paul_sokal___dallas__tx Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 Question for the rangefinder devotees (heads-up you grandpa's and uncles-you know who you are): What's your take on the RD-1 for wedding photography. Marc, I know from another post that you've used one but you didn't say much about the camera and pics. Is it the best of both worlds? Should it be more than 6MP? Is it like using a Leica? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnmarkpainter Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 Paul, I don't have one. If it were $1,500-$2k I WOULD. The obvious bummer is the Crop Factor. If your favorite lens is a 35/2, you have an immediate problem :( waiting for Zeiss to make a $1,500 RF Digicam.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 I was using the RD-1 this past weekend with a 21mm ASPH lens, basically making it the worlds most expenisve point & shoot :-) my simple advice - never buy a 1st generation product of anything. the RD2 is not far away and should provide improvements on several fronts. and seriously, no have to pull the rewind lever to activate the shutter (instead of advancing film) is a PITA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Love the little thing. Makes excellent images for what it is (I use it for color work primarily, leaving B&W to the Ms). Use a 28/2 ASPH on it to provide a 40mm field of view, which is a personal favorite focal length for weddings. A 50/1.4 becomes a 75/1.4 field of view which is my second favorite focal length on a rangefinder. So, I'm a happy puppy just as it is and have shot with it for wedding work which the client loved. If you've used a M for a long time, cocking the RDs shutter is a natural reaction. If it wasn't there, I'd be thumbing the area where it should be anyway ; -) As to the eminent arrival of the RD-2, that's counter to the buz on the RD-1 forum. I wonder what that info is based on? I just hope they don't resort to a CMOS chip when they do upgrade the camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djphoto Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 What's your problem with CMOS chip, Marc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_sokal___dallas__tx Posted March 31, 2005 Author Share Posted March 31, 2005 Yes, what's wrong with a CMOS chip. I just spent five large on a D2X. Don't tell me it's going to die after six months or turn everyones skin green. So far I've been blown away by the pics it takes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 No, no guys, nothing wrong with CMOS. Sorry for the wrong impression. I also have dropped a bundle on CMOS chipped cameras ; -) I just particularly like the look CCD sensors produce. I also use two 35mm type cameras with CCDs in them (Epson RD-1 and Contax ND), and like the slightly different quality of the images ... just like some folks like different kinds of film. I hope they keep that in any future RDs, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 Marc, not likely as the CCD consumes more power. It seems like the world is going CMOS. This is the first time I ever heard anyone stating that the CCD produces subtle image diffs vs. the CMOS sensor. Not related to the glass, you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 the glass? it's the software. "I just particularly like the look CCD sensors produce." Ah, do you mean you particularly like the software that interprets the info gathered from certain manufactures that use both sensors? Both Canon and Nikon make cams with both sensors, and, uhm, produce similair results within that brand. For instance, I can't tell a D2x shot from a D70 shot nor a Canon cmos from a ccd, but I sure can tell an untouched Canon digital image from a Nikon. On a monitor that is. Maybe that's what you ment man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 Interesting observations. Frankly, I'm not sure the source of the differences. I was discussing this with the Russian photographer Irakly Shanidze the other day. He had observed the same thing. We both use a Contax N Digital with Zeiss glass, and the images it produces are, well, hard to describe other than to say they visually exhibit more film like qualities. The ND uses a full frame, 6.3 meg CCD from Philips, similar to those used in the first MF digital backs. BTW, Irakly also shoots with a Canon 1DMKII. Prior to getting the RD-1, I didn't think much about it, but when I saw the same type of visual qualities from the RD as I was seeing from the Contax Digital, it made me wonder if it was something to do with the CCD verses the CMOS. I could possibly attribute it to the glass, since the ND uses Zeiss made ContaxN glass, and the RD uses Leica M lenses ... if it wasn't for the fact that I'm now using Zeiss Manual lenses on the Canon digital cameras... and still see the differences. So, Eric may be right, perhaps it's the software. Eric, would that be true if I'm developing RAW files from the both Canons and the ND & RD in Adobe RAW? I also wonder why MF Digital Backs continue to use CCD technology if CMOS is superior in terms of power usage, and are obviously less expensive to produce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattalofs Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 My question would be, why wouldn't you expect CMOS and CCD sensors to produce different results? The technologies behind the 2 a pretty different. It seems likely to me that manufacturers know this, and might actually be telling their firmware writers about it, so that the in camera processing can reduce the differences. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_n_rnberger Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 Same thing is true for the different looks a Canon 1D and a Canon 1DMK2 produce. Maybe, a 1D is a bit like Tri-X or Kodakchrome (more contrast, but precisely defined pixels), whereas the MK2 is a bit "fuzzier" / more creamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 The 1D uses a CCD. I know some shooters that won't part with their 1D for that reason.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_n_rnberger Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Hi Marc, could you possibly post a 100% crop of the gentleman's head? Just wondering about the look. Each single pixel of the 1D's CCD seems to contribute to the picture, whereas on the MK2 the pixels in general seem to produce a creamy "grainless" image. The grainlessness at 1600 ASA, however (produced by the anti-noise-algorhythms) comes with a loss of detail, I fear. Basically, even if CMOS chips might be less prone to noise in general, the in-camera anti-noise-software pro0bably isn't much different from the PC-based de-noising software à la neatimage, noiseninja etc. In a way - despite all the noise - a 1600 ASA pic from the original 1D can be rich in detail and beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 That shot may not be the best for this experiment. I was focusing on the vegetables, so the farmer in the background is a tad soft. Maybe this one is a better example (taken at the same place and time)...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 most likely it is a combination of glass, sensor and software algorithms, as well as choice of RAW converter/post-processing editor. one would think that a given manufacturere optimizes the output for it's own brand of lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent_walter Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Quoting--"Patrick- never buy a 1st generation product of anything. the RD2 is not far away and should provide improvements on several fronts." Me>>>I checked with a Cosina "insider" and was informed that no RD-1 "replacement" should be expected any time soon.... they have a couple thousand Rd-1's that are un-sold." Quoting-- Mark Williams "I just particularly like the look CCD sensors produce. I also use two 35mm type cameras with CCDs in them (Epson RD-1 and Contax ND), and like the slightly different quality of the images ... just like some folks like different kinds of film. I hope they keep that in any future RDs, that's all." Me-- It's the optical system mostly... example: I can't fault my Fuji S3 with 70-200mm AF- s Nikor, put any short zoom on and I find it barely useable. My Leaf Aptus 17 has me absolutly amazed again... The Ziess lenses on a Hasselblad don't leave anything to be desired... have little idea why someone would want an Aptus22 or even the H-39. It's all opinions and what works for you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now