RD-1 & M lenses: First Blush Report

First use of Epson's RD-1 was a positive experience. Only had less than an or so to work

with it recently while on lunch break. Shot some @ ISO 200 outdoors and @ ISO 1600

indoors. Big surprise was the 1600 stuff. Made 8X10s from those shots that show less

noise than expected. In fact what noise there was looked to me like film grain from 400

speed scanned film printed at 8X10. I processed the RAW files in PSCS RAW developer.

IMO, both digital sensor and in-camera processing, as well as processing programs like C

-1 and PSCS, have come a long ways in a very short amount of time.

 

Built quality seems pretty robust. IMO better than the Black Contax G quasi-rangefinders I

once owned. The key areas of maximum use like the door for the SD card seems very well

fitted and tough. The battery provided is unfortunately proprietary, probably due to fitting

to the integrity of the body design ... but it lasts a loooooong time. A 1 gig SD card holds

about 100 or so RAW shots and I nearly 1/2 filled it without using much battery power.

 

General impression of the color images is that the look and feel I've come to expect from

M lenses is pretty much there. The images remind me more of those from a Contax ND

than any of the Canon digital cameras I use. A bit more subdued, yet rich color, and

less of that digital artificiality you have to tame in post processing with some digital

cameras. Perhaps the combination of a CCD sensor and the characteristics of M glass (??).

 

I primarily used a M 28/2 ASPH this time out, which is around a 44mm when the 1.6X

lens factor is taken into account. But strangely, the resulting printed images seem wider to

me. I think a M 24mm could be used without a separate shoe-finder by using the entire

viewfinder window. For wide work I'm going to look into a V/C 15mm with a 24mm shoe

finder (15mm X1.6=24mm). Longer lenses aren't needed because a 50/1.4 becomes a 80/

1.4. There is no rangefinder patch white-out even when looking directly into the light or at

a 45 degree angle, or any angle.

 

Once a few of the idiosyncratic digital controls are mastered, the use is very similar to

shooting a M IMO. Actually, I found the camera to be pretty ingenious in how familiar

analog controls have been assigned digital functions. Once understood, I found it

somewhat simpler to use than even my Canon D20. I also did a lot less "chimping" with

this camera than with a DSLR. Maybe because of the familiar feel of a M and habits formed

over many years of using Ms, plus the fact that the LCD didn't light up with the image after

every shot. In short, I think the camera will feel familiar in the hands of M users.

 

Worth the money? Sure, if you have it to spare, or you can make some cash with it. If not,

then wait until the Epson RD-2 comes out and this one will be a lot more affordable : -) I

personally wouldn't spend that much cash if I didn't already have the M lenses.

 

In the meantime, I think it'll earn it's keep while shooting color wedding candids (still use

M7s and film for B&Ws), so I won't have to lug around a Canon 1DsMKII for an entire 10

hour wedding shoot.

 

Here are a few results. Not sure how they'll come across on the web, but the prints are

quite nice looking, and have pleasantly surprised a few photographers I've shared them

with.<div></div>

Another...<div></div>

One taken at the mall earilier...<div></div>

This is a non shot, but I took it to test the camera's ability to handle extreme contrast

outdoors...<div></div>

Another, I forgot to mention that I shot using the aperture preferred setting just like with a

M7.

 

When I get more use of the camera I'll let you know any further observations...<div></div>

Marc, great to hear from you! Many thanks for a refreshing and informative post. Best wishes and happy holidays.

-John

Last one, taken to inspect different textures and fine lines and details.<div></div>

thanks Marc. Not for me (don't buy 1st gen. products normally) but it is a good milestone.

Marc,

 

Thank you very much for the user report that I'm sure, a lot of us have been waiting for. This is very valuable, as you have a lot of credibility and authority in this forum...

 

OT: Marc, funny how this camera is slowly getting respect here amongst some of the others, after the initial derision on this forum. Seemed to me, back then, and now, that its such an obviously winning configuration, price aside...

Interesting.<br>

How did you buy it? From Asia, or is it available in the US now?

Thanks very much Marc! It looks like a very useable camera. I'm curious to see what it'll do with a 15mm lens because it's got a close-to-the-film rear element like the 21 Super Angulon rather than the mild retrofocus design of the later model M extreme wide angles.

Thanks for the review Marc. <p> The "cleanest" pix I've yet seen from this rig. But then again, all your stuff is clean ;-) Goes to show that what matters most is who's behind the box. But as Patrick said, version 2.0 should be better.

From Calumet in the USA Vlad.

 

Thanks for the heads-up on the 15mm Al, I'll check if it can even be used on the RD. The

M 28 hangs out some into the camera, so if the 15 isn't any deeper from the mounting

flange, it should be okay. We'll see.

 

I'm sure the next version will be better, but as far as I'm concerned this one does what I

need right now. Most wedding prints, especially candids, rarely exceed 7X10 ... and now

that I've used the RD-1 even at ISO1600 and pulled 8X10s it does very well.

Cool shots, Marc. Are these colors straight from the camera or have you tweaked it in Photoshop?

Hi Simon, these were shot as RAW files, so they have to be processed in a RAW developer

like the one in PhotoShop CS ( But, the camera comes with an Adobe RAW Developer plug

in, so you don't have to have CS).

 

The initial files are a bit flat, which I prefer in order to maintain the brighter areas. You can

also shoot j-pegs and set up to 4 different groups of settings to customize the output

(things like saturation, sharpness, and contrast).

Marc, the 21/3.4 Super Angulon extends 7 or 8mm deeper into the camera than the 15. Still, the 15 appears to extend back about 12 or 13mm from the front of the lens flange on my Bessa L.

 

As far as how either lens might perform on digital, it doesn't so much matter where the physical rear end of the glass is located as it does where the rear nodal point of the lens is located. That's the point in a non retrofocus design where the light rays actually seem to start diverging. That would also be about where the diaphragm appears to be when looking through the lens. On that basis the 15's diaphragm appears much closer to the film plane that the 21's. Well, give it a try! Thanks.

Thanks for the review, so nit picking questions, did you notice any light fall off in the corners, outside of post processing from raw to jpeg did you need to tweak the colors/contrast/WB at all? Did you try the B&W mode out?

 

It's a shame that the thing is so flippin expensive, at ~$1000 they would fly of the shelf's. Unfortunately all my photo's are for fun and kids. Need to wait and see what Zeiss comes out with in digital form next year.

 

Thanks again for the review.

 

Gerry

Thanks a lot for your reply, Marc ... I really like the colors in the first two and the last shots. Even though you've let them run through PS, one can still tell the mystical hint in the colors - which is great and where the Canons are left ... in dust. :)

Marc, what's the dead time from shot to shot in Raw format?

How can you judge battery life to be "looooong" given a lucnh hour "test".

lunch, not lucnh

The CV 15mm works fine on the R-D1. There's some vignetting but it can be dealt with via Epson's RAW converter. I've included an example shot.

 

-Dave-<div></div>

Here is another example with the R-D1 and 15mm Heliar combo taken this morning on a walk.<div></div>

<i>The battery provided is unfortunately proprietary, probably due

to fitting to the integrity of the body design</i><br><br>Actually it's

not. The supplied battery is the same* as the Fuji NP-80 which

is widely available quite cheaply. I picked up a couple of genuine

Fuji ones from an eBay dealer for not a lot of money at all and

they work great.<br><br>*The Epson battery does have a

marginally higher capacity (1500mAh) than the Fuji one

(1300mAh) but this doesn't make the latter battery any less

compatible with the RD-1.

<i>when the 1.6X lens factor is taken into account. But strangely,

the resulting printed images seem wider to me.</i><br><br>

Yes, I've thought that too. I think it's because of two things. First,

the framelines in the RD-1 are very conservative and you get

quite a bit more on the sensor than you expect from the

frameline field of view. Secondly, I think the 1.0x mag finder

makes the usual focal length lenses seem wider than they really

are. If I put the 35mm lens on the RD-1 it captures the same field

of view as something like a 53mm lens but because the

framelines fill up a large proportion of the 1.0x finder's field of

view, the lens seems just like the 35mm lens of old. Obviously,

it's just a psychological effect but the finder does give you a

different view of the world and makes you miss wider angles

rather less than you might think.