RD-1 w/Leitz & Zeiss optics vs. Canon 5D FF

[michaelmarcus]

Well, after many years of advanced amateur shooting, and a whole

bunch of cameras from Nikons to Rolleiflex to various Leicas...I am

now pondering the following and am in search of advice and wisdom. I

have an M7 with 35 50, & 90 mm lenses. I will continue shooting film,

especially slide and b & w. The RD-1 is tempting, and I have read

most reviews and posts on it in this and on Leica forum. The Canon

D20 now available at an attractive price is also tempting, and

they're coming out with a full frame 12 MP DSLR (the 5D), which, with

lenses, would give me all that convenience and zooming etc. for what

an RD-1 and, say, the new Zeiss 2l mm lens would cost. Does anyone

have an idea of how the results of the RD-1 at 6 MP with Leitz glass

would compare with what the Canons produce? Apart from sheer number

of pixels, and obviously my abilities and techniques, are there

SENSOR and GLASS or other factors that would make the RD 1, even at 6

MP and not full frame, MORE attractive than either of the DSLRs?

I await enlightenment, with hearty thanks!

[vivek iyer]

Wait for the Mamiya ZD. Bigger sensor and great optics. It should do better than the ones you mention and should be here before the Digital M.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

You now want to build out a Canon system, in addition to your other systems? The lenses will, most likely, cost more than the body. I'd stay with the Leica lenses myself. Eventually you can upgrade the Epson RD-1 body to a full-frame model (Epson, Zeiss, or Leica, if they stay in business).

 

But if money is no object . . . I've seen some stunning shots from Canon DSLR's. Grab yourself a 5D and some of that "L" glass and you're good to go!

 

Robert

[johns1]

"What about the Epson RD-2," he said, wanting to start a rumor.

[lmishkar]

According to my one stock agent, an 8.5 meg file is all one needs for most publication needs. I published a two page spread in a glossy magazine with a 6.3 meg file and it looked good. I guess I wonder if we really need 12 meg files...perhaps the question is what will you do with the file? Are you shooting for billboards or an 8x10? My widest needs require a 28mm, so even now some of those point n' shoot 8 meg cameras with a RAW file fit my needs. I'm sure some members will have comments. larry

[ben z]

Michael, I can only tell you what my situation and plans are, you decide if there's any applicability to yours. I also have a few different cameras, 35mm and medium format, I shoot mostly travelling, mostly slides for projection. It seems to me that digital cameras are still getting better in significant ways and prices are getting lower. When the improvements of new models flatten out and prices (especially on the used market)stabilize more, I will take a serious gander at getting a dSLR. In the meantime I've got plenty of cameras and lenses that work well for me, a freezer full of film to use up, and almost 40 years of experience using that technology. I am learning Photoshop, paying close attention to the developments in digital cameras, but I'm keeping my wallet in my pocket. It's not like if I wait another year or three, I'll get an error message from B&H's website "sorry, you waited too long to go digital, you're not allowed to buy this camera". For my purposes I can only gain by waiting.

[WM]

Noise levels of the RD-1 might be an issue if you're comparing it with the 20d and 5d, which has amazingly low noise levels at 1600 and 3200 ISO. I don;t think any other cameras come close to these as far as low noise goes. Just a thought.

[brambor]

IMHO from what I'm reading and seeing the 5D beats the RD1 in image quality. The issue is though that you don't have anything vested in EOS. I would save the money and wait for a full frame M mount digital. If I HAD to spend it I would get the 50ASPH.

[lawrence_bochkis]

I'm of the school that digital isn't quite what it should be yet, both in terms of performance (although that is rapidly changing, as we all know) and price.

 

Personally, I would suggest getting something less expensive that will "do the job," like a Digilux 2 or its panasonic equivalent. From what I've heard, the Digilux performs better than the RD-1 anyway. No, it's not a rangefinder, but neither is the 5d.

 

I would personally buy one of those, and put the rest of the money you would've used for a 5d or Rd-1 in the bank or in a good stock, and wait a couple of years. If nothing else, you will then have a backup camera to use in the future, one that you won't have to worry much about, because it's already obsolete, and you would just love for your insurance to pay for a new one.

[jtk]

What's the point? Shoot film. RD1 isn't in the same league as 20D, much less 5D, much less anybody's film camera. Rich man's toy.

[aizan_sasayama]

hmm...buy one of those enlargers you've always dreamed about?

[pbizarro]

It's not all about image quality. There is a big difference in shooting with a rangefinder or an SLR. they do not substitute each other, they complement each other.

 

You already have a rangefinder system, so are you missing something from not using an SLR?

[bill_marshall1]

Check the following 2 links:

 

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml">wide angle lenses on the R-D1</a>

 

& <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/fastlensreview.shtml">fast lenses on the R-D1</a>

[Philip Freedman]

I had a Leica Digilux 2 which I did not like because the electronic eyelevel viewfinder was awful - poor picture and long timelag - and the higher ISO settings resulted in a lot of noise. The back monitor screen was excellent but I only liked using it when the camera was (rarely) on a tripod; I dont like holding cameras up in front of me and I find pressing them against my forehead whilst straining against a shortened shoulderstrap gives less shake. I now have both a Nikon D70 with the kit zoom lens and an Epson Rd-1 with a Leica 35/2 asph lens. Both cameras use the same sensor. The RD-1 had a highly inaccurate rangefinder viewfinder and whilst I loved my old Leica M6 I am now using the D70 DSLR more than the RD-1. I am beginning to hanker after a DSLR with higher resolution so that I can do more extensive cropping when necessary - my street photography prevents me from having time to change to a longer zoom lens when neeeded.

[jonas_yip1]

Well, I use my RD-1 much more than my DSLRs for the same reasons that I carried the M6TTL... rangefinder handling, M-lenses, and size. But my DSLRs are comparable quality "pixel-peeper"-wise (D70, D1x). The 5D (or a D2x) might be a different issue entirely...

 

That said if I had to choose one it'd have to be the DSLR... but that's more of a general SLR vs rangefinder issue, which may be primary "factor" in your comparison (since you're putting aside the resolution differences).

 

j

[raymond_wong7]

I have both the RD-1 and have just moved from nikon to canon and have a 5D. IMHO these are 2 different tools for 2 diffent types of jobs. RD-1 allows me to shoot my Leica glass and have the Leica glass look with out the hassle of scanning. I still use film mostly for B&W but I can't say I like the workflow of film anymore. I have worked out my own digital workflow and IMO I am having much better results then local labs.

 

The RD-1 will not perform Leica a Canon 5D but neither will a Canon 5D perform like a RD-1 hence the reason why I wanted to have both systems. Each have there strengths and weaknesses and each I use for two very different task.

 

I use the RD-1 for my street shots and like to carry it everywhere. I use my canon 5D for weddings and sport shooting. The 5D is a bit slow on the sport shooting but its ifinitely faster then a RD-1 for the same job.

 

The low noise level from the canon is amazing and the Rd-1 is nowhere near the canon in terms of lack of noise, but the RD-1 noise is not obtrusive. IMO any film I shoot, with the exception of perhaps Velvia all have more noise then the RD-1. Since the film noise/grain was never an issue then why would some noise form the RD-1 be an issue. I would also say that the RD-1 noise is very much film like. I find the canon shots sterile in comparison to the RD-1 and tend to do more processing in photoshop to give me the same feel as the shots out of my RD-1. I hope this helps you in your decision.

[andrew robertson]

The R-D1 is about 2/3rds the size of the Rebel XT, and M and screw mount lenses are

miniscule compared to most SLR lenses.

 

I don't have any Leitz glass, but my R-D1 with Cosina and USSR glass compares favorably

to the 10D except in long exposure noise. The R-D1 is better than the 10D for high ISO

exposures of a few seconds or less however.

 

RFs and SLRs both have their uses. The R-D1 might not be perfect, but it's the only game

in town for a DRF at this stage. Who knows if and when another will come out?

[krimple]

I'm in the same boat as Raymond. I had been planning on selling the EOS system (a 20D

kit) recently, as I had been shooting a lot with the R-D1. However, the 20D always came

out for sports shooting, etc. I wanted to trade up to Medium Format again (I shot a lot

with the Mamiya 6 for a year), but I didn't want to deal with the darkroom.

 

I ended up selling the 20D and a few lenses to set up a nice 5D kit with a few primes (50 &

85) and two zooms (17-40 and 70-200 F4). IMO that's all I really need -- and really

overkill. I printed a 13" x 19" sample from a 17-40 shot, and it blew me away--equivalent

sharpness to my '6 with the scanner (flatbed). It's more than I need, so forget MF, and

hello 20D for those purposes.

 

I agree about the R-D1. It's the perfect stuff in the bag camera, and makes short work of

kids parties, where the autofocus mechanism of the 5D and the flash or loud shutter

would get in the way.

 

Ken

[edlaurpic]

If you can possibly afford both, I would get both the RD1 and the 5D. RF has always been better for photographing people unobtrusively and with minimum weight and bulk. No DSLR or MF camera can equal the RD1 for that activity. Similarly, just as any film SLR (35 or MF) has been the only way to go for macro, telephoto and architectural duty, any DSLR is head and shoulders above the RD1 for that work.

I have the RD1 and I carry it, a 50 summilux and a TriElmar when I want to travel light and mostly photograph people at relatively close quarters. For everything else, I have used one of the Canon DSLRs, the 5D currently being my current favorite.

 

Even if Leica comes through with a digital M (which I will buy in a heartbeat when they do), it will not possibly equal one of the Canon DSLR's for macro and telephoto, and forget applications that demand perspective control and tilt/shift, for which an RF camera is simply not suited.

 

I have been trying to come with an analogy to explain how I view and use these very different tools. I was thinking sportscar vs SUV or pickup, but I think I have a better one. Here it is. I am fortunate to live in a place where I can bicycle a few miles to a nice little grocery store to get basic items we need at home, and unless it's raining or I can't take the time for the 40 minute round trip, the bike is what I choose for very light grocery shopping. But I don't bicycle to the supermarket when I need larger items or more items than the bike can handle or when I need to transport other people (obviously). This may sound like a wierd analogy, but the RD1 is my bicycle - light, quick, unobtrusive, and a pleasure to use, but I have a stationwagon for my other transporting needs. Let me take this one more step - When I have to drive the stationwagon, I wish I could be using the bicycle even though I know it is not always practical. And that's how I feel about the DSLR vs the RD1. Of course it can reach out (or in) better than the RD1 and the results it produces are sometimes terrific, but I don't enjoy using any DSLR the way I enjoy using a RF, currently the RD1 (and I am counting the days until the Digital M).<div></div>

[edlaurpic]

And here is a shot taken with the Canon 20D with Hasselblad adapter and 110 f/2 mounted.<div></div>