left eyed with glasses...it's a rangefinder, not accurate for framing but if you can relax and 'go with the flow' you soon learn where to place the important elements of your image.
i don't rapid fire shoot so the wind lever never gets in the way for me.
 
also remember this is a bessa body stuffed with epson innards...if you have ever shot a bessa then you already know what an rd1 feels like to use.
 
radical7 said:
My question is, is the image quality worth it since we are in 2012?
Click to expand...
Only you can tell. It has a fairly low megapixel count, which affects print size, cropping, and the time you can spend pixel peeping one file. It also only goes to ISO 1600, which already shows noise. If you hate any noise whatsoever regardless of how it looks or you want to shoot at ISO 6400, the decision is easy.

I have yet to take a picture with the R-D1 that I wish I had taken with some other camera. The image quality is that good, but 2012 huge file high-ISO test image perfection it ain't.
 
The epson is as large as a GSN i think with the bump grip that i really like so for me no need for extra grip. and yes 11x14 is comfortable size for its files, i would say 20x30 is also the max one would go. you come to the right place, lot of rd1(s) fans here :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom