Luminous Landscape Epson RD-1 field test

[olivier_reichenbach]

Come on, it's not that people think a teeny camera will make them invisible on the street.

It's more like less intrusive, or "dangerous".

[Brad_]

I don't understand what you mean by less intrusive or dangerous.

[._._z]

Brad, didn't you know that typical 35mm-sized cameras frighten people, chilling them

to the bone, to the very fabric of their being -- whereas tiny cameras make their owners

appear friendly, unthreatening and affable?

 

And you call yourself a photographer!

[________1]

"...but this just seems like bending over backwards."

 

More like bending forwards, and that's just step one.

[h_kan_th_rngren]

Is the resolution on the RD-1 enough for printing in A3+ on an Epson 2100/2200, or would I be more happy with even more resolution and/or a larger CCD?

[joshroot]

I don't balk at spending $3000 on a digital camera if it fits my needs. I have done it at least twice before. The Fuji S1 and The Canon 1D were both at least $3k when I bought them. Now I'll admit that's a bit spendy these days when you can get excellent cameras for under $1000. But still, if you want a digital RF solution, this is your only choice at the moment. And I find it to be a much better bargin than the R digital back. Which is in a similar position of being the only product of it's kind.

 

However.....

 

The RD-1 would be FAR more enticing if Cosina would come out with a few lenses that would allow me to have the equililent of a 20/4, 24/2.8, & a 35/1.4 or 2. They would not have to cover the full frame and could be specifically for this camera. There are enough Leica & Cosina lenses around to cover everything above 35mm. But there is nothing even remotely small/fast/wide.

 

Other than that, I would give some serious though to this camera. Or at least to trying one out. The ability to have a small, light, digital RF would be very cool. The canon rebel kit priced out above may be cool, but it sure isn't small when compared to Leica M sized cameras and lenses.

[socke]

Brad, I know a couple of people who don't like to look into a 24-85 with hood on a Canon D60 but like to have their picture taken with a small P&S. So I had to take pictures from Ama with her Sanyo Xacti or my G2 and TVS. To her the Canon looks like a gun and she doesn't feel good when I point it at her.

 

And another thing, I like smaller cameras!

[david_kieltyka1]

>> Also, the quality of the sensor and the technology behind it doing the signal processing will drive the end-result far greater than the quality/pedigree of the lens in front of it - within reason of course. Where Grant was going, I think... <<

 

Grant may've been going there but in my experience it's a bunch of BS nonetheless. I can clearly see the differences in rendering quality between my Canon, Zeiss and Pentax (M42) lenses on a Canon 10D or 20D. I'm talking about more than just resolution differences. Color, saturation, contrast, out-of-focus characteristics...these qualities all make it past the sensor and into the image files. Things shouldn't be any different with the R-D1, and in fact they're not.

 

-Dave-

[r s]

<i>I can clearly see the differences in rendering quality between my Canon, Zeiss and Pentax (M42) lenses on a Canon 10D or 20D. </i>

<br><br>

And how would you rate the three brands based on the results you're getting?

[watts]

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. The RD-1 is around the

same price as a new MP. In the UK it's roughly the equivalent of

200 rolls of E6 and quality development. 200 rolls of film is not

really of lot of film - a couple of rolls or so per week for two years.

If used for stuff where you wouldn't normally be able to pass the

cost of film/development onto the client, it doesn't take long for

the RD-1 to make economical sense. The above calculation

doesn't even include the cost benefit of not needing to scan. I did

my sums and it seemed a no-brainer to me. Others can do their

sums and take a different view.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<I>Volker Hett , nov 26, 2004; 09:37 a.m. In Havana I shot machinegun style

and came back with 411 pictures from the D60 and </I><P>Not this camera

<P>

Did anybody to bother to read the whole review? It's not really that positive.

Shooting RAW mode you can only bang off two or three pictures before it has

to write to disc. The reviewer said that for what this cost you should be able to

shoot at least 10 pictures in RAW before you wait for it to write to disc. This

camera is not it. It's close, but for US$3000 it should be a lot better.

[EricM]

"Shooting RAW mode you can only bang off two or three pictures before it has to write to disc."

 

is it still quicker than manually winding film on?

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

Oddly.....there's a "film winding" crank that must be "advanced" before the next

picture. No idea what THAT does. Never-the-less, the reviewer says if you

shoot two or three quick pictures you gotta wait before shooting again. In

other words you better be decisive with your moment. Or something like that.

<grin>

[EricM]

i was trying to be...a smart ass? yeah, i know, a film advance lever on a digi body...hmm...

 

my D70 does a little quicker than that, but it's still a hassel over film flying past the gate at 5fps...

[david_kieltyka]

The R-D1's winding crank cocks the shutter, just as it does on any film camera without a

motor drive. This was discussed earlier this year when the camera was first announced.

 

It would be nice if the camera had a larger RAW buffer. This and the separate AE lock

button (as opposed to incorporting AE lock into the shutter release) are the R-D1's two

main flaws IMO. But I'm not a machine gunner so in practice I'm not likely to notice any

buffer-induced delay.

 

-Dave-

[joshroot]

The concept of being able to review your images in B/W while still having the option of color (via the RAW conversion) is a very interesting one though. Even if the RD-1 is the only camera of it's kind that makes it off thr ground, I hope some other camera companies keep that idea in mind.

[david_kieltyka]

>> And how would you rate the three brands [Canon, Zeiss, Pentax] based on the results

you're getting? <<

 

I wish my Zeiss lenses were available in Canon EF mount autofocus versions. I prefer their

color, contrast & saturation. But the Canons are fine too.

 

-Dave-

[shambrick007]

"...there's a "film winding" crank that must be "advanced" before the next picture..." <p> Why does this keep catching people off guard?

[rj]

Just read the review and am impressed by the fact that epson seems to have kept the camera as simple as possible when it comes to shooting. I don't think, for my type of photography, a large raw buffer would be required. I usually shoot one frame then wait for another shot. If Michael Riechmann does a review, or a follow up to this review, I can see him not liking the way in which you view the histogram. He has said in other reviews how important the histogram is, and it seems with the epson, it takes a bit of time to get to. Not sure how this would affect my photography with the camera though.

 

I can see a digital rangefinder to be a great blessing to someone who is interested in the benefits of rangefinder shooting and is just beginning the learning curve of shooting with a manual rangefinder focusing camera. The ability to shoot shot after shot and get feedback on what you are doing right and wrong would be a great help.

[socke]

2 to 3 shots are fine with me as long as I don't have to wait minutes :-)<br><br>

<br>

When you fill the D60's buffer with raws it takes ages until they are flushed to the card and you can't improve write time with faster cards because the camera can't make use of those.<br><br>

 

So I usualy use it in single shot and very very VERY seldom do things like this:<br>

<br>

<img src="http://www.hett.org/images/diastreifen.jpg"><br>

The car retourned a couple of minutes later, but my camera was locked for more than five minutes to write those pics!

[rj]

5 minutes? Now I know what all the fuss about raw buffer is for. I would be interested in more user comments if the buffer on the epson has ever hampered shooting.

 

I have to tell you, the first time that I saw this camera on the web, I looked at those analog display wheel thingy and wondered what the hell that was, now that the review explained it, it makes sense and I can see it being helpful.

[david_kieltyka]

Volker is probably exaggerating re. the D60. But it is a few years old...so maybe not! It

takes the R-D1 about eight seconds to completely flush its buffer to a fast SD card. But

you don't have to wait that long. You can take two or three shots as fast as you can press

the shutter button and re-cock the shutter, then wait a few seconds, take another shot,

wait a few seconds, etc. 'til you fill up your card. This is in RAW mode. In JPEG mode you

can shoot as fast as you can physically manage without any delay. It's not perfect--the

buffer should be larger as Sean notes in his LL review--but I can't see myself ever running

up against it in real world use. My RF style is sharpshooter, not machine gunner.

 

-Dave-

[sean_reid]

In deciding on whether or not to buy the R-D1, the essential question (I believe) is whether or not one wants to work with a rangefinder. If the rangefinder aspect of the camera is not important, it's certainly valid to argue that one can get a very good DSLR for half the $$. One can certainly use Leica and Zeiss lenses on Canon DSLR bodies (I use Zeiss lenses on a 1Ds and 10D). As I said in the review, the sensor is competent; it doesn't break new ground and it doesn't need to. The value of the camera lies in the way it works as a tool, in the lenses it accepts and in the way in which one sees and composes the picture. Those aspects are easily as important as sensor performance. I've tested and owned many digital cameras. The 1Ds is still the main camera I use commercially but, for my personal work, the R-D1 is the best camera I've used, despite its flaws.

 

Regarding the RAW buffer: I'm going to continue to harp on this issue with every camera that comes up short in this area. The technology needed to allow a large RAW buffer certainly exists and should be used for any serious camera. Not doing so is sloppy engineering. On the other hand, I haven't yet hit a delay with the RAW buffer of the R-D1 in actual daily use.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean Reid

[socke]

Ok, I have to defend my little old D60 :-)

 

As long as you don't shoot sports, or that tuned up Fiat 500, the 8 RAW Buffer is fine.

If you fill it up and then release the shutter the camera flushes the buffer and once there is enough space for another picture you can shoot.

 

So I usualy limit my shooting to bursts of three or four, learned that as a soldier in the Navy with a HK G-3, an UZI and a submachinegun :-), release the buffer and have some shots left if needed.

 

With rangefinders I either can't do 3 frames per second, no motor drive, or it makes not much sense as I can't adjust focus acurate and fast enough, with motor drive.

 

A friend of mine shoots Rally and Racing, up to september he did that with a D60 and rarely lost a shot due to lack of buffer.

 

In other words, you will run into buffer limitations, but when do you realy shoot six pictures in two seconds? And wouldn't your thumb hurt from cocking the shutter?

On the other hand Sean is right, a four shot buffer is roughly 256MB, doubling that can't be that expensive!

 

So I close the circle, I'll wait for what Zeiss and Leica are up to and an Epson R-D2.

[john_brewton]

Okay, maybe to some three grand seems a tad high. However, when you consider I already have all the lenses for the RD-1...