Epson R-D1 second impressions...

[andrew robertson]

Ok, I got my R-D1 over a week ago now. I have shot about 600 images with it so far. I

was kind of starry eyed about this camera when I first received it. Now that I have had it

for a while, I can make some more useful commentary about it.

 

I just got back from a five day trip to Montana to see my grandparents, who are in their

nineties. I used the R-D1 extensively to photograph them as well as other subjects during

that time. I found it to be a pleasure in most ways.

 

For photographing the grandfolks, I primarily used the 40mm f/1.4 Nokton and the 21mm

f/4 Color Skopar. The images are all very sharp, even with the lenses wide open. The AA

filter is a bit more aggressive than the 10D, but not extremely aggressive as some wags

have said. The camera handles beautifully, and is quite nondescript. The two lenses I

mentioned above have a very beautiful and delicate rendering, preserving sharpness while

at the same time providing gentle gradients between tones. It also seems to retain some

color details in bright highlights, whereas the 10D will easily let those go white. This

leads me to believe that the Epson has better dynamic range than the Canon. The battery

lasted a long long time - well over 200 images with modest use of the LCD screen.

 

My RF seems to be quite well adjusted, providing critical focus even with the Nokton wide

open and close up. It also focuses the 90mm f/3.5 APO-Lanthar perfectly, again even

close up. The other lenses I have (15mm Heliar, 21 & 28mm Skopars) are quite wide and a

littler slower, so critical focus is easily attainable even if I get a little lazy when using the

rangefinder (or not, with the Heliar).x

 

There is a bit of leeway between the frame lines and what I get on the CCD. This is to be

expected. A pleasant surprise is that the 21mm finder provides the exact framing that I

get with the 15mm lens after the digital crop factor. EXACT! It's very nice to be able to

compose accurately with such a wide lens. I don't have a R-D1 finder for the 21mm lens,

and I doubt that I'll need one. The 35mm frame lines provide a great 'rule of thirds' finder

for the 21mm lens, accurate enough with some practice that I would feel like I was

carrying extra crap if I did get the proper 21mm R-D1 finder for that lens. The 28mm

frame lines are a little difficult to see because I wear glasses, but it's not a huge

impediment.

 

There are a few down sides, of course. First, all the lenses except the Nokton and the

APO-Lanthar vignette quite severely wide open. This isn't a huge problem because I shoot

RAW files and use Photoshop CS RAW to convert, and CS has an extremely effective

vignetting correction tool. This does increase the noise in the corners of the image

especially when it was shot at ISO 1600, but not to the point of distraction.

 

Having ISO 200 as the slowest speed can also be limiting, especially in snowy, bright, high

altitude alpine settings as in Red Lodge. I found myself shooting at 1/2000th at f/8 a lot

to retain some amount of texture in the snow. Having ISO 1600 as the most sensitive

setting isn't as limiting as I first thought it would be - if I plan to convert the images to

B&W I can easily push them 3 or 4 stops up to ISO 25600 and retain usable images, with a

texture not unlike what one gets from ISO 1600 B&W film. With the 10D I get banding at

ISO 3200, and severely ugly banding at 6400 and above. The Epson shows no banding at

all.

 

Build quality is excellent. I flung myself into my office chair and accidentally sat with all

my weight on my R-D1 and 21mm f/4 lens attached. Both lens and camera are perfectly

fine.

 

All in all, I had a bit of buyer's remorse when I first got the camera, but I am extremely

pleased with it now. The whole kit of the R-D1 and all five lenses is lighter and less bulky

than my 10D and 28-135 IS zoom, making it perfect for travel. The small drawbacks that

are present in rangefinders vs. SLRs can be dealt with, and the image quality

(especially at ultra high ISO speeds) and compact size more than make up for them.

[m_.]

thanks, andrew. mind to post a few photos to illustrate your points?

[andrew robertson]

Not at all. I will be busy until this evening, but I will then post a few high ISO shots and

some that illustrate the highlight holding abilities of the camera.

[neil_swanson]

Andrew, I don't have an R-D1 but I like them and wish someone was renting them but so far I haven't found a renter.

 

Where in CS is the correction for vignetting? Is it built in already or do you select and feather a layer? Just curious about the tool in CS.

[fivetonsflax]

The difference in highlight retention vs. the 10D could be due to differences in dynamic

range, but it could also be due to differences in metering. Just saying.

 

Thanks for posting your thoughts on this camera. Interesting reading. I'm always

interested in solutions that are small and light, though I don't have the rangefinder

religion at this time.

[simon_hughes1]

Neil,

 

Actually the vignetting tool is built into the Epson RAW converter. You simply choose the appropriate focal length for the lens you used and it corrects it very nicely.

[andrew robertson]

The vignetting correction is available only in CS RAW. If you shoot JPGs or scan film then

you're in for a lot more work.

 

It may be slight differences in metering that save the highlights, but I'm inclined to think

that somehow the Epson saves highlights from going white a tad better than the Canon.

One of these days I will do a side by side comparison of the two, with ISO and exposure

values set equally on both cameras and we'll know for sure.

[marc_bergman1]

Andrew,

 

Many thanks for posting your impressions. I too have the 10D, which I love, but am also interested in a digital rangfinder. My usual lens is the 24mm f/1.4. It feels as big as the wide angle zooms.

 

I am looking forward to your high ISO examples.

 

Marc

[andrew robertson]

I never installed the Epson RAW software, because I heard it's slow and flaky sometimes. I

just use the stock ACR (2.4 I believe) and it works great.

 

Photoshop's RAW converter is based off dcraw, a Unix program. In my experience, dcraw

often gives far better results than the manufacturer's software. I may try Epson's RAW

converter some day, but my experience with the 10D and the bevy of Canon brand

converters has shown that, with that camera at least, the dcraw based Adobe converter

does a better job. It also offers a great deal more options than most(all?) RAW conversion

software.

[andrew robertson]

This was taken at ISO 1600 and pushed the full four stops that Photoshop CS RAW allows,

for an effective ISO speed of 25600, with the Nokton wide open, 1/30th. It's really quite

chunky in color, but when I use the channel mixer to convert it to B&W the blotchiness of

the color shot at 25600 disappears. First the whole thing, then an actual pixels view of my

friend's eye.

 

Detail suffers when images are pushed beyond 2-2.5 stops at ISO 1600.

[andrew robertson]

I don't know why that first one didn't display inline.

 

Here's the crop.

[andrew robertson]

And some motorcycles. I pushed this one 2.5 stops from ISO 1600, or to ISO 9600.<div></div>

[andrew robertson]

Here's one where the Canon would definitely blow the sky and other extreme highlights,

but the Epson holds them gracefully.

[neil_swanson]

I have some RAW files from a friends D2H (nice camera BTW). I just opened one and found the vignetting sliders in ACR. Cool, another tool.

[andrew robertson]

Also of great utility is the CA correction feature of CS RAW. Turn your cheapo non-APO

lenses into virtual APO lenses! You don't have to fear bright highlights at the edges of

cheaper / older lenses anymore!

[andrew robertson]

Here's one that I shot at ISO 800 by mistake. The wisteria bush there was whiteish

lavender, a delicate color that the 10D would have definitely rendered as pure white in that

bright light.<div></div>

[david_kieltyka1]

>> It may be slight differences in metering that save the highlights, but I'm inclined to think that somehow the Epson saves highlights from going white a tad better than the Canon. <<

 

I've shot the R-D1 side-by-side with my Canon 20D. The Epson definitely does a better job of preserving highlight detail. I can adjust exposure so the two generate nearly identical histograms, and still the Epson RAW files contain more upper-end info. The Canon tends to push near-highlights, like bright blue skies, into the highlights. These areas don't blow out, they just lose color saturation. The R-D1 preserves color much better.

 

I'd also recommend giving the Epson converter a shot. IMO it does a better job than Adobe's converter. This is the consensus opinion of everyone I know who's used both.

 

-Dave-

[russell_brooks]

There's a new version of Epson's Raw software up on their website.