Epson R-D1 first impressions...

[andrew robertson]

I just got my R-D1 from B&H today. I had a slight case of buyer's remorse until I opened

the box. The camera is beautiful. It's a bit lighter than I expected, but built solidly. The

focusing issues that some have had caused me no small amount of concern, but I appear

to have gotten lucky. It focuses every lens I have perfectly. Even wide open (f/1.4) and

close up with the Nokton 40 the focus is dead on.

 

The shutter is very quiet. I would say it's about the same sound level as my 10D's shutter,

but slightly more noticeable. The 10D's shutter gives off a 'vut' noise whereas the R-D1

has more of a 'pting' sound.

 

The camera handles beautifully. The shutter dial has positive clicks, but isn't too hard to

turn. The method by which ISO speed is selected is just great. I have no problems seeing

the little numbers, unlike some Internet wags. I am going to have to get used to the VF

being about two inches to the left of where I expect it to be (on the XA) so my composition

has been a tad bit off. I am sure this will pass.

 

I wish I could say more about image quality, but I am still trying to find a way to download

the memory card! I don't have USB2 (nor do I want it) so until I find myself a Firewire SD

card reader, or an SD-CF converter, I am out of luck. From what I have heard, image

quality rivals the D-70, which rivals the 10D. I'm going to Fry's tomorrow to find

something that will allow me to download images, and will post samples tomorrow night.

[ramig]

I don't know who you have heard it from (regarding image quality). Apparently, the AA

filter of the camera is stronger even than the one on the D100. It certainly does not

produce images t as sharp as the D70, it simply does not. It is quit unfortunate that Epson

took such a conservative strategy. It is difficult to sharpen the pictures, especially on high

iso without getting lot of digital artifacts and loosing a lot of details. On the other hand,

colors are really beautiful- nicer than the D70 and much nicer than the 20D. I was also

lucky with focus, but until you get results and look at pictures, don't judge. I have different

results with different lenses. I am ok with my 28 cron, really great with the the 35lux

asph, not so with my 50 cron and great with the 75lux. I was taking, the other night,

pictures in some rock concert in NY (toxedomoon) and got some very sharp images using

the 75 on 1.4. That is quit impressive.

Another issue- check for dead pixels. The RD-1 is very good in that field, unfortunately. It

is rather strage since the D70 is not famos for that, and both use the same sensor. either

Nikon has some embodied mapping software (don't know if it is possible) or sony likes

Nikon more than they like Epson... I am very furstrated by that. I was traveling recently and

I have to work on each image separately just to get rid of the ugly dead pixels.

all in all, however, I don't think you would regret it. I got many really nice shots, especially

of people, very sharp, and really getting some of the Leica lens character. and for me, it is

really great not having the image popping out on the LCD and not having a motor drive. It

is a rangefinder, and it clearly encourages to shoot in one's own speed, rather than in a

horse race speed.

[ben z]

In a way I'm glad the RD-1 costs 3 grand because otherwise I might be tempted to get one. I handled one recently and was likewise impressed with its heft and overall feel. I did have to push my glasses up to read the analog "guages", but I really do need a new eyeglass prescription. I found the 28 and 35 framelines to be no worse or better than the 28 and 35 frames in my Leicas from the standpoint of eye relief, but I noticed that while the rangefinder patch was very bright the rest of the finder was much darker than my M6. I liked that the LCD screen can be turned inward to protect it from scratches, and I wouldn't use it anyway. The time I used a 20D the thing I really hated was how the LCD lit up under my eye after every shot, especially annoying in a dark room. What I thought was a serious omission was automatic indexing of the framelines by the lens. Fine on a $500 Bessa but for $3000 I'd rather not have to remember and do it manually each time I change lenses (or focal lengths on a Tri-Elmar which would seem to be an ideal lens for the RD-1). After all the Hexar RF had the auto indexing and it was a lot cheaper than a Leica and obviously there aren't patent issues involved. The other thing that puzzled me was why, when the RD-1 is totally dependent on batteries anyway, you've got to manuall cock the shutter for each shot. Someone said it was for quietness but I can't imagine that, lacking a film transport, an electric shutter-armer would have made any significant more noise. Someone else offered a more sensible explanation which was that the time it takes to manually wind the shutter coincides with the time the RD-1 takes to write an image to the card. Please report more Andrew, as you use it. But try not to make it sound too good, or some of us who shouldn't might go into hock to get one : )

[andrew robertson]

As I have only checked out the images with the built in (3-4x?) digital loupe, and not

actual pixels on the screen, as I said I can not say anything about image quality yet. I have

downloaded several JPGs (unfortunately) to analyze how well the R-D1 does with

sharpening. I had good luck, and will probably achieve much better results with RAW files.

 

I don't really mind changing the frame lines manually.

 

The shutter is cocked manually for a few reasons. First, it comes from the Bessas, and

isn't mechanized in any of them. Secondly, I can really believe that it saves on batteries.

Those batteries are very small compared with what I'm used to. The cocking lever also

preserves the look and feel of a manual rangefinder camera (which it is). Also, I think the

lever makes the camera look less like a digital camera which is nice. Most folks would

never know it's a digital camera.

[jim_watts]

Andrew, Welcome to the world of R-D1 photography. It is an excellent camera and I hope you continue to retain your enthusisiam. I have with 4 months of use now inspite of a few minor problems (Hot Pixels & Front Focusing with certain lenses). Sounds like you have a good example and Epson have been good about exchanging the cameras if not. Like all cameras it has some problems but if you are a dedicated rangefinder user who wants to go digital there is no alternative.

 

Not to distract from the valuable contributions in this forum but the biggest resource for an exchange of information on the RD-1 is on Rangefinderforum.com at: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=3152cc80c3ef788916b58a7201c3107a&daysprune=&forumid=48&x=12&y=3 with over 2000 posts now.

[jim_watts]

An R-D1 shot taken in the British Museum, London.

35mm Summicron between f/2 & f/2.8. iso set at 1600.

[david_kieltyka1]

>> I don't know who you have heard it from (regarding image quality). Apparently, the AA filter of the camera is stronger even than the one on the D100. It certainly does not produce images as sharp as the D70, it simply does not. It is quit unfortunate that Epson took such a conservative strategy. It is difficult to sharpen the pictures, especially on high iso without getting lot of digital artifacts and loosing a lot of details. <<

 

I think the strong AA filter was necessary based on my experience so far with sharp lenses. With the new Zeiss 50mm, for example, repeating patterns with high frequency detail--like textured covering on a roof--can induce moire with the lens wide open! You need the right amount of detail and the right camera-to-subject distance for this to happen. But I've seen it often enough in the month I've owned the lens that I'm glad the filter isn't any weaker.

 

I find with the Epson RAW converter or RAW Shooter Essentials that not much additional USM is needed once the RAW files are converted. I use less USM with the R-D1 than with my Canon 20D, and in many cases the resulting photos are crisper despite the 20D's higher pixel count.

 

IMO the D70 has the best-tuned sensor and AA filter of any digital camera I've used. Nikon can get away with a weaker filter because most of their lenses lack the resolution necessary to induce aliasing under most normal shooting conditions.

 

-Dave-

[john_shriver]

Strong anti-aliasing filters are a requirement for any digital sampling technique, be it video or audio. You would not want to consider listening to a CD recorded without one.

 

Failing to use one results in odd noises on a CD. It results in video noise on a camera. The smoothness of the color is probably a result of tha AA filter.

 

I think Leica is smoking dope with the weak AA filter on the DMR. There's no way to remove the false data.

 

Shannon and Nyquist knew their stuff.

[andrew robertson]

We'll know once somebody releases some full resolution DMR images. Leica sure isn't

providing full rez samples.

[ramig]

John, I am sure you know about AA filters more than I do. The only thing I know is that it

cannot be a requirement for anything. Kodak don't use them at all in their cameras and I

have seen enough images produced with their cameras that are much sharper than

anything canon can get. besides, the new Mamiya is making their medium format dslr with

a removable filter, so one can use it in the particular conditions it is required. It sounds,

then, too harsh to say that it is (always) a requirement.